Point of Inquiry

Host: Chris Mooney Our guest this week is Arthur Caplan, sometimes called the country's "most quoted bioethicist" and director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In this wide ranging episode, Caplan discusses not only the latest issues and problems in his field, but also how those issues have changed over time. Fresh from the ideological fights of the Bush administration-over culture war issues like stem cells, cloning, and Terri Schiavo-bioethicists like Caplan are now more focused on practical matters like access to healthcare. And so is the country as a whole. However, the religious right remains active-encouraging pharmacists to claim a right of "conscience" and refuse to give patients the "morning after pill." Meanwhile, as an excuse to restrict abortion, some are now also making the dubious assertion that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks of gestation. So in this interview, Caplan surveys the leading problems in bioethics today-and those we'll be facing in the very near future. Arthur Caplan is the Emmanuel and Robert Hart Director of the Center for Bioethics, and the Sydney D Caplan Professor of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. He's the author or editor of twenty-nine books-most recently Smart Mice Not So Smart People (Rowman Littlefield, 2006) and the Penn Guide to Bioethics (Springer, 2009)—and over 500 papers in refereed journals. He writes a regular column on bioethics for MSNBC.com.

Host: Karen Stollznow Joe Nickell is one of the world's most prominent skeptical investigators of the paranormal. He has researched numerous historical, paranormal, and forensic mysteries, myths and hoaxes, including hauntings, crop circles, UFOs, psychic claims, the Shroud of Turin, and the purported diary of Jack the Ripper. Joe is a Senior Research Fellow for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and writes the Investigative Files column for Skeptical Inquirer magazine. He is the author of many books, such as Real-Life X-Files: Investigating the Paranormal, Secrets of the Sideshows and Real or Fake: Studies in Authentication. In this interview with Karen Stollznow, Joe discusses his areas of expertise, and why investigation is an important and necessary part of skepticism. He talks about whether anyone can investigate the paranormal, and shares some of the mistakes made by investigators; not only paranormal investigators, but also skeptical paranormal investigators. Joe mentions some advances in the area of investigation, and the pros and cons of recreating paranormal claims versus trying to capture paranormal phenomena. Most people know Joe as an investigator, however, there are many surprising sides to him. He speaks about his many careers, and how he infuses skepticism into all of his roles.

Host: Chris Mooney Recently the British Medical Journal dealt yet another blow to 1998 scientific study that first terrified the public about the possibility that vaccines might cause autism. The paper, the Journal alleged, was nothing less than "fraudulent." (http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full) Amazingly, however, no one expects anti-vaccine advocates to retract, change their minds, or cease their activities. Which raises the question: How did they grow so strongly and doggedly convinced to begin with? That's where Seth Mnookin's new book The Panic Virus: A True Story of Medicine, Science, and Fear comes in. It tells the page turning story behind the thoroughly refuted-but still devoutly believed—claim of a link between vaccines and autism. The book explores not only the science, but also the parents involved, the autism advocacy and support community, and the crucial role of the media, the Internet, and celebrities like Jenny McCarthy in spreading misinformation about vaccines. Seth Mnookin is a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, and was previously a senior writer at Newsweek. He's the author of two previous books: Hard News: The Scandals at the New York Times and Their Meaning for American Media and the bestselling Feeding the Monster: How Money, Smarts, and Nerve Took a Team to the Top, about the Boston Red Sox. The Panic Virus is his third book.

Host: Robert Price Robert Price interviews fellow Bible Geek and secular Bible scholar Hector Avalos on a wide range of topics, from the increasingly devotional character of the Society of Biblical Literature to law enforcement in the Bible and whether Ezekiel was seeing a flying saucer. Did Abraham exist? How about Moses? David? Solomon? Jesus? Is there a future for Biblical Studied as we relegate it to the same level as the Iliad and the Odyssey? Hector Avalos serves as professor of religious studies at Iowa State University. Once upon a time, he was a Pentecostal preacher and a child evangelist. Since then he has earned a Bachelor of Arts in anthropology in 1982, a Masters of Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School in 1985, and a PhD in Hebrew Bible and Near Eastern Studies from Harvard University in 1991. His many books include Illness and Healthcare in the Ancient Near East, Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence, and The End of Biblical Studies.

Host: Chris Mooney By now you've probably heard the finding-the United States is growing less godly. More precisely, more and more Americans in surveys report that they lack a religious identity. These are the so-called "nones," and they already comprise 15 percent of the total population. But there are estimates that their numbers will continue to grow and could someday even surpass major denominations like Catholicism (currently 24 % of the country). Being a "none" is particularly popular among those aged 18-29. Barry Kosmin is the nation's leading expert on the "nones," a group that he studies through the ARIS, or American Religious Identification Survey. In this episode of Point of Inquiry, he discusses where America is heading with respect to its religious identity, why this change is occurring, and what the implications will be for secular advocacy in the future. Barry Kosmin is a sociologist and research professor in the Public Policy & Law Program at Trinity College, and founding director of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture. Dr. Kosmin has been a principal investigator of the American Religious Identification Survey series since its inception in 1990 as well as national social surveys in Europe, Africa, and Asia. His publications include One Nation under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society (1993) and Religion in a Free Market (2006).

Host: Karen Stollznow Reed Esau is a skeptical activist and one of the founders of SkeptiCamp. Also known as Open Events, these are informal, community-organized conference where speakers tackle issues regarding science and skepticism. SkeptiCamp encourages participation as well as observation. A software architect by trade, Reed is author of the blog "An Illustrative Account", and he writes for the James Randi Educational Foundation's blog Swift. Reed is also a contributor to Skeptical Inquirer magazine for which he wrote the article "Reinventing the Skeptical Conference". In this interview with Karen Stollznow, Reed discusses the unique model of SkeptiCamp, which he calls an "unconference". He explains how these differ to traditional conferences that feature "celebrity skeptics" over local and regional speakers. He speaks about how these Open Events aim to distribute knowledge within the community, and reach people beyond the community. Must every skeptic contribute to skepticism? Does calling oneself a "skeptic" imply that one is active? Reed addresses these questions, and talks about what he calls the "Long Tail" of skepticism, and how skeptics can move from a more passive role in the movement to become participants. A self-confessed "Armchair Skeptic" for twenty years, Reed speaks about how he got out of the armchair to become involved in the community.

Ever been in an argument with someone and felt massively frustrated, because nothing you can say seems to change the person's mind? Maybe that's what you should expect to happen. Maybe you should get used to it. According to University of Michigan political scientist Brendan Nyhan, that's how our minds work-and it's not just that. When it comes to politics, people who believe incorrect things tend to be strongly convinced that they're right, and moreover, often become stronger in that conviction when they're refuted. It's a pretty alarming aspect of human nature-but in this interview, Nyhan explains how we know what we do about people's intransigent clinging to misperceptions, and how we can work to change that. Brendan Nyhan is a political scientist and Robert Wood Johnson scholar in health policy research at the University of Michigan. He was previously a co-author of the political debunking website Spinsanity.com, and co-author of the New York Times bestselling book All The President's Spin. He blogs at www.brendan-nyhan.com.

Host: Robert Price Roger Nygard recently produced and directed a feature documentary called The Nature of Existence. In it, he asks some of the biggest of questions to "the widest cross-section of humanity possible." Why do we exist? What is our purpose? What is truth? He asked these and many other substantial questions to individuals with a wide range of worldviews—from Richard Dawkins, to 24th generation Chinese Taoist Master Zhang Chengda, to the founder of Ultimate Christian Wrestling, Rob Adonis. In this wide-ranging conversation with Robert Price, Nygard discusses whether or not it's worthwhile to distinguish between "normal" religions and "weird" fringe belief systems. He talks about some common themes and huge differences in the worldviews he explored, and whether or not he found any of the worldviews to be helpful or genuinely harmful. He talks about the conflict between science and religion, and even shares his own best guess at the meaning of existence. Roger Nygard has directed, produced, written, and edited for film and television. He directed and edited Trekkies (1999), Trekkies 2 (2004), and Six Days in Roswell (2000), a docu-comedy about UFO enthusiasts. For television, he has directed and edited episodes of the HBO series, The Mind of the Married Man, edited episodes of Curb Your Enthusiasm, and directed episodes of the FOX series The Bernie Mac Show and The Loop, the NBC series The Office, the DisneyXD series Zeke & Luther, and many others. The Nature of Existence is now available on DVD and Blu-ray.

Host: Chris Mooney Recently at Pomona College in California, three atheists—one of them a Point of Inquiry host—got together to debate the future of the movement. And some sparks flew. Topics raised included the rise of the so-called "nones" (those professing "no religion" in surveys), the lack of representation for atheists in the U.S. Congress, and the debate between moderate or "live-and-let-live" atheism as opposed to a louder and more aggressive version. Despite their disagreement, it was clear that it’s an exciting time for the movement, as atheism becomes more visible in American life. Where do we go from here? The students in the packed audience have that in their hands. Panel participants were: David Silverman, president of American Atheists. Mr. Silverman attended Brandeis University and specialized in computer science; he worked as an inventor at Bell Labs for 8 years. He then served at American Atheists as national spokesperson, vice president, and finally president, a post he assumed this year. Hemant Mehta writes the "Friendly Atheist" blog and serves on the board of directors of the Foundation Beyond Belief and the Secular Student Alliance. He has also appeared on the front page of the Wall Street Journal and is author of the book I Sold My Soul on eBay, released in 2007. Chris Mooney is a host of Point of Inquiry.

Host: Karen Stollznow This week is a special episode featuring interviews with two guests, James Randi and D.J. Grothe. James Randi is a world-renowned magician and the modern-day Houdini of skepticism. He is the author of numerous books, including Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns and Other Delusions and the forthcoming A Magician in the Laboratory. He is the founder and Chairman of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). This interview was recorded live at The Amaz!ng Meeting 8 in Las Vegas, 2010. In this interview with Karen Stollznow, Randi reflects on his life's work. He speaks about his organization and his role as a central figure in skepticism. He also talks about the JREF's One Million Dollar Challenge, claims he'd like to test, and Sylvia Browne's infamous reluctance to be tested, despite accepting the challenge. More recently, Karen spoke with D.J. Grothe, President of the JREF and Host of the podcast For Good Reason. Grothe is the former Vice President for Outreach at the Center for Inquiry, and of course, the former Host of Point of Inquiry. Grothe speaks about the JREF’s mission, and the greatest successes and challenges of the organization. He discusses his plans to "put the 'E' into the JREF" by focusing on education, and talks about his tireless work in skeptical outreach and activism.

Host: Chris Mooney For the community of scientists who study the Earth’s climate, these are bewildering times. They've seen wave upon wave of political attacks. They're getting accustomed to a public that grows more skeptical of their conclusions even as scientists grow more confident in them. No wonder there’s much frustration out there in the climate science world—and now, a group of researchers have organized to do something about it. Their initiative is called the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, and it pledges to organize dozens of researchers to help set the record straight. But can scientists really maintain a war room? What would that look like? How far can they go in fighting back against misinformation, without leaving themselves politically exposed? To answer these questions, Point of Inquiry called up two of the initiative's founders: John Abraham and Scott Mandia. John Abraham is an associate professor of engineering at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. He has some 80 published papers, conference papers, and patents to his name. Scott Mandia is a professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in Selden, New York. He runs the “Global Warming Fact of the Day” group on Facebook, and is known as @AGW_Prof on Twitter.

Host: Robert Price How did his studies at Catholic Georgetown University set CFI President and CEO Ronald A. Lindsay on the primrose path to atheism? Does he now count himself a lawyer or a philosopher, neither, or both? Point of Inquiry asks Ron about the basis for ethics for atheists and secularists. Are atheists nihilists, as is often said? Would that necessarily be bad? Host Robert Price and Lindsay carry on a brisk, illuminating discussion of Aquinas, Kant, and Hume, applying their insights to ethics and public policy. One often hears secularists complaining that religious believers are voting the theological party line of their church, e.g., in the case of abortion. But does it matter where their moral convictions come from? Is it the genetic fallacy for us to say they are trying to "impose their theology on the rest of us"? Ron also comments on the problem with posting the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. Finally, he provides his privileged perspective on the direction and approach of CFI since the departure of founder Paul Kurtz.

Host: Chris Mooney It’s a longstanding debate in the philosophy of science: Is "demarcation" possible? Can we really draw firm lines between science and pseudoscience? Massimo Pigliucci thinks so. In his new book Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk, Pigliucci attempts to rescue the notion that there are claims we can rule out, and claims we can rule in—a real means of determining what’s science and what isn’t. Along the way, Pigliucci touches on howlers like creationism and astrology, and borderland areas of research like SETI—and weighs whether science can ever hope to test claims about the supernatural. Massimo Pigliucci is chair of the philosophy department at CUNY-Lehman College. He was formerly a professor of ecology and evolution at Stony Brook. He’s a prolific blogger and commentator on issues concerning science and skepticism and a prominent battler of creationists and other nonsense peddlers. You can find him online at rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com.

Host: Karen Stollznow Warren Bonett is a skeptic, author and an independent bookseller. Warren wanted to become actively involved in critical thinking without joining an organization or becoming an –ism, so he opened "Embiggen Books". This is a unique store specializing in skeptical and science titles... right in the middle of a New Age township. He has been told that his store has "great feng shui." In this interview with Karen Stollznow, Warren recommends books for those who are new to skepticism, and suggests titles to introduce children to science and critical thinking. Warren is also a bookseller who has edited a book. He is editor and contributor to The Australian Book of Atheism. This project includes 32 essays about religion and secularism written by pre-eminent Australian atheist, rationalist, humanist, and skeptic thinkers, including Russell Blackford, Tim Minchin, Graham Oppy, Robyn Williams, and Martin Bridgstock. Its blurb states that the book "showcases the unique character of Australian atheism." Warren tells us exactly what is unique about atheism in Australia, and discusses the issues that are specific to Australian society.

