I used to read Scientific American until I graduated from college in the 1980's. I found it to be a an excellent magazine with many excellent and rigorously written articles. I picked a copy of it recently and I was shocked at how it has turned into total crap!! Another example of the dumbing down of America. I really fear for this country's future and luckily I will not be around to see it.
It's more insidious than a mere dumbing down. It literally reads like something from a Jim Jones' Peoples Temple or Symbionese Liberation Army pamphlet from the early 70s. Weird ass radical identity politics etc.
It is a matter of perception. Everyone has their own version of fact and truth. Everyone is a judge. Everyone is a chief. Everyone is Right as Rain about their own opinion, which is often just an adoption of someone else's opinion. I would like to see a conversation between 2 people of opposing views on the results of a scientific study in which they focus strictly on the results without adding in a purpose, such as trying to reach a particular conclusion to prove a thesis.
And to think that so many people want to live longer! What for? To see how bad it gets and how much deeper in resignation about humanity? Cynical people like us really don't want to live longer. I think we're happy to kick off any day.
19:51 - Desantis isn't "slapping Disney with regulation," he's revoking a company's ability to run their own private kingdom complete as a tax haven and he's doing it so DISNEY doesn't tacitly dictate state policy. Revoking special government privileges for favored companies should be a libertarian value. Instantly soured my opinion of this guy. Grossly reductive and false.
Agreed. That immediately struck me as dishonest. Hitting a company with regulations is very different from taking away special privileges that no one else gets.
I didn't care for him much the more he droned on. He has a way of taking an issue, applying an overly simplistic position on those he disagrees with, then giving his bias and generally uninteresting feelings on the subject. I feel like if I knew him in person and we were "friends" and hung out, I'd be calling him on his BS more than he's comfortable with.
I try to like Michael Shermer. But he's so frustrating. As soon as he get's near a sublime position on something he says something frustrating just to be contrarian. He's so slavishly centrist he never really takes a firm position on anything.
I consumed Scientific American as a kid in the 70's. I grew into an Engineer, building interpreters, compilers, embedded systems, children's software, rules engines used by some states even today, and now blockchain technology. Innovation, science, creativity, technology and more were the life blood and ethos of Scientific American. How sad for them to lose their way.
I'm so glad you got to become an engineer before all this woke rubbish! I think every Biology student in the late 1980s & 1990s was assigned one of Scientific American's center piece articles detailing how DNA & protein synthesis works. The diagrams and writing were brilliant for an introduction to basic genetics. What a shame to see them get captured by these woke activist types. I saw a Scientific American video with an editor called Tulika Bose about the trans issue - it was just awful! What a shame.
One of the most disturbing aspects of woke ideology for me is its attack on meritocracy-or academic standards of merit such as standardized tests and tests for professions.
Definitely not defending woke ideology, nor attacking meritocracy, but as a public school teacher, I can attest to the fact that we have gone too far in the past 20 years on standardized testing. In many cases teachers were simply teaching to the test, while critical thinking was out the window for lack of time. Things are definitely getting better, but I assume that is part of the attack on standardized testing. That, and the fact that the very standardization of the test makes them often unreliable, as many students do not have the academic background that the tests assume they have. Again, I’m not advocating getting rid of meritocracy, but a balanced and more nuanced approach sure would be nice, at least from a teacher’s point of view.
@@SuperManning11 We need to do more to help disadvantaged young people to stay up with their peers. (whatever happened to Head Start?) I'm not an expert on education or a teacher, but if we don't have some kind of academic standards, I fear our society will be dumbed down.
@@SuperManning11 But that is not the genesis of the attack on meritocracy. The attack stems from the CRT belief that whites design the tests for whites to pass, and that upper class people design the tests to perpetuate their dominance. Of course, this is neomarxist nonsense.
I would be fine with them saying we can make better tests the current ones are not cutting it but they don't want to replace them with anything better or even worse they just want to burn them to the ground and pray something rises from the ashes.
@@katansi This might be among the best arguments in favor of standardized testing I’ve ever seen. I agree with almost all of it. I think it’s not necessarily a problem with the differences in the utility of standardized testing, but the differences in the methodology of schooling itself. We must first ask ourselves, “Why do we have school?” and agree upon the answer. The answer, in my mind, is to give young people the basic tools they need to be useful adults. Which tools apply, and the definition of useful can certainly vary, but you do have constants across all cultures. And it’s within those constants, that standardized testing makes perfect logical sense. Now, if you’re offering elective classes which also serve the general purpose of fostering usefulness, like say, a multimedia class. Then the edges of standardized testing begin to break down a bit, because to be successful in a lot of forms of media, one _must_ be creative, and entertaining. And this would be a very relevant modern class, I think. But in terms of arithmetic, language, history, etc., nothing _but_ standardized tests and well-defined expectations makes sense to me.
Desantis didn't "sic the government on Disney" He (and his congress) simply decided to not continue providing special protections and privileges to a company that went out of its way to show that it was no longer fostering the kind of community they want to incentivize in Florida.
So instead of letting the corporation that opposes his policies be an entity separate from Florida, he further incorporates it... sounds pretty poorly thought out on DeSantis' part.
@@vapecatt And because it is subject to those laws, regulations, and taxes, it will now work to influence those laws, regulations, and taxes through lobbying. Because Disney can’t be it’s own entity, it will try to shape Florida to benefit itself.
DeSantis didn't slap Disney with higher taxes, he removed some EXTREMELY beneficial tax breaks that nobody else was getting. He was balancing it out, making it equal for everyone. THAT is a libertarian belief.
I was going to comment this exact thing! This guy is a walking contradiction. "I believe in knowing all the facts and making informed decisions of both sides without unconscious bias or cognitive dissonance" "Now I'm going to recite incredibly inaccurate information about what happened to Disney and about Ron DeSantis"
How about DeSantis telling companies they are not free to decide how to manage their employees with respect to vaccine mandates? Why aren't these companies free to do as they see fit? Or how about DeSantis wanting to fine social media companies that deplatform policiticians? THOSE are NOT libertarian acts, much less beliefs.
You're overlooking the human rights aspect of De Santis's actions. It seems consistent with libertarian principles to me to constrain business actions that infringe on human rights/liberties. Vaccine mandates are based on the false notion that being unvaccinated poses a threat to a vaccinated person. That notion certainly deserves skepticism. (Edit: Mandates claim justification on the basis of protection, but they're based on the desire for control.)
I let my subscription lapse about 20 years ago because it was getting obnoxiously politically biased and sensationalist even then. Compared with the absolute irredeemable trash it's become today it was practically Nature or Zeitschrift für Physik back then. I have a huge bound and hard covered 1887 year in review edition on my coffee table that a relative gave me as a gift and it was truly an amazing resource of clearly explained cutting edge scientific information. What an absolute disgrace they've become in just the last few years alone.
Same. He’s just an exploiter of workers and a chud now. All these idiots self reported when Trump ran. None of them can be trusted now. They’re all bias af.
Maybe I'm conflating Shermer's advent with the general decline of the magazine, but my first reaction to the title of this video was: "YOUstarted it!!" Compare SciAm from this guy's time to the 1960s and 70s, when scientists wrote the articles (instead of staff), and one can easily conclude that activists replaced scientists, with Shermer carrying the banner of the activists.
@@Ralph64 I don't know if I'd agree that Shermer was one of the activists but it's certain that no one can deny SciAm was fucking AMAZING from the 50s through the 80s when scientists regularly wrote articles. In fact I think the heyday was clearly that era in the 70s when columns like the "the amateur scientist" were at their best.
I came here to write something very similar. In the late 90's and early 00's I noticed it was getting more political. After one particularly horrible article and an editor's nasty response to a reader, I'd had enough. I wrote them a letter and canceled my subscription. That was about 20 years ago...
And the idea that its somehow "inconsistent" for Libertarians to say we shouldn't invade other countries "to help people under suppression of civil liberties". I mean for chrissakes, what Libertarian principle does he think "humanitarian" wars fall under? Of all the things to fault Libertarians for, he chooses opposition to war? Unbelievable.
Discovering Scientific American in high school in the seventies changed my life. I hardly ever made it all the way to the end of any paper - they were published papers then, not articles - but what I learned from reading as much as I could follow was immense. Sci Am taught me to think like a scientist, be rationally skeptical, and showed me what REAL science looks like. I recently got a subscription for my son who just started high school, but it is nothing like the eye opening journal that I remember. What a tragic loss.
Science mixed with the certainties of politics or religion often yields a sloppy and sour stew. The cleanness of Scientific American’s articles relatively free of political taint prior to 25 years ago was a celebration of the nature of science and actually one of my joys in life. It is sadly missed.
I used to be subscribed to Scientific American (in print even back in the day). Increasingly over the years, and especially in the last year or two SciAm has just been covering far too much of the Religion of Woke, instead of the Science of anything. Too bad. A once great institution brought low by identity politics. Here's hoping that one day, they recover.
One of the strongest memories I have of my father, a physicist, was him in his chair reading SciAm of an evening ... he'd be rolling over in his grave seeing the rag that it has become.
Also, every libertarian AND every legitimate scientist, specifically every biologist, should be pro-LIFE, NOT pro choice, because, again, the science is clear on this issue: life begins at conception. One study found the 95 percent biologists surveyed in the study admitted life begins at conception. The zygote has historically been the mile marker as the beginning of human development during the gestation cycle, and by 6 weeks the infant has a heartbeat. The zygote is formed as soon as the sperm cell(a living piece of matter) is fused with the egg cell(a living piece of matter). Thus, no matter when an abortion is being performed, according to biology, a living being is being murdered, intentionally with premeditation, which, in any other context would be classified as capital murder. If abortion was applied to a 5 month post-birth child, it would universally be considered a heinous crime, but when it is applied to a 5 month old pre-birth, people like Shermer pretend it is acceptable? This is where the argument falls through: the "pro choice" crowd pretends to be standing for and defending the" rights" of the mother and protecting her bodily autonomy, but what they pretend not to notice is that by protecting the mother's "right" which is not a right at all because no one has a right to commit murder, you are simultaneously depriving someone else of their rights and their bodily autonomy(the unborn child). Libertarians always say people should be allowed to do and live however they want as long as it is within reason, the confines of the law, and does not harm a third party. Well, abortion does actively harm a third party(the unborn child) by depriving him or her of their most basic right(life) and it is unreasonable to do this because the SCIENCE contradicts the baseless and vacuous "pro choice" argument because it indicates that a fetus IS human life. Let's not pretend that the pro choice argument and movement is based on anything but politics and convenience.
Wait, am I supposed to watch this while pretending like Shermer wasn't a part of the problem that got us where we are today in public discourse and academia?
Somebody should also put to Shermer a few other things: (1) there ain't no draft no more (re: the now inapplicable Carlin joke), (2) aside from a hard line on abortion, he's in agreement with Matt Walsh on every issue brought up in this interview, (3) since when are 2nd amendment supporters "gun nuts"? (Shermer deftly avoids defining a "gun nut"), (4) there is no hard evidence that one's gender identity or sexual orientation is "baked in" at birth, and in asserting this you're contradicting your stance that if you think binary and ignore a continuum scale of measure then you'll confuse yourself, and (5) opposition to unilateral foreign-war interventionism is a bad thing?
@@tekharthazenyatta2310 Mentioning the "gun show loophole" is a tell that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He fancies himself a skeptic but seems to suspend it on the gun topic.
I had quit reading SA about 10 years ago when it became more political than scientific. It had been trending for some time and the time to read it became more valuable than the science in it.
Shermer says he no longer considers himself a libertarian because he doesn't believe that we should be able to do whatever we want, which is why he now calls himself a Classical Liberal. Yet earlier in his remarks, he said he's hardcore pro-choice, which I have to assume means to take a life for any reason and at any time during the pregnancy. He states he's no longer a libertarian as it conveys an attitude unconstrained. He defies the new position he set for himself on just this issue alone.
The scientific method is not concerned with CULTURE. That is the remit of psychology and sociology. A scientific journal has no business trying to "steer' society about cultural issues.
When it was scientifically discovered that the earth went around the sun, I wonder if those that made the discovery thought about how important it was to spread the message throughout all culture. I imagine they really cared about spreading it in the scientific community, but were pretty uninterested in whether the common man accepted the results. But I have no idea. It didn't change daily life all that much. When you want science to impact daily life, I imagine you call it engineering.
@@chrisfreebairn870 Very dangerous to go against public opinion. Turing paid dearly for it. That's probably why Scientific American is heading in the direction it's heading. It doesn't want to go against public opinion.
@@theboombodyIt turns out that sociality is a rather more important component of our success as a species than was recognized in the heady days of disembodied rationalism. To step outside the envelope of social sustenance ...
I remember when this magazine declared Barack Obama as among the top 10 scientific personalities of 2008 in its Jan/Feb 2009 issue. This type of Kim Jong Uhn grovelling put me off. Havent read it since then.
I knew Scientific American, which I grew up with, was on its way out when they let Forrest Mims go as the Amateur Scientist columnist. Mims, who I had been a fan of since his work in model rocketry, had opinions I disagreed with, but his instinct for building your own instruments was spot on. He kept his views on evolution out of the column, and there was no excuse for cutting the column. A tremendous loss.
I bought all the Mims booklets from Radio Shack when I was teaching myself electronics. And yes SA made a bunch of changes long before the woke trauma. I dumped them long ago,
Trans should not be discriminated against, Nor should any disadvantaged minority be. I doubt anyone would disagree. But if you, as a leader, do not want a narcissistic self-obsessed terrible person in your group, one who has no value for other's feelings or time, is perpetually ready to see insult and micro-aggressions where there is none, is perpetually annoying because of his/her permanent state of victimhood, one who brings the group's productivity crashing down, I think you would be very very justified.
What has _'a leader who does not want a narcissistic self-obsessed terrible (etc. etc.) person in its group"_ got to do with _"trans should not be discriminated against"_ ? Or: How is a leader, removing said narcissist, an act of _"justified discrimination against a trans person"_ ?
