Shermer! It's Shermer! *howls, runs in circles, and foams at the mouth*
Phew, I'm okay now.
He does know this is SkeptiKO, not SkeptiCO, right?
But seriously, I have to agree with Michael, his spooky-radio story has got to be featured in the interview. However, what I'd like to know is:
1) his thoughts on the reaction of his fans and colleagues when the story was released. Commenters on the SciAm page immediately scrambled to explain away his special experience with his newlywed wife as nothing-to-see-here, while many others sprang to chastise him for giving attention to it at all. Dr. Coyne even threw the "woo" label at him. Does he feel the reaction he received was representative of a rational, unbiased, progressive, scientific crowd? Is this what we are all to expect every time we have an anomalous episode?
2) Did his experience have an affect on how he sees the paranormal crowd? What did he feel was the reaction to his story from our side of the aisle? Did he come closer to understanding what we know about the impact of personal experience on a person's worldview?
3) How much of his concerns about what is called the supernatural stems from the data of which he is aware, and how much stems from the fear of letting religion seep in? Can he acknowledge the possibility that most scientists are biased against psi, ?DEs, ADCs, etc., not because of what they see as a lack of concrete data, but because they fear an acceptance of it will open the door to religion? Does he see any way the sciences can let psi come into the mainstream knowledge without being tainted by religion?
4) Does he feel science is still an anthology of fields and methods, or has it become a political position? Has politics and funding replaced the threat of religion? What are his thoughts on Randi's MDC, considering so many laypeople and even scientific publications have used it to debunk the paranormal, in spite of it being not repeatable, virtually impossible to measure compared to standard scientific experiments, no scientific journal would publish it, and Randi is not a scientist? What are his thoughts on Dawkins and militant atheists, is this what the founders of the various fields of science would have wanted? What are his thoughts on the Open Sciences program, can he understand their concerns, and does he believe they are acting as scientists who feel they're in the minority position should act?
5) What are his definitions of a proponent, skeptic, and debunker, what are the differences, and when should scientists be in one position or another?
UPDATE 6) From his point of view, when is a subject worth investigating? What does it take to get from, "Huh, that's weird," to, "Hopefully, this experiment will show that..." Is there a point in science when research should be ended, and who and what should make that decision?
That's all I have for the moment.