Host: Chris Mooney On the show this week, Point of Inquiry features one of our most distinguished science writers—Carl Zimmer. He's the author of many acclaimed books, including Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, and now he’s taken on an experiment: Publishing his next book, Brain Cuttings, as an e-book, digital only. The book collects Carl’s many writings about the brain—including essays about why we zone out, whether Google is making us stupid, and perhaps most memorable of all, the Singularity folks who think our brains will soon be downloadable. Needless to say, Zimmer isn’t quite so sure. In a wide ranging conversation, Zimmer also discussed why science’s biggest undiscovered continent is inside our heads—and what our growing understanding of the brain means for the future of religion. Carl Zimmer has been called "as fine a science essayist as we have" by the New York Times Book Review. He contributes regularly the New York Times science section, as well as numerous other publications, and blogs for Discover magazine’s Discover Blogs site. In addition, he’s the author of seven books, including Microcosm: E. Coli and the New Science of Life, and teaches science and environmental writing at Yale University.

Host: Robert Price Our guest is philosopher and author John Shook, discussing his experiences debating religious believers and whether such debates are a good idea. Some say no, that such spectacles merely serve believers by making it look like atheists take them more seriously than they deserve. Others say yes, because debates provide a precious opportunity to introduce believers to atheistic arguments they might otherwise never hear. Price and Shook compare notes about debating superstar apologist William Lane Craig, discuss interesting insights on Presuppositionalism and Postmodernism, and talk about Dr. Shook's new book, The God Debates: A 21st Century Guide for Atheists and Believers (and Everyone in Between), an introduction to major issues in the philosophy of religion, as well as debate topics old and new.

Recently at the 30th anniversary conference of the Council for Secular Humanism in Los Angeles, leading science blogger PZ Myers and Point of Inquiry host Chris Mooney appeared together on a panel to discuss the questions, "How should secular humanists respond to science and religion? If we champion science, must we oppose faith? How best to approach flashpoints like evolution education?" It's a subject about which they are known to... er, differ. The moderator was Jennifer Michael Hecht, the author of Doubt: A History. The next day, the three reprised their public debate for a special episode of Point of Inquiry, with Hecht sitting in as a guest host in Mooney's stead. This is the unedited cut of their three way conversation. PZ Myers is a biologist at the University of Minnesota-Morris who, in addition to his duties as a teacher of biology and especially of development and evolution, likes to spend his spare time poking at the follies of creationists, Christians, crystal-gazers, Muslims, right-wing politicians, apologists for religion, and anyone who doesn't appreciate how much the beauty of reality exceeds that of ignorant myth. Jennifer Michael Hecht is the author of award-winning books of philosophy, history, and poetry, including: Doubt: A History (HarperCollins, 2003); The End of the Soul: Scientific Modernity, Atheism and Anthropology (Columbia University Press, 2003); and The Happiness Myth, (HarperCollins in 2007). Her work appears in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, and The New Yorker. Hecht earned her Ph.D. in History from Columbia University in 1995 and now teaches in the graduate writing program of The New School University.

Host: Karen Stollznow Steve Spangler is a science educator, inventor, and an Emmy Award winning TV personality. He is the author of Fizz Factor: 50 Amazing Experiments With Soda Pop, Secret Science: 25 Science Experiments Your Teacher Doesn't Know About and his latest title Naked Eggs And Flying Potatoes. Steve’s inquiry-based learning approaches to science education are highly successful. With his innovative "hands-on" approach to teaching he is the "fun science guy" who shoots potatoes, makes toilet paper fly and mixes batches of slime; but he is best known for his erupting soda geyser experiment. Behind all of this fun is a very serious mission: to improve science literacy for both children, and adults. In this episode with Karen Stollznow, Steve tackles the "science is boring" stereotype, and explains how science education can be exciting, accessible and fun. Steve talks about using the Internet for effective science education, citing his famous viral video, the “Mentos and Diet Coke geyser experiment” that has had millions of views and inspired thousands of imitations. Steve not only teaches students, but he also teaches teachers. He talks about becoming a great science teacher by creating unforgettable learning experiences. With Steve’s interactive methods, science has suddenly gone from "Don’t try this at home!" to "Try this for yourself and see how it works!" In closing, Steve discusses the state of science literacy today, and tells us what we can do to nurture scientific curiosity, build critical thinking skills and instill healthy skepticism.

Host: Chris Mooney Ever wonder about the mathematical basis for battling a zombie infestation? Jennifer Ouellette has. In her new book The Calculus Diaries, the English major turned science journalist goes on an odyssey to relearn the branch of math that so intimidated her in high school. Along the way, she finds calculus in activities ranging from surfing, to catching fly balls, to playing craps in Vegas. Naturally, calculus can also tell us how to stop the marauding zombies before they take over the human population for good. At a time when the U.S. lags in science and math education, a book like Ouellette's—making math intriguing and accessible—is more than a good read. It’s an educational necessity. Jennifer Ouellette is the author of three books: Black Bodies and Quantum Cats: Tales from the Annals of Physics, The Physics of the Buffyverse, and most recently, The Calculus Diaries. She has also written widely, blogs at "Cocktail Party Physics," and until recently was director of the Science and Entertainment Exchange, a National Academy of Sciences project to bridge the gap between the research community and Hollywood.

Host: Robert Price In this episode of Point of Inquiry, Robert Price interviews Jen Roth, co-founder of All Our Lives, a secular organization committed to advocating for women's right to exercise freedom of conscience in making voluntary, nonviolent, sexual and reproductive decisions. Jen is an atheist who seeks no grounds for human rights in God or religion, but also one who happens to oppose abortion. Not an advocate for outlawing abortion, though, she believes there is much to be done by way of clarifying and defending the sexual autonomy of women. Jen Roth has written for the Secular Web and the online political magazine Shared Sacrifice. She was formerly on the board of Consistent Life, an organization which opposes war, abortion, and the death penalty. In spring 2010, she co-founded All Our Lives.

Host: Chris Mooney At a recent conference in Lake Tahoe, demographer S. Jay Olshansky presented a roomful of technologists with an exciting prospect. Through a concerted scientific attack on the problem of aging, he suggested, we might be able to extend human life by as much as 7 years on average. Olshansky's strategy is not simply to keep battling individual diseases, like cancer, in isolation. Rather, it’s to go after the underlying process that brings on those diseases to begin with. The field of aging has long been beset by questionable claims—by hucksters try to sell us the fountain of youth. By contrast, Olshansky suggests there may be a modest, but scientifically attainable, version of human life extension that would benefit us all. On this episode of Point of Inquiry, he discusses how it might be possible, and what a world in which we all live significantly longer would look like. S. Jay Olshansky is a Professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His work focuses on estimating the upper limits to human longevity and pursuing the scientific means to slow aging in people. Dr. Olshansky is the author, with Bruce Carnes, of The Quest for Immortality: Science at the Frontiers of Aging.

