Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Michael Shermer: The Only Skeptic on the Alien Task Force

Starting point is 00:00:00 Hey, y'all, it's Kelly Clarkson with Wayfair. Ever order furniture online and wonder what if? Like, what if it doesn't hold up? That sofa was four days old. You should have ordered from Wayfair. With Wayfair, there's no what if. Just style you love and quality you can trust. Visit Wayfair.com.

Starting point is 00:00:13 Wayfair, every style, every home. I have a bet with Avi $1,000 by December 31st, 2030. We won't find aliens. He says we will. I hope he wins. You were just named as I were reading this now just last week to this new White House panel, counsel on alien and the UFO and UAP task force. Okay.

Starting point is 00:00:33 Now, leave aside that, you know, Avi Loeb is a mutual friend of ours. You've been on the Galileo project for a while. There are some, you know, characters on this committee alongside, you know, that have legitimate credentials, Dr. Gary Nolan, professor at Stanford. He's another member who, you know, in his spare time scans the brains of abductees for a biomarker and claims to have evidence of alien, you know, metallurgical isotope ratios that What happened, Michael? Did they get to the big bag of Harvard money?

Starting point is 00:01:01 No, there's no money. No, this is all volunteer. There's no money at all. Same thing with the Galileo Project. I've been on it since the beginning. And I just do it because I'm interested in the topic. I think Avi strikes the right balance between open-mindedness and gullibility. Don't be gullible, but be open-minded, but also be skeptical.

Starting point is 00:01:17 And their emphasis on data and evidence, not stories, right? I mean, we just had our first meeting today. Avi started right off. No more stories. about people who know people that touch the aliens or whatever. We've all heard these, okay. And no new physics, right? So you'll appreciate this because you're physics, right?

Starting point is 00:01:35 I mean, it's like, people are always talking, this is Avi. People are always telling me about the, you know, the aliens are going to give us new physics. No, there's no new physics. Okay, so forget that. I mean, maybe they do, but, you know, that's just too far off the radar here. But I'm not the enemy. I mean, I have a bet with Avi $1,000, right?

Starting point is 00:01:52 By 20, December 31st, 2030. We won't find aliens. He says, well. Okay, I hope he wins. I would like it to be true. The aliens are probably out there somewhere in the cosmos. Run the numbers in the Drake equation. He's like, yeah, okay, they're probably out there. But have they come here? Okay, so I think that's a far less probable proposition. We don't know for sure. Let's see the evidence. Okay. So when Avi puts together this team, you know, it's like, yeah, sure, I'll do it. He described me as the Advocato's Diablo, that is the Catholic Church's

Starting point is 00:02:21 version of the devil's advocate, which they employed to debunk. all the miracle claims in the Middle Ages. Everybody had a piece of the true cross. These were holy relics. Everybody had the blood of this saint and this other person and so on. Okay, they know most of this is just bullshit. And they debunked it themselves. The Catholic Church was a primary skeptical debunker of miracle claims. Now, they still hold out, but there was this one, you know, so we're going to give Mother Teresa, you know, her sainthood, that kind of thing. But for the most part, they're as skeptical as I am. So that's my job. on the team is really just to be a good skeptic.

Starting point is 00:02:59 And of course, any good scientist is a good skeptic. We start with a null hypothesis. That is your claim about something is not true until you prove otherwise. The burden of proof is not on scientists and skeptic to debunk every particular claim. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I have a theory of everything. I think Einstein was wrong and Newton was wrong and Hocking was wrong. And here's my theory of everything for physics.

Starting point is 00:03:22 Well, you're not going to go, okay, then I guess I have to disprove it and you're right. No, you're going to say, I don't believe it, but go ahead, make your case. And we're having a conference next week, and all the top physicists will be there. Why don't you come and present your case for us, and we'll judge how well you did. In the same way that all the people that made a claim that they had a miracle cure for COVID, you know, the FDA doesn't just hand out approvals of new drugs. You actually have to present the FDA your evidence. How do you know this actually works?

Starting point is 00:03:52 And you can't just say, well, my Aunt Mary had it and she took it and she felt better. Sorry, that's not evidence. That's not enough to refute the null hypothesis. That is, reject the null hypothesis at some level of statistical significance, as they say. That's all we're after there. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence you better have for it. A lot of these could be actual claims, you know, based on truth and facts and reality, but just complete misinterpretation, right?

Starting point is 00:04:21 I mean, one man's drone array in the dark could be a different. other person's unidentified aerial phenomena. But when you see people that talk about things like Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, interdimensional beings and non-human biologics and now bipedal life forms on a spectrum, you know, ever go to Facebook and sign up for a new account and there's 46 different selections for your gender and your pronouns and the University of California. I mean, oh my gosh, it's even even more impressive array. But apparently there's a spectrum, a continuum. It's a sentient plasmoids to bipedalism, which is, you know, in some ways. The insectoids, the multi-dimensional beings.

Starting point is 00:05:01 Yeah, there's four different alien species. Yeah, I've heard all this. Yeah, it's crazy. I don't believe any of it as a good Bayesian. Show me, you know. It doesn't have to be me personally. I never personally saw the Chinese spy balloon, for example, but I trust the government, the Air Force, the Pentagon, Secretary of State, the president, all the news networks

Starting point is 00:05:18 that showed it, so on. Okay, that's good enough. If Marco Rubio shows up tomorrow and says, I'm here with a, camera crew and the Secretary of War and the president. And here we are in Area 51 and we found the aliens. We have a big announcement. Here it is. And all the networks are there covering it and experts are there. You know, Brian Keating and our physicist, he's there. And I don't have to see it personally. I would trust you. And maybe Marco Rubio and whatever. But that hasn't happened. Right. So this is our complaint. I've been following the UFO story since their early 90s, really since

Starting point is 00:05:54 Carl Sagan, well, he's over my left shoulder there in the 80s. And I've been hearing about disclosure coming any day now. And I'm like, okay, this would be great. Yeah, I know. It's the greatest discovery of all time. Let's see it. And all we ever get is, sorry, can't show you, it's classified. He won't tell us because his life is threatened. Or, you know, I can only tell you in a skiff, or, you know, they're buried somewhere and it's a national security. Okay. And So we're still waiting. So I've become ever more skeptical. Let's stipulate that if Grush knows classified information and he's not supposed to, just because

Starting point is 00:06:34 he was in the intelligence community, and I've interviewed, you know, 12 people that are in the intelligence community, it means a lot of different things. It doesn't mean, you know, top secret clearance at all levels at all times, right? So there's a different level. But let's just assume the worst case scenario for him that he could reveal this. He could go to jail. He could be, lose his livelihood. He could have his, you know, home address, doxed and so forth.

Starting point is 00:06:54 and that might compromise his recent deal that I heard about with Jerry Bruckheimer for a movie that he's working on. Okay, fine. I'm not, I'm not going to wish that harm on anybody. I have members of the military and the three-letter agencies and my extended family. And especially, I didn't have the Cajonis to join the military like he did. Okay, so, so fine. However, Anna Paulina Luna is the chairwoman of this task force, you know, this workforce in the congressional committee. Is she worried about her income? Is she worried about getting docs? Is she worried about what penalties would come to her?

Starting point is 00:07:23 In other words, David Gresh could tell her something in a skiff or not in a skiff. She claims to already know it, right? He already told her about the non-human biologics, sentient plasmoins, and the interdimensional beings. And now these bipedal beings, which, you know, just keeps going up the escalation louder, right? So where is the unlock here for her? Can you make that case? Why can't she come forward?

