Ill be getting it. Problem is the people who need to read this book the most wont. They now think Micheal is in on 'it'. The danger and appeal of conspiracy theories is that they validate the believers world view regarding who's good, who's bad, who's the villian and who's the victim (always themsleves).
How do you prove or disprove a conspiracy? What if the conspiracy is going to kill you like Putin invading Ukraine? It's called using the best available evidence and acting in your best interests.
They don't need to read any books because they already know everything. I really wonder about the effectiveness of material that exposes pseudo-conspiracy-anti-science.......stuff. If someone is really interested in learning they would be learning.
One could could also have misguided or ideological reasons for dismissing conspiracy theories which have a foundation in reasonability as well? Could be for political alignment rationales? Could be for religious (anti-religious) reasoning? There are many subjective variables which go into both creating and dismissing conspiracy theories.
@@kencreten7308 Probability factors must also be objectively weighted against ideologically and politically subjective variables. Just because one might claim a conspiracy theory is true, doesn't mean the one who claims it's not has any greater inferential potential to dismiss it outright if Occam's principles are evenly applied to both sides. As the saying goes, "Absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence".
IME, the more audacious the claims for the conspiracy theories, thus less proof is possible, the more people will believe them. That whole thing from Hitler about how people more will believe bigger lies than small ones, is true.
@@philosopher2king Though "audaciousness" doesn't necessarily parallel "complexity" of the claim. "Hitler slaughtered the Jews by the millions" is an audacious statement, though it isn't complex in nature. You drive to the sites of the concentration camps and all of the evidence you need is in plain sight. No real complexity, but a ton of audacity. Conspiracies can come in much the same form.
One of the most sensibly straightforward observations about believing in controversial machinations was made by Libertarian Alliance founder Chris Tame. Mr. Tame said, "I am not interested in conspiracy theories. I am interested in the *facts* of conspiracies."
Here is my two cents worth: (1) Humans have not changed much over the last 70,000 years when fears about threats from the tribe over the hill were only seconded to fears from threats within our tribe. We certainly didn't think that our campfire might contribute to any existential threat. (2) But now we cave people use smart phones, smart televisions, computers and the (anti?) social media layer of the internet to propagate our fears to others. We collectively think we're so damned smart for developing this technology while ignoring the fact that it was developed by a very tiny number of us.
Sounds great. Will have to check it out. I especially like the last chapter idea, as I often struggle knowing what to say to those that believe in conspiracy theories. I've had many a conversations with people regarding their beliefs. A few more new tools for my Conspiracy Conversation Toolbox (CCT), may be helpful. Thanks.
Before I buy this book I'd like to know how much your theory/ideas about why rational human beings might believe such things may have evolved since your first book? If your ideas are largely the same then why buy the new book...
I'm hearing very similar evolutionary psychology themes, along with some social psychological ideas (which are somewhat new themes) and cognitive psychology theories
@@stephenmcgrail7661 I would assume that the *reasons* rational people believe weird things hasn't changed much since 1997, but a new book, with fresher examples and since the advent of social media, will likely reach a new audience who might not pick up the older book. I'll get it just because he's a good writer and I like reading his work 🙂
There is a general distrust of authority, which is understandable regarding political leaders and profit hungry corporations. The problem occurs when legitimate authorities, like the scientific community, are blindly accused of grift. Climate change denial, anti-vaxxers, creationism and claims of a stolen election are especially irritating to me. My rule of thumb is to be smart about what authorities are credible, and how to tell whether politics, religion or economics skew the reliability of these authorities. With creationists, it's religion; with anti-vaxxers it's the irrational assumption that all immunologists in the CDC are under the thumb of Big Pharma; with climate change it's the false belief that climate science is controlled by a liberal agenda (as if the petroleum industry is without culpability). Then there is the obvious political affiliation of the stolen election conspiracy.
Purchased! But, I have to ask, how do we know you really wrote the book, and not a secret, lurking, opaque, international, misanthropic cabal of ne'er-do-wells?
I'm trying to understand why some credible people believed in the Ivermectin research. I don't know enough about methodology or the history of the authors.
