Rationally Speaking Podcast

Did you know that an artificial intelligence named "Eugene Goostman" recently passed the Turing Test, our gold standard criterion for whether an AI is conscious? At least, that's what many media outlets breathlessly reported. In this episode of Rationally Speaking, Julia and Massimo take a critical look at Eugene, and at the Turing test in general as a standard for consciousness. In the process they debate what it would mean for an AI to be conscious, and how we could ever tell.

In this episode, Julia and Massimo talk about the problems with "race" as a genetically-based concept. Starting with the controversial recent book "A Troublesome Inheritance," by NY Times science writer Nicholas Wade, they critique the statistical analyses that group people into racial categories, and Wade's (and others') attempts to attribute differences between rich and poor countries to innate racial differences.

Ever heard someone sigh, "That's just human nature"? Have you wondered what that meant? In this episode of Rationally Speaking, Julia and Massimo delve into the science and philosophy of human nature: what traits are "built in" to being human, and how would we know? And once we know what human nature consists of, should we try to protect it against changes?

For all the sniping that goes on between science and philosophy it's easy to forget that both fields are part of "scientia," the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. In this episode of Rationally Speaking, Julia and Massimo discuss the latter's new "Scientia Salon" online journal, how the boundaries blur between math, science and philosophy, and how the Internet can change scientific research.

Rebecca Newberger Goldstein -- philosopher, author, and Genius-grant recipient -- returns to the Rationally Speaking podcast to discuss her latest book, "Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away." Rebecca, Julia and Massimo argue over the value of philosophy in modern science, and whether it makes sense to designate "experts" in ethical reasoning.

"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide," wrote Albert Camus. In this episode of Rationally Speaking, Massimo and Julia discuss the ethics of suicide through the lens of several major philosophies. They also explore the social science of suicide: how does one person's suicide affect the community?

Does the future belong to MOOCs? Massive Open Online Courses, or MOOCs for short, have been hailed as the next wave in secondary education, poised to replace brick-and-mortar colleges with their expensive infrastructure and sky-high tuition. In this episode of Rationally Speaking, Julia and Massimo discuss how to measure MOOCs' effectiveness, separating the hype from the genuine promise.

Rationally Speaking returns to NECSS for a live show with Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist and author of best selling books like The Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing. Julia and Massimo chat with Lawrence about whether the laws of the universe demand some kind of explanation, whether string theory should be deemed a failure, and how he ended up featured in a geocentrist documentary.

Atheist activist and author Greta Christina appears on this episode of Rationally Speaking, to discuss her new book, "Coming Out Atheist: How to Do It, How to Help Each Other, And Why." A spirited debate ensues, in which Greta, Julia and Massimo disagree over the boundaries of the "atheist movement," and the role of social justice in it. Other topics include: The cognitive biases that can make it hard to get a clear picture of whether people regret "coming out" as atheists; Plus, Greta's argument for why atheist community-building shouldn't model itself after religious communities.

Can you find beauty -- even romance -- in mathematics? Mathematician Edward Frenkel, author of "Love and Math," joins Rationally Speaking to talk about how the subject seduced him as a young man, and how he believes it's generally mis-taught in schools. Other topics include: the search for a "grand unified theory" of mathematics, and the splash Edward caused when he produced -- and starred in -- "Rites of Love and Math," a steamy short film about equations.

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson returns for this episode of Rationally Speaking, with a particular question to discuss: Should he call himself an atheist? The impetus is a recent dust-up over Neil's appearance on Big Think, in which he explained that he avoids the label "atheist" because it causes people to make all sorts of unflattering (and often untrue) assumptions. Julia and Massimo reply with some counterarguments, and along the way delve into the philosophy of language.

This episode features special guest Zach Weinersmith, author of "Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal," a popular webcomic about philosophy and science. Zach clarifies his position in the ongoing "philosophy vs. science" fight, poses a question to Julia and Massimo about the ethics of offensive jokes, and discusses BAHFest, his "Bad Ad Hoc Hypotheses" conference lampooning evolutionary psychology and his movie "Starpocalype." Somehow along the way, the three take a detour into discussing an unusual sexual act.

Those among us who loathed high school calculus might feel some trepidation at the premise in this week's episode of Rationally Speaking. MIT Physicist Max Tegmark joins us to talk about his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" in which explains the controversial argument that everything around us is made of math. Max, Massimo and Julia explore the arguments for such a theory, how it could be tested, and what it even means.

On this episode, recorded live at the Jefferson Market Library in New York City, Rationally Speaking podcast celebrates its 100th episode! The show features a full hour of audience Q's and Julia & Massimo's A's. Topics range from science, philosophy and the borderlands between the two. The questions push the hosts to think on their feet, and even to admit their ignorance on stage!

Creative geniuses are always a little bit cuckoo, right? At least, that's the impression you'd get from TV, movies, and plenty of common wisdom. In this episode of Rationally Speaking, Massimo and Julia are joined by psychologist Judith Schlesinger, author of The Insanity Hoax: Exposing the Myth of the Mad Genius, who explains why she thinks the "mad genius" archetype is simply the result of folklore, misunderstanding, and bad research.

What qualifies someone as mentally ill? The standard for diagnosis is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which just released a 5th edition in 2013 -- but just how objective is it? This episode of Rationally Speaking features Dr. Jerome Wakefield, psychiatrist, PhD in philosophy, and author of "The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow into Depressive Disorder." Julia, Massimo and Jerome talk about the arbitrariness of the DSM and the controversies around the boundaries of various mental disorders, including depression and sexual fetishes.

Few philosophers have as wide of an impact on the general public as ethicist Peter Singer, this week's guest on Rationally Speaking podcast. Singer's utilitarian arguments about how we should treat animals, why we have a moral obligation to give to charity, whether infants should count as "people," and more have won him widespread fame -- and notoriety -- over the last few decades, and launched multiple movements. Tune in to hear his discussion with Massimo and Julia about why he's a utilitarian, and how his views of utilitarianism have recently changed (and find out how he influenced Massimo's life years ago).

It seems like a week can't go by without a news story about how neuroscience has discovered the neurological basis of love, morality, addiction, you name it. Yet how much explanatory power does neuroscience really have -- and are we putting too much trust in its findings? On this episode of Rationally Speaking, Massimo and Julia explore these questions with psychiatrist Sally Satel and professor of psychology Scott O. Lilienfeld, the authors of "Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience."

Is the mind a kind of computer? This episode of Rationally Speaking features philosopher Gerard O'Brien from the University of Adelaide, who specializes in the philosophy of mind. Gerard, Julia, and Massimo discuss the computational theory of mind and what it implies about consciousness, intelligence, and the possibility of uploading people onto computers.

What's the difference between science and pseudocience -- and is it even possible to draw a clean line separating them? In this episode of Rationally Speaking, Massimo and Julia interview philosopher Maarten Boudry from Ghent University. Tune in to hear them discuss Massimo and Maarten's new book, "Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem"... and stick around to learn how Maarten pranked theologians.

In this episode of Rationally Speaking, Julia and Massimo talk to physicist and climatologist Michael Mann about how we know the climate is getting warmer. Among other things, they cover the physical processes of climate change, the role that predictive models have played in confirming scientists' theories about the rate of warming, and what are uncertainties in the science. Also, how optimistic we should be about technological solutions to the problem. Dr. Michael E. Mann is Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State University, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute. He is also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center. Dr. Mann is author of more than 160 peer-reviewed and edited publications, and has published two books including Dire Predictions: "Understanding Global Warming in 2008 and The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines" in 2012. He is also a co-founder and avid contributor to the award-winning science website RealClimate.org.

How has alternative medicine managed to become so mainstream? This episode of Rationally Speaking features Dr. Paul Offit, award-winning specialist in vaccines, immunology and pediatrics, and author of popular books such as "Do You Believe in Magic?: The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine." Julia and Massimo interview Dr. Offit about the fight against alternative medicine, why it's still unregulated, and whether or not to tell patients about placebos.

On this episode of Rationally Speaking, Massimo and Julia survey the present, past, and future of skepticism. Special guest Kendrick Frazier, editor of Skeptical Inquirer, talks about how the movement's focus has changed and what the frontiers of skepticism should be. Kendrick Crosby Frazier is a science writer and editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine for over 30 years. He is also a former editor of Science News, author or editor of ten books, and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

In this episode of Rationally Speaking, Julia and Massimo turn their attention to connoisseurship -- or snobbery, depending on your point of view! Fine wines, bottled water, high-end audio equipment -- what all these have in common are passionate customers who are discriminating enough to pay top dollar for subtle differences between options. Or are they? This episode explores the evidence on whether connoisseurs can really tell the difference between, for example, the $7 wine and the $700 one -- or whether it's a distinction without a difference.

Looking for love online? You're not alone -- one in five new relationships nowadays begin on a dating site. But just how scientific are the "matching algorithms" sites like eHarmony and OKCupid use? What does cognitive psychology tell us about how this new choice context affects our happiness? Massimo and Julia turn an analytical eye on the math and science of online dating, in this episode of Rationally Speaking.

The next time you're kicking yourself for some stupid mistake, remember: Even history's genuises screw up! Astrophysicist and author Mario Livio joins this episode of Rationally Speaking to talk about his latest book, "Brilliant Blunders: From Darwin to Einstein - Colossal Mistakes by Great Scientists That Changed Our Understanding of Life and the Universe." Learn about why Darwin's theory of natural selection "shouldn't" have worked, why Einstein was confused about the role of aesthetics in physics, why Hoyle stubbornly refused to change his mind about a "steady state" universe -- and why those mistakes are central to scientific progress.

Astrophysicist and author Sean Carroll joins this episode of Rationally Speaking, to talk about "naturalism" -- the philosophical viewpoint that there are no supernatural phenomena, and the universe runs on scientific laws. Sean, Julia, and Massimo discuss what distinguishes naturalism from similar philosophies like physicalism and materialism, and what a naturalistic worldview implies about free will, consciousness, and other philosophical dilemmas. And they return to that long-standing debate: should scientists have more respect for philosophy?

Why does the universe exist? And is that even a sensical question to ask? Philosopher Jim Holt has written extensively for publications such as the New Yorker, the New York Times and Harper's, and most recently embarked on this "existential detective story" in his new book, "Why Does the World Exist?: An Existential Detective Story" Jim discusses his book with Massimo and Julia in this live episode of Rationally Speaking, taped at the 2013 Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism in New York City.

In a special live Rationally Speaking, taped at NECSS 2013, Julia Galef moderates a lively discussion between Massimo and Michael Shermer, head of the Skeptic Society and founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine. The topic: Can science tell us what is "moral"? This discussion comes after both men have tackled the question separately in books (Massimo's Answers for Aristotle and Michael's The Science of Good and Evil), and jointly in a recent debate on the Rationally Speaking blog. Questions under debate include: Does "natural" = "morally right"? How do we make tradeoffs between different people's happiness? And what role should science and philosophy play in making these decisions?

Just like love, motherhood, and apple pie, no one could be against fairness. No one, that is, except philosopher Stephen Asma, the author of "Against Fairness." Massimo and Julia sit down with Stephen in this episode of Rationally Speaking, to talk about what he thinks is wrong with the concept of fairness -- and about certain traditional values he thinks are more important.

How long does it take for one-half of everything we know about a subject to be proven wrong? Depends on the subject. 45 years, for example, if that subject is cirrhosis or hepatitis. Samuel Arbesman, applied mathematician and author of "The Half-Life of Facts: Why Everything We Know Has an expiration Date", joins Julia and Massimo to talk about the hidden patterns underlying how fast our understanding of science is changing.

If you're an ethically minded consumer, you should buy organic because it's better for the environment, right? Actually, the case isn't so clear-cut. But you should certainly buy fair-trade because it's better for foreign laborers, right? Well... that's complicated too. In this episode of Rationally Speaking, Julia and Massimo talk about how hard it is to know how much good you're accomplishing with your purchases, or whether you're even doing any good at all.

"Medicine is broken," warns Ben Goldacre, the British physician, academic, author of the Guardian's Bad Science column. In this live episode of Rationally Speaking, Massimo and Julia interview Ben about his new book, Bad Pharma, and how the evidence about pharmaceutical drugs gets distorted due to shoddy regulations, missing data, and the influence of drug companies.

In honor of the passing of Dear Abby columnist Pauline Philips, Massimo and Julia talk about the history and philosophy of advice. How do you rationally evaluate advice, and how do you give rational advice? Along the way they discuss some of Dear Abby's snarkiest moments, the origins of the advice column in 1680, and some of the worst advice ever given.

Can science denialism be blamed on a "Republican brain"? In other words: is there something about the psychology of Republicans that makes them inclined to reject the scientific consensus on topics like evolution and climate change? Special guest Chris Mooney argues there is, elaborating on the thesis in his popular book, "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science- and Reality." Massimo and Julia debate whether the evidence support Chris's thesis.

What's your IQ? Are you an ENTJ, or maybe an ISFP? What's your Openness score, your Conscientiousness score, your Neuroticism score? And just how seriously should you take all those test scores, anyway? In this episode of Rationally Speaking, Massimo and Julia discuss the science -- and lack thereof -- of intelligence and personality testing.

In this episode, Massimo and Julia discuss sociology and feminism, with special guest Victoria Pitts-Taylor, professor of sociology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. Victoria explains how feminists in sociology are dealing with results in neuroscience and evolutionary biology, especially regarding the question: How much inborn difference is there really between women and men? Massimo and Julia challenge Victoria on some academic feminist views, and investigate how the fields of sociology and academic feminism reach their conclusions -- what methods do they use, and how would we know if they were wrong?

What do Linux, Netflix, and the Oxford English Dictionary have in common? They've all benefited from the power of crowdsourcing, in which a task is outsourced to a group of hundreds or thousands of disparate people. In this episode of Rationally Speaking, Julia and Massimo discuss the phenomena of crowdsourcing, and ask: What makes it work? Is it ever unethical? And what are the limits to the wisdom of crowds?

We look to scientists to keep us informed about risks, such as: is this medicine effective? Is that level of toxicity harmless? How severe should we expect this upcoming storm to be? But when lives are at stake, tricky questions arise about how much responsibility falls on scientists' shoulders to get those estimations *right* -- and whether scientists should be punished if they fail. In this episode of Rationally Speaking, Massimo and Julia discuss a recent court case that shocked the world: A group of Italian scientists were sentenced to 6 years in prison for failing to effectively warn the public of an earthquake that killed over 300 people in 2009. Was this decision fair? And how should we decide where the boundaries of scientific accountability lie?

Massimo and Julia visit Indianapolis for a heated debate, in this live episode of Rationally Speaking. At a symposium organized by the Center for Inquiry (CFI), they join up with John Shook, Director of Education and Senior Research fellow at the CFI, and the author of more than a dozen books on philosophy and religion. Sparks fly as the three debate questions like: Should science-promoting organizations, like the National Center for Science Education, claim publicly that science is compatible with religion? And is philosophy incapable of telling us anything about the world?