Host: Karen Stollznow Brian Brushwood began his career in magic "To get free drinks at bars and impress friends," but ended up becoming a science communicator and skeptic. The author of Cheats, Cons, Swindles & Tricks: 57 Ways to Scam a Free Drink and The Professional's Guide to Fire Eating, Brian is a "Bizarre Magician". Making side show tricks cool again, Brian hammers nails into his head and eats fire in his "Bizarre Magic Show", "America’s Number One College Magic Show". He also communicates critical thinking to the college market in his lecture "Scams, Sasquatch and the Supernatural" In this episode with host Karen Stollznow, Brian discusses outreach to this important yet often overlooked demographic. They discuss tertiary-level courses in skepticism and the paranormal, and whether there is "age appropriate skepticism" Brian explains the stereotypes associated with magic and magicians, and how the "m-word" (magic) has stigmatized. He also discusses the negative connotations associated with the "s-word" (skeptic), and how to combat the image problems with guerilla skepticism, hidden beneath comedy and magic. Brian is a prolific personality on various internet shows including the Brian Brushwood Live Show, the Weird Things podcast, and NSFW on This Week in Tech TV. But he is best known for his show Scam School. Usually the ones who expose scams, Brian tells us when the skeptics should be the scammers. In this “Mythbusters” for the pool shark crowd, Brian pulls street cons, swindles and scams in the name of skepticism.

This is a show about evolution—but not, for once, about the evolution wars. Instead, it concerns one of the most intriguing ideas to emerge in quite some time about the evolution of humans. In his much discussed book Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human, Harvard anthropologist Richard Wrangham argues that we’ve been ignoring a critical catalyst in the creation of our species—a little technology called cooking. Cooking was the game changer, says Wrangham. It upended everything. It altered how we obtained energy, which in turn morphed our anatomy and cranial capacity. Cooking even changed how we came to spend our days, and divide labor between the sexes. According to Wrangham, learning to cook therefore ranks among the most important things that ever happened to our ancestors. In this episode of Point of Inquiry, he discusses why cooking was so pivotal—and why its role has so long been overlooked. Richard Wrangham is the Ruth Moore professor of biological anthropology at Harvard University, and the author, with Dale Peterson, of Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. His new book is Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human.

Robert Price being off for the week, today we present a lecture given by Dr. Price at the Center for Inquiry's annual Student Leadership Conferece titled "Is the Bible Mein Kampf?" In his talk, Price suggests the Bible has much to offer even the most secular and non-religious of us. He discusses the value he sees in the Bible, and what we can learn from the mistakes and contradictions found within it. He explains that because he sees the Christian Fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible as so wrong, a hated of this straw man Bible might also make little sense. Price explains that critical examination of Biblical texts is what makes a true friend of the Bible—even if you're an atheist. Along with being a usual host of this show, Robert M. Price is professor of theology and scriptural studies at Coleman Theological Seminary and professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute. He is a fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion and the Jesus Seminar. Dr. Price is the author of a number of books, including The Reason Driven Life, Deconstructing Jesus, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, and The Da Vinci Fraud. He has appeared widely in the media, and was featured prominently in the movie The God Who Wasn't There. His latest book is Top Secret: The Truth Behind Today’s Pop Mysticisms.

This week, the scope of Point of Inquiry expands to include politics and more particularly, the fount of misinformation that is Glenn Beck of Fox News. This TV and radio personality is ushering in a new reign of ignorance in our national discourse—and even has the gall to liken his efforts to those of Martin Luther King, Jr. But investigative journalist Alexander Zaitchick has pinned Beck to a wall with his new book Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance. He’s even provoked Beck into denouncing him for practicing "despicable, yellow journalism." Coming from Beck, that’s a compliment. So tune in to learn more about how Beck has become a new icon of American irrationality—and just general cluelessness. Alex Zaitchik is a freelance journalist living in Brooklyn, New York. He’s contributed to Salon.com, The Nation, Wired, and many other distinguished publications. In the course of his career he has reported from locations ranging from Miami to Moscow, from Prague to Mexico City—and Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance is his first book.

Andrew Mayne is a magician, paranormal illusionist, inventor, TV producer and skeptic. One of the most creative and innovative minds in magic, Andrew has written and produced over 40 books and DVDs. Both creator and consultant, he has worked with a number of artists including David Blaine, and Penn & Teller. Andrew’s performance material ranges from close-up and stage, to mentalism and illusion, and he is infamous for his brand of tricks, effects and stunts known as "shock magic". Far from pulling a rabbit out of a hat, Andrew’s shock magic is described as "disturbing", "evil", "frightening" and "deadly". In this conversation with Karen Stollznow, Andrew speaks about being a Magician’s Magician, making multimedia magic, and not only inventing illusions but reinventing classic illusions. He explains the link between magic and skepticism, and how magic offers practical insight to protect us from charlatans, con-artists, and ourselves. Andrew shares stories of his paranormal investigations for the Weird Things TV show and podcast, and his experiences as lead investigator for the James Randi Educational Foundation’s Million Dollar Challenge. The author of the article Think Skeptically, Act Locally: 50 Things You Can Do To Encourage Critical Thinking, Andrew is one of the original activists in the skepticism movement. He talks about teaching science education and critical thinking, and presents his “elevator pitch” for becoming a skeptical activist.

When President Obama was inaugurated in January of 2009, he pledged to “restore science to its rightful place” in the U.S. government. And true to his word, the president promptly staffed his cabinet with distinguished scientific leaders, liberated embryonic stem cell research from the Bush era restrictions, and released a memorandum on “scientific integrity” intended to reverse the kinds of problems seen in the Bush years. Since those days, however, the "scientific integrity" agenda does not seem to have filtered through the federal government as hoped. And according to a recent report in the Los Angeles Times, some scientists are having problems in this administration when it comes to speaking with the media, or having their research results properly handled by their superiors. To put these developments in context, Point of Inquiry called upon Francesca Grifo, director of the Scientific Integrity Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists. As Grifo explains, claims that the Obama administration is behaving like the Bush administration did on science are absurd. However, the administration must do more to deliver on President Obama’s pledge to restore science to its "rightful place"—and move swiftly to address reports of scientific discontentment. Francesca Grifo is a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists and an expert in biodiversity conservation, and heads up UCS’s Scientific Integrity Project. She has testified before Congress about scientific integrity and is widely quoted in the press on the topic. Prior to joining UCS, she was at Columbia University where she ran the Science Teachers Environmental Education Program.

Tom Quinn has spent the past 15 years as a documentary TV writer and producer for Discovery Channel, History Channel, National Geographic and others. He has traveled the world producing programs that explore and deconstruct urban legends, psychic claims, religious myths and conspiracy theories, and has worked with the likes of James Randi and Michael Shermer. He's a graduate of the American Film Institute, he's been a film critic, a story analyst for Universal Studios and HBO, and, in 2005, he received two Emmy nominations for his History Channel special, Beyond the Da Vinci Code. He has subsequently done programs for Discovery Shark Week and on the book, Angels and Demons. Tom is the author of a new book, What Do You Do with a Chocolate Jesus? An Irreverent History of Christianity. He also gives humors lectures on all of these subjects, and blogs at choco-jesus.blogspot.com. In this conversation with Robert Price, Tom talks about his new book and how satire can be an effective education tool. He discusses his views on the history of Christianity and how to best approach the books of the Bible. He explains why those who couple religion with morality are wrong to do so, responds to the claim that one must be religious to have an ethical worldview, and much more.