Starting point is 00:07:41 Okay. So what do we make of people that tell stories, like Gresh tells us a story? Okay, we've heard a lot of these stories. His sounds more credible than the, you know, the tinfoil hat wingnut that is a nobody. credentials matter a little bit just to get a hearing. I think, you know, maybe there's something for that. But after that, you still have to have evidence. So, you know, when, okay, so they're interdimensional beings or whatever.

Starting point is 00:08:06 This is just a hand wave. This is a way of saying, I can't actually show you anything because they're invisible. All right. So in the book, as you know, I present Sagan's dragon. You know, I have a dragon in my garage where I like to see it. Yeah, sure, okay. And I open my garage and you don't see anything. I go, well, it's an invisible dragon.

Starting point is 00:08:22 And you go, okay, Shermer, let's sprinkle some flour on the ground and we'll see the footprints of the invisible drake. Well, no, you see, Brian, this dragon hovers above the ground about a foot. It levitates. Oh, an invisible levitating dragon. How about we get one of those heat thermometers and outline the body heat? No, this is a cold-blooded dragon. What about the fire? No, it breathes cold fire.

Starting point is 00:08:43 At some point, you're going to ask, what's the difference between a, you know, levitating, invisible, cold-blooded dragon and no dragon at all, right? So at some point, the stories have to end and we have to have evidence or else it's not science. It's just science fiction or metaphysics or whatever you want to call it. So how do you interact with these people? I mean, Gary Nolan is claiming that he, you know, he scanned the brain. He claims he witnessed an event. I interviewed him a couple of years back. He claims, you know, he saw the object, you know, over pine trees and so forth.

Starting point is 00:09:14 Your face-to-face of these people are zoom-to-zoom with them. How do you comport yourself? My first assumption with anybody is that they're not making this up. They're not lying. I would assume David Gresh is not just lying, making up a story. This does happen. I mean, I think Bob Lazar is probably a fabulous, you know, because he did make up his claim that he had graduate degrees from MIT and Caltech. He didn't even attend either school. Okay. And that was debunked and exposed by his fellow Ufologists, not by skeptics. So that's all you need to know. Anything else the person says, I'm not going to believe them or even listen to them because if they could lie about something so easily checkable.

Starting point is 00:09:50 In the case of Gary Nolan, yeah, he's a real scientist. Maybe he did see something. Okay, I'm going to give that assumption. Lots of people see things. Most UAP UFO sightings in history are actual things. They're what I call ordinary terrestrial objects. All right, let me read you, I'll give you Leslie Keene's list of... Yeah, first tell the audience who Keynes is.

Starting point is 00:10:12 Okay, so Leslie Keene is the... Where's my alien? chapter here. Leslie Keene is the UFOologist that wrote the book, well, she wrote the New York Times article about this in which she first introduced the idea of the government, the Pentagon, having a UAP program. Okay. So her book is UFOs, generals, pilots, and government officials go on the record. Her own quote, which I provide in the book, is that roughly 90 to 95% of all UFO sightings can be explained as weather balloons, flares, sky lanterns. planes flying and formation, secret military aircraft, birds reflecting the sun, planes reflecting the sun,

Starting point is 00:10:52 blimps, helicopters, the planets, Venus or Mars, meteorites, space junk, satellite, swamp gas, spinningetti, sun dogs, ball lightning, ice crystals, reflected light up the ground clouds, lights on the ground, lights reflected on a cockpit window, temperature inversions, whole punch clouds, and so on. Okay, so, you know, as they say, you know, if you hear a hoofbeats, think horse, not zebra because that's what's most likely to be, right? So like in the case, just take as an example to New Jersey, a UAP flap in the fall of 24. This was just before the election. It got a lot of media coverage. And Trump said after he won, when I get in office on January, we're going to go figure out what this this UAP flap was over New Jersey. Okay, turned out it was just drones and regular

Starting point is 00:11:39 ordinary terrestrial objects like airplanes, birds, the planet Venus, and especially, starlink satellites. The effect is that people who don't normally walk outside and look up into the sky because they're busy. They're just regular people. And now I heard these media stories. They're like, oh, I'm going to go outside when it's dark and look up. And they're amazed to see, I mean, when you see Venus, if you don't know what you're looking at,

Starting point is 00:12:04 it is striking, right? I know this because I live up in the mountains above Santa Barbara way up in the hill. And he knows that a famous astronomer, right? Yeah. And when I bring people up there, they're like, oh, my God, what is that? I go, that's Venus. I'll show you. Here's the binoculars.

Starting point is 00:12:18 You're like, oh, my God. And now, because there's so many Starlink satellites, there's over 10,000 of them. I have a big old mean 10-inch telescope, and I'm looking at Jupiter, Saturn. There's the rings in the moons and so on. Every time now, a satellite streaks by in my little eyepiece. And I've seen stuff on X, hopefully not anymore. Now that everybody knows about Starling, people are going, oh, my gosh. God, look at this thing going around Jupiter or there's a, there's a spaceship going around

Starting point is 00:12:47 Saturn. It's like, no, it's a Starlink satellite going through our atmosphere. So that's how I think about it. Okay, so what about the other five or 10 percent, the anomalies? There are, there are those. I'm going to assume that Nolan and everybody else that they actually saw something that they don't know what it was. And that's all the you means is, I don't know what it is. Okay, so then the other two options, extraordinary terrestrial. So this is the claim that you have, are like Russian or Chinese, super advanced technologies, or they're part of the DARPA program from back engineered crash retrieval programs the United States has. Okay.

Starting point is 00:13:22 We can dispense with that fairly quickly because first, the counterfactual, if this was true, what else would be true? If Russia had a technology that was like centuries ahead of everybody else, wouldn't they use it in Ukraine? If we had this technology, wouldn't Trump have used it in Iran? Okay. We had everything else. We bombed the crap out of them with all our super advanced jets and missiles and drones.

Starting point is 00:13:47 Why wouldn't we use these spacecraft that could supposedly turn on a dime and, you know, pull 500 Gs and so forth? We don't see anybody doing that. And that's not how the history of science and technology works anyway. Nobody gets very far ahead of anybody else. I mean, the Russians stole our plans from the Manhattan Project during the Manhattan Project, right? Klaus Fuchs stole our plans and gave them to the Russians. They had a bomb within a couple years. Every one of these smartphones, I happen to have an iPhone, but they're all the same, right?

Starting point is 00:14:20 No company, no matter how much property rights and secrecy they have and intellectual property that they protect, nobody gets ahead of anybody else. They're all pretty much the same. I happen to have an Apple laptop, but all the laptops are pretty much the same. Nobody has the equivalent of like two centuries ahead of everybody else. That quantum computing iPhone, right. The moment, something like a quantum computing thing actually works. Everyone, all the other companies will have it. Other countries will do it.

