Why would someone dislike the skeptical community? Jack speaks with Sydney-based writer Eleanor Robertson about her misgivings with skepticism, why we shouldn’t pin too many hopes on celebrity spokespeople, science and ethics, and the benefits of listening to those with whom you disagree.
The Internet has revolutionised the way we communicate, right? It’s brought us all together and enables instantaneous knowledge transfer between people who would otherwise never meet? Well, on paper, sure.
We’re all wrong about a lot of things — and if you don’t think you are, then you’re wrong about that too. Understanding you’re wrong about a great many things is the first and most important part of being wrong the right way.
Sarah and Jack sink deep into the recent debate between Bill Nye the Science Guy and young Earth creationist Ken Ham and discuss the question of whether or not scientists should debate creationists, and also take a look at the alarming prevalence of “tropical” diseases in countries such as the US and Australia. Jargonauts submits itself to Jack’s will and takes on “endosymbiont”, too. What a ride.
Yeah yeah, the existence of a god is controversial. Probably not so much for the majority of the audience of this site, but in a wider social context, it definitely is. Most people with a defined and carefully considered position on this topic, however, tend not to have extremely rigid beliefs — they’re open to the possibility that they’re wrong, meaning that they see a certain chance, however small, that they’re wrong. But will this lack of certainty ever disappear?
For the third episode of Unfiltered Thoughts, Jack sits down with James Fodor to chat about disagreement. Regular listeners to The Pseudoscientists will recognise James’s name from the Question of the Week segment, but when he’s not giving us his opinions, he’s the President of the University of Melbourne Secular Society, studying for a Bachelor of Science and has a particular interest in science communication, skeptical activism, interfaith dialogue, and effective altruism.
In Part I it was argued the religious do not have the moral high ground. Not only is religion not a source of morality, its offer of moral absolutism and absolution is overtly immoral. It’s an offer you’d expect from…
Would you upload your consciousness to the Internet? Would our minds become lost in a sea of noise? Would privacy cease to exist? Is a physical body just too good to pass up? Could this be a way to cheat death? What do you think? Let us know in the comments!