@@BorisNoiseChannel The implication is that one or more trans persons fulfil the list of reasons for which discrimination seems appropriate. In other words, discriminating not solely because "trans" but because "asshole" in some form.
@@BNK2442 A lot of people don’t realize that within second wave feminism was filled with just as much vitriol. In their defense they had a little more to complain about, but certainly not to the extent that they often took it. When my dad was 16, he held the door open for a woman who scolded him that “She doesn’t need a man to hold doors open for her”. That was 1978. This dialectical mindset has been brewing in U.S. public consciousness since at least the 60s, and perhaps earlier, but certainly _by_ that decade.
Shermer was the start of this mess. He helped create the atmosphere in where people started attacking the family and religion. People may not like religion but holds society to a standard that is outside of government authority.
@@tom-kz9pbGun lovers are a category, as is criminal, and more importantly tyrannical states. In addition; we are in a room filled with guns, by all means pick one up or don’t.
@@jeremyogrizovich3247 We are in a room filled with kerosene and a lot of people throwing matches. The real tyranny of America has been decidedly right-wing. The FBI for decades harassed the Left, obsessively and almost exclusively: black groups, Martin Luther King, women activists, gays. The CIA trained, installed and supported numerous right-wing dictators who murdered and tortured thousands, pretty much anyone left of center or otherwise impeding corporate interests, like human rights or environmental activists. To hear conservatives whining about "Deep Stats" shows only their disconnect from reality and their profound ignorance of history, like Trump praising the unquestioned loyalty of Hitler's generals, and needing to be reminded that Hitler's generals tried to assassinate him, three times.
Pink was never associated with men. That's a myth. It was a suggestion in one industry magazine. Consumers, which are mostly women, decided the question.
I agree with some of this, but Ron DeSantis was completely right to revoke Disney's special tax privileges. Additionally, I don't get how you can be pro-abortion and pro-vaccine mandate. And finally, one would think we would have enough historical examples of what governments do to unarmed minority groups to make it clear why the 2nd ammendment is important.
It depends WHY they were revoked. "Because I don't like their movies' is a pretty stupid and outrightly fascist reason. That they had special tax concessions in the first place is the bigger issue. That kind of reminds of Breitbart where suddenly some people are all for breaking apart google and facebook, not because they have monopolies, but because they don't like their politics. So its ok for corporations to have complete control over industries....as long as t hey have the same politics as me. Not to be insulting if you don't see the difference in abortion and vaccines you aren't thinking much. Employers have a legal obligation to the safety of workers, meaning they can get sued if they didn't demand a vaccine. Nobody gives a shit what you do in your home, but when you are going to be around other people, thats when ALL laws come into play.
as a floridian I agree with you and DeSantis....why the hell was disney getting this privilege to begin with. even if they weren't woke garbage I would want that shit to end.
"... enough historical examples of what governments do to unarmed minority groups...". So true josh. 1. In Turkey, Armenians were first asked to hand over their arms, for 'their own safety'. 2. When India and Pakistan split (in 1947), many Hindus decided to stay back in Pakistan, because the Government assured them that they will not be discriminated against. Just a couple of months after the split, Pakistan Government issued an order that Hindus will have to surrender any arms they had 'for their own safety'. My family saw the writing on the wall and decided there and then to shift out of Pakistan. Many unfortunate Hindu families did not. 3. I don't remember the details, but something similar happened to the Jews in Germany during or before Hitler's time. Not coincidentally, these events preceded the three bloodiest genocidal events of the 20th century. There are other examples too...
@@mikearchibald744 Alright, I accept the logic behind that. The reason for the revocation should matter, but I still stand by that revoking the tax privileges is something that needed to be done regardless. No offense, but if you find yourself in favor of government medical mandates, you're probably a lot closer to fascism than you want to admit. I oppose government mandates in all cases. I think maybe employers should be allowed to discriminate in some cases, but the government should NEVER have the power to force people into a medical procedure.
Easy answer: They promoted a woman to Editor in Chief and then appointed more women to other key editorial positions. This trend of feminizing science leads to avoiding publishing controversial topics that could be upsetting some people and a general aversion to promoting controversial ideas that can challenge popular social narratives - and science is loaded with those. Women prefer to avoid upsetting others and more often imbibe current popular dogmas to signal their allegiance to the group...they do not like rocking the boat.
Such a huge overgeneralization about women, set forth as an “easy answer.” As with easy answers in general it’s way too simplistic. Certainly does not apply to me or to a great many other women. I know plenty of gratingly conformist far left “woke” men as well. I hope this new trend you’re spewing doesn’t continue to spread. Such a lack of nuance and overgeneralized easy answers, setting women in such an awful light, reflect and stoke sexist biases. Also fails to acknowledge ways that women have helped to identify foolish biases in science and contribute to improved standards, as by recognizing ways that significant variables were inadequately heeded (as with testing a safety device entirely on a standard adult male form). Rachel Carson and Ruth Harrison also did innovative and pioneering work from outside academia that has helped to show the need to teach and approach science in ways that are attentive to ethics and to the broader context. Mary Midgley likewise was right to call for attention to the bigger picture and to challenge scientism. If you’re going to throw about stereotypes how about also include ways that stereotypically masculine approaches to science have been utterly disastrous and have led us towards many Darwin awards? Bacon would not approve. His New Atlantis was big on character and on openness to criticism and to changes if they prove called for. He was also big on an eye on the whole and on intelligently orchestrated efforts rather than the foolish cacophony that so often misgoverns contemporary research efforts. Much of what he would support is standard fare from a traditional conception of philosophy as the love of learning and wisdom, and is presently often associated with femininity. Socrates’ final words were to tell his friends that “we owe a debt to Asclepius,” the god of healing and medicine, and to advise them to see to it that it is paid / to not be careless. He is shown by Plato taking Diotima (possibly Aspasia) as a major influence upon him, and that, as someone who taught him about love. We continue to trivialize the importance of care and love and concern for justice and for wisdom at our ongoing peril.
As I have read, Shermer has had his own problems with accusations of sexual harassment. I get a sick feeling that the bellyaching about Scientific American being "woke" has more to do with a lot of men's bad attitudes toward the female gender than anything wrong with the magazine. Maybe it is just as well- the kinds of right-wingers and Trump loyalists who use the word "woke" as a cuss word seem not really cut out for such things as science, facts or logic.
It is shocking to me that people see the removal of special privileges like Disney has via the Bueno Vista incorporated township or via section 230 protection reform or abolition as imposing special laws or taxes when they are just putting mega corps on the same level as everyone else.
Yeah. I'm going to give Shermer the benefit of the doubt and assume he's just uninformed about the specifics here. Maybe he'll see your comment, or someone else will set him straight.
This is the second comment that already said what I wanted to say on two different subjects. This is the best chat I’ve seen on yt in a long time. Anyway, yeah he completely swallowed the media’s take on the Disney battle. To me, it boils down to this: if I’m a governor of a state with a huge corporation operating in it with special privelages, and that corp begins to openly oppose legislation we just passed with popular support, going so far as to say that they will do whatever they can to undo it, I feel it’s justified to strip them of the privilege that they are brazenly taking for granted.
@@strnbrg59 All people are uninformed or misinformed about most topics simply by the fact that even three human lifetimes are not long enough to get informed about everything.
Before I was born, I believe my mom (she believed it as well) was given hormones supposedly to prevent miscarriage, but also caused masculinization of the female fetus. Now, I don't know if she knew that at the time, but it may have affected many of the behaviors I had (And still have) as a teenager. I would probably be begging my mom to let me get spayed and get a double mastectomy at 13 because I was a tomboy and I hated becoming a woman, who was doomed to a life of misery and child-bearing, as opposed to the true happiness having children, wanted children, can bring. Much more than my working life ever did....
I don't think what DeSantis did to Disney was slapping them with extra higher taxes and regulations. Disney was given special status years ago. Autonomy, self regulation,...so they were practically like a state within a state. So certain privileges were revoked, which is not the same as slapping them with extra fine. Disney was not just making woke entertainment that Floridians could simply ignore -chose not to watch their program. They were not just supporting -pushing activism. They were getting involved in politics, which is not illegal, but when you're trying to change laws and your actions amount to subversion....a state is not obligated to grant you special status /privileges.
I was going to make the same point -- Disney got the political blowback not because of "wokeness" in their art, it was because as a corporation they started throwing their weight around in Florida politics. So Florida went, "well, that sword cuts both ways."
19:30 WRONG on De Santos & Disney De Santos did exactly the "old conservative" way: he did NOT slapped them with higher taxes, he stopped investing in Disney by taking away their special tax status! ... Anyway I've been listening to some of his interviews and I must say: in my opinion he is one of the guys who is responsible for what's going on culturally, then he understood the bullshit he's done but he's still reluctant to admit mistakes distance himself. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR WHAT'S HAPPENING NOWADAYS!!! And this has got NOTHING to do with women or "people of colour" ... All these "identities" are just social-political instruments for some PSYCHOPATS to get and keep "POWER" ... He must know it!!! And so do you, ReasonTV!!! This conversation - as good as it may be - is a WASTE OF TIME!!!
" in my opinion he is one of the guys who is responsible for what's going on culturally, then he understood the bullshit he's done but he's still reluctant to admit mistakes distance himself." A self-understanding that Shermer came to apparently only after being given the boot by Scientific American. Instead of admitting his own contributions (by his silence if nothing else) to the wokeness plague, he's trying to reposition himself as one of its victims.
@@tekharthazenyatta2310he’s no longer useful to them and if this was Stallins America they take him out back and off him, to make room for “new” progressives.
He seems like a smart guy but his argument about guns is not even remotely intelligent. He first states that there are more guns death than car related deaths. While technically true the number averages about the same over the years. Nick rightly then points out that over half and typically it's like 2/3 of gun deaths are suicide, which Michael concedes the point. Which means if you exclude suicides from the gun deaths far more people are killed in auto accidents than homicides with a gun. If you look at injuries with a vehicle and gun the vehicle again has far more with and estimated 4.4 million per year, and those are only the ones that require medical attention. Injuries with a firearm are estimated at 73K and this is according to Everytown so you know they count them all. Of course he then throws out the tired solution, which solves nothing. Better background checks....means what. As he points out there are already laws in place for most cases they just need to be enforced. He of course blows over the suicide rate like all guns control advocates do, when if they could tackle that problem meaningfully it would have a major impact on gun deaths. He then throws out the tired old stat of X number of guns in the country, enough for every person. Well, that doesn't mean shit. The number of guns is irrelevant. What is relevant is WHO HAS THE GUNS. He of course finishes off with the old trope of "somebody just needs to something" and finishes us with cars are safer because of things. Well here's the thing Mr. Shermer. If there could be laws passed that would hinder or prohibit people that are not allowed by law to have a firearm or somehow magically know when a person was going to use that firearm for ill intent.....almost every 2A supporter would be behind you, but all of the laws suggested only hinder or prohibit the lawful gun owner and not the criminals.
@@reddirtwalker8041 Wishful thinking and an overreliance on metrics is exactly what makes the McNamara (Quantitative) Fallacy a fallacy. When you make it all about the numbers, you *assume* that qualitative factors don't matter or possibly don't even exist. Counting corpses and comparing body counts is easy. However, 160 years ago 600,000 young men died because settling the question whether it was OK to own another person or not, was more important than living for as long as possible. Don't count lives, make lives count.
@@hrbattenfeld If you don't look at numbers then your working on emotion, which is never a good place to make hugely impact for decisions from as emotion clouds judgement.
@@reddirtwalker8041lol, in this case it's precisely counting the number of deaths that are creating the emotions. That's why the do it. Crime is up 37%!!!!! 15000 coronavirus deaths in one day! 12345 gun violence deaths in the last year! It's not about the numbers. It doesn't matter how many people get shot. Americans don't give the government their guns. Sticking to principles cannot be expressed with numbers.
Historically you could feel relatively confident that the science in Scientific American would be correct. Over time, they have hired more non-scientists graduates of "scientific writing" programs who apparently are taught that being click-worthy is more important than being correct. I have given up writing authors who got facts wrong in stories, sending annotated lists of publications and lists of scientists with the credentials and expertise to inform their mistakes. When they did respond, they would be defensive and drop the attitude that as science writers they knew what was really true, even in areas where I am an expert. Scientific American has become CNN, desperately trying to hold on to some kind of market share, and watching their revenue and reach shrink.
@@EclecticBuddha Shermer defends the “What is a Woman” work as legit scientific critical skeptical analysis of the “other side” of the argument. I do not see “critique / criticism” as “trolling” since trolling typically is making inflammatory and false/straw-man counter arguments… rather than objectively based and rational criticism of outrageous ideas/agendas… just like Shermer attacks conspiracy theorists arguments.
His fundraiser tô save AOC Abuella was one of his bests trollings ever. Because even If It was a mockery, the end result would bê beneficial either way tô her Abuella, só even If they Go against, It would look bad for progressives either way
What De Santis DID (as I understand it) was NOT to "slap them with extra taxes" but RATHER to REMOVE their status as tax preferential AND their status as not being completely under Florida law (having, to some degree their OWN police and OWN law application.) De Santos simply leveled the playing field. Why should he have NOT taken this step when Disney chose to be a political entity at taxpayer's expense. Sorry, there ARE limits, there IS a constitution, and they were (apparently) dancing WAY outside their original auspices. Each and every entity who becomes too big for his her or it's breeches runs the great risk of having NEW breeches reassigned, involuntarily, if need be. Is that true or not?
I blame it on women. I was a huge SciAm reader until a woman became the editor. It had decayed a bit over the years, but it really became junk after a woman took over. Same in IT, all the problems I had during my career involved women. So glad I'm retired. I believe in women's equality, but boy some of them are just insane.
