Shermer is a fallen star from the Skeptic’s movement and largely an embarrassment. Today the podcast is self-indulgent, right wing, and hopelessly biased. If you want a better educated, more well-read Joe Rogan then by all means listen.

Also my favorite podcast. Michael is so smart and an excellent host. The subjects are fascinating and his style is both casual and intelligent.

Out of all the podcast I follow this is the one I listen to the most. Always great conversation and interesting guests! Thanks Michael!

Never seem to see opposition views…personally as a medical provider, I see no difference in care post RvWade

I appreciate the religious skepticism and the guests, but Shermer expresses too much personal bias on political issues while he is interviewing people. He did name is show after himself. It looks like the show is more about Shermer trying to figure out what to think and expressing his opinion and judgment as a result.

OK, I like Shermer’s show, even though it needs an editor, often runs far too long, in spite of the abrupt interruptions. I do like to open my mind past my initial prejudices and assumptions and to drain some of the skewing emotion out of the cognitive brew. The guests are often impressive and interesting. But there is a certain smugness in his delivery. A certain self-satisfied superiority. The rest of us simians are just a little too alarmist and captive to our priors while he is the ultra-rationalist and oh so superior. His take on the Trump re-election (which is an unmitigated disaster for the country) is a case in point. We’ll soon see how much there is to truly be upset about. I hope when it comes to pass, Shermer will admit he was oh so wrong. Sometimes intuition and emotion serve us well as a species. And we do have plenty of hard evidence to justify the alarm —past indefensible actions and statements ungoverned by reason or good advice this time. Buckle up, America.

It seems that Shermer is now someone masquerading as a skeptic as he latches onto far right tropes and fear mongering. I can only assume this is to try and appeal to a larger audience but for someone looking for a reasonable and fact based look at the world, this ain’t it. I keep waiting for an episode with a good interview but instead keep getting Shermers monologues on how Trumps just such a good candidate and how trans women are bad. It won’t be long before he’s another far right pseudoscience con artist.

Michael Schermer is a real twerp. Some of his guests are quite interesting.

Where is Shermer when a gen-o-cide is happening in real time? Where art thou Michael? “Spiral of silence”? Will you use that excuse to exonerate yourself 5 years from now? Mr Pinker? Mr enlightenment? Mr rationality? Where art thou??? No longer respect these so called meliorist. Epic failure.

Of bigotry maybe.

I’ve been a longtime fan of The Skeptic and Shermer. But as if late, I think he has drifted off track. For the man that wrote “The Arc”, I think he has devolved into a defensive curmudgeon. This episode trashing DEI is an example, as well as his criticisms of the handling of Covid. I don’t know what world he lives in but I think it has become warped by living online. In the real world, racism is rampant. In the real world, we react to Covid with the best knowledge available at the time. I’m sorry, but this was probably the last episode I will listen to. Although he claims to be libration, he has become reactionary.

The random placement of ads can be startling and shows disregard for your audience’s listening experience.

Look, I listen to this show consistently but lately the quality has really taken a hit. I don’t know who edits this show but placing ads mid-sentence or even mid-word just really ruins the whole thing. I don’t begrudge the ads—I get the need to make money to make more shows—but they’re so poorly done that it really ruins the experience. If it keeps up, I might stop listening so here’s some advice to the show: schedule ad breaks instead of inserting them without any consideration of the listener and announce it.

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.

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.

’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