In this episode Julia interviews Massimo about his new book, Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life. Massimo's central idea is that a combination of science and philosophy, what he calls "Sci-Phi," is the best guide to the big questions in life, from issues of morality and justice to the meaning of love and friendship. The book's title derives from the fact that Aristotle was the first philosopher-scientist, adopting the sci-phi framework and posing a number of questions with which we are still struggling. What is the best way to live one's life? What sort of society do we want to live in? How do we relate to our friends and loved ones? Two and a half millennia later, modern science and philosophy have come up with some of the answers to Aristotle's questions, or at the least with a better way to think about them.

Can a statement be simultaneously true and false? That might seem like sheer nonsense to you -- but not to certain modern logicians. In this episode Massimo and Julia are joined again by philosopher and logician Graham Priest, who explains why we have to radically revise our notions of "true" and "false." In the process, he explains classic puzzlers like the "barber paradox": "In a village, the barber shaves all men who do not shave themselves. Does he shave himself?" Follow along for an episode that really takes to heart the podcast's tagline: exploring the borderlands between reason and nonsense.

By its very nature, science fiction has always been particularly suited to philosophical exploration. In fact, some of the best science fiction novels, short stories, movies, and TV shows function like extended philosophical thought experiments: what might cloning tell us about our views on personal identity? If we could all take a pill to be happy, would we want to do that? In this episode, Massimo and Julia recall some of their favorite philosophically-rich science fiction, and debate the potential pitfalls in using science fiction to reach philosophical conclusions.

For all the time Massimo and Julia have spent discussing and debating philosophy on Rationally Speaking, so far, it's all been philosophy from Europe and North America. What about the philosophical traditions of, for example, Asia? In this episode, professor of philosophy Graham Priest offers a brief introduction to the philosophy of India, China, and Japan, and explains why he thinks it should be better known in the West.

Compared to other fields of philosophy, "metaphysics" doesn't get a great rap -- it's both dauntingly obtuse and often derided as nonsense. In this episode of Rationally Speaking, Massimo and Julia chat with James Ladyman, Professor of philosophy at the University of Bristol and the author of Every Thing Must Go. The conversation covers: what is metaphysics, exactly, and where (in Ladyman's opinion) has it gone off the rails? Where does traditional science err in its classification of the "building blocks" of physics? What would a new, improved, metaphysics look like -- and what implications does that have for age-old questions like "What is causality?" and "Is the world real?"

You've heard plenty about biases: the thinking errors the human brain tends to make. But is there anything we can do to make ourselves *less* biased? In this episode, Massimo and Julia discuss what psychological research has learned about "de-biasing," the challenges involved, and the de-biasing strategies Julia is implementing at her organization, the Center for Applied Rationality.

Can everyone's problems always be traced back to sex, love, and masturbation? In this episode, Massimo and Julia talk about the pseudoscientific aspects of Freud's theories of human psychology. Along the way they explore what philosophy of science has to say about testing theories -- and some of the similarities that Freudianism has with religion, new age mysticism, and psychic reading.

You may think you're a skeptic, but are you really as free from superstition as you think you are? Matthew Hutson thinks not. The author of "The Seven Laws of Magical Thinking" joins Massimo and Julia on this episode of Rationally Speaking to discuss some common, innate forms of superstition that affect even self-identified skeptics, and why the human brain is predisposed to magical thinking. Along the way, the three debate: Overall, are our superstitions good for us?

Why do philosophers sometimes argue for conclusions that are disturbing, even shocking? Some recent examples include the claim that it's morally acceptable to kill babies; that there's nothing wrong with bestiality; and that having children is unethical. In this episode of Rationally Speaking, Massimo and Julia discuss what we can learn from these "Philosophical shock tactics," the public reaction to them, and what role emotion should play in philosophy.

Nature vs. Nurture? Massimo and Julia revive the age-old debate in this episode of Rationally Speaking, with special guest Jesse Prinz. Jesse is a professor of philosophy at CUNY and the author of several books, most recently "Beyond Human Nature." The trio debate Jesse's argument that human behavior is far more culturally determined than evolutionary psychologists would have you believe, and in the process explore the question of where morality comes from and how to distinguish between nature and nurture.