The Joe Rogan Experience

The problem I have with Joe... He's a really intelligent guy. Really smart. But he stops looking for the answers when he thinks he already has them, and then goes out to try to find information that confirms what hewantsto believe. If he's confronted with sufficient evidence, directly, hewillchange his mind. Wouldn't it be better, though, if he didn't just stop looking when he found what he wanted to know, instead of finding the actual facts?

Or at least he used to be able to change his mind. I dunno. Haven't listened to him in years.

Tortfeasor_sl said:

I usually only listen to it if I am doing something at work that doesn't require concentration, but I purposely avoid the ones where he talks to car guys, hunting guys, or professional podcasters. I generally find comedians to be his best guests as long as they are friends with joe, if not they usually end up playing the sycophant (which is what other proffessional podcasters tend to do) or trying to sound way smarter than they are. I also like when he interviews legit scientists like Neil Tyson DeGrasse, Rupert Sheldrake, Graham Hancock (journalist?), Randal Carlson, etc.

Click to expand...

Rupert Sheldrake and Randal Carlson areNOTlegitimate fucking scientists. And Graham Hancock is a fucking woo-merchant as well.

SGI Mission - Sacred Geometry International

Yikes. Yeah, that is definitely one of the problems with Rogan. You can listen to him talking to Sam Harris or NDT and it leads to a cool conversation. However, then he has an interview with a quack and he gives that person just as much credit and prestige. Kinda sad.

Troll_sl said:

Rupert Sheldrake and Randal Carlson areNOTlegitimate fucking scientists. And Graham Hancock is a fucking woo-merchant as well.

Click to expand...

Yeah I realize that Graham Hancock isn't a scientist; that's why I inserted a parenthetical. I also concede that Randall Carlson isn'tper selegitimate because I can't find anything on his academic credentials, but the vast majority of the stuff he has discussed on the show is 100% scientific.

You're dead wrong about Rupert Sheldrake, though; he is about as legitimate as anyone could hope for. He has a PhD in biochemistry, has been doing scientific research for over 50 years, and his website has links to about 80 of his articles that have been published.

Also, wtf is 'woo' ?

Urban Dictionary: woo woo

Sheldrake certainly has credentials and is well spoken, however his morphic resonance idea is totally reaching. I had to turn off that podcast halfway through as he goes on and on about the ramifications of something totally unproven.

Jerry Coyne has some pretty good stuff on why Sheldrake is full of shit. Being a "trained scientist" means nothing.

Rupert Sheldrake Why Evolution Is True

The Guardian touts Sheldrake again: pigeons find their way home, ergo Jesus Why Evolution Is True

Rupert Sheldrake peddles his woo to Americans Why Evolution Is True

Troll_sl said:

Jerry Coyne has some pretty good stuff on why Sheldrake is full of shit. Being a "trained scientist" means nothing.

Rupert Sheldrake Why Evolution Is True

The Guardian touts Sheldrake again: pigeons find their way home, ergo Jesus Why Evolution Is True

Rupert Sheldrake peddles his woo to Americans Why Evolution Is True

Click to expand...

Sounds like this dude has a beef with Sheldrake and is waging a one-sided wordpress war. He doesn't understand what Sheldrake'sScience Delusionbook is about and most of what is in those three links is strawman arguments.

lol You didn't even read them, did you?

lanx_sl said:

The Rupert Sheldrake shit is memory gets passed down right? You might as well believe in ESP, ghosts and shit then.

Just cuz he has a PHD in bio-chem, a degree he earned before i was born, and i'm 35, doesn't really mean shit. Cuz that's 40 year old science he got that PHD on.

Was his stuff about the the dead rats, mazes and dogs know when you come home?

Click to expand...

The book I was talking about isn't about his resonance theory (which has its own merits), it's about materialism being dogmatic. I found the book to be thought provoking and quite good.

Troll_sl said:

lol You didn't even read them, did you?

Click to expand...

I did. Have you readThe Science Delusion? it's pretty clear your little blogger didn't. He is only offering a critique on other people's criticisms of the book.

Jerry Coyne_sl said:

I don't know of Sheldrake or his books, which include Dogs That Know When Their Owners are Coming Home, but I suspect that my readers do. Nor have I read his latest, but it gets encomiums from both Vernon and Midgley.

Click to expand...

He refers to the huffington post asPuffhoand includescolorul customized memesin his writting to illustrate how scientific he really is and Sheldrak really isn't. And for some reason he keeps harping on Sheldrake making arguments for God. I have not read all of his stuff so I can't speak for 100% of what he has published, but I have readThe Science Delusionand IIRC, he never even mentions God, let alone makes an argument that there is one. That book up can be summed up by this simple argument:

IF you are a materialist AND you are either unwilling or unable to answer *these* questions (as laid out at the end of each chapter), THEN you are being dogmatic, which in his view is unscientific.

Regardless, you can't go around saying a guy like Rupert Sheldrake isn't a legitimate scientist and when challenged, respond with 3 links to the same wordpress blog written by a guy who writes like a columnist onThe Blaze. Unless, of course, yours isn't just a clever name.

Rupert Sheldrake - RationalWiki

The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake | Issue 93 | Philosophy Now

The Problems with Rupert Sheldrakes Soapbox

The problem with Sheldrake, and all the other woo-merchants out there, are that they LOVE to propose ideas. But when it actually comes down to the hard stuff... you know, actuallyprovinganything. They're nowhere to be found. But they still make grand proclamations about how all the rest of science is wrong and they're right. But, you know, without evidence to back up anything they say. Rupert Sheldrake is no better than Deepak Chopra with his Furry-level misunderstandings of quantum mechanics.

Give me evidence. Then I'll give a shit about what Sheldrake says. And if all you can do is wave your hands and say, "But science is dogmatic!" Then I say, "If following the process and basing arguments on established fact and observation is dogma, call me fucking dogmatic." Until you can prove anything otherwise, shut the fuck up.

BrutulTM_sl said:

I have listened to every one of Dan Carlin's podcasts since I found out about him 7 years ago and I dearly love that man but I really wish he could get his show out a little more regularly.

Click to expand...

The thing about Dan Carlin's show... he actually researches and sources his shows. Which, considering how much information he's condensing, is a lot of fucking work.

Yeah. Just throw out arguments because you personally don't like the source. That's reasonable.

I found the JRE a great podcast to listen to in the background, or if I don't want to listen to any of my audiobooks while driving. I could easily turn it down without having to pause it, and I never felt like I was missing TOO much.

How is it a shit site if the arguments it puts forward hold merit?