Starting point is 00:14:48 It's just not how things works. So the last hypothesis, could it be extraordinary extraterrestrial? It could be. However, and I'm talking to somebody who knows way more about this than I do, the universe is just mostly empty space. It's a vast distances between the stars, the chances. of them finding us, you know, are very, very slim, right? So this is when the hand-waving comes in. Well, you know, they have super advanced. They have warp drive, so they don't have to, you know,

Starting point is 00:15:18 take 70,000 years to get here from the nearest star. They get here and, you know, like 10 minutes through the wormhole, you know, or like Sagan used a wormhole to get to Vega, right, in contact. But this is science fiction, right? There's no such thing as, you know, new warp physics that we know of, right? You know, it could happen. Yeah, I mean, if the alien, are 100,000 years ahead of us, which they would be, if we make contact with them, then, yeah, maybe, but that doesn't mean that that's what's happening. It's more likely just a light, a balloon. It's the camera motion, right? A lot of these UAPs are just, the camera zooms in on the object, and so it looks like it moves, but it's not the camera's moving. You know, or the camera's

Starting point is 00:16:00 tracking it, tracking it, tracking it, the object's moving, moving, moving, then the camera stops, and the object zooms off. It's not doing anything. It's not, zooming at 50,000 miles an hour. It's not doing anything. It's the camera movie. Right. So even the hardcore, you know, UAP people that study this stuff, they go, yeah, yeah, okay, that one's a camera effect. That's a parallax effect and so on. But what about this one? Okay, so here's the residue of anomalies problem. There will always be weird shit that happens that nobody could explain, right? So I've been reading about maybe you want to riff on this for a second. From the James Webb Space telescope I've been reading about and getting queries to skeptic, hey, should we be skeptical of

Starting point is 00:16:39 the Big Bang Theory, inflationary cosmology? It's all wrong because of these galaxies and black holes are formed way too early in the early universe. What do I know? Okay, maybe this is normal science, right? The better our instruments get, the more weird stuff we find that the old theory doesn't explain completely. Maybe it needs to be updated. I don't know. But as you know, there are people going, oh, the Big Bang theory is dead. I'm thinking probably not, but maybe you have an opinion. Big Bang theory is safe, at least around this household. But of course, as Upton Sinclair said, it's hard to teach a man to believe something that his job depends on him not believing in.

Starting point is 00:17:13 We have abundant evidence. I mean, that's the thing. I just saw today Diary of a CEO, my friend Stephen Bartlett, I've been on his show and in contact with each other. I was on it a year ago. And I just saw J.D. Vance was on it today. And Stephen's little schick at the end of every episode is to ask a guest to leave a question for the next guest. And so Stephen put, you know, has millions of dollars in media exposure.

Starting point is 00:17:36 He does an incredible person. He's got 30 people on the team. It's an amazing thing. He's going to be the next Rogan or maybe even surpass Rogan in many ways. He's a very innovative person. Anyway, JD, I look and they zoom in on the, what is the question that J.D. is asking. This is, it's do you believe in God? Yes or no.

Starting point is 00:17:54 And why or why not? And I just thought it was like, I thought J.D. was a smart person. That's like one of the, one of the worst questions you can ask. I mean, it tells you nothing. It tells you. Well, didn't he just find God? Didn't he just become a Catholic or something like that? Not just.

Starting point is 00:18:07 I mean, he's been a Catholic. You know, I was a Catholic. You know, I was a Jew, then I was a Catholic. Then I was nothing. Now I'm back to being Jewish. Right. So who am I to criticize? I was an altar boy, Michael.

Starting point is 00:18:16 Jewish altar boy didn't have a bar mitzvah. So who knows more about, you know, kind of ecumenicalism to me. But this question of belief, like, I don't believe in gravity. I always say that I don't believe in gravity. I have evidence for gravity. And so when we have low signal to noise regimes, as you talk about, about in the book, you will always have these unfalsifiable claims. But what's what's kind of a little bit more disturbing to me, and I don't know why, it's not, it's not that people have different facts.

Starting point is 00:18:42 That actually doesn't bother me. It's that people have different epistemological techniques and toolboxes and frameworks. In other words, you know, it's not that truth is unfindable necessarily. It's that everyone's got their own, you know, their own truth, their own method of finding truth, their own epistemology. Where does that come in? How pernicious is that to you? Very pernicious, but we have to make it stick to between different kinds of truth. So most of the truths I'm talking about these kind of provisional Bayesian-type truths or scientific empirical truths, for which I spent every amount of time in the book describing, you know, correlation and causation and signal detection theory and confounding

Starting point is 00:19:17 variables and randomized controlled trials and the comparative method, all these instruments that scientists have developed to try to get out the truth of something that we can all see, right? So I start with the assumption that none of us are God. omniscient. Therefore, we're fallible. So fallibilism. So there is an objective reality, universal realism. It's out there. We can know something about it, but not everything. So you and I and everybody has to work together to see what we think is true, because any of us could be wrong. Okay. All that applies to these kinds of empirical questions. Now, there are

Starting point is 00:19:49 other questions. I can put these, say, in the literary or religious kind of truths or mythological truths if you want to go full. Jordan Peterson and Joseph Campbell, it's a different kind of truth. So I start simply like something like J.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Is there really a Middle Earth somewhere on the planet? Well, now some of my friends tell me, yeah, it's in New Zealand where they filmed the movies. Like, okay, yeah. But no, of course, he just made this up, you know, J.K. Rowling's train station nine and three quarters in Harry Potter. There's no such thing, okay?

Starting point is 00:20:19 Although I double-checked that when I was fact-checking. And sure enough, some fans built a fake train station in London that says nine and three-quarters. But what makes great literature great is that it has, deeper truths about the human condition, human relationships and love and jealousy and anger and power and truth telling and line and deception and all the human things that great novelists write about. So the stories are made up, the characters are made up, the things didn't actually happen, but you're, you're, you got to read into the story, what is being said. Okay. Now, most religious people will go with me a little ways.

Starting point is 00:20:56 Like if I say, you know, do you think Jonah was actually swallowed by a great fish or a whale or whatever and spent three days in the belly of the fish, if you're asking that, you've missed the point of the story, right? The three days is symbolic. You know, he's here, then God delivers him to this other land through the fish, whatever, it doesn't matter. And he delivers this message from God to these other people that have to find redemption and start over and so forth. All right, so it's a kind of a redemption story. Yeah. Most religious people go, yeah, okay, I get that. Yeah, sure. Whether there really wasn't Adam and Eve is not that important. You know, there's no evidence that, you know, Moses led his people out of the, into the desert for 40 years.

Starting point is 00:21:34 And so, you know, maybe it's just a story about something deeper. Okay. Now, I've tried this out, as you know, from those chapters in the book, I've tried this out all the way up to the resurrection. Maybe the resurrection of Jesus didn't actually happen. Maybe it's just a story that the Jewish people at the time, some told themselves as a oppression, redemption, story about the Messiah that's going to come and overthrow the Romans and start anew, right? That's what the Jewish people thought the Messiah was going to be. That spun that into a completely different story that most Christians today say, no, no,

Starting point is 00:22:07 that's not mythologically true. That is literally true, right? There's one person out of the 100 billion who have lived and died before us who came back from the dead. He was dead for three days. There's that three days again. And the tomb was empty and the women went there. They didn't see him.

Starting point is 00:22:23 And then there was the post-death apparitions. and so on and so forth. Okay, you know the arguments. Okay, my point is that I think you're missing the point of this story. It's a story about starting over, about redemption, forgiveness, and about like, let's rebuild our own society here now. Jesus himself said, heaven is within you, right? He has this passage in Matthew.

Starting point is 00:22:46 You know, people ask me, where, when's it coming? Where is it? And he's like, it's not there. It's not here. It's in here, right? I'm talking about heaven in here. you know so i think we should take we should take his words you know literally that's what he meant he meant you know not some place that happens in the after anyway so my christian friends are not a viving this right

Starting point is 00:23:06 but i'm trying to make the point that i think religious stories serve a different purpose and here i use an example like when the preacher says the church has a parking lot in the back you can go see it yourself you can fact check that but when the preacher says you know god is three and one one and three Father, Son, and Holy Ghost of Trinity and all that. How is anybody sitting there and the church going to go, well, I'm going to go check that one out myself and decide if I think it's true or not? Nobody does that, because how would you? Right?

