New at Reason.tv: Michael Shermer on the Modern History of Skepticism

August 11, 2009

Michael Shermer is the executive director of the Skeptics Society, founding publisher of Sketpic magazine, an author of several books, most recently The Mind of the Market: How Biology and Psychology Shape Our Economic Lives. He has a long track record of engaging in libertarian ideas, critical thinking, and "baloney detection."

In this interview with Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch, shot at The Amazing Meeting in Las Vegas, Shermer talks about the history of modern skepticism, the connection between evolution and market economics, and how President Barack Obama is better than his predecessor on science.

Approximately 5 minutes. Shot and edited by Dan Hayes.

Click here for embed code, iPod, HD, and audio versions.

Comments

Christ on a Cracker|8.11.09 @ 12:15PM|#

I'm confused. Do all those people yelling want the bill pass, or don't want the bill passed?

... or are they just paid to yell at lot?

|8.11.09 @ 12:23PM|#

It's disappointing that Shermer would make a fallacious comparison between biological evolution and the economy. But even if he were right and the economy followed the patterns found in natural selection, why is that good? Natural selection is a ruthless culling process that benefits a tiny few, not out of any sense of fairness or justice but out of pure luck. Guess that's the best form of the economy we can come up with?

|8.11.09 @ 12:30PM|#

Tony: The (extremely obvious) difference is that the market is a ruthless culling process of products, services, and businesses, not organisms.

|8.11.09 @ 12:50PM|#

I'm skeptical

d|8.11.09 @ 1:03PM|#

Shermer is missing one crucial point: market and evolutionary forces operate over different things. At bottom, natural selection tends to cull those genotypes that do not propagate themselves (and "favors" those that do, even at the expense of their host -- hence, the existence of altruism-like behavior in nature). The market is a conglomeration of self-interested (quasi-rational) actors who don't care about anything but their own bottom line -- never willingly sacrificing themselves for the greater good of the memes they are transmitting.

Whether or not they are, at bottom, born of the same fundamental processes is a philosophical and empirical question. (And I mean true philosophy, as in Analytic Philosophy, not "my personal philosophy"-type philosophy.)

It's also a bit disingenuous to say that "liberals" (progressive liberals, I mean) are more pro-science. They *think* they are more pro-science, but they ignore, e.g., both the fallacies and failures of modern "scientific" medicine, and the successes of "unscientific" natural medicinal approaches (supplementation, exercise, taiji, meditation, etc.). They (and their liberal academic cohort) cook up strawman versions of "non-conventional" approaches to healthcare and then rejoice and point to "Science" when their side-effect laden, pill-pushing approach hides the symptoms of disease more effectively. This is just one example of how the "pro-scientific" bent of progressives is just a front for making those who favor a bottom-up respect for the wisdom of natural substances (whether or not they were created by a benevolent Creator) look like snake charmers to their voting base.

Uh|8.11.09 @ 1:07PM|#

Unless Matt's torso shrinks in half when he sits, that tie is tied way too long.

|8.11.09 @ 1:22PM|#

I'm sick of video stuff. Someone post a transcript.

William|8.11.09 @ 1:32PM|#

"He has a long track record of engaging in libertarian ideas, critical thinking, and 'baloney detection.'"

The poor man must be suffering from baloney overload.

Mike Laursen|8.11.09 @ 2:08PM|#

It's disappointing that Shermer would make a fallacious comparison between biological evolution and the economy. But even if he were right and the economy followed the patterns found in natural selection, why is that good? Natural selection is a ruthless culling process that benefits a tiny few, not out of any sense of fairness or justice but out of pure luck. Guess that's the best form of the economy we can come up with?

Before anyone can even hope to engage in intelligent conversation with you about your question, if that's what you want: do you recognize there's a difference between a statement of fact and one's wishes that the fact were true or not?

Space Fiend|8.11.09 @ 2:36PM|#

Shermer is missing one crucial point: market and evolutionary forces operate over different things. At bottom, natural selection tends to cull those genotypes that do not propagate themselves (and "favors" those that do, even at the expense of their host -- hence, the existence of altruism-like behavior in nature). The market is a conglomeration of self-interested (quasi-rational) actors who don't care about anything but their own bottom line -- never willingly sacrificing themselves for the greater good of the memes they are transmitting.

