My Upcoming Interview with Michael Shermer, Heavens on Earth
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
I really don't know how you would challenge that guy. He's very slick and polished in his capacity to subsume anything spiritual,transpersonal or parapsychological into the materialist paradigm. He's very adept at befriending his interlocutors and possibly sincere yet there is something about him that is unmovable – reminds me a bit of Linda in some ways although he is warmer. I would suggest listening to some of his interviews. A recent one with Jordan Peterson was good although not particularly challenging. I look forward to hearing the podcast with bated breath
Did you read his book?
In my experience whenever I see Shermer talk with a proponent of an idea he finds to be too out there to consider he immediately starts talking instead to his own audience rather than to the proponent or the general listener. He likes being a gate keeper of ideas and frequently throws out the flimsiest of defenses that are more rhetorical devices. It'll be interesting to see him on the other foot, actually having to defend something for once.
In my experience whenever I see Shermer talk with a proponent of an idea he finds to be too out there to consider he immediately starts talking instead to his own audience rather than to the proponent or the general listener. He likes being a gate keeper of ideas and frequently throws out the flimsiest of defenses that are more rhetorical devices. It'll be interesting to see him on the other foot, actually having to defend something for once.
I really don't know how you would challenge that guy. He's very slick and polished in his capacity to subsume anything spiritual,transpersonal or parapsychological into the materialist paradigm. He's very adept at befriending his interlocutors and possibly sincere yet there is something about him that is unmovable – reminds me a bit of Linda in some ways although he is warmer. I would suggest listening to some of his interviews. A recent one with Jordan Peterson was good although not particularly challenging. I look forward to hearing the podcast with bated breath
Shermer is such a disingenuous scumbag.
When you finally corner him, he will either 1.) discount your data as "not accepted by Academia in general", and thus invalid, or 2.) plead ignorance and claim he can't believe your data because he's not an expert in that field.
Keep in mind you are dealing with a rapist who has no moral principles, and will thus say anything, regardless of whether he actually believes what he is saying or not.
When you finally corner him, he will either 1.) discount your data as "not accepted by Academia in general", and thus invalid, or 2.) plead ignorance and claim he can't believe your data because he's not an expert in that field.
Keep in mind you are dealing with a rapist who has no moral principles, and will thus say anything, regardless of whether he actually believes what he is saying or not.
I don't know anything about the rape thing (frankly Im surprised to hear that, I always thought he seemed like a good dude) but Charlie NAILED his two main forms of defense. Its a great point. Definitely be ready for that line of defense Alex. Charlie is right, Ive heard him bust those arguments out several times.
Last edited:
I was listening to Sharon Stone on wtf recently. She (unsurprisingly) has had her share of uninvited attention of from creeps within her business, but has kept the details to herself. She appears to attribute most of it to men being a bit hopeless, rather than nasty. It would appear that, particularly if you’re a middle aged man, one should be very wary of making awkward, drunken passes. I guess you can’t get away with it like you could when you were younger.
Apologies. Way off topic.
Apologies. Way off topic.
Here's the gist of the interview:
Do you believe in the afterlife?
Shermer "no"
The end
Evidence for "supernatural"phenomena is not tangible, these lab coats are too closed minded and not intelligent enough to figure a way to make it tangible. My experiences have made PSI, Pre-cog, TK tangible. Don't believe me who cares?
I'll laugh it off with the other scientist I network with who are closet occultists
Do you believe in the afterlife?
Shermer "no"
The end
Evidence for "supernatural"phenomena is not tangible, these lab coats are too closed minded and not intelligent enough to figure a way to make it tangible. My experiences have made PSI, Pre-cog, TK tangible. Don't believe me who cares?
I'll laugh it off with the other scientist I network with who are closet occultists
What about bringing up his own/ his wife's paranormal experience involving a deceased relative?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-that-can-shake-one-s-skepticism-to-the-core/
At the end of the short article, he says:
"And if we are to take seriously the scientific credo to keep an open mind and remain agnostic when the evidence is indecisive or the riddle unsolved, we should not shut the doors of perception when they may be opened to us to marvel in the mysterious."
Look forward to the show!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-that-can-shake-one-s-skepticism-to-the-core/
At the end of the short article, he says:
"And if we are to take seriously the scientific credo to keep an open mind and remain agnostic when the evidence is indecisive or the riddle unsolved, we should not shut the doors of perception when they may be opened to us to marvel in the mysterious."
Look forward to the show!
I will be very interested to hear the interview, though I have the horrible feeling I have already heard it, a hundred times before.
Shermer will use his usual defensive ammunition, a mixture of mainstream academic conservativism, and ignorance of any data challenging that closed echo chamber.
I have complete faith in Alex to ask the right questions, though unfortunately I imagine it will be more like a game of chess with each participant trying to think a couple of questions ahead of their opponent to check mate, rather than an open and honest exploration of meaningful questions and findings.
I haven't read shermer's book (nor will i), but I feel that the inclusion in the title of the search for "utopia" already gives away it's true intent.
Utopia is something quite easy to dismiss as fantasy, and is automatically regarded as a childish notion by most so called educated people. He's already half way psychologically speaking towards winning his case (which we know will be outright dismissal of the title topics).
I guess if you lump Afterlife and Immortality in with Utopia, it makes it easier to ridicule it all as part of the same ball of wax than treat each question as being uniquely singular.
It is a subtle but rather obvious tactic to my mind.
I would definitely ask him about the loaded psychological weighting of his title.
Indeed the term "utopia", I would suggest is almost synonymous with the term "fantasy", so it is quite revealing.
It just feels somehow manipulating, obfuscating, confounding and disingenuous.
Well, par for the course I suppose.
Shermer will use his usual defensive ammunition, a mixture of mainstream academic conservativism, and ignorance of any data challenging that closed echo chamber.
I have complete faith in Alex to ask the right questions, though unfortunately I imagine it will be more like a game of chess with each participant trying to think a couple of questions ahead of their opponent to check mate, rather than an open and honest exploration of meaningful questions and findings.
I haven't read shermer's book (nor will i), but I feel that the inclusion in the title of the search for "utopia" already gives away it's true intent.
Utopia is something quite easy to dismiss as fantasy, and is automatically regarded as a childish notion by most so called educated people. He's already half way psychologically speaking towards winning his case (which we know will be outright dismissal of the title topics).
I guess if you lump Afterlife and Immortality in with Utopia, it makes it easier to ridicule it all as part of the same ball of wax than treat each question as being uniquely singular.
It is a subtle but rather obvious tactic to my mind.
I would definitely ask him about the loaded psychological weighting of his title.
Indeed the term "utopia", I would suggest is almost synonymous with the term "fantasy", so it is quite revealing.
It just feels somehow manipulating, obfuscating, confounding and disingenuous.
Well, par for the course I suppose.
I just googled Shermer and saw some quotes:
Scientific prayer makes God a celestial lab rat, leading to bad science and worse religion.
Anecdotal thinking comes naturally; science requires training.
But because we live in an age of science, we have a preoccupation with corroborating our myths.
Wow! If I said that stuff I'd apologise the next morning, pleading I was too pissed to be responsible. Evidently he thinks its cool that people think these are thoughts of a wise or intelligent man. Plainly we keep different company.
Scientific prayer makes God a celestial lab rat, leading to bad science and worse religion.
Anecdotal thinking comes naturally; science requires training.
But because we live in an age of science, we have a preoccupation with corroborating our myths.
Wow! If I said that stuff I'd apologise the next morning, pleading I was too pissed to be responsible. Evidently he thinks its cool that people think these are thoughts of a wise or intelligent man. Plainly we keep different company.