@@arcguardian Look up the facts about USSR propaganda in the 1900s causing western ideological and cultural subversion into leftwingery, just like the Putin web troll factories aimed to extremize the american Right today. Youri Byezmenov's interview about this in the 80s documenting well his past as an agent in India should be obligatory for everyone to watch. One of the articles he mentions in the full interview series (totally 3-4 hrs in 3 places) that was supposed to rosewash the communist Kremlin regime for the western audience was called Russia today. We know why that name then was used for the russian channel after the 2000s aiming to create the western extreme christian Right. The whole point of such subversion is to unmount the stability of the western world and its numerous benefits to the nonwestern. Creating polarities in politics is a major part of that. This is the cause of wokeism as well as the cause of the fundamentalist Right and the Trump supporters and the conspiracy theories.
At 46:50, talking about Caster Semenya as "a woman who needs to lower her testosterone," that's incorrect. This is a 46, XY male person, who has all the male advantages of bigger heart and lungs, more haemoglobin and oxygen in the blood, more efficient Q-angle between hips and knees because his hips aren't wider to allow for childbirth, stronger bones, and a lot of other male "bigger, stronger, faster" advantages. Lowering testosterone after puberty does very little to reduce male physical advantage over women. And at 47.10, talking about "overlapping testosterone bell curves," wrong again. The highest normal women's T-level is about 2.4 nmol/L. The lowest normal men's T-level is about 7.0. That is not overlapping at all. Women having to compete against men is like racing poodles against greyhounds.
The Time Magazine article about the election is a very poignant example of why people have concerns. I can't even post a link without getting the comment scrubbed. The reason we have so many problems is because you can't even have a rational discussion without your comment getting deleted. Like mine was. Censorship is the biggest problem these days. Hrghrhgrb!
@@alienmoonstalker the “covering climate now” journalist initiative subverts journalists worldwide by adding climate change to most articles and omitting any objective challenges to data ensuring the “average” modelling and predictions are much more extreme than reality which impacts on current and future credibility amongst those that understand flaws in data gathering and statistical analysis.
With the abortion issue the pro choice side is always arguing about the odd ball 2-4% like rape, incest and a dangerous pregnancy. It makes more sense to focus on the 96%, but who needs logic when emotional arguments produce more dopamine? The argument for abortion is so similar to the Holocaust. “Just an inferior clump of cells and so inconvenient”. We are all an inconvenient clump of cells. The difference is that we who are outside the womb have a chance to fright or run when someone wants us dead. When the WWII liberators say the brutality at the death camps, many guards were overwhelmed and took vengeance. If they had been told in a sterile setting about the death camps their reaction would probably been more like ours, “ yeah how unfortunate”.
His column was my favorite part of that magazine for years. It's a shame politics have tainted even something that is supposed to be a scientific publication. This "woke" thing is truly insidious.
Interesting conversation. Unfortunately both these folks claim the moral high ground with a supposedly neutral tone (like our current authorities) by unconsciously (or openly) saying that whatever they say is "truth". I think everyone should think for themselves - true science (and logic) is definitely different than "the science" (which is highly political - encompassing a good portion of this conversation). Don't agree with me - but be wary of those who claim to "know" (without question) - and then push it on you (regardless of your "side"), and then claim the other side is pushing their agenda (a great way to distract from the truth).
@@drstrangelove09 this sherman clown is the one to whine... his twitter feed is filled with copypastings of every msm propaganda line in the book... his brain is fried
Nonsense. We all have opinions. Some opinions just matter more, because they are borne out of better ideas and are evidence based. And Shermer does a much better job at thinking critically about important issues than most people. He's not always the best informed about every detail of that which he discusses, but he would say as much. What matters is his ability to reason is superior to most people. And I know you're going to disagree with me, in part, because you believe that you are better at reasoning and smarter than most people. That's a problem for MOST people, in fact. So, you have plenty of company.
This guy is a walking contradiction. "I believe in knowing all the facts and making informed decisions of both sides without unconscious bias or cognitive dissonance" "Now I'm going to recite incredibly inaccurate information about what happened to Disney and about Ron DeSantis" "I'm for personal responsibility of the individual" :30 seconds later: "I've always been strongly pro-choice"
Yup, he fully lost me on the abortion thing when he said it was just evangelicals and that he weighs it as a compromise. I'm not religious and I still think it's ethically wrong. This guy is an inconsistent, out of touch asshole. Lots of comments on here also point out other issues. I feel like his understanding of politics is that he doesn't like the Republican party of George Bush and he doesn't like Democrats as they are today.
Ever stop to think that a woman engaging in an abortion is indeed an act of personal responsibility? The people who are not are your SCOTUS justices and Republican politicians who take down Roe and then walk away from the situation, not even recognizing the gigantic foster care, Medicaid, food stamp, welfare, and unwanted children situation they just exacerbated. They just run off to the country club or evangelical church and pat themselves on the back for the great moral action they accomplished.
I dont agree that being 'non-binary or whatever' isnt an impediment. If Im looking to hire and I see someone has blue hair and announces their pronouns on their resume it's going straight in the bin. I want someone who is going to show up for work and do their job instead of spending 3/4 of their workweek crying in H.R's office because someone misgendered them
22:10 He stepped on his own “classical Liberalism” when he chuckled into saying “the vaccines work” and people should follow Science. Dude, you need to catch up with reality.
Interestingly enough, a 1992 UN embargo prohibits importation of firearms except for security forces and the Somali government doesn't license civilian gun shops. Effectively there is a ban on guns except for security personnel.
Yeah, I found that to be odd given how much he was talking about consistency and whatnot. Making fun of conservatives for "thinking gay marriage would lead to duck marriage" while we live in a world where feelings matter so much more than objective definitions and standards that we have pedophile apologists, child gender transitions, math is racist and men can be women just by throwing on a dress. It's almost as if what we allow individuals to do relies on logic than can translate to other parts of society ... but no, no, that's just collectivist thinking 🤔
I hadn't bought it for 20 years; bought it a couple of years ago at the airport and was truly shocked at how awful it was, completely unrecognisable. Likewise, the UK equivalent magazine, same woke nonsense. As a woman, I object!!
And all the regulations on cars only apply on public (government-owned) roads. Treating guns like cars would be a significant deregulation of guns: no restrictions on who can buy what (for use on one's own property), a shall-issue license that most people can get and is good in all 50 states to use in public.
It's funny....I've been reading the magazine occasionally looking for the good articles and buying at the newsstand. Ive been thinking a lot of this to myself and it's good to see others have noticed the same.
As a first time viewer and a Christian I really enjoyed this interview. What an excellent opportunity to hear Michael Shermer’s views and thought processes. I agree completely with Michael about principles. I’m regularly finding just how self-unaware people are; they can’t see how hypocritical and inconsistent their views are being applied. If only we were prepared to listen to each other, especially when holding opposing views.
"they can’t see how hypocritical and inconsistent their views are being applied." This is true of Michael Shermer but you'd have to have followed his work 20 years ago to see that this leopard has only outwardly changed his spots. When did he actually become skeptical? He isn't; only skeptical of certain things and that was his income stream. Embrace other things that he ought to have been skeptical of, but that too is related to income stream.
@@thomasmaughan4798 Understood. Obviously we’re all biased but atheists do have a particularly strong bias against God, Christianity and religion in general, which heavily censors open and honest discussion.
I enjoy listening to Shermer when he bases his reasoning on science and facts, but his gross stereotypes make me question his judgement. Such as " conservatives care about the lives of babies until after they are born" and gun "nutters" want everyone to have a gun. No and no.
This guy lost a lot of credibility with me when he said the covid shots work. I don't know when this was recorded, but is released after even the CDC said there's no difference in protocol between people having had the shots or not.
That's where he Lost and so many others. What the Hell, Dr.Toni Elf Faucet got it Twice now, Boe Jiden got it Twice or More. Time for Booster #53 cause 2 is Not Enough for Thee . Dam ,All have been Mind-ucked in the Socalled Sceptics minds Now Septic Community.🤤💩
UA-cam would probably have censored the interview had he told the truth about the present efficacy of covid vaccinations. The likelihood of getting covid now is pretty much independent of whether you're vaccinated or how many boosters you've gotten (with some evidence suggesting that multiple booster shots make you more susceptible). It is therefore now a personal decision. One cannot claim any longer that you're obliged to get vaccinated to prevent spreading covid to others. In the face of this hard truth, I now hear vax fanatics argue that people should be forced to get vaccinated because they'll be more of a burden on hospitals and contribute to rising health care costs if they don't. Of course, they'd never say that overweight people who refuse to lose weight should be fired for the same reason.
@@tekharthazenyatta2310 It's always been a personal decision, it's just that for some, there were consequences. I don't have "health care'", or what I call medical care insurance. To me health care is what I do to avoid needing medical care. I haven't been to a doctor in coming up on ten years. It's not that I wouldn't if I really had to, but only for a serious injury. I'm in control of my internal state. I just can't bring myself to pay for something I don't use, so that I can pay for people who refuse to take care of themselves. I know there are people who really care, but the system is totally corrupt. The food industry pushes toxic crap to maximize profits causing people to spend billions supporting the medical and pharmaceutical industries.
Depends on the subject. Rationalism is always the best option, but everyone human has a bias with so few exceptions that we can count neutral rationalists who are honest enough in supporting science 100 percent as maybe 1 out of a million people. In many ways Shermer is a mild parrot for the extreme left (as in pro gun control, underestimating that in many nations extreme growth in violence is regardless of gun laws. This since these have had largely stricter laws than many states in the US, like Mexico and Sweden. A problem does not go away with a decision in politics. You have to find the roots of the problem. One of them is a failed economy (keynesian economics) causing too much social unrest. Another cause is the large *production* of guns... He also underestimates that if a product like narcotic drugs or weapons have a big market, there will always be an illegal market giving large income to the gangster syndicates, in turn turning society into Mexico. Which has massive gun violence because of failed bans on guns and drugs. He never read about how the liqueur ban failed in the US and therefore was removed. The ban built up the Chicago mafia which was profiting large on booze bans, thus crime rose as these groups fought each others+ the rise in corruption. The drug ban in NY supported by Democrat and Republican parties caused the massive corruption in the police there in the 70s and early 80s. Here the Libertarian party is correct except that some of their arguments too much ofc build on anarcho-liberty nonsense). Shermer's view in the question of the age of human culture against Carlson and Schoch sounds like the christian theology (as in denying the evidence of the Younger dryas impact,and in denying the possibility and partial evidence for ancient human societies. The biggest fear of an old world is the fear of the christian Right ; the fear that a god didn't wave a magical wand 8000 years ago).
(a third cause regarding the cause of the huge rise of violence in Sweden in some districts is open borders for drug and weapon smuggling via the Schengen and EU , + that mass immigration of *males* from much less developed nations obviously increase the probability for crimes. In all statistics in all nations having statistics , a large percentage of prisoners are men.. That is not bad luck or secret conspiracy from women against men... (!) That is the cause of which culture you are from + your natural sex + failed drug bans leading to increased recruitment of young men into gangster groups flashing easy big money made)
We can't compare drugs and weapons to motorcycle helmets 😅 Where is the dark criminal market for road systems where everyone are not using motorcycle helmets? Will never be there. Of course a ban on riding without a helmet will work. Of course a ban on drugs and weapons will never work IF the society already has a big market for those. Learn about the failure of the US liqueur ban.
Driving on the designated side of the road isn't a reduction in liberty. Individuals do cooperate, but they do so voluntarily and under clear agreement (like a contract). For example, it is fine for someone to create a private road and set the rule to drive on the other side of the road. People are free so long as their actions don't cause aggression on another, and cooperation isn't aggression, isn't how all contracts and voluntary society operate.
Yes it is a reduction in liberty, it's just a reduction that is compensated for by a larger increase in liberty elsewhere (i.e. efficient roads and less accidents). So... what are you going to do when someone drives on the wrong side of your private road?
Hard-core libertarians are an inherent contradiction. They get mad when any sort of rule is imposed on anything, yep they don't believe that the world should be legit anarchy. You have to have some rules in a society. You can't have zero rules or nothing functions. It's about where that line in the sand is.
no discussion of the huge number of people made SICK by these shots.. AND the change of the definition of VACCINE…. THESE SHOTS ARE NOT VACCINES! This is so obvious but WOKE fake news & truth propagandists seem to BLOCK information about these facts…. EVEN THESE TWO “open minded scientific” people…. Come on Man… I mean, Person!
@@itsallalie2 I see. Kind of you to explain further. No explanation was necessary, and nothing (as I see it) in my post indicated that it was. It seemed very presumptuous on your part. Never mind. Text-based communication very often stifles the kind of understanding that is often understood without words (from context and body language etc), and leads to these misunderstands. In addition to which, many people, including myself, are often "on guard" when in other (ideal) circumstances, they would not be. It may further aid understanding, though I usually refrain from saying so, that I am not remotely inclined to what is now called (though that is not the same as I grew up understanding it to be) "the left." I will not venture as to whether the (currently understood) "right" or its equivalent "left" are more guilty of propaganda, but I can say (without fear of knowing myself to be a liar) that each of the two contains its fair share of lies. In fact, I am almost entirely certain "the left" and "the right", as they are nowadays portrayed, are overly simplistic constructs used by the few who truly rule over the many who unknowingly obey, and should be abandoned and called-out as muddying the waters. I am inclined to believe that you will not find my last comment too disagreeable.
Ironic, in my opinion, considering Michael Shermer was himself pre-Woke, or Woke Version 1.0 before "woke" was a thing. He is not even skeptical of his own skepticism.
23:43 Abortion for libertarians… once you realize fetus/baby is NOT mother’s body (ie SCIENTIFIC not RELIGIOUS argument) then “my body my choice” does not apply.
29:20 "On the consistency issue..." There's nothing inconsistent there. Actual life and quality of life are two very different things. And I'm not a pro-lifer.
