• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Shermer: the most polite skeptic?

Venom

Philosopher
V
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
6,684
Location
United States
Do you think Michael Shermer the most polite skeptical debator these days?

I watched a couple videos on Holocaust Denial and he was surprisingly calm and never resorted to attacks, even subtle ones.

Same with religion, superstition, pseudoscience, etc.

I would say Sam Harris is quite cool as well, although his speeches don't have that same ring to them. He has a more cold, indifferent tone.
 
I find Shermer interesting...as a speaker, I don't like him so much, he seems to mostly be trying to peddle his books.

But in debates with those who hold differing beliefs, I think that he is almost the gold standard of how such interactions should be conducted. He respects his opponent, responds calmly and rationally, and doesn't seem to be concerned about 'winning' the debate, or making his opponent look like a fool.

I think that Shermer is constantly aware of the audience watching him (either live, or later by recording), and is speaking more to them, than to the person he's debating. And I think that's where the key difference is. In such debates, you are rarely or never going to get an opponent to admit they're wrong...they are too invested in the situation. But most people I see engaging in such debates seem to focus on the person they're debating, rather than the audience.

Shermer is someone who, I think, when others watch him, regardless of what side they take in the debate, will admit that he's reasonable, and raises valid points. He may not convince them to change their ideas...but he may raise enough questions and point them in a direction that could help them eventually change.
 
I personally am mostly a fan of Neil deGrasse Tyson. :)

Badass.jpg
 
Last edited:
Shermer apparently spent some time wrestling with the idea of whether it was appropriate to debate with Holocaust deniers at all (there are good arguments both ways--for whether to debate with deniers, I mean). Eventually he came to the decision that debating with them was better than not debating with them (read his "Doing Donahue" chapter in Why People Believe Weird Things for more details). His low-key, calculated debating style is the result of careful analysis of debating with some very clever debaters. He recognizes that many deniers are well-educated and are expert historians (despite the one obvious blind spot, if you want to call it that). Resorting to attacks or becoming emotional with those guys will be your undoing. He also knows that you can't simply resort to the anti-semite ad hom as many try to do (and which make one look foolish when used on people like David Irving)--you have to stick to debating historical facts. After reading the three excellent chapters on Holocaust Denial in WPBWT, I went on to read his book Denying History. Excellent book. I highly recommend it.

But yes, he is polite when debating other topics as well. He strikes me as a genuinely polite man! I think Wolfman's comments are very accurate, too.
 
Last edited:
And then there's Dawkins. Sometimes he is such a polite British fellow. And sometimes he's such a pompous Brit. Here is one of my favorite videos illustrating the dichotomy:




~~ Paul
 
I'm a fan of Shermer. I saw him at a convention once and he did come across as very likeable.
 
I think that he is a very well presented person who is polite, gracious and very civil. He does it the way it should be done and I think he makes a great spokesman for critical thinking and skepticism. I wish he was my dad.
 
So long as you aren't a pretty girl, I guess... >_>

Or so I heard. Never met the guy. Just... heard unpleasant stuff. :boxedin: Read WPBWT and loved it, anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom