Uploaded August 2026 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Most people who call themselves skeptics have never actually read the case for the claim they're dismissing. In this episode I look at the real difference between true skepticism and pseudoskepticism — and why getting that distinction wrong matters more than ever.
True skepticism means never accepting or dismissing a claim definitively without first engaging with the literature and weighing the evidence with an open mind — and staying open to being wrong even after you've done that work. Pseudoskepticism borrows the language of rigor without doing any of the work rigor actually requires.
I look at where this shows up on both sides: from respected scientists dismissing parapsychology research they've never read, to the tribal backlash I got for taking a flat-earther's arguments seriously enough to actually sit with them — even while disagreeing with his conclusion.
This isn't about scoring points or winning arguments. It's about what a real discussion, done honestly, is actually for.
#Skepticism #CriticalThinking #Philosophy #Consciousness #PseudoSkepticism
Chapters
0:00 The two kinds of skeptic
1:04 What true skepticism actually requires
2:45 Naming pseudoskepticism - and where even brilliant minds get it wrong
6:00 Where the evidence has actually taken me
8:00 Turning it on myself - sitting down with a flat-earther
11:17 What real discussion should actually do
12:43 The question I'd leave you with
Most people who call themselves skeptics have never actually read the case for the claim they're dismissing. In this episode I look at the real difference between true skepticism and pseudoskepticism — and why getting that distinction wrong matters more than ever.
True skepticism means never accepting or dismissing a claim definitively without first engaging with the literature and weighing the evidence with an open mind — and staying open to being wrong even after you've done that work. Pseudoskepticism borrows the language of rigor without doing any of the work rigor actually requires.
I look at where this shows up on both sides: from respected scientists dismissing parapsychology research they've never read, to the tribal backlash I got for taking a flat-earther's arguments seriously enough to actually sit with them — even while disagreeing with his conclusion.
This isn't about scoring points or winning arguments. It's about what a real discussion, done honestly, is actually for.
#Skepticism #CriticalThinking #Philosophy #Consciousness #PseudoSkepticism
Chapters
0:00 The two kinds of skeptic
1:04 What true skepticism actually requires
2:45 Naming pseudoskepticism - and where even brilliant minds get it wrong
6:00 Where the evidence has actually taken me
8:00 Turning it on myself - sitting down with a flat-earther
11:17 What real discussion should actually do
12:43 The question I'd leave you with