I agree, introducing distinctions are an important way to keep our principles reasonably consistent. However, I believe that our moral intuitions, being subjective, are different from one another, and so you might not convince a pro-lifer that quality of life really matters when dealing with abortion.
The British magazine New Scientist explicitly announced its Wokeness too.... Well, perhaps not its Wokeness - but that it would take explicit political positions on various issues and subjects (which it was doing anyway). That is, there were various New Scientist articles saying that it's a good thing that it has explicitly taken political positions (all of a certain kind, of course) on various issues. ("Tell it like it is. If science becomes politics, then so be it. We will only get one chance at the experiment of dealing with this.")
Another once respectable science mag lost to the feminization of science - take a look at who their key editors are nowadays. "Science" isn't a systematic method to help discover the truth or the workings of things, for these new woke female status-seeking types it's a tool that can be used when it's useful for an agenda and hidden when it's not.
That reminds me of how there's this weird new paradigm in journalism where they believe that it's morally irresponsible to not try to be biased and influence the viewer. It's so arrogant I can't handle it. These people feel that they were able to take all of the information and forms a "correct" position but they don't feel the public would be able to do the same thing.
her claims go a bit farther than sexual harassment. I'm just hearing about these allegations now. After a quick search, he's accused of some serious stuff. I don't know if it's true.
As a libertarian leftie, I actually find myself agreeing with Michael Shermer on many points here. My libertarian philosophy is that the government has NO role in creating dictates for _your own_ safety, only in regards to the safety of others. In other words, it only has the right to interfere when your behavior put others' rights (to life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, and so on) in jeopardy. This applies to same-sex marriage and intimacy, contraception (which I cannot believe is still a debate at this late date), interracial marriage, gambling, prostitution, and drug use, just to name a few. There can be no doubt that such things as seatbelt laws, helmet requirements, and even speed limits in certain situations would have to be immediately struck down if this principle was employed consistently. When the government has decided it wants to legislate to protect you from _yourself,_ you know it has overstepped its authority. P.S. As for abortion, the my answer is simple: an embryo/fetus that cannot experience pain (i.e. before 18 weeks gestation) is not a moral patient, and therefore is not a "person" under the law and has no rights. Also, none of the above applies to minors (i.e. children), as they do not possess their full rational faculties and cannot give consent.
I actually agree with everything you said. However, morally, how do you frame the fact that well, that embryo, can't experience pain now but will next week?
The libertarian argument is fine as a theory from which to begin, but it does not handle well the reality of 'common good' .. e.g. if your so called private behavior pushes up my insurance premium or health care costs .. & we don't have laws or police, ous ie ok for me to kill you for that imposition on me, or assault you, or would defamation be my limit? Common good thinking is as old as humanity, this individual as God stuff is very very new. Failure to deliver common good will destroy individuals & individual freedom.
The ontological essence of a zygote/embryo/fetus (a rose by any other name is a rose) is a “human being”. Its sensation of pain has no bearing on that essence.
In spite of any criticism that I may have brought forward here I have to give Mr. Shermer props for his honesty and willingness to describe the situation now
You're hooking me on these podcasts! Thank you. Reasonable discussions and disagreements! Imagine! Giving up my trust in Scientific American is painful, but necessary. Giving up trust in so many groups, people and information sources is epidemic and frightening for our country. Your podcast is reassuring, as I believe I will find Michael Shermer's, too. Thank you!
I will say, around 2019, the magazine became blatantly political, even outright endorsing a candidate for the first time ever (Biden of course). That was when I decided not to renew. They were trending toward woke idiotism even before that, but that was the last straw. I had a couple of years worth of issues pre-paid, and I'm lazy, so didn't cancel, but it has gotten even worse since. Are they even still doing science? What a shame to watch it wither away into Marxist wokism stupidity instead of science
Same here, endorsing Biden was the last straw for me, I didn't renew. I didn't send the a letter to the editor chastisement either, what would be the use?
You sound blatantly political, yourself. For a science magazine to endorse a candidate is an unusual step, but for a man so anti-science as Trump, it is the only principled thing to do, in a situation so grave. We don't need a sleazy clown in the White House who thinks that global warming is a hoax, or that covid should be treated by spraying disinfectant in the lungs, or that the Colonial army took over airports.
I carried on an aproximately 70 plus yr old family subscription until 5 yrs or so ago--for me the final straw was the climate change religion. (still get solicitations for renewal)
@@Mrbfgray The climate change science, you mean. Religion is what treats Donald ("climate change is a hoax") Trump, the perpetual liar, as their God-sent messiah. One has to wonder why conservative cranks ever bothered to read anything science-oriented, in the first place.
agree！i am a woman scientist of color… when i experienced racism against my race，so many people so eagerly offended on my behalf… but for so many years，i was silenced/oppressed for my scientific disagreement，not one word of rebuttal….just administrative punishment…no one said a word… i was hopping those professional experts promoting inclusion can advocate a small scale internal seminar within my institution，only to find myself excluded by inclusion experts… as a woman scientist of color，independent thinking is not an allowed identity，despite “who you are matters” -- that only include my pigments and female parts…
I subscribed to SciAM since 1966. The sharp left turn (and turn to political stands) happened when John Rennie became editor in 1994. Perhaps the slide in advertising pages began around the same time.
I had the Vaccine as a matter of personal risk assessment, but when it became apparent that the vaccines didn't stop infection and transmission of Covid19 the argument for mandates evaporated. From a UK perspective it's weird how politically polarising this issue was in the US. Castor Semenya the South African runner has the 46XY DSD so although i sympathise with "her" problem, the assertion that she was born a biological female but has raised testosterone levels is inaccurate, this is an inter sex condition of incomplete foetal development of a male child.
It's sad that Scientific American has basically destroyed itself, I still have my large collection of the magazine which I love every issue, I have issues dating back from when my father was alive over thirty years ago, and when he passed away, I started collecting, but in recent years that has come to an end, and today I don't even both looking at it on the news stand anymore.
You just perfectly described my relationship with National Geographic. I subscribed for over 40 years (since 1980) and inherited my dad's collection back to the early '60s when he died, but I let my subscription lapse last year for the same reason.
Shermer stating the vaccines work? At what level and in what capacity? They were originally heralded by the manufacturers and the relevant government health bodies as preventing one from getting sick and thusly making the vaccinated unable to spread the virus. Neither which has proven true. You cannot keep changing the extent and quality of their efficacy as subsequent pronouncements of their merits also not obtaining over time and continue to say they work. Talking about scientific integrity Michael, where’s your’s?
They are not vaccines in any sense of what _anyone_ thought of as a 'vaccine' until 5 minutes ago. Much like other gems over the last couple of years like 'woman', 'recession', 'racist', 'sexual preference'...
I'm 15 minutes in and I don't know anything new except this guy changed his description of himself because the language around him changed. I could write his articles for him because all I have to do is stick my finger in the air with one hand and put a pen or keyboard in the other!
Shermer took the easy way out on his abortion stance, referring to a 3 month old fetus versus a woman's right. Instead, he should have considered a 9 month old fetus versus a woman's right. Who gets the nod there? If a woman goes into full-term labor but then says "Stop, I want an abortion." do we allow that? If we do are we really going to be that barbaric as a community, and if not, then where is the line to be drawn? But Shermer copped out rather than having a serious discussion.
As a child, I enjoyed science projects featured in Scientific American but like National Geographic, they embraced the leftist faith with the fervor of Lysenko.
But empirically it works. Whatever you think about its implications on freedom, which I think should matter, it's an objective fact that countries with the harshest gun laws see the least amounts of gun violence. We're talking single digits over decades.
@@Xpistos510 You almost could not be more incorrect. Even with all of the countries in the world with strict gun control and outright prohibition, gun control has never been proven to reduce murder or violent crime rates. ua-cam.com/video/PgiQ-LmJGMY/v-deo.html
21:50 and 22:44 “Maybe covid19 is not that case” but “vaccine mandates are right of the state”!?!? 🤦♂️😳 No, that is inconsistent… every individual has the right to their body and liberty. Everyone has the right to vaccinate themselves, but not others. (Just like picking your nose 👃)
Need to listen to Brett Weinstein on all of the requirements for possible state mandate on vaccines.. basically impossible (no conflicts of interest, safe, effective, great risk of death)
Can you be libertarian and against abortion? I guess because the unborn have no voice, they don't get a choice. I choose to be a voice for the unborn. When a woman becomes pregnant, she assumes responsibility for the future human inside her, even if it wasn't her intention.
Gender critical and second wave feminists aren’t much better than the woke feminists. A few years ago JK Rowling and Graham Lineham were trying to cancel comedians like the rest of them.
I was in high school in the late 60's. During my freshman year I had an hour in study hall every day. My mom made me do 2 hours of homework every night so I didn't need to do that in study hall and I would read Scientific American and Science magazine. They were great. I learned a lot about science and wound up with a full scholarship to college. About 20 years ago I was at a library and picked up a copy of SA. Oh my GOD! They should change there name to Superstitious American.
29:28 A failure to realize that being against murder does not, even imply, you must be in favor of social welfare state. That's an absurd statement by Shermer to even entertain as indicative of some truth.
I used to read Scientific American until I graduated from college in the 1980's. I found it to be a an excellent magazine with many excellent and rigorously written articles. I picked a copy of it recently and I was shocked at how it has turned into total crap!! Another example of the dumbing down of America. I really fear for this country's future and luckily I will not be around to see it.
It's more insidious than a mere dumbing down. It literally reads like something from a Jim Jones' Peoples Temple or Symbionese Liberation Army pamphlet from the early 70s.
Weird ass radical identity politics etc.
@@b.g.5869 I agree. It is actually very dangerous since this type of behavior seems to be everywhere.
It is a matter of perception. Everyone has their own version of fact and truth. Everyone is a judge. Everyone is a chief. Everyone is Right as Rain about their own opinion, which is often just an adoption of someone else's opinion. I would like to see a conversation between 2 people of opposing views on the results of a scientific study in which they focus strictly on the results without adding in a purpose, such as trying to reach a particular conclusion to prove a thesis.
And to think that so many people want to live longer! What for? To see how bad it gets and how much deeper in resignation about humanity? Cynical people like us really don't want to live longer. I think we're happy to kick off any day.
Science is the opposite of ideology, if Scientific America adopts leftist ideology then they aren't a legitimate scientific journal.
19:51 - Desantis isn't "slapping Disney with regulation," he's revoking a company's ability to run their own private kingdom complete as a tax haven and he's doing it so DISNEY doesn't tacitly dictate state policy.
Revoking special government privileges for favored companies should be a libertarian value. Instantly soured my opinion of this guy. Grossly reductive and false.
Agreed. That immediately struck me as dishonest. Hitting a company with regulations is very different from taking away special privileges that no one else gets.
I didn't care for him much the more he droned on. He has a way of taking an issue, applying an overly simplistic position on those he disagrees with, then giving his bias and generally uninteresting feelings on the subject. I feel like if I knew him in person and we were "friends" and hung out, I'd be calling him on his BS more than he's comfortable with.
I try to like Michael Shermer. But he's so frustrating. As soon as he get's near a sublime position on something he says something frustrating just to be contrarian. He's so slavishly centrist he never really takes a firm position on anything.
@@SK-hj8ss absolutely correct. Exactly right
Better late than never.
I consumed Scientific American as a kid in the 70's. I grew into an Engineer, building interpreters, compilers, embedded systems, children's software, rules engines used by some states even today, and now blockchain technology. Innovation, science, creativity, technology and more were the life blood and ethos of Scientific American.
How sad for them to lose their way.
I'm so glad you got to become an engineer before all this woke rubbish!
I think every Biology student in the late 1980s & 1990s was assigned one of Scientific American's center piece articles detailing how DNA & protein synthesis works.
The diagrams and writing were brilliant for an introduction to basic genetics.
What a shame to see them get captured by these woke activist types.
I saw a Scientific American video with an editor called Tulika Bose about the trans issue - it was just awful! What a shame.
One of the most disturbing aspects of woke ideology for me is its attack on meritocracy-or academic standards of merit such as standardized tests and tests for professions.
Definitely not defending woke ideology, nor attacking meritocracy, but as a public school teacher, I can attest to the fact that we have gone too far in the past 20 years on standardized testing. In many cases teachers were simply teaching to the test, while critical thinking was out the window for lack of time. Things are definitely getting better, but I assume that is part of the attack on standardized testing. That, and the fact that the very standardization of the test makes them often unreliable, as many students do not have the academic background that the tests assume they have. Again, I’m not advocating getting rid of meritocracy, but a balanced and more nuanced approach sure would be nice, at least from a teacher’s point of view.
@@SuperManning11 We need to do more to help disadvantaged young people to stay up with their peers. (whatever happened to Head Start?) I'm not an expert on education or a teacher, but if we don't have some kind of academic standards, I fear our society will be dumbed down.
@@SuperManning11 But that is not the genesis of the attack on meritocracy. The attack stems from the CRT belief that whites design the tests for whites to pass, and that upper class people design the tests to perpetuate their dominance. Of course, this is neomarxist nonsense.
I would be fine with them saying we can make better tests the current ones are not cutting it but they don't want to replace them with anything better or even worse they just want to burn them to the ground and pray something rises from the ashes.
@@katansi This might be among the best arguments in favor of standardized testing I’ve ever seen. I agree with almost all of it.
I think it’s not necessarily a problem with the differences in the utility of standardized testing, but the differences in the methodology of schooling itself.
We must first ask ourselves, “Why do we have school?” and agree upon the answer. The answer, in my mind, is to give young people the basic tools they need to be useful adults.
Which tools apply, and the definition of useful can certainly vary, but you do have constants across all cultures. And it’s within those constants, that standardized testing makes perfect logical sense.
Now, if you’re offering elective classes which also serve the general purpose of fostering usefulness, like say, a multimedia class. Then the edges of standardized testing begin to break down a bit, because to be successful in a lot of forms of media, one _must_ be creative, and entertaining. And this would be a very relevant modern class, I think.