Our guest this week needs no introduction for those in the skeptical and secular world. After all, he has a frakkin' asteroid named after him. He’s Phil Plait—science blogger extraordinaire for Discover Blogs, where he authors “Bad Astronomy.” Recently, Plait joined Point of Inquiry for a wide ranging conversation about standing eggs on end, Apollo moon landing deniers, wacky yet endearing Hollywood bad science, something called “spaghettification”….and the end of the world. Phil Plait is a skeptic and an astronomer, and former president of the James Randi Educational Foundation. He lectures widely across the country and is the author of two books, most recently Death from the Skies: These Are the Ways the World Will End.

Adam Savage is an artist, actor, educator, special effects designer and co-host of the Discovery Channel's TV show Mythbusters. Adam has a diverse background in animation and design, and for almost two decades he has concentrated on the special effects industry for film, theater and television. A prominent skeptic and atheist, Adam lectures in science education and is a strong promoter of critical thinking. Karen Stollznow spoke with Adam in Las Vegas at The Amaz!ng Meeting, the annual conference of the James Randi Educational Foundation. In this conversation, Adam spoke about his identification as a skeptic and atheist, and his work to promote science and skepticism to the public. He talked about his experiences on Mythbusters; why the show appeals to skeptics, and how he applies skepticism to his experiments. Adam talks about testing pseudoscience and the paranormal, how myths and legends develop, and how the public reacts when their cherished myths are busted.

Recently in Amherst, New York, two of Point of Inquiry’s hosts sat down for a special in-studio episode of the show. One was a conservative (Robert Price), one a liberal (Chris Mooney)—and both were atheists. The topic they tackled: Is there any necessary correlation between one’s disbelief in God and one’s place on the political spectrum? The result was a fascinating—and notably civil, and frequently entertaining—conversation ranging across foreign policy, abortion, stem cell research, animal rights, and many other topics. In the end, the discussants actually found not only much disagreement, but also some common ground. Robert M. Price is Professor of Biblical Criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute as well as the editor of The Journal of Higher Criticism and a host of Point of Inquiry. His books include Beyond Born Again, The Widow Traditions in Luke-Acts: A Feminist-Critical Scrutiny, Deconstructing Jesus, andThe Incredible Shrinking Son of Man. Chris Mooney is a science and political journalist and commentator and the author of three books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. They also write “The Intersection” blog together for Discover blogs. In the past, Chris has also been visiting associate in the Center for Collaborative History at Princeton University and a 2009-2010 Knight Science Journalism Fellow at MIT. He is also a host of Point of Inquiry.

Tom Flynn is Executive Director of The Council for Secular Humanism, Editor of Free Inquiry magazine, Director of Inquiry Media Productions, and Director of the Robert Green Ingersoll Birthplace Museum. A journalist, novelist, entertainer, and freethought historian, Flynn is the author of numerous articles and editorials for Free Inquiry magazine. In addition to The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief, his books include two black comedy science fiction novels, Nothing Sacred, its prequel Galactic Rapture, and The Trouble With Christmas, a secularist critique of the holiday. He has made hundreds of radio and TV appearances in his role as the curmudgeonly "anti-Claus." In this conversation with Robert Price, Tom explains how he transitioned from his conservative Catholic youth Secular Humanist he is today. He talks about the part Mormonism played in his transition to non-belief. Perhaps one of the most consistent secularists around today, Tom elaborates on the problems he has with rites of passage ceremonies and marriage. He talks about what he sees as problems with some secular charity programs and the parts of life he believes should be off-limits to a secular community. Finally, he and Price discuss radical Islam and how we should approach talking about it.

Global warming, we're often told, is an issue we must address for the sake of our grandchildren. We need to cut carbon because of our moral obligation to future generations. But according to Bill McKibben, that's a 1980s view. As McKibben writes in his new book Eaarth: Making Life on a Tough New Planet, the increasingly open secret is that global warming happened already. We've passed the threshold, and the planet isn't at all the same. It's less climatically stable. Its weather is haywire. It has less ice, more drought, higher seas, heavier storms. It even appears different from space. And that's just the beginning of the earth-shattering changes in store—a small sampling of what it's like to trade a familiar planet (Earth) for one that's new and strange (Eaarth). We'll survive on this sci-fi world, this terra incognita—but we may not like it very much. And we may have to change some fundamental habits along the way. Eaarth, argues McKibben, is our greatest failure. Bill McKibben is a former staff writer for the New Yorker magazine, and author of the famous 1989 book The End of Nature, as well as over a dozen other works. He is currently a scholar in residence at Middlebury College in Vermont, and founder of the global warming grassroots organization 350.org, which lobbies for tougher climate policies. In 2009, the group conducted what CNN later called "the most widespread day of political action in the planet's history."

Tim Farley is a computer software engineer, skeptic, and creator of the popular website What's the Harm? His site answers this salient question with over 670,000 stories of people who have indeed been harmed, damaged, injured, or even killed by pseudoscience and the paranormal What's the Harm's catchphrase is: "368,379 people killed, 306,096 injured and over $2,815,931,000 in economic damages." However, these statistics are calculated from randomly-caught, modern cases documented in English-speaking countries. Many stories are left untold. How much bigger could the problem be? In this interview with Karen Stollznow, Tim reveals the real-life dangers, and the hidden dangers, of these beliefs and practices. He treats the lack of regulatory bodies for these industries, and what recourse can be taken when harm is done. Tim talks about the question "What's the Harm?" as used in defense of pseudoscience and the paranormal, and why this is wielded as a "checkmate" argument. He discusses the power of anecdotal evidence, and whether people are influenced by cautionary tales, or more persuaded by their own personal experiences. Tim is a prominent activist and a frequent speaker at events including Skeptics in the Pub, Skepticamp, and the James Randi Educational Foundation's Amazing Meetings. An expert in computer security and reverse engineering, he is at the forefront of the Skepticism 2.0 movement. He talks about finding your own "niche" as an online activist, how you don't need to be a magician or have a PhD to be a skeptic, and how we all have our own expertise to bring to the skeptical movement.

This week's guest is Naomi Oreskes, co-author with historian Eric Conway of the new book Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Through extensive archival research, Oreskes and Conway have managed to connect the dots between a large number of seemingly separate anti-science campaigns that have unfolded over the years. It all began with Big Tobacco, and the famous internal memo declaring, "Doubt is our Product." Then came the attacks on the science of acid rain and ozone depletion, and the flimsy defenses of Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" program. And the same strategies have continued up to the present, with the battle over climate change. Throughout this saga, several key scientific actors appear repeatedly—leaping across issues, fighting against the facts again and again. Now, Oreskes and Conway have given us a new and unprecedented glimpse behind the anti-science curtain. Naomi Oreskes (Ph.D., Stanford, 1990) is Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego. Her research focuses on the historical development of scientific knowledge, methods, and practices in the earth and environmental sciences, and on understanding scientific consensus and dissent. She is the author of numerous noted books and papers, including a 2004 essay in Science entitled "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," which was widely cited, debated, and referenced in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."