Starting point is 00:23:34 So people go, yeah, okay, I guess I believe it. Or, no, I don't really believe it. I'm going to go to this other church or whatever. But it's a different category than the stuff you and I are talking about. Like we can get our hands on this. We can sink our teeth in it. We can look at the evidence. We can vote.

Starting point is 00:23:50 We can publish. You know, we can go to a conference and try to convince. or colleague. None of that happens in religion, right? So I think it's a different kind of thing. It would be fair. I mean, to push back, I mean, there are, you know, this is an old, old, you know, theme in Judaism, for example. And there are various, you know, kind of answers to this, dating back to, you know, the equivalent of St. Thomas Aquinas, you know, in many ways for Judaism as Maimonides, who's a physician and a philosopher and a natural scientist, such as it was at the time throughout the Mediterranean and the Spanish tree inquisition. And, you know, he talked about this.

Starting point is 00:24:22 and sort of the chain of lies that you would, like, if there was a not, if this were not true, if Jesus were not, him, he wasn't talking about Jesus, but I can use that example. Like, there are three different possibilities, right? He was the true, you know, Lord, or he was a lunatic, or he was just charismatic cult leader effectively. But at some level, you have to believe that there was a lie and that that lie gets propagated through generation to generation. And, you know, you can sort of maintain, as I forget who said it, yeah, I think it was Mark Twain, three can maintain a conspiracy of two are dead, right? So you wrote about that in your last book. So at what level do you start to say that human nature is somehow evolving? In other words, they're more comfortable

Starting point is 00:25:02 of lies or they knew that their lies might not ever come to be. And just sort of knowing evidentiary waiting, how could they know if the Torah says, ask history or, you know, seek out from past, has any people ever been revealed to God by God and lived? And if you go back, there's a bunch of people where they claim to have experienced God or have revelation, including the Hindu tradition, but they all died in the Bhagavad Gita, right? They all die. And so you can look for it. And okay, this is not proof, but what do you make of this kind of grand lie design? For me to have been misled for, you know, thousands of years, I have to lie to my kids and I have to been lied to by my grandparents at infinite and back to, you know, Moses on Mount Sinai. So what do you make of

Starting point is 00:25:46 that kind of chain of reasoning? It's not proof. It's not evidence. It is in between empirical truths and just making stuff up. I mean, the argument, you know, Jesus was, you know, liar, Lord, or lunatic. That's the C.S. Lewis line. How about just genuinely mistaken? He just, you know, I'm just delivering a message. The people heard something slightly different than in the retelling and retelling. I mean, the earliest gospels are written 40 years after the fact. The other ones are 50, 60, 80, 90 years after. And then the book of Acts, even later. And then the Bible just gets piled on, you know, centuries later, right? So it's not canonized until the fifth century. So we're talking centuries of piling up these stories. No one has to lie about anything. You can just retell the

Starting point is 00:26:28 story and it changes and it changes and it changes. I think, you know, parts of Jesus' message are really good. Bart Erman's new book, you know, Love Thy Stranger about the, the Christian ethics and how that changed the world. There probably wasn't Jesus, but I don't think he was a Lord, but I don't think which has some reason to be, you know, kind of antagonistic towards Jesus. I mean, towards Christians, not Jesus, but we know his rabbi. We know why he was kind of banned by the Jewish Pharisees at the time. I think it's near historical. I mean, you could dispute the shroud of Turin. And yeah, of course. In terms of historicity of records, the Jews are pretty good about that. And we do have records of his rabbi and his teacher and his tradition. Oh, yeah, sure. Absolutely.

Starting point is 00:27:09 I don't dispute any of that. Yeah, I think a man named Jesus existed. Okay, but let me ask you this. Why don't Jews accept the resurrection? If it's empirically, literally true, and it can be proved, you know, there's a whole books about it. Here's all the arguments for why you should believe that the resurrection happened. Okay, Jews know these arguments. They've read those books. You can't just say, those rabbis knew our arguments. They would believe in Jesus.

Starting point is 00:27:29 They know your arguments. They just don't believe it. First, the Jews didn't think that's what the Messiah would be like. They thought the Messiah would be a conquering warrior that would overthrow the Roman Empire and so on, establish this new land. That's not what happened. Jesus was captured and killed, along with a couple of nobody thieves, and then his body disappeared. Who knows what happened to it, right? It was a nobody.

Starting point is 00:27:52 So that's not who the Jews thought would be coming, not the carpenter from Nazareth. Okay. So right there, to me, that's a pretty indicting argument there. Because the Jews believe in the same God, Yahweh, they believe in the same book, the Old Testament anyway. And they even believe that there's a Messiah, right? I mean, I've talked to Ben Shapiro about this. He believes all that, right? He's just like, nope, I don't think it was that guy.

Starting point is 00:28:16 I'm sorry, I just don't think it was. So you've written another wonderful book with a single word title. And, you know, we always love to do what you're not supposed to do, but you have a chapter on Bayesian evidence. So we have to judge this book by its cover. Hey, book lovers. We're judging books by the covers. We know we're not supposed to do it.

Starting point is 00:28:43 But it into the impossible, there's nothing to it. Let's take a look and judge some books. So Michael, take us through the title, the subtitle, and this mysterious cover artwork. I actually had nothing to do with the design of it. I'm guessing they wanted that. That's the North Star and my North Star is truth. Our North Star should be truth. Not ideology, not politics, not religion, but just whatever is truth.

Starting point is 00:29:10 I start off first by saying we're not living in a post-truth alternative facts, fake news world. If we were living in a post-truth world, the people that make sense, that case, they make a case. They argue. They present evidence and arguments that we are, which means that we're not. That is, they've lost the argument the moment they open their mouth to make an argument, because that's the whole point of the search for truth is to make arguments. What does it even mean post-truth? I mean, if you say something's post-truth, that means there are no truths, and therefore what they say is paradoxically not suffering. Yes. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. In reality, of course, I get into this a little bit more.

Starting point is 00:29:46 What they're really saying is that there's been challenges to the truth-seeking institutions like the academy and scientific institutions and the CDC and Anthony Fauci and climate scientists and, you know, the whole routine, vaccine scientists and whatnot. So really what they're saying is I don't really trust the scientists like I used to, not that we're living in a post-truth world. People on the other side say, you know, we do have the truth and you should all believe it. But that's also fraught by overselling your confidence in a particular claim without putting any Bayesian probabilities on it means that if you're wrong, people go, hey, you said that the masks work now you're, now they don't. Or you said we had to close the schools, but hey, wait a minute. Or I see Al Gore is claiming that all of his claims and inconvenient truth were true, but I'm also seeing sites going, they're all wrong. And here's why. Boom, boom, boom. It's like, okay.

Starting point is 00:30:40 So I think when people say post-true, I think that's what they mean. It's like, How come we can't get agreement on what we are supposed to believe? And then I define truth. This is something confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer our provisional assent, rational to offer our provisional as in it could change and truth as in small T truth. It's provisionally true. This is what we're confident in at the moment. That could all change.