But in terms of arithmetic, language, history, etc., nothing _but_ standardized tests and well-defined expectations makes sense to me.
Desantis didn't "sic the government on Disney" He (and his congress) simply decided to not continue providing special protections and privileges to a company that went out of its way to show that it was no longer fostering the kind of community they want to incentivize in Florida.
So instead of letting the corporation that opposes his policies be an entity separate from Florida, he further incorporates it... sounds pretty poorly thought out on DeSantis' part.
"simply decided"... I suspect even you don't think that's an honest response.
Well said.
@@peaceflower8302 no, it is now subject to Florida's laws, regulations, and taxes. I'm not a fan of this outcome but cronyism doesn't help anyone.
@@vapecatt And because it is subject to those laws, regulations, and taxes, it will now work to influence those laws, regulations, and taxes through lobbying. Because Disney can’t be it’s own entity, it will try to shape Florida to benefit itself.
DeSantis didn't slap Disney with higher taxes, he removed some EXTREMELY beneficial tax breaks that nobody else was getting.
He was balancing it out, making it equal for everyone. THAT is a libertarian belief.
I was going to comment this exact thing!
This guy is a walking contradiction.
"I believe in knowing all the facts and making informed decisions of both sides without unconscious bias or cognitive dissonance"
"Now I'm going to recite incredibly inaccurate information about what happened to Disney and about Ron DeSantis"
Disney lost tax breaks and (limited) territorial autonomy that they never should have had in the first place.
How about DeSantis telling companies they are not free to decide how to manage their employees with respect to vaccine mandates? Why aren't these companies free to do as they see fit? Or how about DeSantis wanting to fine social media companies that deplatform policiticians? THOSE are NOT libertarian acts, much less beliefs.
@@SonOfLiberty82 Yeah, definitely pushing back from the wokeness, but still just spooning in the mainstream media narrative.
You're overlooking the human rights aspect of De Santis's actions. It seems consistent with libertarian principles to me to constrain business actions that infringe on human rights/liberties. Vaccine mandates are based on the false notion that being unvaccinated poses a threat to a vaccinated person. That notion certainly deserves skepticism.
(Edit: Mandates claim justification on the basis of protection, but they're based on the desire for control.)
I let my subscription lapse about 20 years ago because it was getting obnoxiously politically biased and sensationalist even then. Compared with the absolute irredeemable trash it's become today it was practically Nature or Zeitschrift für Physik back then. I have a huge bound and hard covered 1887 year in review edition on my coffee table that a relative gave me as a gift and it was truly an amazing resource of clearly explained cutting edge scientific information. What an absolute disgrace they've become in just the last few years alone.
Agreed.
Same. He’s just an exploiter of workers and a chud now. All these idiots self reported when Trump ran. None of them can be trusted now. They’re all bias af.
Maybe I'm conflating Shermer's advent with the general decline of the magazine, but my first reaction to the title of this video was: "YOUstarted it!!" Compare SciAm from this guy's time to the 1960s and 70s, when scientists wrote the articles (instead of staff), and one can easily conclude that activists replaced scientists, with Shermer carrying the banner of the activists.
@@Ralph64 I don't know if I'd agree that Shermer was one of the activists but it's certain that no one can deny SciAm was fucking AMAZING from the 50s through the 80s when scientists regularly wrote articles. In fact I think the heyday was clearly that era in the 70s when columns like the "the amateur scientist" were at their best.
I came here to write something very similar. In the late 90's and early 00's I noticed it was getting more political. After one particularly horrible article and an editor's nasty response to a reader, I'd had enough. I wrote them a letter and canceled my subscription. That was about 20 years ago...
Shermer is for gun control, vaccine mandates and massive tax breaks for certain corporations. How exactly is he a libertarian or classical liberal?
That is a fine question.
He's against fossil fuels too, and absolutely refuses to address Alex Epsteins arguments.
And the idea that its somehow "inconsistent" for Libertarians to say we shouldn't invade other countries "to help people under suppression of civil liberties". I mean for chrissakes, what Libertarian principle does he think "humanitarian" wars fall under? Of all the things to fault Libertarians for, he chooses opposition to war? Unbelievable.
Obvious answer:
Shermer is simply as unprincipled as the one he accuses of being unprincipled.
@@RedBricksTraffic One really wonders why Freedom Fest would have him and Reason to interview him?
Discovering Scientific American in high school in the seventies changed my life. I hardly ever made it all the way to the end of any paper - they were published papers then, not articles - but what I learned from reading as much as I could follow was immense. Sci Am taught me to think like a scientist, be rationally skeptical, and showed me what REAL science looks like.
I recently got a subscription for my son who just started high school, but it is nothing like the eye opening journal that I remember.
What a tragic loss.
Science mixed with the certainties of politics or religion often yields a sloppy and sour stew.
The cleanness of Scientific American’s articles relatively free of political taint prior to 25 years ago was a celebration of the nature of science and actually one of my joys in life. It is sadly missed.
Where do we find it today?
@@proaktivhalsaab2644 UA-cam, I'm afraid
"certainties of politics"
You'll have a hard time convincing anyone of this.
I saw the same happening in Australia at the same time
The Sciences, published by the New York Academy of Sciences, comes closest.
Scientic American doesn't really seem to be either scientific or American....
It's German. And not particularly scientific.
@@thomasmaughan4798 Sounds about right.
Although nothing is more American than a company with American in the title owned by foreign nationals.
I used to be subscribed to Scientific American (in print even back in the day). Increasingly over the years, and especially in the last year or two SciAm has just been covering far too much of the Religion of Woke, instead of the Science of anything. Too bad. A once great institution brought low by identity politics. Here's hoping that one day, they recover.
The left seems to have gone full Pol Pot
Used to read SciAm all the time as an “armchair scientist” in 1990s to early 2000s - must have missed his articles.
It has been happening for a long time.
Wokism is indeed a religion.
@@cyberedge881 Given its destructive nature and results, it would be better classified as a disease.
One of the strongest memories I have of my father, a physicist, was him in his chair reading SciAm of an evening ... he'd be rolling over in his grave seeing the rag that it has become.
I always got to The SciAm before my Dad. He got to watch me read it first.
Also, every libertarian AND every legitimate scientist, specifically every biologist, should be pro-LIFE, NOT pro choice, because, again, the science is clear on this issue: life begins at conception. One study found the 95 percent biologists surveyed in the study admitted life begins at conception. The zygote has historically been the mile marker as the beginning of human development during the gestation cycle, and by 6 weeks the infant has a heartbeat. The zygote is formed as soon as the sperm cell(a living piece of matter) is fused with the egg cell(a living piece of matter). Thus, no matter when an abortion is being performed, according to biology, a living being is being murdered, intentionally with premeditation, which, in any other context would be classified as capital murder. If abortion was applied to a 5 month post-birth child, it would universally be considered a heinous crime, but when it is applied to a 5 month old pre-birth, people like Shermer pretend it is acceptable? This is where the argument falls through: the "pro choice" crowd pretends to be standing for and defending the" rights" of the mother and protecting her bodily autonomy, but what they pretend not to notice is that by protecting the mother's "right" which is not a right at all because no one has a right to commit murder, you are simultaneously depriving someone else of their rights and their bodily autonomy(the unborn child). Libertarians always say people should be allowed to do and live however they want as long as it is within reason, the confines of the law, and does not harm a third party. Well, abortion does actively harm a third party(the unborn child) by depriving him or her of their most basic right(life) and it is unreasonable to do this because the SCIENCE contradicts the baseless and vacuous "pro choice" argument because it indicates that a fetus IS human life. Let's not pretend that the pro choice argument and movement is based on anything but politics and convenience.
Too right!
The straw for me was their article saying sex is a spectrum. I couldn’t believe they published it. Utter nonsense and non-science.
Was that article about sex or gender? Any source or hints for me to find said article?
@@brechtkuppens Sex it's on yt. Paradox institute and ColinWright biologist
Wait, am I supposed to watch this while pretending like Shermer wasn't a part of the problem that got us where we are today in public discourse and academia?
So you noticed that as well.
Somebody should also put to Shermer a few other things: (1) there ain't no draft no more (re: the now inapplicable Carlin joke), (2) aside from a hard line on abortion, he's in agreement with Matt Walsh on every issue brought up in this interview, (3) since when are 2nd amendment supporters "gun nuts"? (Shermer deftly avoids defining a "gun nut"), (4) there is no hard evidence that one's gender identity or sexual orientation is "baked in" at birth, and in asserting this you're contradicting your stance that if you think binary and ignore a continuum scale of measure then you'll confuse yourself, and (5) opposition to unilateral foreign-war interventionism is a bad thing?
@@tekharthazenyatta2310 MY gender identity was absolutely hardwired from birth, I assume that is not the case for everyone tho.
@@Mrbfgray well it is until the Uggo girls get to high school and decide to pretend to be more popular.
@@tekharthazenyatta2310 Mentioning the "gun show loophole" is a tell that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He fancies himself a skeptic but seems to suspend it on the gun topic.
I had quit reading SA about 10 years ago when it became more political than scientific. It had been trending for some time and the time to read it became more valuable than the science in it.
That was about the stone end for me. I fell out of love with it about 20 years ago.
I only know its value due to the old issues my dad kept. It was once a great resource.
In 2013, they were bit less objective than let's say 2008, but they recovered from it.
Shermer says he no longer considers himself a libertarian because he doesn't believe that we should be able to do whatever we want, which is why he now calls himself a Classical Liberal. Yet earlier in his remarks, he said he's hardcore pro-choice, which I have to assume means to take a life for any reason and at any time during the pregnancy. He states he's no longer a libertarian as it conveys an attitude unconstrained. He defies the new position he set for himself on just this issue alone.
Yes his obliviousness is quite obvious
The scientific method is not concerned with CULTURE. That is the remit of psychology and sociology. A scientific journal has no business trying to "steer' society about cultural issues.
When it was scientifically discovered that the earth went around the sun, I wonder if those that made the discovery thought about how important it was to spread the message throughout all culture. I imagine they really cared about spreading it in the scientific community, but were pretty uninterested in whether the common man accepted the results. But I have no idea. It didn't change daily life all that much. When you want science to impact daily life, I imagine you call it engineering.
@@theboombody Darwin withheld publication of the Origin out of concern for the impact he knew it would have on how ppl thought ..
@@chrisfreebairn870 Very dangerous to go against public opinion. Turing paid dearly for it. That's probably why Scientific American is heading in the direction it's heading. It doesn't want to go against public opinion.
@@theboombodyIt turns out that sociality is a rather more important component of our success as a species than was recognized in the heady days of disembodied rationalism. To step outside the envelope of social sustenance ...
I remember when this magazine declared Barack Obama as among the top 10 scientific personalities of 2008 in its Jan/Feb 2009 issue. This type of Kim Jong Uhn grovelling put me off. Havent read it since then.
I knew Scientific American, which I grew up with, was on its way out when they let Forrest Mims go as the Amateur Scientist columnist. Mims, who I had been a fan of since his work in model rocketry, had opinions I disagreed with, but his instinct for building your own instruments was spot on. He kept his views on evolution out of the column, and there was no excuse for cutting the column. A tremendous loss.
I bought all the Mims booklets from Radio Shack when I was teaching myself electronics. And yes SA made a bunch of changes long before the woke trauma. I dumped them long ago,
Trans should not be discriminated against, Nor should any disadvantaged minority be. I doubt anyone would disagree.
But if you, as a leader, do not want a narcissistic self-obsessed terrible person in your group, one who has no value for other's feelings or time, is perpetually ready to see insult and micro-aggressions where there is none, is perpetually annoying because of his/her permanent state of victimhood, one who brings the group's productivity crashing down, I think you would be very very justified.
What has _'a leader who does not want a narcissistic self-obsessed terrible (etc. etc.) person in its group"_ got to do with _"trans should not be discriminated against"_ ? Or: How is a leader, removing said narcissist, an act of _"justified discrimination against a trans person"_ ?
I want men in women's sports if the owner of the competition says so.
@@BorisNoiseChannel The implication is that one or more trans persons fulfil the list of reasons for which discrimination seems appropriate. In other words, discriminating not solely because "trans" but because "asshole" in some form.
You just described second wave feminism. Somehow shermer still defending second wave feminism. Figures.
@@BNK2442 A lot of people don’t realize that within second wave feminism was filled with just as much vitriol. In their defense they had a little more to complain about, but certainly not to the extent that they often took it.
When my dad was 16, he held the door open for a woman who scolded him that “She doesn’t need a man to hold doors open for her”. That was 1978. This dialectical mindset has been brewing in U.S. public consciousness since at least the 60s, and perhaps earlier, but certainly _by_ that decade.
On the Disney thing: Far as I'm aware all he really did was strip Disney of special privileges that they shouldn't have had to begin with.
Exactly! This guy did not impress me.
Shermer was the start of this mess. He helped create the atmosphere in where people started attacking the family and religion. People may not like religion but holds society to a standard that is outside of government authority.
It’s not that the 2nd Amendment is a argument that we live in a failed state. It’s an argument that all states will fail.
Gun lovers are not so much representing the defense against tyranny as they are representing the threat of tryanny.
@@tom-kz9pbGun lovers are a category, as is criminal, and more importantly tyrannical states. In addition; we are in a room filled with guns, by all means pick one up or don’t.
@@jeremyogrizovich3247 We are in a room filled with kerosene and a lot of people throwing matches. The real tyranny of America has been decidedly right-wing. The FBI for decades harassed the Left, obsessively and almost exclusively: black groups, Martin Luther King, women activists, gays. The CIA trained, installed and supported numerous right-wing dictators who murdered and tortured thousands, pretty much anyone left of center or otherwise impeding corporate interests, like human rights or environmental activists. To hear conservatives whining about "Deep Stats" shows only their disconnect from reality and their profound ignorance of history, like Trump praising the unquestioned loyalty of Hitler's generals, and needing to be reminded that Hitler's generals tried to assassinate him, three times.
