I really don't know how you would challenge that guy. He's very slick and polished in his capacity to subsume anything spiritual,transpersonal or parapsychological into the materialist paradigm. He's very adept at befriending his interlocutors and possibly sincere yet there is something about him that is unmovable – reminds me a bit of Linda in some ways although he is warmer. I would suggest listening to some of his interviews. A recent one with Jordan Peterson was good although not particularly challenging. I look forward to hearing the podcast with bated breath:)My Upcoming Interview with Michael Shermer about:
Heavens on Earth: The Scientific Search for the Afterlife, Immortality, and Utopia
Anyone have any suggestions re questions?
thxI really don't know how you would challenge that guy. He's very slick and polished in his capacity to subsume anything spiritual,transpersonal or parapsychological into the materialist paradigm. He's very adept at befriending his interlocutors and possibly sincere yet there is something about him that is unmovable – reminds me a bit of Linda in some ways although he is warmer. I would suggest listening to some of his interviews. A recent one with Jordan Peterson was good although not particularly challenging. I look forward to hearing the podcast with bated breath:)
in process of reading it. let me know if you find anything worth pursuing.Did you read his book?
In my experience whenever I see Shermer talk with a proponent of an idea he finds to be too out there to consider he immediately starts talking instead to his own audience rather than to the proponent or the general listener. He likes being a gate keeper of ideas and frequently throws out the flimsiest of defenses that are more rhetorical devices. It'll be interesting to see him on the other foot, actually having to defend something for once.
Shermer is such a disingenuous scumbag.
When you finally corner him, he will either 1.) discount your data as "not accepted by Academia in general", and thus invalid, or 2.) plead ignorance and claim he can't believe your data because he's not an expert in that field.
Keep in mind you are dealing with a rapist who has no moral principles, and will thus say anything, regardless of whether he actually believes what he is saying or not.
He probably rationalized his way out of this. Although I have a itching suspicion most of these "skeptics" are aware of the evidence and had their own experiences but what to keep the money coming, they are just pawns in a celebrity chess matchWhat about bringing up his own/ his wife's paranormal experience involving a deceased relative?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-that-can-shake-one-s-skepticism-to-the-core/
At the end of the short article, he says:
"And if we are to take seriously the scientific credo to keep an open mind and remain agnostic when the evidence is indecisive or the riddle unsolved, we should not shut the doors of perception when they may be opened to us to marvel in the mysterious."
Look forward to the show!
It's worth remembering utopia literally means no place, which is where Michael Shermer will lead the interview.I haven't read shermer's book (nor will i), but I feel that the inclusion in the title of the search for "utopia" already gives away it's true intent.