The more you discover about the host’s behavior in his personal life the more sense it that he spends so much time trying to get everyone’s attention on the actions of so many other people.

I’ve followed Shermer for almost two decades, and his work has been invaluable We live in an increasingly irrational and anti-reason world. What we need now, more than ever, are tempered voices for enlightenment and anti-superstition.

Bye.

Since when did shermer start dumping for jordan paterson ?? anyway unfollowing now -peace

Love the podcast it’s a great way to hear new ideas , the current interview with the Ted talk curator is great. Just a little info Charity navigator is a good website to find out all the details about the financial part of most nonprofit organizations and there’s also give.org. Thought it could be helpful.

Loved the show with Stephen Myers! Such a great discussion on intelligent design!!!

Always on the lookout for good, rigorous skeptic content. Unfortunately, my first episode of this show had the guest talking about "woke madness" without defining "woke," (we all know what it means if we're in the club, right?) and Shermer laughing about being accused of transphobia for believing that "a man can't become a woman." So tired of red-pilled scholars whining about people having issues with their biases and bigotry. There's probably some good content in there, but I don't have time to go fishing for it.

Dude tries but ultimately he’s painfully out of touch. Likes to offer up “funny stories” at inopportune moments, and regularly displays his lack of knowledge and tact (dispute his genuine best efforts) surrounding many social issues. Some good guests, but you’d be better served finding those guests elsewhere, with other, more qualified hosts.

I really enjoy the podcast and the wide range of topics it covers but Shermer doesn’t push back on many of his guests like he should.

Shermer says, “As scientists, we have to be open-minded.” What a joke! Shermer is neither a scientist nor open-minded. He has degrees in psychology and science history. He doesn’t do scientific research (at least not professionally) at all. He devotes his life to debunking anything he doesn’t understand and agree with. His arguments are chock full of dogma and false logic. There’s no middle ground for him. He was a hardcore evangelical Christian during his youth, and then became a hardcore atheist and skeptic. There’s nothing open-minded about him. His has been a lifetime of telling people what they *should* and *shouldn’t* believe, which always turns out to be what *he* believes. People like that have no business deriding others, yet that’s what Shermer is all about. If you’re looking for reason, go elsewhere.

It is unfortunate. The guests Mr Shermer has on his podcast are some of the most interesting writers and thinkers in America, but he seems to mostly invite Liberal or Left Wing quests and rarely challenge any of their beliefs with even a modicum of “skepticism”. Republicans or Conservatives are repeatedly stereotyped a bigoted and radical. On the rare occasion he does invite a Conservative guest, Mr Shermer amazingly remembers the title of his magazine and challenges their opinions, which honestly opens up some very interesting discussions. If only he would challenge Liberals in the same way. Perhaps the discussion may actually change a few minds.

Sherm murmurs.

As smart as he is Shermer is an egotistical know-it-all, and remains a great man only in his own mind. Through the years I have found him to be lackluster and more of a wannabe with regard to leading figures of science education and critical thinking.

I’m sorry the first episode I listened to was with Christopher Rufo. The book he should have written would have been about the dangerous cultural shifts on both sides of the political spectrum.

I appreciate most of your perspectives, thanks for the great content. However, your bias surrounding non human intelligence made it difficult to conclude you’re being rational. I think you could contribute a lot more to the conversation if you acknowledged that we don’t know what we don’t know.