3 replies and i see none. Shocker
Pink was never associated with men. That's a myth. It was a suggestion in one industry magazine. Consumers, which are mostly women, decided the question.
Bret The Hitman Hart always wore pink and black. But he's more the exception than the rule. He was exceptional in a lot of ways.
@@theboombody 😄
I agree with some of this, but Ron DeSantis was completely right to revoke Disney's special tax privileges. Additionally, I don't get how you can be pro-abortion and pro-vaccine mandate. And finally, one would think we would have enough historical examples of what governments do to unarmed minority groups to make it clear why the 2nd ammendment is important.
Yeeeeah but someone "smart" said otherwise soooo why think for ourselves?
It depends WHY they were revoked. "Because I don't like their movies' is a pretty stupid and outrightly fascist reason. That they had special tax concessions in the first place is the bigger issue. That kind of reminds of Breitbart where suddenly some people are all for breaking apart google and facebook, not because they have monopolies, but because they don't like their politics. So its ok for corporations to have complete control over industries....as long as t hey have the same politics as me.
Not to be insulting if you don't see the difference in abortion and vaccines you aren't thinking much. Employers have a legal obligation to the safety of workers, meaning they can get sued if they didn't demand a vaccine. Nobody gives a shit what you do in your home, but when you are going to be around other people, thats when ALL laws come into play.
as a floridian I agree with you and DeSantis....why the hell was disney getting this privilege to begin with. even if they weren't woke garbage I would want that shit to end.
"... enough historical examples of what governments do to unarmed minority groups...". So true josh.
1. In Turkey, Armenians were first asked to hand over their arms, for 'their own safety'.
2. When India and Pakistan split (in 1947), many Hindus decided to stay back in Pakistan, because the Government assured them that they will not be discriminated against. Just a couple of months after the split, Pakistan Government issued an order that Hindus will have to surrender any arms they had 'for their own safety'. My family saw the writing on the wall and decided there and then to shift out of Pakistan. Many unfortunate Hindu families did not.
3. I don't remember the details, but something similar happened to the Jews in Germany during or before Hitler's time.
Not coincidentally, these events preceded the three bloodiest genocidal events of the 20th century. There are other examples too...
@@mikearchibald744 Alright, I accept the logic behind that. The reason for the revocation should matter, but I still stand by that revoking the tax privileges is something that needed to be done regardless.
No offense, but if you find yourself in favor of government medical mandates, you're probably a lot closer to fascism than you want to admit. I oppose government mandates in all cases. I think maybe employers should be allowed to discriminate in some cases, but the government should NEVER have the power to force people into a medical procedure.
I finally had enough when most of the material focused on environmental issues rather than the rest of the physical sciences.
if you don't like the planet that gives you life, you are free to leave it. sooner would be better.
I always labored under the assumption that Shermer was a pretty intelligent human. This interview exposes mediocrity.
Every second thing he says is wrong. Eg claiming DeSantis imposed higher taxes on Disney as 'punishment'. DeSantis removed their generous tax breaks
It really does. I don't think they lost much when they shed him
Easy answer: They promoted a woman to Editor in Chief and then appointed more women to other key editorial positions. This trend of feminizing science leads to avoiding publishing controversial topics that could be upsetting some people and a general aversion to promoting controversial ideas that can challenge popular social narratives - and science is loaded with those. Women prefer to avoid upsetting others and more often imbibe current popular dogmas to signal their allegiance to the group...they do not like rocking the boat.
And such a trend could doom civilization.
Such a huge overgeneralization about women, set forth as an “easy answer.” As with easy answers in general it’s way too simplistic. Certainly does not apply to me or to a great many other women. I know plenty of gratingly conformist far left “woke” men as well. I hope this new trend you’re spewing doesn’t continue to spread. Such a lack of nuance and overgeneralized easy answers, setting women in such an awful light, reflect and stoke sexist biases. Also fails to acknowledge ways that women have helped to identify foolish biases in science and contribute to improved standards, as by recognizing ways that significant variables were inadequately heeded (as with testing a safety device entirely on a standard adult male form). Rachel Carson and Ruth Harrison also did innovative and pioneering work from outside academia that has helped to show the need to teach and approach science in ways that are attentive to ethics and to the broader context. Mary Midgley likewise was right to call for attention to the bigger picture and to challenge scientism. If you’re going to throw about stereotypes how about also include ways that stereotypically masculine approaches to science have been utterly disastrous and have led us towards many Darwin awards? Bacon would not approve. His New Atlantis was big on character and on openness to criticism and to changes if they prove called for. He was also big on an eye on the whole and on intelligently orchestrated efforts rather than the foolish cacophony that so often misgoverns contemporary research efforts. Much of what he would support is standard fare from a traditional conception of philosophy as the love of learning and wisdom, and is presently often associated with femininity. Socrates’ final words were to tell his friends that “we owe a debt to Asclepius,” the god of healing and medicine, and to advise them to see to it that it is paid / to not be careless. He is shown by Plato taking Diotima (possibly Aspasia) as a major influence upon him, and that, as someone who taught him about love. We continue to trivialize the importance of care and love and concern for justice and for wisdom at our ongoing peril.
@@reconstructingphilosophy women are easily manipulated. White, post-grad women are the ones who push this horse shit the most.
As I have read, Shermer has had his own problems with accusations of sexual harassment. I get a sick feeling that the bellyaching about Scientific American being "woke" has more to do with a lot of men's bad attitudes toward the female gender than anything wrong with the magazine. Maybe it is just as well- the kinds of right-wingers and Trump loyalists who use the word "woke" as a cuss word seem not really cut out for such things as science, facts or logic.
Women per se aren’t a problem only those who have been brainwashed by bull shit
It is shocking to me that people see the removal of special privileges like Disney has via the Bueno Vista incorporated township or via section 230 protection reform or abolition as imposing special laws or taxes when they are just putting mega corps on the same level as everyone else.
Yeah. I'm going to give Shermer the benefit of the doubt and assume he's just uninformed about the specifics here. Maybe he'll see your comment, or someone else will set him straight.
This is the second comment that already said what I wanted to say on two different subjects. This is the best chat I’ve seen on yt in a long time. Anyway, yeah he completely swallowed the media’s take on the Disney battle. To me, it boils down to this: if I’m a governor of a state with a huge corporation operating in it with special privelages, and that corp begins to openly oppose legislation we just passed with popular support, going so far as to say that they will do whatever they can to undo it, I feel it’s justified to strip them of the privilege that they are brazenly taking for granted.
@@strnbrg59
All people are uninformed or misinformed about most topics simply by the fact that even three human lifetimes are not long enough to get informed about everything.
Was thinking the same thing .
Not just people, influential/highly regarded ppl.
Before I was born, I believe my mom (she believed it as well) was given hormones supposedly to prevent miscarriage, but also caused masculinization of the female fetus. Now, I don't know if she knew that at the time, but it may have affected many of the behaviors I had
(And still have) as a teenager.
I would probably be begging my mom to let me get spayed and get a double mastectomy at 13 because I was a tomboy and I hated becoming a woman, who was doomed to a life of misery and child-bearing, as opposed to the true happiness having children, wanted children, can bring. Much more than my working life ever did....
I don't think what DeSantis did to Disney was slapping them with extra higher taxes and regulations. Disney was given special status years ago. Autonomy, self regulation,...so they were practically like a state within a state. So certain privileges were revoked, which is not the same as slapping them with extra fine.
Disney was not just making woke entertainment that Floridians could simply ignore -chose not to watch their program. They were not just supporting -pushing activism. They were getting involved in politics, which is not illegal, but when you're trying to change laws and your actions amount to subversion....a state is not obligated to grant you special status /privileges.
I was going to make the same point -- Disney got the political blowback not because of "wokeness" in their art, it was because as a corporation they started throwing their weight around in Florida politics. So Florida went, "well, that sword cuts both ways."
19:30 WRONG on De Santos & Disney
De Santos did exactly the "old conservative" way: he did NOT slapped them with higher taxes, he stopped investing in Disney by taking away their special tax status! ...
Anyway I've been listening to some of his interviews and I must say: in my opinion he is one of the guys who is responsible for what's going on culturally, then he understood the bullshit he's done but he's still reluctant to admit mistakes distance himself.
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR WHAT'S HAPPENING NOWADAYS!!!
And this has got NOTHING to do with women or "people of colour" ...
All these "identities" are just social-political instruments for some PSYCHOPATS to get and keep "POWER" ...
He must know it!!!
And so do you, ReasonTV!!!
This conversation - as good as it may be - is a WASTE OF TIME!!!
Spot on.... it's a rice cake conversation tastes bland but supposed to be good for you and in the end has no nutritional value.
" in my opinion he is one of the guys who is responsible for what's going on culturally, then he understood the bullshit he's done but he's still reluctant to admit mistakes distance himself."
A self-understanding that Shermer came to apparently only after being given the boot by Scientific American. Instead of admitting his own contributions (by his silence if nothing else) to the wokeness plague, he's trying to reposition himself as one of its victims.
@@tekharthazenyatta2310he’s no longer useful to them and if this was Stallins America they take him out back and off him, to make room for “new” progressives.
He seems like a smart guy but his argument about guns is not even remotely intelligent. He first states that there are more guns death than car related deaths. While technically true the number averages about the same over the years. Nick rightly then points out that over half and typically it's like 2/3 of gun deaths are suicide, which Michael concedes the point. Which means if you exclude suicides from the gun deaths far more people are killed in auto accidents than homicides with a gun.
If you look at injuries with a vehicle and gun the vehicle again has far more with and estimated 4.4 million per year, and those are only the ones that require medical attention. Injuries with a firearm are estimated at 73K and this is according to Everytown so you know they count them all.
Of course he then throws out the tired solution, which solves nothing.
Better background checks....means what. As he points out there are already laws in place for most cases they just need to be enforced.
He of course blows over the suicide rate like all guns control advocates do, when if they could tackle that problem meaningfully it would have a major impact on gun deaths.
He then throws out the tired old stat of X number of guns in the country, enough for every person. Well, that doesn't mean shit. The number of guns is irrelevant. What is relevant is WHO HAS THE GUNS.
He of course finishes off with the old trope of "somebody just needs to something" and finishes us with cars are safer because of things. Well here's the thing Mr. Shermer. If there could be laws passed that would hinder or prohibit people that are not allowed by law to have a firearm or somehow magically know when a person was going to use that firearm for ill intent.....almost every 2A supporter would be behind you, but all of the laws suggested only hinder or prohibit the lawful gun owner and not the criminals.
It's not about the numbers. #McNamaraFallacy
@@hrbattenfeld But it should be.
@@reddirtwalker8041 Wishful thinking and an overreliance on metrics is exactly what makes the McNamara (Quantitative) Fallacy a fallacy.
When you make it all about the numbers, you *assume* that qualitative factors don't matter or possibly don't even exist.
Counting corpses and comparing body counts is easy.
However, 160 years ago 600,000 young men died because settling the question whether it was OK to own another person or not, was more important than living for as long as possible.
Don't count lives, make lives count.
@@hrbattenfeld If you don't look at numbers then your working on emotion, which is never a good place to make hugely impact for decisions from as emotion clouds judgement.
@@reddirtwalker8041lol, in this case it's precisely counting the number of deaths that are creating the emotions. That's why the do it. Crime is up 37%!!!!! 15000 coronavirus deaths in one day! 12345 gun violence deaths in the last year!
It's not about the numbers. It doesn't matter how many people get shot. Americans don't give the government their guns. Sticking to principles cannot be expressed with numbers.
Historically you could feel relatively confident that the science in Scientific American would be correct. Over time, they have hired more non-scientists graduates of "scientific writing" programs who apparently are taught that being click-worthy is more important than being correct. I have given up writing authors who got facts wrong in stories, sending annotated lists of publications and lists of scientists with the credentials and expertise to inform their mistakes. When they did respond, they would be defensive and drop the attitude that as science writers they knew what was really true, even in areas where I am an expert. Scientific American has become CNN, desperately trying to hold on to some kind of market share, and watching their revenue and reach shrink.
"Scientific American has become CNN"
COL (Chuckled Out Loud)
this sherman clown is the one to whine... his twitter feed is filled with copypastings of every msm propaganda line in the book... his brain is fried
31:46 Matt Walsh is a “right wing troll” 🤣 That’s what we call people speaking rationally against illogical and damaging woke ideology now?
It's accurate tho. His most effective/popular content is him trolling people.
@@EclecticBuddha Shermer defends the “What is a Woman” work as legit scientific critical skeptical analysis of the “other side” of the argument. I do not see “critique / criticism” as “trolling” since trolling typically is making inflammatory and false/straw-man counter arguments… rather than objectively based and rational criticism of outrageous ideas/agendas… just like Shermer attacks conspiracy theorists arguments.
His fundraiser tô save AOC Abuella was one of his bests trollings ever. Because even If It was a mockery, the end result would bê beneficial either way tô her Abuella, só even If they Go against, It would look bad for progressives either way
What is a woman , film is genius.
@@crockmans1386
Nije, autor ne kapira "sta je zena" ...
What De Santis DID (as I understand it) was NOT to "slap them with extra taxes" but RATHER to REMOVE their status as tax preferential AND their status as not being completely under Florida law (having, to some degree their OWN police and OWN law application.) De Santos simply leveled the playing field.
Why should he have NOT taken this step when Disney chose to be a political entity at taxpayer's expense.
Sorry, there ARE limits, there IS a constitution, and they were (apparently) dancing WAY outside their original auspices.
Each and every entity who becomes too big for his her or it's breeches runs the great risk of having NEW breeches reassigned, involuntarily, if need be. Is that true or not?
I’m a Scientific American longterm subscriber and reader.
It’s really gone downhill over the last couple of decades.