I wish it was culturally prioritized that individuals would learn about how to evaluate information. It seems like people are convinced that they are born with these skills and that no more effective methods have ever been constructed. If the individual doesn't bother to learn these skills they will continue to believe whatever is thrown at them. It's frustrating to say the least.
Because they are mostly true, except the ones that are intentionally fake. Accepting the obvious patterns as they are presented, is not irrational... Just like irrational numbers are not actually irrational, they are infinitely fractal.
Wrong. What you think are obvious patterns are usually not. PS Irrational numbers are not “infinitely fractal”. Fractals are something different. You may benefit from his book.
@@karagi101 It depends on how much of a threat the conspiracy poses to your life. The Ukrainians that predicted Putin's invasion got out of the way and survived. Powerlessness causes the average person to condemn or misunderstand conspiracies that are a serious threat.
If a Comspriracy Theorist, can be defined as a theory that can challenge the Governments' narrative, then i am pround to be labbled as a Conspricacy Theorist!...... David Icke has been proven right time and time again!!
So fascinating how one can dismiss with a proverbial sweep of the hand... So many suspicious eye witness deaths on major criminal conspiracies... Please address those Michael and I might change my mind.
@@williamrunner6718 Thinking, reacting to stimuli and maintaining homeostasis are (some of) the actions of the brain. Mind is not an action. I did leave out some qualifiers however; a mind has to be a living, functioning brain. The fact that we can semantically separate an object from its supposed "essence" doesn't make them different. There is no such thing as a mind absent a brain (or none that we've ever discovered, in any case). I have no idea what you mean by ideas being physical.
@@thereligionofrationality8257 Ideas are not physical. They are conceptual. As far as mind is what the brain does, so it is an action of the brain. As you said, there is no mind absent a brain. Mind is a concept not an object. Objects are that which have shape and concepts are a relation of objects. Objects are pointed to and can be drawn. Concepts can never move or be moved. To treat a concept like an object is fallacy of reification. Not sure if you think mind is a synonym of brain? All concepts are defined. What is your objective definition for MIND?
@@williamrunner6718 You don't know that. You do not know that "ideas are not physical." Because Neurology and other Sciences are still working on that.
Anything doesn’t suit the masters and their servants is a conspiracy! usually the servants are more active than their masters just to please them. it is the right of all people to question, wonder,…. etc wrong or right it is their own problem (freedom of speech)
Listen my brother man if you think the other party who loves power above all else would not have done anything to win the 2020 then I wish I believed in the tooth fairy too but I don’t. Some things are so clear it’s blinding.
@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 oh I always believe what the media and main stream media tell me!! They’re not owned by the democrats at all are they??? The head of every media corporation is not a flaming liberal at all?? Your right. Trump lost fair and square and the democrats are as innocent as sweet angles who just got their wings!! Goddamn I love this country!!! Let freedom ring!!!🍺🥳🥳🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Any idea is irrational. Progress consists of irrational idea and rational experiment. No irrationality - no progress. Just like in evolution. No random changes - no evolution.
@@mattm6580 but you don’t know what is lie and what is not. Is Big Bang lie? Yes, it is. But it’s truth now. You ca not know when you get an idea, if it’s truth or not. And you can not know how much time needed to check that. If chess players used only one step combinations, they would always loose to those who can calculate several steps ahead. And when you request evidence on every step, you can not use several steps combinations.
@@williamrunner6718 You need less evidence the more a conspiracy is a threat to your life. You know, Fauci funding coronavirus bioweapons in China and the US. Most Americans believe c0vid was a lab accident or the CCP intentionally release to damage the world's economy. How do we know either of these stories is true?
Ill be getting it. Problem is the people who need to read this book the most wont. They now think Micheal is in on 'it'. The danger and appeal of conspiracy theories is that they validate the believers world view regarding who's good, who's bad, who's the villian and who's the victim (always themsleves).
💯
How do you prove or disprove a conspiracy? What if the conspiracy is going to kill you like Putin invading Ukraine? It's called using the best available evidence and acting in your best interests.
That's always the problem.
No they won't be reading it because they are so deeply deluded that they believe they really know the "truth" and everyone else is a gullible dupe.
They don't need to read any books because they already know everything.