The only way sacrifice makes sense in evolution is in relation to blood relatives. This is important, because the relatives carry (relatively) more genetic material in common with the sacrificer. In turn, this is only important, from a natural selection standpoint, because that genetic material correponds to intrinsic traits in the organism. Businesses and other market actors aren't "born" with unchanging traits, they can adapt, evolve, compeltely reinvent themselves, all in real time. The purpose sacrificial behavior serves in nature is totally unnecessary in the market, where the actor can simply choose to adopt an advantageous "trait."

|8.11.09 @ 3:13PM|#

Before anyone can even hope to engage in intelligent conversation with you about your question, if that's what you want: do you recognize there's a difference between a statement of fact and one's wishes that the fact were true or not?

So he believes that the economy is like natural selection, and that's not necessarily good or bad, but we shouldn't try to change it regardless?

Mike Laursen|8.11.09 @ 3:25PM|#

So he believes that the economy is like natural selection...

Yes. Full stop. He was making a factual statement.

...and that's not necessarily good or bad, but we shouldn't try to change it regardless?

See now, you made me watch the video. His sole statement was (paraphrasing): liberals can't see that the economy, like a biological system, doesn't need a designer. So, I think it would be fair to conclude that he generally favors laissez-faire policies, although one couldn't conclude that he's hardcore about it or doesn't make exceptions. He just didn't say enough on the topic.

|8.11.09 @ 3:29PM|#

That seems a pretty straightforward way of saying he doesn't think the economy should be regulated, and therefore it should carry on naturally. Now I don't think the comparison to natural selection is all that persuasive, but even if it were, that would be a strong argument in favor of regulation, since it seems to me the last thing we want is an economy modeled on natural selection.

Mike Laursen|8.11.09 @ 3:57PM|#

OK, I think we've got some common understanding of what topic we're discussing now. My first question to you: Regulation is done by politicians and bureaucrats? Are they not subject to forces of natural selection? In fact, aren't they biological creatures and therefore, literally, subject to biological natural selection?

|8.11.09 @ 4:59PM|#

Um, no. Individuals are not subject to the forces of natural selection. Populations over time are.

Mike Laursen|8.11.09 @ 6:50PM|#

Alright, are politicians and bureaucrats shielded from external influences on their judgement?

|8.11.09 @ 7:29PM|#

Tony, Mike; I think you two are missing the thrust of his argument.

I absolutely agree that businesses don't behave identically to genomic evolution. While the memetic spread of marketing ideas and products (eg - everyone's buying Nike's pump up shoes, we should imitate that practice) does follow patterns similar to successful gene distributions within a breeding population, the analogy fails when you stop to consider that a bat didn't evolve flight by imitating birds, and that genes that have disappeared from the population can't be resurrected by reading a history book.

But that's not what Shermer was trying to say. A common misconception among economic lay people is that complex systems - such as the vast array of agents which leads to food arriving at the grocery store - requires top down management. It's hard to imagine the vast array of products we use *not* having this top down design, despite the fact that every branded iPod out there is built and designed using parts and industry standards that have nothing to do with Apple. The iPod *seems* like it's top-down designed, but the vast majority of it isn't.

He was pointing to the commonality of bottom-up for both processes. Natural selection creates mind-boggilingly complex life forms, while laissez faire economics creates mind-boggilingly complex economic solutions. Both systems are so effective because there is no central control. The dispersed agency winds up being more responsive, and more accurate than any intentional moves could possibly be.

This concept is deeply counterintuitive, but it's true. I would hazard that while Liberals 'believe' in evolution, and Conservatives 'believe' in the Free Market, neither of them really understand what makes them work. I think that was his point, 'cliff-noted' to a five minute video.

james_joyce|8.11.09 @ 7:29PM|#

Shermer was saying that evolution is like the market only in that neither needs a designer to function well. He was not making any comparisons about the mechanical processes of the two systems.

james_joyce|8.11.09 @ 7:33PM|#

It's also a bit disingenuous to say that "liberals" (progressive liberals, I mean) are more pro-science. They *think* they are more pro-science, but they ignore, e.g., both the fallacies and failures of modern "scientific" medicine, and the successes of "unscientific" natural medicinal approaches (supplementation, exercise, taiji, meditation, etc.). They (and their liberal academic cohort) cook up strawman versions of "non-conventional" approaches to healthcare and then rejoice and point to "Science" when their side-effect laden, pill-pushing approach hides the symptoms of disease more effectively. This is just one example of how the "pro-scientific" bent of progressives is just a front for making those who favor a bottom-up respect for the wisdom of natural substances (whether or not they were created by a benevolent Creator) look like snake charmers to their voting base.

In other words, you're firmly in Shermer's "on the right" category.

d|8.11.09 @ 11:46PM|#

The only way sacrifice makes sense in evolution is in relation to blood relatives.