I blame it on women. I was a huge SciAm reader until a woman became the editor. It had decayed a bit over the years, but it really became junk after a woman took over. Same in IT, all the problems I had during my career involved women. So glad I'm retired. I believe in women's equality, but boy some of them are just insane.
Lol don't blame women, blame the one(s) responsible. I'm guessing some women don't like what it has become either, surely u don't blame them.
This goify channel brings out the worse in men. Competing with Faux News was a bad idea.
@@kyleebrock GFY
@@arcguardian Look up the facts about USSR propaganda in the 1900s causing western ideological and cultural subversion into leftwingery, just like the Putin web troll factories aimed to extremize the american Right today.
Youri Byezmenov's interview about this in the 80s documenting well his past as an agent in India should be obligatory for everyone to watch. One of the articles he mentions in the full interview series (totally 3-4 hrs in 3 places) that was supposed to rosewash the communist Kremlin regime for the western audience was called Russia today. We know why that name then was used for the russian channel after the 2000s aiming to create the western extreme christian Right.
The whole point of such subversion is to unmount the stability of the western world and its numerous benefits to the nonwestern. Creating polarities in politics is a major part of that. This is the cause of wokeism as well as the cause of the fundamentalist Right and the Trump supporters and the conspiracy theories.
@@arcguardian He does. He's a sexist pig who still posseses the whole "a woman's place is in the kitchen" mentality. Screw him
At 46:50, talking about Caster Semenya as "a woman who needs to lower her testosterone," that's incorrect. This is a 46, XY male person, who has all the male advantages of bigger heart and lungs, more haemoglobin and oxygen in the blood, more efficient Q-angle between hips and knees because his hips aren't wider to allow for childbirth, stronger bones, and a lot of other male "bigger, stronger, faster" advantages. Lowering testosterone after puberty does very little to reduce male physical advantage over women.
And at 47.10, talking about "overlapping testosterone bell curves," wrong again. The highest normal women's T-level is about 2.4 nmol/L. The lowest normal men's T-level is about 7.0. That is not overlapping at all. Women having to compete against men is like racing poodles against greyhounds.
The Time Magazine article about the election is a very poignant example of why people have concerns. I can't even post a link without getting the comment scrubbed.
The reason we have so many problems is because you can't even have a rational discussion without your comment getting deleted. Like mine was. Censorship is the biggest problem these days. Hrghrhgrb!
Too bad , was interesting stuff with no politics. Everything woke turns to shit.
American Scientist is more like what SciAm used to be--actually intellectual and scientific.
Generally, yes. But I am seeing wokeness starting to pervade it as well. Not to mention the nonstop climate articles.
@@alienmoonstalker Ugh, I haven't actually subscribed in a few years; what a disappointment. That was a looming nightmare. ☹😡
@@alienmoonstalker the “covering climate now” journalist initiative subverts journalists worldwide by adding climate change to most articles and omitting any objective challenges to data ensuring the “average” modelling and predictions are much more extreme than reality which impacts on current and future credibility amongst those that understand flaws in data gathering and statistical analysis.
With the abortion issue the pro choice side is always arguing about the odd ball 2-4% like rape, incest and a dangerous pregnancy. It makes more sense to focus on the 96%, but who needs logic when emotional arguments produce more dopamine? The argument for abortion is so similar to the Holocaust. “Just an inferior clump of cells and so inconvenient”. We are all an inconvenient clump of cells. The difference is that we who are outside the womb have a chance to fright or run when someone wants us dead.
When the WWII liberators say the brutality at the death camps, many guards were overwhelmed and took vengeance. If they had been told in a sterile setting about the death camps their reaction would probably been more like ours, “ yeah how unfortunate”.
His column was my favorite part of that magazine for years. It's a shame politics have tainted even something that is supposed to be a scientific publication. This "woke" thing is truly insidious.
Indeed, it's insidious and dangerous. I"m a liberal who has been railing against this Leftist mind virus for years.
I cancelled my Scientific American subscription about 6 months ago because it was just obnoxiously leftist. It became practically unreadable.
It’s been propaganda for a long time. Especially on climate change
Interesting conversation. Unfortunately both these folks claim the moral high ground with a supposedly neutral tone (like our current authorities) by unconsciously (or openly) saying that whatever they say is "truth". I think everyone should think for themselves - true science (and logic) is definitely different than "the science" (which is highly political - encompassing a good portion of this conversation). Don't agree with me - but be wary of those who claim to "know" (without question) - and then push it on you (regardless of your "side"), and then claim the other side is pushing their agenda (a great way to distract from the truth).
I must say, sometimes I think that Shermer is too far over on the side of the Progressives.
He doesn't claim to know the truth. He said we should push towards knowing the truth.
@@drstrangelove09 this sherman clown is the one to whine... his twitter feed is filled with copypastings of every msm propaganda line in the book... his brain is fried
@@myselftik A very PC response. I say its male and female unless you can demonstrate some kind of physical blend and not just some mental illness.
Nonsense. We all have opinions. Some opinions just matter more, because they are borne out of better ideas and are evidence based. And Shermer does a much better job at thinking critically about important issues than most people. He's not always the best informed about every detail of that which he discusses, but he would say as much. What matters is his ability to reason is superior to most people. And I know you're going to disagree with me, in part, because you believe that you are better at reasoning and smarter than most people. That's a problem for MOST people, in fact. So, you have plenty of company.
This guy is a walking contradiction.
"I believe in knowing all the facts and making informed decisions of both sides without unconscious bias or cognitive dissonance"
"Now I'm going to recite incredibly inaccurate information about what happened to Disney and about Ron DeSantis"
"I'm for personal responsibility of the individual"
:30 seconds later:
"I've always been strongly pro-choice"
Yup, he fully lost me on the abortion thing when he said it was just evangelicals and that he weighs it as a compromise. I'm not religious and I still think it's ethically wrong. This guy is an inconsistent, out of touch asshole. Lots of comments on here also point out other issues. I feel like his understanding of politics is that he doesn't like the Republican party of George Bush and he doesn't like Democrats as they are today.
Ever stop to think that a woman engaging in an abortion is indeed an act of personal responsibility? The people who are not are your SCOTUS justices and Republican politicians who take down Roe and then walk away from the situation, not even recognizing the gigantic foster care, Medicaid, food stamp, welfare, and unwanted children situation they just exacerbated. They just run off to the country club or evangelical church and pat themselves on the back for the great moral action they accomplished.
I dont agree that being 'non-binary or whatever' isnt an impediment.
If Im looking to hire and I see someone has blue hair and announces their pronouns on their resume it's going straight in the bin.
I want someone who is going to show up for work and do their job instead of spending 3/4 of their workweek crying in H.R's office because someone misgendered them
Today’s Scientific American isn’t.
Desantis didn't raise taxes on Disney. He removed privileges that Disney had for reduced taxes. Not the same thing.
In the past I read Scientific America ... now it's unreadable ... all woke politics and not science
22:10 He stepped on his own “classical Liberalism” when he chuckled into saying “the vaccines work” and people should follow Science. Dude, you need to catch up with reality.
One of the reasons we don't live in Somalia is because we are allowed guns . Nobody is saying EVERYBODY has to have a gun ... Come on
Interestingly enough, a 1992 UN embargo prohibits importation of firearms except for security forces and the Somali government doesn't license civilian gun shops. Effectively there is a ban on guns except for security personnel.
When the woke is attacking you, the thing to do is counter attack, not rely on the "old conservative" response.
Yeah, I found that to be odd given how much he was talking about consistency and whatnot. Making fun of conservatives for "thinking gay marriage would lead to duck marriage" while we live in a world where feelings matter so much more than objective definitions and standards that we have pedophile apologists, child gender transitions, math is racist and men can be women just by throwing on a dress. It's almost as if what we allow individuals to do relies on logic than can translate to other parts of society ... but no, no, that's just collectivist thinking 🤔
I hadn't bought it for 20 years; bought it a couple of years ago at the airport and was truly shocked at how awful it was, completely unrecognisable. Likewise, the UK equivalent magazine, same woke nonsense. As a woman, I object!!
Comparing guns to cars.. one major difference: driving is a privilege. Owning a gun for self preservation is a God given right!
FYI, an imaginary friend is not a good premise for argument.
And all the regulations on cars only apply on public (government-owned) roads. Treating guns like cars would be a significant deregulation of guns: no restrictions on who can buy what (for use on one's own property), a shall-issue license that most people can get and is good in all 50 states to use in public.
It's funny....I've been reading the magazine occasionally looking for the good articles and buying at the newsstand. Ive been thinking a lot of this to myself and it's good to see others have noticed the same.
As a first time viewer and a Christian I really enjoyed this interview. What an excellent opportunity to hear Michael Shermer’s views and thought processes. I agree completely with Michael about principles. I’m regularly finding just how self-unaware people are; they can’t see how hypocritical and inconsistent their views are being applied. If only we were prepared to listen to each other, especially when holding opposing views.
"they can’t see how hypocritical and inconsistent their views are being applied."
This is true of Michael Shermer but you'd have to have followed his work 20 years ago to see that this leopard has only outwardly changed his spots. When did he actually become skeptical? He isn't; only skeptical of certain things and that was his income stream. Embrace other things that he ought to have been skeptical of, but that too is related to income stream.
@@thomasmaughan4798 Understood. Obviously we’re all biased but atheists do have a particularly strong bias against God, Christianity and religion in general, which heavily censors open and honest discussion.
I enjoy listening to Shermer when he bases his reasoning on science and facts, but his gross stereotypes make me question his judgement. Such as " conservatives care about the lives of babies until after they are born" and gun "nutters" want everyone to have a gun. No and no.
If the gun fits, maybe you should just wear it.
sometimes and sometimes
The “Gun show loophole” doesn’t exist!……If you’re going to argue restricting a constitutional right know your facts.
This guy lost a lot of credibility with me when he said the covid shots work. I don't know when this was recorded, but is released after even the CDC said there's no difference in protocol between people having had the shots or not.
That's where he Lost and so many others. What the Hell, Dr.Toni Elf Faucet got it Twice now, Boe Jiden got it Twice or More. Time for Booster #53 cause 2 is Not Enough for Thee . Dam ,All have been Mind-ucked in the Socalled Sceptics minds Now Septic Community.🤤💩
UA-cam would probably have censored the interview had he told the truth about the present efficacy of covid vaccinations. The likelihood of getting covid now is pretty much independent of whether you're vaccinated or how many boosters you've gotten (with some evidence suggesting that multiple booster shots make you more susceptible). It is therefore now a personal decision. One cannot claim any longer that you're obliged to get vaccinated to prevent spreading covid to others. In the face of this hard truth, I now hear vax fanatics argue that people should be forced to get vaccinated because they'll be more of a burden on hospitals and contribute to rising health care costs if they don't. Of course, they'd never say that overweight people who refuse to lose weight should be fired for the same reason.
@@tekharthazenyatta2310
It's always been a personal decision, it's just that for some, there were consequences.
I don't have "health care'", or what I call medical care insurance. To me health care is what I do to avoid needing medical care. I haven't been to a doctor in coming up on ten years. It's not that I wouldn't if I really had to, but only for a serious injury. I'm in control of my internal state. I just can't bring myself to pay for something I don't use, so that I can pay for people who refuse to take care of themselves. I know there are people who really care, but the system is totally corrupt. The food industry pushes toxic crap to maximize profits causing people to spend billions supporting the medical and pharmaceutical industries.
Wow, are there any vacancies on the Fantasy Island where you''re living?
All quite predictable: those who build their identity around being rationalist "debunkers" end up with some of the most glaring blindspots.
Depends on the subject. Rationalism is always the best option, but everyone human has a bias with so few exceptions that we can count neutral rationalists who are honest enough in supporting science 100 percent as maybe 1 out of a million people.
In many ways Shermer is a mild parrot for the extreme left (as in pro gun control, underestimating that in many nations extreme growth in violence is regardless of gun laws. This since these have had largely stricter laws than many states in the US, like Mexico and Sweden.
A problem does not go away with a decision in politics.
You have to find the roots of the problem.
One of them is a failed economy (keynesian economics) causing too much social unrest. Another cause is the large *production* of guns...
He also underestimates that if a product like narcotic drugs or weapons have a big market, there will always be an illegal market giving large income to the gangster syndicates, in turn turning society into Mexico.
Which has massive gun violence because of failed bans on guns and drugs.
He never read about how the liqueur ban failed in the US and therefore was removed. The ban built up the Chicago mafia which was profiting large on booze bans, thus crime rose as these groups fought each others+ the rise in corruption. The drug ban in NY supported by Democrat and Republican parties caused the massive corruption in the police there in the 70s and early 80s.
Here the Libertarian party is correct except that some of their arguments too much ofc build on anarcho-liberty nonsense).
Shermer's view in the question of the age of human culture against Carlson and Schoch sounds like the christian theology (as in denying the evidence of the Younger dryas impact,and in denying the possibility and partial evidence for ancient human societies.
The biggest fear of an old world is the fear of the christian Right ; the fear that a god didn't wave a magical wand 8000 years ago).
(a third cause regarding the cause of the huge rise of violence in Sweden in some districts is open borders for drug and weapon smuggling via the Schengen and EU , + that mass immigration of *males* from much less developed nations obviously increase the probability for crimes.
In all statistics in all nations having statistics , a large percentage of prisoners are men..
That is not bad luck or secret conspiracy from women against men... (!)
That is the cause of which culture you are from + your natural sex + failed drug bans leading to increased recruitment of young men into gangster groups flashing easy big money made)
We can't compare drugs and weapons to motorcycle helmets 😅 Where is the dark criminal market for road systems where everyone are not using motorcycle helmets?
Will never be there.
Of course a ban on riding without a helmet will work.
Of course a ban on drugs and weapons will never work IF the society already has a big market for those.
Learn about the failure of the US liqueur ban.
