Episode Summary
Executive Summary: Michael Shermer interviews philosopher Lee McIntyre about his book The Scientific Attitude, arguing that science is defined less by a fixed method than by an ethos of caring about evidence, being open to revision, and testing claims against reality. They examine demarcation, anomalies, pseudoscience, and how to engage climate deniers, anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, Holocaust deniers, and other science skeptics without simply dismissing them.
Main Topics: The problem of demarcation (Priority: 5/5): The conversation opens with the classic challenge of distinguishing science from pseudoscience. McIntyre argues that no one self-identifies as a pseudoscientist; demarcation is judged by behavior, evidence standards, and openness to refutation. Scientific attitude as ethos (Priority: 5/5): McIntyre’s core thesis is that science is best understood as a scientific attitude: a willingness to follow evidence, revise beliefs, and accept criticism from peers and experiments, rather than merely following a fixed logic or method. Anomalies and theory change (Priority: 5/5): They discuss how science handles anomalies such as Mercury’s orbit, pre-Clovis archaeology, Bigfoot claims, SETI, and psi research. The point is not that anomalies automatically overturn a theory, but that they can prompt deeper investigation when the evidence is strong enough. Science denial and conspiracy reasoning (Priority: 5/5): A major theme is how deniers use cherry-picking, fake experts, impossibly high standards, and conspiracy thinking. This applies to climate denial, anti-vaccine claims, Holocaust denial, flat-earth beliefs, and some forms of anti-GMO activism. How to persuade deniers (Priority: 4/5): Shermer and McIntyre stress that confrontation alone usually fails. They discuss respectful engagement, steelmanning, asking what evidence would change someone’s mind, and using one-on-one conversations or public debate strategically. Social science, ideology, and replication (Priority: 4/5): McIntyre argues that social science is often more vulnerable to ideology and data-shopping than the physical sciences, but can still be rigorous if it adopts the same scientific attitude and learns from data rather than confirming prior beliefs. Future work on persuasion (Priority: 3/5): McIntyre outlines follow-up projects on persuasion: studying climate skeptics, coal communities, Mormon missionary training, GMOs, and possibly nuclear power to learn which persuasion techniques actually change minds.
Key Arguments: Science should be understood primarily as a set of behaviors and values—especially openness to evidence and willingness to change one's mind—not as a perfectly formal method. Demarcation is hard because criteria that are too loose admit pseudoscience, while criteria that are too strict wrongly exclude genuine science like evolutionary biology. Peer review, competition, and communal criticism are central to science; scientific claims are not meant to be accepted on the basis of one person’s authority or isolated internet research. Anomalies matter, but a single anomaly usually does not justify abandoning a well-supported theory; scientists should assess the total body of evidence and the probability that the anomaly signals a real problem. Deniers often move the goalposts, rely on conspiracy narratives, and use anomalies rhetorically without any willingness to specify what would falsify their own claims. Public communication matters: scientists should explain how evidence is weighed and how uncertainty works, or deniers will control the narrative. Engagement is often preferable to silence when denial is widespread and influential, but it should be strategic; not every fringe claim deserves a platform. Social science can be useful and empirical, but is more vulnerable to ideology than physics because researchers often begin with policy preferences and then search for supportive data.
Data Points: Book title: The Scientific Attitude: Defending Science from Denial, Fraud, and Pseudoscience - Lee McIntyre’s book discussed throughout the interview Prior book: Post-Truth - McIntyre’s earlier book mentioned by Shermer Flat Earth conference: November 2018 - McIntyre attended the Flat Earth International Conference Cold fusion response time: about 2 months - McIntyre cites cold fusion as a case where the scientific community rapidly evaluated and rejected claims Thomas Gold book response time: about 2 weeks - Shermer notes Gold’s oil hypothesis got brief attention before rejection Anti-vax workshop outcome: some were convinced - Public health officials in Clark County, Washington reportedly persuaded some vaccine skeptics one-on-one Jam experiment result: about 4% vs 40% - Sheena Iyengar’s paradox of choice study showed fewer purchases when shoppers faced 30 jam options versus 5 Missionary conversion rate: 0.5 person per year per missionary - A Mormon missionary training anecdote shared by Shermer/guest Personal missionary conversion rate: 22 - The interviewer reports his own conversion rate on missions Evolution falsification example: fossil rabbits in the Precambrian - Referenced via J.B.S. Haldane as a possible falsifying observation for evolution Big Bang anomaly: oldest stars older than the universe - A 1990s issue that was later resolved by better measurements Climate baseline example: 1998 - Shermer mentions Ted Cruz cherry-picking 1998 as a warm El Niño year Holocaust denial slogan: no holes, no Holocaust - Used to illustrate how deniers exploit a tiny anomaly at Auschwitz to support a false conclusion Survey flaw example: Dakota crash - Shermer describes a misleading survey item about a fictional conspiracy theory Mormon missionary training: 12 or 13 weeks - Shermer says the missionary school runs on this schedule
Pivotal Quotes: "the scientific attitude is really an ethos." — Lee McIntyre: Explaining his core thesis that science is defined by a set of values and behaviors rather than a rigid formula "If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong." — Richard Feynman: Shermer quotes Feynman to illustrate the experimental standard science must meet "What would it take to show that you were wrong?" — Michael Shermer: Presented as the key question for testing whether a claim is genuinely open to evidence
Implications: Listeners are encouraged to judge claims by evidence quality and falsifiability, not identity or rhetoric. The episode argues for patient, strategic engagement with deniers and for better public understanding of how science actually works.