S. T. Joshi is a leading authority on H. P. Lovecraft, Ambrose Bierce, H. L. Mencken, and other writers, mostly in the realms of supernatural and fantasy fiction. He has edited corrected editions of the works of Lovecraft, several annotated editions of Bierce and Mencken, and has written such critical studies as The Weird Tale and The Modern Weird Tale. His award-winning biography, H. P. Lovecraft: A Life, has already become a collector's item. But critical, biographical, and editorial work on weird fiction is only one aspect of Joshi's multifaceted output. A prominent atheist, Joshi has published the anthology Atheism: A Reader and the anti-religious polemic, God's Defenders: What They Believe and Why They Are Wrong. He has also compiled an important anthology on race relations, Documents of American Prejudice. In this episode of Point of Inquiry, Robert M. Price talks with Joshi about Lovecraft and how his writings were an impetus toward Joshi's atheism. Along with discussing Lovecraft's views on religion, Joshi shares his own views on the subject. He reveals his thoughts on religious writers as well as the "new atheism." He explains what horror and fantasy literature have to offer the non-religious, and how it can in some ways take the place of religious writings.

This week, we learned that J. Craig Venter has at long last created a synthetic organism—a simple life form constructed, for the first time, by man. Let the controversy begin—and if New Yorker staff writer Michael Specter is correct, the denial of science will be riding hard alongside it. In his recent book Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives, Specter charts how our resistance to vaccination and genetically modified foods, and our wild embrace of questionable health remedies, are the latest hallmarks of an all-too-trendy form of fuzzy thinking--one that exists just as much on the political left as on the right. And it’s not just on current science-based issues that denialism occurs. The phenomenon also threatens our ability to handle emerging science policy problems—over the development of personalized medicine, for instance, or of synthetic biology. How can we make good decisions when again and again, much of the public resists inconvenient facts, statistical thinking, and the sensible balancing of risks? Michael Specter has been a New Yorker staff writer since 1998. Before that, he was a foreign correspondent for the New York Times and the national science reporter for the Washington Post. At the New Yorker, Specter has covered the global AIDS epidemic, avian flu, malaria, the world’s diminishing freshwater resources, synthetic biology and the debate over our carbon footprint. He has also published many profiles of subjects including Lance Armstrong, ethicist Peter Singer, and Sean (P. Diddy) Combs. In 2002, Specter received the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Science Journalism Award for his article “Rethinking the Brain,” about the scientific basis of how we learn.

George Hrab is a composer, professional musician, singer, songwriter, podcaster, and skeptic. George is the Host and Producer of the Geologic Podcast, a popular weekly show about music, comedy, science, and skepticism. The drummer in the band Philadelphia Funk Authority, he is a successful multi-instrumentalist musician who has performed on-stage with Elton John, and given a performance in the White House for Bill Clinton. For the past fifteen years he has also been a solo artist, releasing his music independently. George’s songs tackle science, the paranormal and pseudoscience, from the Occasional Songs for the Periodic Table in which he sings to each element, to an ode to the coelacanth. George’s latest album Trebuchet includes the songs God is Not Great, Everything Alive will Die Someday, and Death From the Skies, featuring “Bad Astronomer” Dr. Phil Plait. In this episode of Point of Inquiry, Karen Stollznow speaks with George about the “intersection” of music and skepticism, and how music fits into critical thinking. With eclectic influences from Frank Zappa to Carl Sagan, George describes how he infuses skepticism into his own music. A successful activist in the skeptical community, George not only speaks-out against a lack of critical thinking in society, but he also “sings-out” against this issue, promoting skepticism through song. This “nice guy of skepticism” discusses the image of the skeptical movement, and what we can do to popularize skepticism. He explains that he reaches people “through their funny bones and dance shoes” as an effective way to communicate skepticism to the public, and tells us how music and comedy can make converts to critical thinking. George’s music brings a new audience to skepticism, and provides theme songs for skeptics. In many ways, George’s music has become the soundtrack to skepticism.

It’s hard to think of an issue more contentious these days than the relationship between faith and science. If you have any doubt, just flip over to the science blogosphere: You’ll see the argument everywhere. In the scholarly arena, meanwhile, the topic has been approached from a number of angles: by historians of science, for example, and philosophers. However, relatively little data from the social sciences has been available concerning what today’s scientists actually think about faith. Today’s Point of Inquiry guest, sociologist Dr. Elaine Ecklund of Rice University, is changing that. Over the past four years, she has undertaken a massive survey of the religious beliefs of elite American scientists at 21 top universities. It’s all reported in her new book Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think. Ecklund’s findings are pretty surprising. The scientists in her survey are much less religious than the American public, of course—but they’re also much more religious, and more “spiritual,” than you might expect. For those interested in debating the relationship between science and religion, it seems safe to say that her new data will be hard to ignore. Elaine Howard Ecklund is a member of the sociology faculty at Rice University, where she is also Director of the Program on Religion and Public Life at the Institute for Urban Research. Her research centrally focuses on the ways science and religion intersect with other life spheres, and it has been prominently covered in USA Today, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Newsweek, The Washington Post, and other prominent news media outlets. Ecklund is also the author of two books published by Oxford University Press: Korean American Evangelicals: New Models for Civic Life (2008), and more recently the new book Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think (2010).

Lois Schadewald's interest in both science and pseudoscience rubbed off on her from her brilliant brother Robert J. Schadewald, a prolific author and debater. When Bob died a decade ago he left behind a legacy of published essays and book chapters, as well as much unpublished material including a complete manuscript on the history of the Flat Earth movement. Lois has seen to the publication of many of these pieces in the collection Worlds of their Own: A Brief History of Misguided Ideas; Creationism, Flat-Earthism, Energy Scams, and the Velikovsky Affair. In this episode of Point of Inquiry, Robert M. Price asks Lois to outline some of her brother's research in Flat Earth and Hollow Earth "science" as well as to relate some stories of his association with important "alternative science" figures like catastrophist Immanuel Velikovsky. Schadewald talks about her brother's unique approach to dealing with promoters of pseudoscience, and what he gained from it. She discusses the timeline of Bob's research interests and how he eventually made his way to studying creationism. Lois Schadewald is Professor of Chemistry at Normandale Community College in Minnesota, where she is also active with the Minnesota Atheists. Robert J. Schadewald (1943-2000) was a widely published science writer. His articles dealing with unorthodoxies of science and scholarship appeared in Science 80, Smithsonian, Technology Illustrated, and Skeptical Inquirer among others. He was a contributing author to six books, including The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia (Garland Publishing, 2000). From 1986 until the mid-1990s, he served on the board of directors of the National Center for Science Education, including two years as president. He attended seven national creationism conferences, interviewed Immanuel Velikovsky, investigated perpetual motion machines, and was thrown out of the Flat Earth Society for having spherical tendencies. Bob was nationally recognized as an expert on creationism, perpetual motion, and flat Earthism.