Driving on the designated side of the road isn't a reduction in liberty. Individuals do cooperate, but they do so voluntarily and under clear agreement (like a contract). For example, it is fine for someone to create a private road and set the rule to drive on the other side of the road. People are free so long as their actions don't cause aggression on another, and cooperation isn't aggression, isn't how all contracts and voluntary society operate.
Yes it is a reduction in liberty, it's just a reduction that is compensated for by a larger increase in liberty elsewhere (i.e. efficient roads and less accidents).
So... what are you going to do when someone drives on the wrong side of your private road?
Hard-core libertarians are an inherent contradiction. They get mad when any sort of rule is imposed on anything, yep they don't believe that the world should be legit anarchy. You have to have some rules in a society. You can't have zero rules or nothing functions. It's about where that line in the sand is.
“Most of us really should get vaccinated, they work.”
You’re fired.
no discussion of the huge number of people made SICK by these shots.. AND the change of the definition of VACCINE…. THESE SHOTS ARE NOT VACCINES! This is so obvious but WOKE fake news & truth propagandists seem to BLOCK information about these facts…. EVEN THESE TWO “open minded scientific” people…. Come on Man… I mean, Person!
The response to this post is not visible.
@@itsallalie2 I wrote nothing that indicated what kind of thing, and to what degree, I am aware of.
Thank you for the effort, though.
@@itsallalie2 I see. Kind of you to explain further. No explanation was necessary, and nothing (as I see it) in my post indicated that it was. It seemed very presumptuous on your part. Never mind. Text-based communication very often stifles the kind of understanding that is often understood without words (from context and body language etc), and leads to these misunderstands. In addition to which, many people, including myself, are often "on guard" when in other (ideal) circumstances, they would not be.
It may further aid understanding, though I usually refrain from saying so, that I am not remotely inclined to what is now called (though that is not the same as I grew up understanding it to be) "the left."
I will not venture as to whether the (currently understood) "right" or its equivalent "left" are more guilty of propaganda, but I can say (without fear of knowing myself to be a liar) that each of the two contains its fair share of lies.
In fact, I am almost entirely certain "the left" and "the right", as they are nowadays portrayed, are overly simplistic constructs used by the few who truly rule over the many who unknowingly obey, and should be abandoned and called-out as muddying the waters.
I am inclined to believe that you will not find my last comment too disagreeable.
Ironic, in my opinion, considering Michael Shermer was himself pre-Woke, or Woke Version 1.0 before "woke" was a thing. He is not even skeptical of his own skepticism.
23:43 Abortion for libertarians… once you realize fetus/baby is NOT mother’s body (ie SCIENTIFIC not RELIGIOUS argument) then “my body my choice” does not apply.
19:05 Defines libertarianism on its merit of being “consistent in principles across issues”. Human rights are innate OR granted by the state??? 🧐🤨
No one’s saying the baby’s cells are her cells. That’s not what “ My body, my choice” means.
29:20 "On the consistency issue..." There's nothing inconsistent there. Actual life and quality of life are two very different things. And I'm not a pro-lifer.
I agree, introducing distinctions are an important way to keep our principles reasonably consistent. However, I believe that our moral intuitions, being subjective, are different from one another, and so you might not convince a pro-lifer that quality of life really matters when dealing with abortion.
The British magazine New Scientist explicitly announced its Wokeness too.... Well, perhaps not its Wokeness - but that it would take explicit political positions on various issues and subjects (which it was doing anyway). That is, there were various New Scientist articles saying that it's a good thing that it has explicitly taken political positions (all of a certain kind, of course) on various issues. ("Tell it like it is. If science becomes politics, then so be it. We will only get one chance at the experiment of dealing with this.")
Another once respectable science mag lost to the feminization of science - take a look at who their key editors are nowadays. "Science" isn't a systematic method to help discover the truth or the workings of things, for these new woke female status-seeking types it's a tool that can be used when it's useful for an agenda and hidden when it's not.
That reminds me of how there's this weird new paradigm in journalism where they believe that it's morally irresponsible to not try to be biased and influence the viewer. It's so arrogant I can't handle it. These people feel that they were able to take all of the information and forms a "correct" position but they don't feel the public would be able to do the same thing.
This guys is good in some places but does not acknowledge his own biases very well
He has many.
This is rampant nowadays. Just look at the Triggernometry interview with Sam Harris.
What biases are those?
Wired as well. Ruined the magazine.
Shermer was fine with wokeness until he got cancelled for allegations of sexual harrassment.
Which if I recall correctly was him offering a third glass of wine to his date and asking her up to his hotel room after dinner 😱😱🤯🙄
her claims go a bit farther than sexual harassment. I'm just hearing about these allegations now. After a quick search, he's accused of some serious stuff. I don't know if it's true.
Ok - that's pretty interesting.
As a libertarian leftie, I actually find myself agreeing with Michael Shermer on many points here. My libertarian philosophy is that the government has NO role in creating dictates for _your own_ safety, only in regards to the safety of others. In other words, it only has the right to interfere when your behavior put others' rights (to life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, and so on) in jeopardy. This applies to same-sex marriage and intimacy, contraception (which I cannot believe is still a debate at this late date), interracial marriage, gambling, prostitution, and drug use, just to name a few. There can be no doubt that such things as seatbelt laws, helmet requirements, and even speed limits in certain situations would have to be immediately struck down if this principle was employed consistently. When the government has decided it wants to legislate to protect you from _yourself,_ you know it has overstepped its authority.
P.S. As for abortion, the my answer is simple: an embryo/fetus that cannot experience pain (i.e. before 18 weeks gestation) is not a moral patient, and therefore is not a "person" under the law and has no rights. Also, none of the above applies to minors (i.e. children), as they do not possess their full rational faculties and cannot give consent.
I agree with everything you said
I actually agree with everything you said. However, morally, how do you frame the fact that well, that embryo, can't experience pain now but will next week?
The libertarian argument is fine as a theory from which to begin, but it does not handle well the reality of 'common good' .. e.g. if your so called private behavior pushes up my insurance premium or health care costs .. & we don't have laws or police, ous ie ok for me to kill you for that imposition on me, or assault you, or would defamation be my limit? Common good thinking is as old as humanity, this individual as God stuff is very very new. Failure to deliver common good will destroy individuals & individual freedom.
The ontological essence of a zygote/embryo/fetus (a rose by any other name is a rose) is a “human being”. Its sensation of pain has no bearing on that essence.
Regrettably, there isn't much libertarian remaining in Dr. Shermer.
Not a whole lot of classic liberal either
In spite of any criticism that I may have brought forward here I have to give Mr. Shermer props for his honesty and willingness to describe the situation now
You're hooking me on these podcasts! Thank you. Reasonable discussions and disagreements! Imagine! Giving up my trust in Scientific American is painful, but necessary. Giving up trust in so many groups, people and information sources is epidemic and frightening for our country. Your podcast is reassuring, as I believe I will find Michael Shermer's, too. Thank you!
I will say, around 2019, the magazine became blatantly political, even outright endorsing a candidate for the first time ever (Biden of course). That was when I decided not to renew. They were trending toward woke idiotism even before that, but that was the last straw. I had a couple of years worth of issues pre-paid, and I'm lazy, so didn't cancel, but it has gotten even worse since. Are they even still doing science? What a shame to watch it wither away into Marxist wokism stupidity instead of science
Same here, endorsing Biden was the last straw for me, I didn't renew. I didn't send the a letter to the editor chastisement either, what would be the use?
The reason for endorsing Biden was because they wanted the anti-science, climate science denying, science-politicizing Trump out of office.
You sound blatantly political, yourself. For a science magazine to endorse a candidate is an unusual step, but for a man so anti-science as Trump, it is the only principled thing to do, in a situation so grave. We don't need a sleazy clown in the White House who thinks that global warming is a hoax, or that covid should be treated by spraying disinfectant in the lungs, or that the Colonial army took over airports.
I carried on an aproximately 70 plus yr old family subscription until 5 yrs or so ago--for me the final straw was the climate change religion.
(still get solicitations for renewal)
@@Mrbfgray The climate change science, you mean. Religion is what treats Donald ("climate change is a hoax") Trump, the perpetual liar, as their God-sent messiah.
One has to wonder why conservative cranks ever bothered to read anything science-oriented, in the first place.
" Self Elimination" is the ultimate act of body autonomy. "My body; my choice."
disney wasnt taxed. their tax break was taken away
agree！i am a woman scientist of color… when i experienced racism against my race，so many people so eagerly offended on my behalf… but for so many years，i was silenced/oppressed for my scientific disagreement，not one word of rebuttal….just administrative punishment…no one said a word… i was hopping those professional experts promoting inclusion can advocate a small scale internal seminar within my institution，only to find myself excluded by inclusion experts… as a woman scientist of color，independent thinking is not an allowed identity，despite “who you are matters” -- that only include my pigments and female parts…
Prettending that I should care about female sports is the most woke nonsense that one could do.
Go Woke, Go Broke. It's true.
I subscribed to SciAM since 1966. The sharp left turn (and turn to political stands) happened when John Rennie became editor in 1994. Perhaps the slide in advertising pages began around the same time.
I remember detecting that change in the 90's. Even the graphic design went to shit.
I had the Vaccine as a matter of personal risk assessment, but when it became apparent that the vaccines didn't stop infection and transmission of Covid19 the argument for mandates evaporated. From a UK perspective it's weird how politically polarising this issue was in the US. Castor Semenya the South African runner has the 46XY DSD so although i sympathise with "her" problem, the assertion that she was born a biological female but has raised testosterone levels is inaccurate, this is an inter sex condition of incomplete foetal development of a male child.
It's sad that Scientific American has basically destroyed itself, I still have my large collection of the magazine which I love every issue, I have issues dating back from when my father was alive over thirty years ago, and when he passed away, I started collecting, but in recent years that has come to an end, and today I don't even both looking at it on the news stand anymore.
You just perfectly described my relationship with National Geographic. I subscribed for over 40 years (since 1980) and inherited my dad's collection back to the early '60s when he died, but I let my subscription lapse last year for the same reason.
I cancelled Sci Am after reading for 30 y. They wouldn't tolerate Phillip Morrison if he was alive today either. It is sad what happened.
Shermer stating the vaccines work? At what level and in what capacity? They were originally heralded by the manufacturers and the relevant government health bodies as preventing one from getting sick and thusly making the vaccinated unable to spread the virus. Neither which has proven true. You cannot keep changing the extent and quality of their efficacy as subsequent pronouncements of their merits also not obtaining over time and continue to say they work. Talking about scientific integrity Michael, where’s your’s?
They are not vaccines in any sense of what _anyone_ thought of as a 'vaccine' until 5 minutes ago. Much like other gems over the last couple of years like 'woman', 'recession', 'racist', 'sexual preference'...
I'm 15 minutes in and I don't know anything new except this guy changed his description of himself because the language around him changed. I could write his articles for him because all I have to do is stick my finger in the air with one hand and put a pen or keyboard in the other!
Shermer took the easy way out on his abortion stance, referring to a 3 month old fetus versus a woman's right. Instead, he should have considered a 9 month old fetus versus a woman's right. Who gets the nod there? If a woman goes into full-term labor but then says "Stop, I want an abortion." do we allow that? If we do are we really going to be that barbaric as a community, and if not, then where is the line to be drawn? But Shermer copped out rather than having a serious discussion.
As a child, I enjoyed science projects featured in Scientific American but like National Geographic, they embraced the leftist faith with the fervor of Lysenko.
My only problem with Shermer is he doesn’t apply his own (ordinarily well thought out) brand of skepticism with respect to gun control.
But empirically it works. Whatever you think about its implications on freedom, which I think should matter, it's an objective fact that countries with the harshest gun laws see the least amounts of gun violence. We're talking single digits over decades.
@@Xpistos510 You almost could not be more incorrect. Even with all of the countries in the world with strict gun control and outright prohibition, gun control has never been proven to reduce murder or violent crime rates.
ua-cam.com/video/PgiQ-LmJGMY/v-deo.html
@@Xpistos510 Shhhh. Don't disturb the chants of "woke is bad, woke is bad" with your facts. Don't you know gun manufacturers have guns to sell?!?
"he doesn’t apply his own brand of skepticism..." to himself.
Sorry Michael, but Chess is exactly the same as men's tennis. The very best women cannot compete with the top 100 men. Reality.
21:50 and 22:44 “Maybe covid19 is not that case” but “vaccine mandates are right of the state”!?!? 🤦♂️😳 No, that is inconsistent… every individual has the right to their body and liberty. Everyone has the right to vaccinate themselves, but not others. (Just like picking your nose 👃)
Need to listen to Brett Weinstein on all of the requirements for possible state mandate on vaccines.. basically impossible (no conflicts of interest, safe, effective, great risk of death)
I do have not seen ANY libertarian argument “against vaccines / science”. There is none, another false argument trying to taint libertarianism.
Can you be libertarian and against abortion? I guess because the unborn have no voice, they don't get a choice. I choose to be a voice for the unborn. When a woman becomes pregnant, she assumes responsibility for the future human inside her, even if it wasn't her intention.
Guys like him opened the door to wokeness by helping tear down traditions 20 years ago. Time to sleep in the bed you helped make.
People like him either don't see that or will not accept responsibility though.
Gender critical and second wave feminists aren’t much better than the woke feminists. A few years ago JK Rowling and Graham Lineham were trying to cancel comedians like the rest of them.
Next do The Economist magazine…
I was in high school in the late 60's. During my freshman year I had an hour in study hall every day. My mom made me do 2 hours of homework every night so I didn't need to do that in study hall and I would read Scientific American and Science magazine. They were great. I learned a lot about science and wound up with a full scholarship to college. About 20 years ago I was at a library and picked up a copy of SA. Oh my GOD! They should change there name to Superstitious American.
29:28 A failure to realize that being against murder does not, even imply, you must be in favor of social welfare state. That's an absurd statement by Shermer to even entertain as indicative of some truth.
The editorial sections of Nature and Science are increasingly woke. I pretty much skip it these days and go straight to the articles.