I really wonder about the effectiveness of material that exposes pseudo-conspiracy-anti-science.......stuff.
If someone is really interested in learning they would be learning.
One could could also have misguided or ideological reasons for dismissing conspiracy theories which have a foundation in reasonability as well? Could be for political alignment rationales? Could be for religious (anti-religious) reasoning? There are many subjective variables which go into both creating and dismissing conspiracy theories.
Generally the more complex and less probable option is more easily dismissed in either case.
@@kencreten7308 Probability factors must also be objectively weighted against ideologically and politically subjective variables. Just because one might claim a conspiracy theory is true, doesn't mean the one who claims it's not has any greater inferential potential to dismiss it outright if Occam's principles are evenly applied to both sides. As the saying goes, "Absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence".
@@merlepatterson Yes. That's what I'm saying. The more simple option is generally preferred. I don't understand your first sentence. And that's ok.
IME, the more audacious the claims for the conspiracy theories, thus less proof is possible, the more people will believe them. That whole thing from Hitler about how people more will believe bigger lies than small ones, is true.
@@philosopher2king Though "audaciousness" doesn't necessarily parallel "complexity" of the claim. "Hitler slaughtered the Jews by the millions" is an audacious statement, though it isn't complex in nature. You drive to the sites of the concentration camps and all of the evidence you need is in plain sight. No real complexity, but a ton of audacity. Conspiracies can come in much the same form.
Finally, Michael Shermer has a new book.😃
One of the most sensibly straightforward observations about believing in controversial machinations was made by Libertarian Alliance founder Chris Tame. Mr. Tame said, "I am not interested in conspiracy theories. I am interested in the *facts* of conspiracies."
Nice!!!! Thanks for putting it together!!!
The antidote to groundless conspiracy beliefs is the Socratic method.
I'm currently involved in a certain situation....wouldn't exactly call it a conspiracy theory but it is different, very very different
@@stewartquark1661
Your comment requires details.
Very interesting. The book's now on my to-buy list.
Congrats!! Added to my reading list! All the best
Here is my two cents worth: (1) Humans have not changed much over the last 70,000 years when fears about threats from the tribe over the hill were only seconded to fears from threats within our tribe. We certainly didn't think that our campfire might contribute to any existential threat. (2) But now we cave people use smart phones, smart televisions, computers and the (anti?) social media layer of the internet to propagate our fears to others. We collectively think we're so damned smart for developing this technology while ignoring the fact that it was developed by a very tiny number of us.
Bro, those who rule you know this better than you know. lmao
9:09
Bonus chapter: How to Make Conspiracists Comfortable at Parties.
Sounds great. Will have to check it out. I especially like the last chapter idea, as I often struggle knowing what to say to those that believe in conspiracy theories. I've had many a conversations with people regarding their beliefs. A few more new tools for my Conspiracy Conversation Toolbox (CCT), may be helpful. Thanks.
Before I buy this book I'd like to know how much your theory/ideas about why rational human beings might believe such things may have evolved since your first book? If your ideas are largely the same then why buy the new book...
I'm hearing very similar evolutionary psychology themes, along with some social psychological ideas (which are somewhat new themes) and cognitive psychology theories
@@stephenmcgrail7661 I would assume that the *reasons* rational people believe weird things hasn't changed much since 1997, but a new book, with fresher examples and since the advent of social media, will likely reach a new audience who might not pick up the older book. I'll get it just because he's a good writer and I like reading his work 🙂
There is a general distrust of authority, which is understandable regarding political leaders and profit hungry corporations. The problem occurs when legitimate authorities, like the scientific community, are blindly accused of grift. Climate change denial, anti-vaxxers, creationism and claims of a stolen election are especially irritating to me. My rule of thumb is to be smart about what authorities are credible, and how to tell whether politics, religion or economics skew the reliability of these authorities. With creationists, it's religion; with anti-vaxxers it's the irrational assumption that all immunologists in the CDC are under the thumb of Big Pharma; with climate change it's the false belief that climate science is controlled by a liberal agenda (as if the petroleum industry is without culpability). Then there is the obvious political affiliation of the stolen election conspiracy.