Space Fiend, yes, this is the only way it "makes sense", but evolution does not really make sense, it just is what it is. If non-blood relatives share enough of the same genes, then the altruistic act will propagate those genes by saving others. Witness the alarm call of the black-tailed prairie dog, e.g. Check out:

Hoogland, J. L. 1996. Why do Gunnison's prairie dogs give anti-predator calls? Animal Behaviour.

if you aren't yet convinced.

Or maybe:

Selfish or altruistic? An analysis of alarm call function in wild capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella nigritus. Animal Behaviour.

which references the above.

Also, Dan Dennett's _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_ gives a nice philosophical analysis of these facts.

Aurini,

_Re_ your response (which was more to the point, and, I think, compatible with what I was pointing out):

A common misconception among economic lay people is that complex systems

I am neither a "lay person", nor am I laboring under any misconceptions. I think it's a pleonasm to say that both natural and economic systems are bottom-up and unpredictable, which is why I find Shermer's talking point (while perhaps useful for the left-leaning who are new to such ideas as applied to economics) a bit of a dud for this audience.

d|8.11.09 @ 11:48PM|#

james_joyce, re your comment:

In other words, you're firmly in Shermer's "on the right" category.

In other words, you're a dipshit who did not grasp what I was saying. Re-read and try again.

d|8.11.09 @ 11:50PM|#

Here, I'll help you:

...whether or not they were created by a benevolent Creator...

Mike Laursen|8.12.09 @ 12:04AM|#

Tony, Mike; I think you two are missing the thrust of his argument.

I got Shermer's argument. I've made it myself many times. I was just overreaching by getting too literal when trying to debate with a troll.

|8.12.09 @ 6:15PM|#

obviously, since shermer said that both biological evolution and economic markets are bottom-up organized, without a central planner, he is clearly a social darwinist, definitely more so than hitler.

and the alternative health people are just a specific flavor of populists; those exist on the left as well as right.

d|8.12.09 @ 9:38PM|#

and the alternative health people are just a specific flavor of populists; those exist on the left as well as right.

This makes no sense, blake [sic.]. If anything, alternative health -- in that it is about taking personal responsibility for your own well-being by eating right, supplementing with vitamins, co-enzymes (i.e., vitamins that the FDA has not yet decided to dub vitamins), minerals, anti-oxidants, etc., exercising (jogging, walking, yoga, taiji, bagua, ... hell, even taibo or some other nonsense), taking time to de-stress, all that jazz -- is more libertarian than any other approach to wellness.

The fact that many Bible-thumping folk happen to be in on the multi-level marketing side of supplementation leads many on the left (and, sadly, libertarians as well) to cook up snobbish attacks at natural health as "unscientific". In reality, their criticisms are not supported by the scientific method, but, rather, the same sort of willfully myopic pseudoscience that, e.g., left-leaning economists and political scientists use to prop up bullshit ideas about how the economy and social wellfare state should be run (including the fact that there should be a sizable instantiation of the latter).

That's all I'm going to say on this issue. I've wasted enough time snapping back at half-baked attempts to refute my initial post. It was just meant to be an example of how being "pro-science" is often a snobbish co-opting of what appears to be science to discredit the right (writ large, including many true libertarians). Period.

Oh, and for the record, Dr. Ron Paul M.D. agrees with this position. Stick that in your biased pipe and smoke it!

Ratdog|8.15.09 @ 9:08PM|#

Scientific method without copious amounts of skepticism is nothing more than religion. So, d, if I'm to understand you correctly, one can't be a "true libertarian" unless they subscribe to your religion? Well, we all have a right to our opinions (as long as we agree with the Obama administration). For me, I'll stick to my family tradition of red meat, grease, eggs, alcohol and tobacco, it works for us, we live into old age without seeing doctors. Well, doctors outside those in my family, of course we see them, just not on a professional medical basis, just as family.

Which reminds of something funny, my father died at a young age compared to other family members, he was only 78, the funny part is he was healthy until died, around 1 year after my kid brother who is a M.D. took it upon himself to wage a war on my father's eating, drinking, and smoking. After using all the grandchildren as pawns in a campaign of guilt against my father, he gave in. Like I've always said, that M.D. doesn't mean a thing, the little shit still doesn't know jack.

You're welcome to your religion, d, same with everyone else and theirs. It just wouldn't hurt if you tried to be a less aggressive pushing it on others. It really has very little to do with libertarianism, at least in the classical meaning of maximizing liberty by minimizing government.

|8.20.09 @ 7:04AM|#

Omega watches

Oris watches

Rado watches