While I generally enjoy the discussion, I sense a strong bias towards Africana Studies and an impoverished understanding of Dr. Martin Luther King's writings and views. I suggest bringing on established scholars of critical race theory, Intersectionality, and especially Africana scholars such as Molefi Kete Asante and Maulana Karenga to see how your seemingly uncritical and bias position on Egypt and interpretation of Dr. Martin Luther King holds up. It's important to note that Egypt is in Africa and Ancient (not modern Arab-dominated) Egypt and Nubia were classical civilizations of Africa, similar to how Greece and Rome were classical civilizations of Europe. The Ancient Egyptians were of African descent, and while it's true that modern racialization of Egyptians is inaccurate, there is evidence of diversity in skin tones during the Ancient period due to geography and genetics that certain point towards many of them having brown and dark skin due to proximity, location, and migration patterns from the interior of a continent. And this would also imply that the culture certainly didn’t come from the outside first, because of the barriers created by the desert and I’m not just stating this just read the literature as they wrote it it describes when they came into contact with outside invaders, and when they extended their trading borders beyond the shores of Africa. And yes, I’m aware it wasn’t caught Africa that time in fact, it wasn’t even called Egypt but I’ll leave that up to you to find out what they actually called them selves according to their own words. I encourage you to research this topic on your own and read all the conversations instead of cherry-picking information that aligns with your Western sensibilities. Lastly, I don't understnd your contentious relationship with Deepak Chopra and others like him just because his insights don’t work for you, but you have to admit he’s done a lot of good for a lot of people, and just because you don’t agree with his worldview, you don’t need to continue to assassinate his character and undermine him with other guest on your podcast. This seems beneath you, like I stated earlier, I enjoy most of your podcast, but when you get to Dr. King, African-American scholars, making undermining statements and going against your own practice of being a a fair scholar, I wonder what is it really that bothers you about African-Americans asserting their self determination and agency, Asians, such as Deepak Chopra Deepak, Chopra and others asserting their worldview and perspectives on how to navigate this world and lastly, why are you keep pulling up that same line that Martin Luther King said about content of character, without putting it within the context of that whole speech and which he did statedthat the US has issued a blank check where regards African-Americans among other criticisms he has of the ruling class? This certainly sounds like confirmation bias to me. Anyway,, I look forward to future podcast where you actually engage people outside of your echo chamber, and stop with the obvious leading questions, and strawman construction when your guest ideas doesn't align with your sometimes ethnocentric and (I dare say it) unconsciously racist perspective.

Always interesting. Good guests. Enjoy the skepticism and unique viewpoints.

Michael Schermer. A real wet blanket, taking mystery, wonder, faith, and the curiosity of existence out of life one podcast at a time.

’ve been a Michael Shermer fan for years, a Skeptic subscriber, and more recently a podcast listener. But…these past couple of years I’ve noticed him *not* challenging unsubstantiated statements made by guests, most notably those leaning conservative. I thought, maybe he’s just being polite. Not exactly demonstrating critical thinking, but it’s his podcast, maybe that isn’t the point? Now, though, I hear him parodying things said by the *far left* noisemakers and presenting them as if they represent the core beliefs of *all* liberals. That’s not cool. (Presenting far right noisemakers as representing all conservatives: equally not cool.) This is *not* the critical thinking approach to “news” in the media that drew me to the Skeptics world in the first place. But *I* still subscribe to critical thinking, which means listening to both sides, so I’ve continued to listen to Shermer’s guests. I rarely agree with everything they say - sometimes with nothing they say - but you can’t evaluate what you don’t hear. Today, though, Shermer made one more misleading, bordering on non-factual statement, and I just couldn’t stay quiet any more. It wasn’t a terribly important fact, just the proverbial straw. He said, “In California here, we have to have all electric cars by 2030. No more gas-powered cars. If you want to drive an old muscle car like a Camaro or a Mustang with the big (makes rumble noise), you have to go to a track.” Well, I’ve heard exactly this point being made on Fox “News”. Is that where you’re getting your “facts” now, Shermer? Because the *actual* facts - because Facts Matter - are these: 1) Beginning in 2035 (not 2030), no more **new** gas-powered cars can be sold in California. 2) You can still drive your muscle car as you always have, on public roads. 3) You can even *buy* a used muscle car, and drive it on public roads. Just not a *new* one. 4) If your vehicle doesn’t pass its smog test, then you can’t drive it on public roads…but that’s true *now* and has nothing to do with the switch to electric cars. That’s been the law for decades. But Shermer’s comment presented a very different message, one that seemed deliberately deceptive. Not necessarily by Shermer, but definitely by whatever media he got that message from. (Mr. Shermer, if this statement was entirely yours, then shame on you.) There have been many other such mis-statements that rang familiar from Fox messages, but this is one where I had reason to *know* the truth. I am very saddened today to have my perception that Shermer is no longer practicing critical thinking and objective evaluation proven true. My heart is broken.