Hello Michael, I love your videos 👍
Very timely topic. I'm recommending it to my Book Club in Pasadena. Also, my Library.
Purchased! But, I have to ask, how do we know you really wrote the book, and not a secret, lurking, opaque, international, misanthropic cabal of ne'er-do-wells?
You're onto him. I've been thinking the same thing. Do you think it's a ... a ... conspiracy ...
@@prschuster Yesssss. Well, maybe at least a script for a bad spy movie.
When will it be published in Brazil?
Is the book on audible?
I found it. Looks like it just went up
If you enjoyed this podcast then you might also enjoy this Christopher Hitchens video at "Talks at Google"
czcams.com/video/sD0B-X9LJjs/video.html
"Where did you read that?"-----> "You're in on it."
Shermer is a great rational man.
Shermer may be great but he often isn't rational. With conspiracies, he sets up too many strawmen.
@@yamishogun6501
😂
Go Skeptic!
I was a little disappointed because I thought you were going to interview the author of this book.
Because they're not rational! LOL
Whatever offers you whatever you want - you will accept it - reasonable or not.
I'm trying to understand why some credible people believed in the Ivermectin research. I don't know enough about methodology or the history of the authors.
Yes! Fantastic episode. I’ve been a fan for years. Never skip your books.
BTW Nobody was charged with insurrection. So…technically not an insurrection
Boo! Charles Manson was never charged with being a jerkface...
Still, you are technically correct. 🤓
OJ was found not guilty so technically not a murderer.
US Patents always come out on a Tuesday. It's a way to check if the patent number if valid.
I wish it was culturally prioritized that individuals would learn about how to evaluate information. It seems like people are convinced that they are born with these skills and that no more effective methods have ever been constructed. If the individual doesn't bother to learn these skills they will continue to believe whatever is thrown at them. It's frustrating to say the least.
Thou shalt surely not die 😂
Is this about Michael Shermer? He tried to disprove vedic astrology, and it disproved him, but he continued to irrationally throw it away. :P
On the plus side of being a conspiracy theorist is no myocarditis .
Because they are mostly true, except the ones that are intentionally fake. Accepting the obvious patterns as they are presented, is not irrational... Just like irrational numbers are not actually irrational, they are infinitely fractal.
Wrong. What you think are obvious patterns are usually not. PS Irrational numbers are not “infinitely fractal”. Fractals are something different.
You may benefit from his book.
@@karagi101 It depends on how much of a threat the conspiracy poses to your life. The Ukrainians that predicted Putin's invasion got out of the way and survived. Powerlessness causes the average person to condemn or misunderstand conspiracies that are a serious threat.
@@tuckerbugeater The US had the intelligence and warned Ukraine about Russia’s invasion. Their leaders didn’t want to believe the evidence.
@@tuckerbugeater There is a difference between a conspiracy and a rumor. Putin's invasion was not a conspiracy theory.
I know it's a popular meme now, but who says they're rational? That would need to be established first.
If a Comspriracy Theorist, can be defined as a theory that can challenge the Governments' narrative, then i am pround to be labbled as a Conspricacy Theorist!...... David Icke has been proven right time and time again!!
That moron believes in lizard people run things, so he's into lunacy right out of the gate.
How embarrassing my people have become. The world is laughing at us.
My country is just as bad. We have David Icke!
The irrationality virus has spread throughout the world. Although the U.S. is a leader.
It's worse than that. Almost no one cares.
@@karagi101 Just like Fauci's bioweapon.
@@tuckerbugeater Get help soon.
Don’t do the dmt plz. Your brain will change
- A show interviewing yourself .. ?!?
You're a Martian!
I'll be picking It up
annndddd......on the buy list!
So fascinating how one can dismiss with a proverbial sweep of the hand... So many suspicious eye witness deaths on major criminal conspiracies... Please address those Michael and I might change my mind.
The red line on the cover looks like the path of the "magic bullet." Confirmed, Shermer was on the grassy knoll.
To be followed by- Official Narrative Addicts: Why the Rational Believe Everything They Are Told and Find Those Who Question Upsetting
@@williamrunner6718 😂 lm not.