For many of us, chemistry is something we remember with groans from high school. Periodic Table of the Elements—what a pain to memorize, and what was the point, anyway? So how do you take a subject like chemistry and make it exciting, intriguing, and compelling? With her new book The Poisoner’s Handbook, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Deb Blum has done just that. Blum takes a page from the "CSI" franchise, and moves that familiar narrative of crime, intrigue, and high tech bad-guy catching back into the early days of the 20th century. There, in jazz age New York, she chronicles the birth of forensic chemistry at the hands of two scientific and public health pioneers—the city’s chief medical examiner Charles Norris, and his chemistry whiz side-kick Alexander Gettler. And while chronicling their poison-sleuthing careers, Blum also teaches quite a bit of science. Her book is a case study in science popularization, and one we should all be paying close attention to. Deborah Blum is a Pulitzer-prize winning science writer and has been a professor of journalism at the University of Wisconsin-Madison since 1997. Prior to that, she spent over a decade working as a science writer for the Sacramento Bee, where her series on ethical issues in primate research, “The Monkey Wars,” won the 1992 Pulitzer. The Monkey Wars also became a book, and since then Blum has written numerous others: A Field Guide for Science Writers, Sex on the Brain, Love at Goon Park: Harry Harlow and the Science of Affection, and Ghost Hunters: William James and the Scientific Search for Life After Death. Blum has also written for numerous publications including The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, and The New York Times. She was president of the National Association of Science Writers from 2002-2004, and currently serves on advisory boards to the Council for Advancement of Science Writing and the World Federation of Science Journalists.

Dr. Robert Todd Carroll is a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, and author of The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. He is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Sacramento City College, where he taught Logic and Critical Reasoning, Critical Thinking about the Paranormal, Law, Justice and Punishment, and World Religions. He is also author of the textbook Becoming a Critical Thinker. Bob is the creator of the popular website Skepdic.com, which features numerous essays and book reviews, and the Skeptimedia blog where he provides a commentary of media coverage of pseudoscience and the paranormal. But the focus of the site is the original online version of the Skeptic's Dictionary, containing hundreds of entries on topics ranging from "abracadabra to zombies". This is the resource for defining skepticism. In this episode, Karen Stollznow talks with Bob about the importance of defining the topics of which we are skeptical. They discuss the inadequacies of existing definitions of paranormal and pseudoscientific subjects, and why it is necessary to counter uncritical bias with explanations that are skeptical. However, the damning evidence (or lack-thereof) usually speaks for itself. Bob reveals the top searches to his site, uncovering the themes that should be of particular concern to skeptics. He explains that his online book is reader-driven, and that user feedback and assistance has molded the shape of this dynamic resource. Even with 600 current entries in this encyclopedia-like dictionary, this is a work-in-progress that will never be finished. Bob discusses skeptical activism, becoming a skeptic, and how to invent your own pseudoscience to learn critical thinking. As a life-long teacher of this topic, Bob explains that critical thinking needs to be taught, but also needs to be learned critically. We discuss how much critical thinking can or should be taught, and how much is a process of self-learning.

For two decades now, we’ve failed to seriously address climate change. So the planet just keeps warming—and it could get very bad. Picture major droughts, calving of gigantic ice sheets, increasingly dramatic sea level rise, and much more. Against this backdrop, the idea of a technological fix to solve the problem—like seeding the stratosphere with reflective sulfur particles, so as to reduce sunlight—starts to sound pretty attractive. Interest in so-called “geoengineering” is growing, and so is media attention to the idea. There are even conspiracy theorists who think a secret government plan to geoengineer the planet is already afoot. Leading scientists, meanwhile, have begun to seriously study our geoengineering options—not necessarily because they want to, but because they fear there may be no other choice. This week's episode of Point of Inquiry with host Chris Mooney features Eli Kintisch, who has followed these scientists’ endeavors—and their ethical quandaries—like perhaps no other journalist. He has broken stories about Bill Gates’ funding of geoengineering research, DARPA’s exploration of the idea, and recently attended the historic scientific meeting in Asilomar, California, where researchers gathered to discuss how to establish guidelines for geoengineering research. And now, the full story is related in Kintisch’s new book Hack the Planet: Science’s Best Hope—or Worst Nightmare—for Averting Climate Catastrophe. Eli Kintisch is a staff writer for Science magazine, and has also written for Slate, Discover, Technology Review, and The New Republic. He has worked as a Washington correspondent for the Forward and a science reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. In 2005 he won the Space Journalism prize for a series of articles on private spaceflight. He lives in Washington, D.C.

Thomas J.J. Altizer burst onto the religious scene in the 1960s with his book The Gospel of Christian Atheism. He was one of the "Death of God" theologians discussed in the famous TIME cover story, "Is God Dead?" Altzier holds an M.A. in theology and Ph.D. in History of Religions from the Universeity of Chicago. Now 83 years of age, Altizer remains a Young Turk among radical theologians, insisting that only Christians can be true atheists and must proclaim the death of God. In this conversation with Robert Price, Altizer delves into Death of God theology. He explains the difference between saying "There is no God" and "God is Dead." He discusses his interactions with other theologians and what they thought of his work. Altizer gives his opinion of contemporary public atheists and what he likes and dislikes about them. He relates stories from his career involving other thinkers such as Paul Tillich and Mircea Eliade—including a personal "initiation" experience. He explains how he formerly debated evangelical Christians and how Death of God theology can be used when doing so.

Paul Kurtz is founder and chair emeritus of the Center for Inquiry and founder of a number of other organizations. A Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, chairman of the Committee for the Skeptical Inquiry, the Council for Secular Humanism, and Prometheus Books. He is the author or editor of almost fifty books, including his new title Exuberant Skepticism. Throughout the last four decades, Kurtz has been a leading defender of science and reason against the prevailing cults of irrationality in our society, and has been interviewed widely in the media on a wide range of subjects, including alternative medicine and communication with the dead, to the historicity of Jesus and parapsychology. In this, the third of three special-edition epsiodes featuring D.J. Grothe, Paul Kurtz discusses American philosopher John Dewey, and explains how his views undergird much of what the Center for Inquiry stands for. He talks about the American school of philosophy called pragmatism, and its central value of testing ideas by their consequences. He explains how active inquiry, even into controversial claims, is key for the educated mind, and why learning how to think is more important than being instructed what to think. He explores Dewey's humanism, and how nature and science should be servants of the human good. He talks about Dewey's optimism and his faith in democracy, in the common person, and in social progress. He explores how for Dewey moral values are objective, but are not absolute, static and unchanging, but that they should be modified in the light of new evidence and situations. And he explains the real value of inquiry and how it may enrich people's lives.