Starting point is 00:31:06 And so from there, that allows you to put truth as a truth seeking. as a virtue without having to be right or wrong. And therefore, it's a virtue to change your mind if the evidence changes rather than it's a threat to your identity or your politics or your religion in which people put their backs up and refuse to engage because they feel like it's a threat to them. So that's kind of the thrust of the book. How do you define, you know, kind of the difference between changing your mind, which is a commendable attribute, I suppose, versus, you know, changing your model. I'm thinking of there are a lot of like internet charlatans and people. I won't say he's a charlatan, but there's a guy I follow who's really into Bitcoin

Starting point is 00:31:48 and he's always got some new thing. And his main hypothesis was that the Bitcoin cycle runs on the monetary cycle, which runs on every four years in the election cycle. And so we're due for a huge, you know, rebound in the beginning of 2026. And I don't know how much you follow crypto, but it's certainly not been. Then he said, oh, actually, you know, it's actually a five-year cycle. And I'm waiting, and it's going to peak in, uh, in mid-2020s. He said that in January. We are at mid-2020s. Now it's, you know, who knows, but the thesis never changes no matter how much, you know, Maynard Cain said, you know, when the facts change, I changed my mind. Okay, fine. But where is the virtue in changing your model? Isn't that kind of, you know, moving the goalpost and the sharpshooter

Starting point is 00:32:26 fallacy? I've been following people since I was a undergraduate at Pepperdine University in the 70s, who are into these invest in gold and silver and here's my newsletter of how to beat the market and all these kinds of things. I even went to a seminar with a friend of mine, my roommate at the time, about how you don't actually have to pay taxes, that this is not legal, that Congress never approved the income tax law and all that stuff. And here's what you got to do and so on and so forth. And, you know, they walked us through the whole thing. And so my buddy's like, that's it. I'm just going to follow all these steps and I'm never paying income tax again. But, you know, he got caught later, years down the line because we were just poor starving students so the IRS doesn't

Starting point is 00:33:06 care about us. But eventually caught up with them. But it's a little bit like that. You know, on these gold investment or crypto and newsletter guys, I never trust them because they're selling something first. You know, you should invest in my fund. You should sign up for my newsletter. You should do this and that. And they're mutually contradicting each other. I mean, you know, they all make claims, but they're not consistently like that. Here's a good statistical artifact there was a guy named Bill Miller and a hedge fund manager who beat the S&P 500 15 years in a row. All right. So you do the calculations like, oh my God, the odds of this are like $370 million to one.

Starting point is 00:33:44 You know, he's the greatest hedge fund manager of all time and so on and so forth. But in fact, this is called base rate neglect. How many hedge fund managers are there? There's over 6,000 of them. Okay. At the beginning of 15 years, can you tell me which of these 6,000 hedge fund managers is going to beat the S&P 500 over the next 15 years? No, you can't. Nobody can. Right. After the fact, you can go back and go, oh, those are the companies that succeeded. That's the guy that made the most money. And let's just

Starting point is 00:34:11 do what they did. No, that doesn't work. And in fact, after the fact, if you go back to see how those people and companies do the next 15 years, they just go back to where everybody else is. Right. You know, in terms of like modern day parallels, you know, not to make, you know, too big a record scratch here. But, you know, the Feynman kind of standard is that only that which could be verified experimentally is valid. In other words, maybe a riff on Popper as well, which is, you know, neither one of which is, you know, truly held by, you know, modern philosophers of science to be the sine qua non of good science. I mean, there's many more things than just falsifiability and experimental evidence. But we all agree that that's a big plus. And on the back of your book is an encomium for many people, but one of whom is Brian Green, you know, my kid's favorite physicist named Brian.

Starting point is 00:34:58 But Brian gives you this wonderful incommia, right? But he's, of course, known most especially for being the hype man. And I've had him on the show and I've talked to him many times. But he's the biggest hype man. Aside for Michi Okaku, we'll come to later because I think he is also engaging in a myth-making fairy tale that needs to be countered in some way. And I've taken upon myself to start doing that lately. But Brian, you know, is known for the, you know, string theory sort of being the only game in town. And that this is, you know, just we, we, you know, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we're not worthy of

Starting point is 00:35:29 string theory. And it kind of fell into the 20th century, but, but, but it's really from the 23rd, you know, all this stuff. And, and, and, and, and the leading string theorists, like Witten and Syberg have said things like, well, if something comes along and it's not consistent with string theory, we'll just kind of rebranded as string theory. And, and then it'll be part of string theory. So if that's not true, if that doesn't count, string theory, where where you rely on it quite heavily towards the end of the book in the cosmology section, well, you talk about M theory and Hawking's theory. You talk about Malad now and all these things are just fanciful nonsense. I mean, no real practicing physicist thinks that Hawking really had

Starting point is 00:36:03 anything important to say about the origin of the universe in terms of M theory. No, there are very few people that work on M theory anymore. Super symmetry is another thing that's not work on anymore. You talk about the variable speed of light. I wish you had sent me the book beforehand, Michael, because there are some quibbles I would have pointed out to you, and maybe that Brian Green could have been a Keating on the back. But anyway, Michael, so is metaphysical kosher? Religion is some form of metaphysical presentation. So are they legitimate avenues? Let me back up and give you my thinking here. Those chapters, you know, God, why is there something rather than nothing, consciousness and free will, are all in the third part of the book called the known unknowables.

Starting point is 00:36:41 I'm not sure that we can get an answer to the question the way these questions are phrased. On the case of consciousness, what's it like to be something else? It's not possible to know that. So it's all going to be somewhat speculative. You know, free will and determinism. I know all the arguments. Determinists have great arguments. I think they're wrong.

Starting point is 00:37:01 It may not be something anybody can actually prove. This may be one of these pragmatic truths. I also talk about this. Like I use the example, Martin Gardner, who was one of the founders of the modern skeptical movement. He was there with the Amazing Randy and Paul Kurtz and others that started the skeptics that we came on board in the early 90s. And he was a famous debunker of astrology and psychics and Uri Geller, spoonbending and all that bullshit. But later in his life, in an interview with me, actually, in skeptic, he said, I'm a believer in God. I'm a F-I-D-I-S-T,

Starting point is 00:37:34 F-D-I-S-T, which is a kind of theist in a pragmatic sense that William James and Miguel Unamuno meant. That is to say. say, if it's a big important question, we cannot answer it ultimately through science or rationality or logic. And it makes a difference in your life, then just go ahead and believe whatever you want. It doesn't matter. And he says, I believe in God. I believe in an afterlife. I believe in prayer. You know, of course, people like Randy are like, what, Martin, how could you say this? And he's like, I'm not saying I can prove it. I'm not saying you should believe. I'll even say that the atheists have slightly better arguments than the thees. I'm just saying

Starting point is 00:38:09 no one could prove it for sure, and this is what works for me. It's sort of ending the conversation empirically. It's like, okay. You know, somebody says... There's an offshoot of a riff on Pascal, right? I mean, you should act like that. Not a bet for the next life. It's like, this is what works for me in my life now.

Starting point is 00:38:28 Okay. So if I want to use the example of free will, let's say the determinists are right. But I've never met a determinist who actually believes it. All the determinists I know have written books about determinism, and they're very proud of their books. How could they be proud of their books? It was determined at the Big Bang that they were going to write that book, right? So this is what's called a useful fiction.

Starting point is 00:38:47 You know, okay, I don't know. Maybe I don't have free will, but it sure feels like it. I'm just going to assume I do. It works for me. I assume you do too because I treat you like you're a volitional agent and I can influence you and you're making free choices. I should hold you accountable. We all do this, right?