Followed by: why truthers keep twisting the logical explanations upside down by saying that others believe everything they're told.
Minds are not rational. They are flesh and blood. IDEAS are either rational or irrational.
@@williamrunner6718 Thinking, reacting to stimuli and maintaining homeostasis are (some of) the actions of the brain. Mind is not an action. I did leave out some qualifiers however; a mind has to be a living, functioning brain. The fact that we can semantically separate an object from its supposed "essence" doesn't make them different. There is no such thing as a mind absent a brain (or none that we've ever discovered, in any case). I have no idea what you mean by ideas being physical.
@@thereligionofrationality8257 Ideas are not physical. They are conceptual. As far as mind is what the brain does, so it is an action of the brain. As you said, there is no mind absent a brain. Mind is a concept not an object. Objects are that which have shape and concepts are a relation of objects. Objects are pointed to and can be drawn. Concepts can never move or be moved. To treat a concept like an object is fallacy of reification. Not sure if you think mind is a synonym of brain? All concepts are defined. What is your objective definition for MIND?
@@williamrunner6718 You don't know that. You do not know that "ideas are not physical." Because Neurology and other Sciences are still working on that.
🕊
Anything doesn’t suit the masters and their servants is a conspiracy!
usually the servants are more active than their masters just to please them.
it is the right of all people to question, wonder,…. etc
wrong or right it is their own problem (freedom of speech)
You really need this book.
There's a conspiracy by the peasants to overthrow the nobles. Don't go near any pitch forks and don't tell anyone.
@@Shaitana-yy9el So are conspiracies. But people like you think there are conspiracies where there are none.
@@Shaitana-yy9el Not hate. Feel sorry for people who’s reasoning ability is so defective that they easily fall prey to conspiracy theories.
breazyness?
Yes. Breazyness.
GWB said it best: Fool me once…ahh…um….ahh…I won’t get fooled again
Translation: I don't like that some people aren't falling for my b ulls hit.
Is that a Trump quote? lol
@@cs.1762 cope harder ret ard
Insurrection!?! Good grief, if that's how you start your book, I'll be passing
And the fact you fell for the sham hearings, ugh
Shermer is the best lizard.
You are so wrong. He's a gray
@@prschuster that's grayt.
Listen my brother man if you think the other party who loves power above all else would not have done anything to win the 2020 then I wish I believed in the tooth fairy too but I don’t. Some things are so clear it’s blinding.
@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 oh I always believe what the media and main stream media tell me!! They’re not owned by the democrats at all are they??? The head of every media corporation is not a flaming liberal at all?? Your right. Trump lost fair and square and the democrats are as innocent as sweet angles who just got their wings!! Goddamn I love this country!!! Let freedom ring!!!🍺🥳🥳🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Nicely reported, Dr Shermer! You're a bit out-of-phase, but we get the message ;)
Do you mean the sound is out of sync with the image? It seems like that to me too.
When's the movie version coming out?
Shermer's book is just an obvious attempt to cover up the actual truth.
Any idea is irrational. Progress consists of irrational idea and rational experiment. No irrationality - no progress. Just like in evolution. No random changes - no evolution.
You can make progress without lies. Lies aren't necessary. For anything.
@@mattm6580 but you don’t know what is lie and what is not. Is Big Bang lie? Yes, it is. But it’s truth now. You ca not know when you get an idea, if it’s truth or not. And you can not know how much time needed to check that. If chess players used only one step combinations, they would always loose to those who can calculate several steps ahead. And when you request evidence on every step, you can not use several steps combinations.
Progress is based on what’s already known. The rational. One takes what’s already known and then delves beyond the known into the unknown.
@@karagi101 Bullshit. If it's already known then it's not progress. No, it's irrational
@@matterasmachine You're making apples/oranges sauce.
So, conspiracy theorist Michael Shermer wants to lecture us about conspiracy theories. No thanks.
People conspire
Life is full of grey.
@@williamrunner6718 You need less evidence the more a conspiracy is a threat to your life. You know, Fauci funding coronavirus bioweapons in China and the US. Most Americans believe c0vid was a lab accident or the CCP intentionally release to damage the world's economy. How do we know either of these stories is true?