I enjoy Shermer’s even-keeled approach to interviewing and the fact that he legitimately engages with people from a wide variety of different political and ideological perspectives, trying to focus on nuanced and science-based perspectives. Even when he clearly disagrees he keeps the conversation civil and productive, while still pushing back and questioning in the spirit of open dialogue. I always find something interesting to listen to here.

Shermer doesn’t allow the culture warriors or pseudo intellectuals in our midst steer him off the course of reason (which appears to be his North Star). Well done sir.

Not a good show

I’m a big fan but so disappointed that you missed the conspiracy of the conspiracy of the Jan 6. You’re too smart for that. They broke in out of their outcry from their frustration and anger (mostly peaceful). It’s not excusable but it was a million miles from a ‘takeover’. There was not a person at that rally that didn’t have an arsenal of weapons at home, as legal gun owners. However, no guns were involved. The conspiracy here is that it was a conspiracy. That’s the rational conclusion.

Been introduced to so many great books through this podcast. Love Shermer’s little nerd chuckle.

Insightful, inspiring and informative, Dr Shermer’s podcast has no equal. Love all the episodes, except the one with Neil De Grasse Tyson, Dr Tyson should have been a stand-up comedian, his diatribe on regressive sex gender is very surprising coming from him, I’m still in awe that one of the smartest Scientists around the block can be so obtuse on certain topics. Erasmus “In praise of Folly comes to mind while listening to NDT on this particular episode. Dr Shermer, thank you for lighting up the candle of knowledge in this superstitious and credulous world, your show is highly appreciated and recommended.

Wow I feel so sad listening to dG Tyson discuss the sex binary. Such a great scientific mind and yet he doesn’t seem to understand the difference between primary and secondary sex characteristics. He deems it “regressive” to acknowledge the biological reality of the sex binary, why? Why is it regressive to categorize this fundamental aspect of our observable reality? Why is it regressive to admit that observable differences exist between the two sexes? He used incoherent logic to skirt around Shermer’s pushback related to very common sense issues like protecting women's sport. My jaw dropped to the floor the more Tyson seemed to detach from material reality. I still can’t believe such pseudoscience was pouring out of such a respected scientist! Shermer navigated as well as one could through this hot mess of an interview.

Good luck trying to get a word in edgewise.

You can tell Michael does a lot of research and actually reads his guest books. I often use this podcast as my own book of the month club.

Helen Joyce makes some good points - but I’m afraid they are mixed up with poor research, often seemingly none. She presents opinion as fact, which breaks any credibility she may have started off with. Connections are made with leaps and bounds without sighting evidence. I’d expect much more from Shermer who seemed rather mushy in this discussion. Can it be that he agreed with her every point, even the ones she pulled out of her biases and put together with little logic? Just because trans men may not belong in women’s sports doesn't mean they are presenting as trans just so they can get in women’s restrooms for the sake of scaring women. I agree this stuff is tricky but let’s recognize it as such and go from there. Joyce simply wants it black and white, dusted and done. This approach will lead to no good.

Terrific podcast with Helen Joyce. She is very fair, thoughtful and she had fascinating insightful regarding transgenderism.

If you’re a long time listener, you notice he repeats a lot of stories/anecdotes, but I suppose that comes with age. Every so often I hear some talking head talk dismissively of Shermer, which I never understand. He’s smart, he’s careful and thoughtful in his responses, and he’s very respectful even when he disagrees.

He makes it so awkwardly difficult for his guests to speak about anything, his questions go all over the place.

