It would be a wonderful world if we were all able to think critically, to remain skeptical, to find the time and energy to investigate our preconceived convictions, to ignore those who would and do censure our freedoms. Rather than call most people “stupid”, I have come to believe that many are genetically or Ill prepared to invest in the necessary intellectual pursuits. I am sufficiently optimistic to believe that civilization is making progress. It is the setbacks and despots that worry me.
Mr Schermer is doing important work but it is a little worrying to think that he is having to defend the basic principle of skepticism, reason and free speech. It seems that the key word used to attack him was 'offence'. The idea that some people are so fragile that they think people they disagree with should be silenced. I would like to hear a good discussion of this word offence. Is it really what we traditionally thought it is ( a lack of politeness; a failure to show regard for others; wounding the feelings or others) or is it a cover for censorship. Where does its quasi-statutory status come from? How come the penalty for offending people can be as severe as the penalty for disclosing secrets, vilification or physical assault?
I love his podcast too, very diverse guests and even when I expect to not be interested I usually am surprised (like his interview with Elizabeth Weiss last month - fascinating topic I’d never considered).
It would be a wonderful world if we were all able to think critically, to remain skeptical, to find the time and energy to investigate our preconceived convictions, to ignore those who would and do censure our freedoms. Rather than call most people “stupid”, I have come to believe that many are genetically or Ill prepared to invest in the necessary intellectual pursuits. I am sufficiently optimistic to believe that civilization is making progress. It is the setbacks and despots that worry me.
Mr Schermer is doing important work but it is a little worrying to think that he is having to defend the basic principle of skepticism, reason and free speech. It seems that the key word used to attack him was 'offence'. The idea that some people are so fragile that they think people they disagree with should be silenced. I would like to hear a good discussion of this word offence. Is it really what we traditionally thought it is ( a lack of politeness; a failure to show regard for others; wounding the feelings or others) or is it a cover for censorship. Where does its quasi-statutory status come from? How come the penalty for offending people can be as severe as the penalty for disclosing secrets, vilification or physical assault?
Here’s his longform post on this topic for those interested from when he launched his substack:
https://michaelshermer.substack.com/p/scientific-american-goes-woke?s=r
I love his podcast too, very diverse guests and even when I expect to not be interested I usually am surprised (like his interview with Elizabeth Weiss last month - fascinating topic I’d never considered).