Dr. Scott Lilienfeld is Professor of Psychology at Emory University in Atlanta. Scott is a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a Consulting Editor for Skeptical Inquirer and the Founder and Editor of the CSI journal Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. He’s a regular contributor to Scientific American Mind, and is Psychology Today's Skeptical Psychologist, where he investigates questionable, controversial, and novel claims in psychology. His principal areas of research include evidence-based practices in psychology and the challenges posed by pseudoscience to clinical psychology. In this conversation with Karen Stollznow, Scott discusses his latest book, 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions About Human Behavior, co-written with Steven Jay Lynn, John Ruscio and the late Barry Beyerstein. The book treats a staggering 300 urban legends, myths and misconceptions; this is the “Mythbusters” of psychology. Scott explains the difference between psychology and “pop psychology”, which is fraught with what he calls “psychomythology”. He discusses how myths develop and disseminate, and he reports that even the experts can be deceived by these commonly-held beliefs. These myths are unpredictable blends of fact and (mostly) fiction, but as we find out, fact is sometimes even stranger than fiction. Scott busts some surprising myths, and argues for the importance of myth busting. When we believe in these myths there are often real-world consequences, but debunking itself carries risks. He discusses how to counter these myths and the “unsinkable ducks”, and how to critically evaluate future claims as we’re presented with them. Aiming to “demystify psychology”, Scott is an advocate for the effective communication of psychology to the public, and also for science-based psychology. He considers the unreliability of our intuition, gut-feelings and our (not-so) common sense, and how science is “uncommon sense”. Scott admits that human experience makes us all armchair psychologists, and we are all susceptible to Dr. Phil-psychology and self-help books. But self-help is more often hindrance than help. Backed up by science, this book is the real self-help.

Victor Stenger is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Hawaii and Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado. He is also founder of Colorado Citizens for Science. He’s held visiting faculty positions at the University of Heidelberg in Germany, and at Oxford in the United Kingdom, and has been a visiting researcher at Rutherford Laboratory in England, the National Nuclear Physics Laboratory in Frascati, Italy, and the University of Florence in Italy. Stenger’s search career has spanned the period of great progress in elementary particle physics that ultimately led to the current standard model. He participated in experiments that helped establish the properties of strange particles, quarks, gluons, and neutrinos and has also helped pioneer the emerging fields of very high energy gamma ray and neutrino astronomy. In his last project before retiring, Vic collaborated on the experiment in Japan which showed for the first time that the neutrino has mass. He is the author of many books, including Comprehensible Cosmos, The Unconscious Quantum, Not by Design, Has Science Found God, The New York Times best-seller God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist, and The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason. In this, the second of three special-edition epsiodes featuring D.J. Grothe, Vic Stenger discusses who the New Atheists oppose: not just anti-science activists, but even those who have faith in God even if they support science to some extent. He explores if science is itself based on faith. He describes ways in which faith may appear to be based on evidence. He compares evidence supporting God's existence coming from the appearance of design in nature with evidence from the sciences suggesting a total lack of design in the universe. He debates which should have priority: science or atheism, and whether learning science will lead to atheism, or if being an atheist will lead to an natural acceptance of the scientific worldview. He defends causing offense to believers in the name of truth, and explores to what extent such an approach may be counter-productive at times. He explores the best ways to "frame" atheism so as to have the most impact. He recounts his appearance on Christian radio, and what it illustrates about communicating atheism and rationalism. He explains why natural explanations for events are better than supernatural explanations. He reveals who the real audience of the New Atheists is. He talks about the growing student freethought and skeptics movement, and why young people are one the target audiences of the New Atheists. He explains why he thinks within mere generations religion will fade away. And he talks about the righteous indignation of the New Atheists, and the moral imperative of atheists to speak out because of the harm resulting from religion.

We live in a science centered age—a time of private spaceflight and personalized medicine, amid path-breaking advances in biotechnology and nanotechnology. And we face science centered risks: climate and energy crises, biological and nuclear terror threats, mega-disasters and global pandemics. So you would think science journalism would be booming—yet nothing could be further from the case. If you watch 5 hours of cable news today, expect to see just 1 minute devoted to science and technology. From 1989-2005, meanwhile, the number of major newspapers featuring weekly science sections shrank from 95 to 34. Epitomizing the current decline is longtime New York Times science writer Andrew Revkin, who recently left the paper for a career in academia. In this conversation with host Chris Mooney, Revkin discusses the uncertain future of his field, the perils of the science blogosphere, his battles with climate blogger Joe Romm, and what it’s like (no joke) to have Rush Limbaugh suggest that you kill yourself. Moving on to the topics he’s covered for over a decade, Revkin also addresses the problem of population growth, the long-range risks that our minds just aren’t trained to think about, and the likely worsening of earthquake and other catastrophes as more people pack into vulnerable places. Andrew Revkin was the science and environment reporter for the New York Times from 1995 through 2009. During the 2000s, he broke numerous front page stories about how the Bush administration was suppressing science, and launched the highly popular blog Dot Earth. But last year, Revkin announced he was leaving the Times. He accepted a post as a senior fellow of environmental understanding at Pace University in White Plains, New York, where he will focus on teaching and two new book projects—complementing existing works like The North Pole Was Here, a book about the vanishing Arctic aimed at middle and high schoolers. In his new life, Andy will also have much more time to play with what he dubs his “rustic-rootsy” band, Uncle Wade.

Robert J. Miller is Rosenberger Chair of Christian and Religious Studies at Juniata College in Pennsylvania. A Fellow of the Jesus Seminar since 1986, he was Scholar-in-Residence at Westar Institute in 2001. He is the of author numerous books, including Born Divine: The Births of Jesus and Other Sons of God, The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics, and editor of The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate and The Complete Gospels. In this conversation with host Robert Price, Miller discusses his work as a Jesus Seminar scholar. He reveals the unique methods of the Seminar that attracted him to it in the first place and the benefits that he sees in them. He explains the goals of the Jesus Seminar and whether or not they have changed since its beginnings. Miller lists why there has been public confusion regarding the Seminar and how it has affected public opinion of Jesus and the Bible. Miller elaborates on his own research, explaining how religious fundamentalism gets in the way of understanding how early Christians viewed some writings and shows how some New Testament authors altered Old Testament prophecies to fit their needs. He explains why the view of Jesus as an End-Times Prophet is faulty and the implications of that. He also voices his concern for debating fundamentalist scholars and suggests that it might end up lending undue legitimacy.

For the scientists who study global warming, now is the winter of their despair. In the news, it has been climate scandal after alleged climate scandal. First came “ClimateGate,” then “GlacierGate,” “Amazon Gate,” and so on. In public opinion polls, meanwhile, Americans’ acceptance of the science of global warming appears to be declining. Even a freak snowstorm now seems to sow added doubt about this rigorous body of research. In response to growing public skepticism—and a wave of dramatic attacks on individual researchers—the scientific community is now bucking up to more strongly defend its knowledge. Leading the charge is one of the most frequently attacked researchers of them all—Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann. In this interview with host Chris Mooney, Mann pulls no punches. He defends the fundamental scientific consensus on climate change, and explains why those who attack it consistently miss the target. He also answers critics of his “hockey stick” study, and explains why the charges that have arisen in “ClimateGate” seem much more smoke than fire. Dr. Michael E. Mann is a member of the Pennsylvania State University faculty, and director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center. His research focuses on the application of statistical techniques to understanding climate variability and change, and he was a Lead Author on the “Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report. Among many other distinguished scientific activities, editorships, and awards, Mann is author of more than 120 peer-reviewed and edited publications. That includes, most famously, the 1998 study that introduced the so called “hockey stick,” a graph showing that modern temperatures appear to be much higher than anything seen in at least the last thousand years. With his colleague Lee Kump, Mann also recently authored the book Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming. Finally, he is one of the founders and contributors to the prominent global warming blog, RealClimate.org.