Thanks so much Michael for this great interview with Richard Dawkins. Listening to the two of you, I could feel my blood pressure going down because of the dulcet tones of calm reason. Gracias mi amigo.

Shermer is truly wonderful. He is incredibly curious and his discussions with interesting guests are truly a joy to hear.

Good Podcast good guests. Recent one with Oliver Stone- was interesting too could have been longer. Excellent to hear Batya too. She’s absolutely correct about the Media. They’re untrustworthy and unreliable and must be completely rebuilt. She is such a welcome voice of reason- and I’m no Lefty! Appreciate the job you do.

Listen & judge for yourself.

Oh no!! The Kugler interview cut off right at the end when he was giving the answers to what he would do regarding the Russian/Ukraine situation!!! Ahhh I wanted to hear it to end. Otherwise I love this show :)

Ol Sherm is a great public intellectual who dismisses the boneheaded conspiracies. He is a well reasoned atheist and he really cranks out the content. My only gripe is that he often fails to ask a question. He makes a statement and his guest reacts or affirms what he said. He’s actually getting better of late on that. If you are a conspiracy believing religious moron, you should listen to this show, but you will not listen.

Content, guests, and nice video on YouTube too

Every episode I have tried , he makes it sound like if you believe in God you are uneducated and a “right wing” nut. Oh and also if you believe in God you voted for trump. It’s so one sided and short sighted. There are conspiracy theories on the left too Michael. This show is not worth your time.

Great interview show with an honest searching for knowledge.  No straw man take downs of the other side here.  Michael tries to get to the truth the best he can.

I was heartened by the early episodes that featured scientists talking about science. These latter episodes seem to be mostly the opinions of liberal apologists. Really didn’t think Shermer was such a schill for the left.

What a modern day academic nightmare. Thank God she has tenured. So glad I heard this story, demoralizing as it was

I absolutely love this show. The topics, the guests and the way Micheal Shermer navigates such sticky issues with focus and clarity. I’ve wanted to write a review for a long time commending the show for tackling difficult topics but the episode with Elizabeth Weiss is particularly disturbing. I hope many people listen and get this perspective on how damaging this trend is to science. Thanks again for the quality content.

After years of listening, here is my conclusion: I f$@?!ng love this show. Skeptic Society is a public saint, providing rational clarity and consumer protection for almost 30 years. Thanks to Shermer and his supporting team for your dedication and efforts. We’re all smarter by plugging y’all in. Cheers.

I come to this podcast not for what I want to hear, but for what I need to hear.

I usually tune in to hear MS’s perspective. He disparages ideas as conspiracy theories without any depth or steel-maning. Too much chuckling of things he doesn’t research. He should dismantle these “theories” more carefully to avoid the indictment that he’s a shill for the establishment. Intelligent atheist who lacks conversational courage. His diatribe is not cautious but is longwinded blather in an age that requires concise reduction. This podcast delves out heaping portions of hot air and wine soaked pleasantries from comfortable academics.

Shermer was utterly spineless in this interview, bending like kelp, offering no pushback against a chillingly avaricious philosophy. Arron Brook gave me the creeps.

I listened to the interview with Brian Klaas and it was a mutual-apologist party. Klass, because he talked to the idiot responsible for the first great US mistakes in Iraq while they were ski-lift buddies, and concluded, “what else could the guy do?” Shermer, because he elevated, “everyone was doing it” as a fundamental rationale for bad behavior in cycling. In a discussion of what leads to authoritarianism, their discussion was shallow, self-centered (“when _I_ did [plug study, article, book]) and unhelpful. Why didn’t they examine the research on those who did _not_ go along with being bullied into psychopathic behavior? Aren’t their characteristics the hope for decommissioning authoritarian governments?

This is a very enjoyable, educational and important podcast. It tackles important topics and helps the listener think through things in a rational way. This helps the listener to improve their ability to understand the world around them and even their own mind. Thank you Michael, please keep them coming!