Starting point is 00:39:02 So maybe belief in God, for some people, not me, but it just works. in that kind of pragmatic truth sense. But if you're really interested in the search for truth, you could be more militant in your atheism, right? You could be like a Lawrence Krauss or Sam Harris is a militant free will denier, although he does believe that artificial intelligence can have free will, interestingly. And so in my mind, a scientist can have permission to believe, maybe not at the same level as a devout deist or theist.

Starting point is 00:39:32 I talked to Stephen C. Meyer recently. And he invoked the claim that you made the other day, or the other minute, rather. It feels like a day when you're talking to me, I'm sure. And that was that the universe is so big and it's so vast. And there must be so many planets that have life. But yet we don't find any with life. And therefore, that's a form of fine-tuning, which you address in the book. So maybe we can pivot there.

Starting point is 00:39:51 I have great difficulties with both sides of this debate, the fine-tuning argument, which I feel is overbroad. And also the denial of transcendent information that we do have about the physical universe, and why that shouldn't be, you know, used in a scientific framework. So let's talk about fine-tuning. You talk about, you know, the trillions of planets and you sort of use that as an argument, oh, there must be life out there. I feel like that's a large number, gamblers, hypothesis, fallacy type argument because you don't know what the multiplying factor is. The Drake equation should never be, you know, if I could go back in time, I'd probably, you know, slap Drake around,

Starting point is 00:40:26 you know, the late great Frank Drake, because it's really not an equation at all. If my students hand in a paper and it's got a number on it and an equation and no unsubes, And no uncertainties on that, I failed them, Michael. Okay, that has no uncertainties, no systematics, no error bars. It's complete junk, nonsense. It's just like a cocktail napkin party trick, but people then publish that napkin. And I was astonished recently to read a survey, nature, nature astronomy that asked basically, do a professional astrobiologist believe that aliens exist in the universe?

Starting point is 00:40:55 And I felt like they shouldn't answer that question. I felt that question is not dignified for a scientist to answer. What do you make of this? Yeah, I agree with that. I agree with that. You don't believe in it. You just practice it. You don't believe in science. It's just something you use. It's like, can you use rationality to prove rationality? Can you use induction to prove induction? That's the wrong question. As for the fine tuning, again, this whole thing in my book is like, here's some big problems, free will and determinism, consciousness, the Big Bang, fine tuning, why there's something rather than nothing. Here's a bunch of answers that people have offered. Ultimately, I'm saying these are not, we're not able to answer these questions. We're not able to answer these questions. with the tools we have at the moment. I'm not saying we'll never be able to answer it. Hopefully we can.

Starting point is 00:41:37 I offer some of my own. So whether I'm out of date with the M theory or whatever, the point is that there's a bunch of different answers that people have offered, people like you that are physicists and cosmologists. Here's what we think. When someone says, why is there something rather than nothing? I mean, don't you have some answer other than nobody knows?

Starting point is 00:41:53 Okay, maybe. That's fine. But the bigger picture here is that I'm trying to make is that if somebody says, I'm not sure what you believe, I don't care, this is what I believe, it works for me, then I'm okay with that. I mean, as you know, I An Horsialli famously found God and Jesus and the whole thing. And people like Richard, Dawkins, who insists on literal, this is a literal truth claim, so you better be able to prove it or else.

Starting point is 00:42:19 Now, if IN or whoever says, I'm not saying you should believe, I'm just saying this changed my life. Okay. And that is the case for her. And that's the case for a lot of people. You know, they have troubles in their life. And believing in Jesus or Buddha or whatever makes a big difference. Okay, I met Isaac Hayes once at a Thanksgiving dinner. He just happened to be the great Grammy Award winning theme from Shaft, chef on South Park, big star.

Starting point is 00:42:47 Right? And he, you know, famously in the 90s was a Scientologist. So, you know, there he is. My best friend's Thanksgiving dinner. He's sitting right across from him. I'm like, oh, my God, it's the great Isaac Hayes. I think I'll ask him. Not in a confrontational way.

Starting point is 00:43:00 It's a Thanksgiving dinner. So what does Scientology do for you? And so on. And he's just like, well, Michael, I lost everything I had. I was at the pinnacle of rock and roll and the whole thing. And I lost it all. And the Scientologist saved my life. Okay.

Starting point is 00:43:15 You know, end of story. He wasn't trying to convert me or tell me how great Scientology is and you should join to. Nothing like that. So I'm perfectly okay saying, all right, fine. I'm okay with that. And I'm not claiming it's a make-believe, a phony, it's a myth and a fake. There's a different category of things we assume about the world that just work for us.

Starting point is 00:43:36 And that's okay, right? So that's my point there. Okay, so let's go back to the fine-tuning. What is your answer to Stephen Myers, the intelligent design theorist, argument about the fine-tuning? It looks like there's a fine-tuner. I had him on last week, and I'm in his new film. I'm highly paid. I got a Southwest ticket, you know, return trip.

Starting point is 00:43:54 And I should say, I was the last up there in the Pacific Northwest to host Richard Dawkins. So, you know, people will criticize me for having him on, although I think I made the match, you know, like a Yenta between you and Stephen. So I think I get some credit for broaching that about four or five years ago with his book, The Return of the God hypothesis. My role in the movie was to push back on some of the fine-tuning argument. What's this movie? It's basically a movie version of Return of the God hypothesis. My counter to him is that there are few things that are as poorly tuned as the universe. And for example, the one that you bring up in the book is sort of cherry-picked.

Starting point is 00:44:30 I mean, with due respect, but you're not an astrophysicist, so I don't expect you know this. But people like hawking would cherry-pick certain things like the acceleration or the expansionary of the universe and the Martin Rees, who's on the book as well, the amount of over-densities and under-densities needed to be just finely tuned, apparently. there's a lot of hand-waving in those numbers. For example, right now we live in an era of what's called the cosmological constant or dark energy. The largest source of matter energy in the universe right now, which propels its expansion, is called dark energy. Now, that's just a name. And we have almost no information about it. We have less information about that than dark matter. We've actually detected dark matter. We know what dark matter is. We don't know how much of it there is out there.

Starting point is 00:45:13 but neutrinos, which you've heard of, are a form of dark matter. They're exactly the perfect Hollywood version of what dark matter is. They weakly interact with the other forces. They don't interact with light. They don't give off light and they have mass. Perfect example of what dark matter could be. There's just not enough of them to make up for the missing mass that closes the universe, makes the universe flat rather. Anyway, but early on in the universe, we were radiation dominated. In other words, the dominant source of energy in the universe was heat, light. And then the second phase of the universe was called matter domination. And then third generation is where we live now. It's called the dark energy or cosmological constant potentially. Right now, they claim that if this were

Starting point is 00:45:51 off by a tiny bit, we wouldn't be here because the universe would accelerate way too fast for us. But they always miss the fact that this is a real number. So real numbers can take on any value from, you know, and there's an infinite number of real numbers between any two real numbers, right? So they could have taken on any value. And to say that this value is so finely tuned, and I told this to Stephen, you'll watch the podcast, comes out on Monday. And I told them, This number is incredibly poorly tuned. It's even worse tuned than my violin, which, you know, I don't even play, Michael. You know, I play one instrument, Spotify.

Starting point is 00:46:20 That's the only instrument I can play. And so to tell me that that's evidence of fine tuning is just, it goes against his case. Now, they'll make up things, you know, that seem to be. But I do want to point out something that they do say, and that he did say on the record on my podcast, at least. He claimed that intelligent design has made falsifiable predictions, which turned out to be to be not false. In other words, verified in terms of what's called junk DNA for a long time, they had this weak kind of claim that all DNA has meaning and matter, you know, kind of like every sperm is beautiful from the life of Brian or whatever, right? All parts of DNA have some purpose, just like

Starting point is 00:46:58 all galaxies have some purpose maybe and the extravagant universe. And so they claim that this is, you know, something that could have been falsified, but wasn't. And I pointed out that's actually more empirical support in a Bayesian factor scenario than structural. string theory. And I think that makes a lot of people, they start shifting around. They don't like that. But it's true. And you can check it on Grock or whatever. It's very weak, Michael. It's like saying, you know, they predicted this guy would not be blue, you know, something kind of semi-plausible, but not, so it's not a huge way. But string theory has zero. So when you multiply zero by, you know, divided by any number, it's going to be zero, right? So from this context, the fine-tuning

Starting point is 00:47:36 is very weak. It is not at all, you know, convincing the, you know, kind of alternative. that there's, you know, God wouldn't make as you bring up Sean Carroll in this book and the claim that, well, why would God be so wasteful as to create, you know, 10 to the 24th planets in the observable universe, you know, if I were God, I wouldn't do that, which I always think it's ironically, a militant atheist like Sean Carroll will say something is not the way that God would do it. I mean, it's God like, what would Sean Carroll do? But I pointed out, you know, a hundred years, you know, science is provisional. And I do hope that, you know, we get things better and better. Like, I hope that my books are irrelevant. in 100 years. Not that they're still correct. We still have no idea what's going on. But I guess in the anomalies, there always be these anomalies you mentioned, always be the 5% residue that you cannot eliminate. And I worry that as we pick the lower hanging fruit, all that's going to be left is anomalies. It's like Brandelini's principle. We won't be able to refute all the BS. So in sum up, the fine tuning is not convincing at all. There are numbers that seem to be interestingly inhabiting a region of parameter space. And my

Starting point is 00:48:41 colleagues in inflationary cosmology will say, yes, of course, you know, what's the anthropic principle at work, thanks to the multiverse, which I also don't think is plausible. So I'm kind of in the middle of these different worlds. I think they're interesting questions. I hope to settle them with data. Unlike a lot of people, like, I don't think that the, you know, the Discovery Institute, you know, they do some sorts of research, but it's always what's called abduction, not the alien abduction that you experienced 35, 40 years ago, but they're starting with a conclusion and they're reasoning back to the, to the facts that would cause it to be deductively true or abductively true. And I find that certainly not scientific.

Starting point is 00:49:16 Before the next track starts, have you ever wondered, who are the people in my old family photos? Or what brought them to Canada? With ancestry, you can start finding answers. Start with a name and we'll guide you from there. For just 499, try our new 30-day beginners pass and uncover generations of family stories. No experience necessary. You've got questions. We've got Ancestors. Offer ends July 22nd, 2026. Visit Ancestry.ca slash beginners for details. Terms apply. You know, abduction is not a big, you know, apologetics, we call it, right? So I guess to you, what is the, what is the point? I mean, do you feel, do you feel, you know, depressed or do you feel, you know, that these things will proliferate? For example, moon landing denial, you know,

Starting point is 00:50:00 is rampant. People believe in the flat earth all around the globe, you know, I joke. What are their motivation? Do you study psychology? and you understand it better than anybody. So what motivates Bart Sibro? To keep claiming to does Aldrin? Yeah, go ahead. Well, let me come back to that for a second because that was a long discussion

Starting point is 00:50:18 of the fine-tuning, which I'm glad to know. I took Martin Reese, since he's Lord Martin Reese now, I took him at his word that these are the six numbers that are fine-tuned and all the creationists and intelligent design people quote him. So I thought, all right, I got to use that. I should have sent it to you and said, it's not so fine-tuned.

Starting point is 00:50:35 So again, on this question of belief, I think most of us, most of the time believe things that we can't prove or we can't explain. We know this from tons of research and cognitive psychology. I use the example in the book of asking undergraduates, do you accept Darwin's theory of evolution? They almost always say, yeah, of course. But then you say, explain it. And they're like, oh, well, the giraffe stretches its neck and the baby giraffes have longer inex inheritance of acquired characteristics.

Starting point is 00:51:01 No, that isn't Darwin's theory at all. That's completely wrong. Or, you know, do you support or reject NAFTA? you know, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Oh, I'm for it or I'm against it. Okay, what is it? Who's in it? I forget.

Starting point is 00:51:13 Right. You know, and so most of what we claim we know about the world, like, oh, I accept this or I believe that. No one actually fax check those things, right? So research on climate denial. Turns out that the people who accept anthropogenic global warming don't know anything more about it than the deniers. In other words, it's a technical science.

Starting point is 00:51:32 Most people don't know much about it at all. I mean, I'm publishing a magazine. We cover this story. people send me articles all the time. I'm still completely a dunce cap when it comes to climate science. And so the average person goes, yeah, I believe it or I don't believe it. Really what they're saying is I accept the scientists. They usually get it right and they tell me this is true.

Starting point is 00:51:52 So I guess so. Or, you know, I just don't believe the scientific institutions anymore. They lied about this and that. You know, they're liberals and they're doing this and that. I don't believe them, right? So most of what people say, they have. different motives. You know, it's a tribal thing. It's my, my party believes this, my religion believes this, or whatever. As for the individual, you know, the flat earthers, you know, there was that Netflix documentary, Beyond the Curve. It was so good

Starting point is 00:52:20 because you could really see the ego involvement with these guys. Like, I have this thing, and no one else believes it but me. And there's a few other people, and we have our little thing here, and I have this secret knowledge, and oh my God, I am in on this. It's very much like the conspiracy theory. It's very much like the conspiracy theorist. I know what actually happened on 9-11 or who really shot JFK or who really killed Princess Diana. You know, it's this whole thing of like I have this, you know, it's a very ego gratifying thing. The Flat Earth, there's, you know, and all that. I mean, sorry, the no mooners. Yeah, I think it's that kind of thing. You know, I think it's just a one-off thing. I don't think this is a big popular conspiracy theory anymore. That will never go away because there's always going to be

Starting point is 00:53:02 people that, you know, want to own the knowledge. They're very ego. embedded in it. Well, their identity is defined by it. This is the point of, you know, the North Star should be your, it should be truth, not that the earth has to be flat because this is how I define myself or whatever it is. And so that's never going to change. You know, this is, you know, the my side bias, the hindsight bias and the confirmation bias. These are all just built into human psychology. And that's true for everybody, which is back to the start of our conversation, why we all have to work together to see what's actually true. I have to point it to you. You can. You can't say, well, I know what's true, but I can't show you because it's classified.

Starting point is 00:53:40 I mean, you can say that. But at some point, I got to see it myself or, you know, or the whole community of people saw it, right? So my analogy in the book, like with Bigfoot, you know, people say they saw Bigfoot or whatever, you know, if you want to name a new species in biology, you can't show up at a conference ago and announce on the stage to your colleagues, I found a new species. Oh, great. All right.

Starting point is 00:54:04 Can we see it? Well, no, you see, I was out camping, and it was three in the morning, and I heard this Russell, and I went out there, and my camera didn't really work, but, and I took this blurry photograph, and if you use your imagination, it sort of looks like a body, they're going to go, you don't get to name a new species after this, you know, incident. We need a type specimen. Show us the body, the big foot. Show us the alien. Or else, there's no reason to believe, right? It's back to Sagan's dragon. You know, but I feel the presence of the dragon. Oh, that's nice. I feel like the dragon loves me. And believing in the dragon changed my life. Okay, fine. That's good for you. But that doesn't mean I should believe it because it didn't change my life, right? So, you know, that's the distinction I'm making. There's also the corresponding problem with the fossil record.

Starting point is 00:54:49 And you talk about paleontology a lot in the book as well. The same could sort of be said for like transitional forms. And yes, we, and, you know, certainly Meyer believes in, you know, microevolution. The question is macroevolution. How do you respond to it? to that. Or there are these gaps and there will be forever bridgeable, the lacuna

Starting point is 00:55:08 between what can be possibly known and what is going to be known as huge gap. Just because we can't find a fossil, yeah, you can say that does, but for people that say, yes, just like the biologist with the Bigfoot, you know, why should we believe, why should we have more evidentiary

Starting point is 00:55:24 weight towards evolution that ascribes these, you know, transitional forms and universal common ancestors that we can't find? I call this the fossil fallacy, right? So, So here's a fossil, and here's a fossil. I need a transitional fossil in the gap here. This is a big gap.

Starting point is 00:55:42 All right. Here, I'll use a banana, because that's a good one. So here is a transitional fossil between these two fossils. And the creationist goes, now there's two gaps in the fossil record, right? Give me a transitional fossil there, and then there, and then there, right? So in other words, it's non-fossilifiable claim. There's no amount of evidence I'm going to present you that's going to get you to go, okay, I see there's a transitional fossil. All right, so that's the general principle there. And more

Starting point is 00:56:08 specifically, these are inferential sciences. These are events that already happened. So historically, so I have that chapter on history. You know, we have to use comparative method and come at it from multiple lines of inquiry. How do you know the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago? How do you know the horses came from this transitional fossil, whatever? This isn't like, there's that one fossil and that proves it. No, it's a whole line of inquiry, a bunch of different pieces of evidence, and so on that all add up to this conclusion. They may be wrong, but if everyone in, almost everyone in the field who knows a lot about this goes, yeah, I think you got it right. It's probably right. Not necessarily. They could all be wrong. This has happened in the past

Starting point is 00:56:48 historically. But usually when there's a general consensus among scientists, you know, that's mostly probably right. You know, oh, they laughed at Galilee or whatever. Yeah, but, you know, most of the colleagues of Galileo, they were wrong. So they should have been laughed at maybe. I don't know. That's what I get. I get the, well, Professor Keating, you know, they laughed at Einstein. And I'm not good in math.

Starting point is 00:57:09 But if you help me out, I'll share the Nobel Prize. I don't give it all the actual Nobel Prize money. But as we close, I was touched by the opening dedication to Daniel Dennett, who I have to say was very, you know, meaningful to me that I think I did the last interview he ever did two weeks before he died. I don't know what that says about, about him that he chose to. spent two hours with Keating before he died. But I was very honored to experience that time with him. And he obviously is a giant. Instead of asking, you know, why did you dedicate it to him? What did he get right about consciousness? What are your thoughts about his perspective on consciousness that maybe the field resists? Well, in general, I dedicate the book to him because I, first of all, he was a friend. And second of all,

Starting point is 00:57:50 he's one of the few philosophers I know that was deeply ensconced in science. And he really cares about science and evidence and arguments and so on, not just thought experiments, right? Because one of the things that bothers me about philosophers is they just do thought experiments, and I always ask, you know, did you look out the window? You know, we're living in a simulation. I have this thought experiment that proves there's a, you know, 51% basian probability we're living in a simulation. Really? Did you look out the window to see if it looks like we're living in a simulation? Do you see any buffering when you're looking out at the world? Right. Anyway, so Dan, you know, he didn't fall for that. He liked to follow the science carefully. And again,

Starting point is 00:58:25 And his, you know, the particular quote I gave from him about, you know, truth was the bottom line for him. And not ideology or some political or even a philosophical method, which I appreciated about him. As for consciousness, yeah, well, both free will and consciousness. So he wrote several books on each, you know, on the, his book on free will wrote several books on free will. But Freedom Evolves was his book at which he made the argument about degrees of freedom. So rather than an on or off switch, you know, there's just like a spectrum. of degrees of freedom that an organism can have, depending on the evolutionary history and so on and so forth. So I really like that concept there.

Starting point is 00:59:03 And he was a compatibilist. So I often cite him because I'm not a philosopher. So I go, I'm a compatibilist. Well, you're not a philosopher. Well, Danette was a compatriest, and he's one of the great philosophers. It's kind of an argument from authority, I guess. And then same thing with consciousness.

Starting point is 00:59:17 You know, it's a really hard problem. I think that the question itself, what's it like to be somebody else or something else, is not answerable. I think it's the wrong question. It's a conceptually, it's not a hard problem. It's an impossible problem. It's not answerable the way it's asked.

Starting point is 00:59:34 What's it like to be something? How would I know? I mean, as far all I know, Brian, you're not a sentient being. You're just a robot, right? That's the philosophical. Sension plasmoid, Michael. I haven't you heard on the sentient? I just rewatch that Star Trek Next Generation episode,

Starting point is 00:59:48 The Measure of a Man, you know, is data person, right? They're going to take them apart and make a thousand of them. And Picard says, you know, prove to me that I'm conscious. to the other guy. You know, it's like, well, I can't. It's like, exactly. But I know you are. It's like, how do you know I am?

Starting point is 01:00:03 Anyway, it's a crazy. Proof you have a brain. I haven't seen it, have you? Yeah, so how do you know what exists? Well, I've got one right here. Just outsource my third lobe. Well, Michael Shermer, I don't think Daniel is reading the book from heaven. I don't think he believed in heaven.

Starting point is 01:00:17 I'm glad that you quoted him. And I'm glad that this book exists. And I thank you for the role that you play. And, you know, I mean, you're very, courageous, you're fearless. This book has as many arguments, you know, if you sum them up, just by pure, you know, evidentiary, you know, presentation, rather, there's an equal number of arguments for God as against God, for example, or, you know, for almost any subject. But, but it's not, obviously, they're not given equal weight. And the toolkit of science is something

Starting point is 01:00:44 we must as a society preserve, because we, we can disagree on facts, you know, and even findings. I mean, my censors, you know, you hear something completely different than I do. I don't know. One bit about your qualia, as Daniel would say, you know, I have no idea if you see the color red. It's exactly the way I see the color red. I know for a fact, we don't see it the same way. All these reasons, I think, conspired to at least allow us to suspect that the laws of science and the tool kit of science and epistemology in that realm are at least our best hope, you know, to get closer to closer to truth. So Michael Shermer, Dr. Michael Shermer, thanks for joining us on the podcast. You're welcome. Michael Shermer, just about $1,000, we will never find the alien.

Starting point is 01:01:25 That's epistemology with skin in the game. The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic. If that changes how you think about UFO disclosure, hit subscribe and turn on notifications as well. Drop a comment to what physical evidence would actually move you to belief. And if you want the opposing view, the case for taking UAPs deadly seriously, I linked Obie Loeb right here. Thanks for watching and click on the special link

Starting point is 01:01:50 that I made just for this episode. Briancadem.com slash theory.

Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Michael Shermer: The Only Skeptic on the Alien Task Force

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.