Michael Shermer

Publisher Skeptic Magazine | Host The Michael Shermer Show | NEW BOOK “TRUTH”:

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

“We should leave aside the question of whether the victims were believers or not. Whether they were religious or not changed absolutely nothing,” writes Roman Polanski in Skeptic.
One of the last living survivors of the Krakow ghetto, Polanski reflects on antisemitism, the Holocaust, and how quickly the unthinkable can become reality. https://t.co/wF9feV4844

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

Not. Good.
A new study shows intro psych textbooks continue to be biased "in the direction of making psychological research appear more consistent than it is, as well as promoting viewpoints consistent with politically progressive ideologies"
https://t.co/6iie1p28YD

[Ross Garber @rossgarber]

Last week I said that I thought the @ProfAviLoeb UAP committee is more about establishing a PR channel bt the admin and the public than providing science advice to the govt. I still believe that. But that's an important mission. It's a highly technical subject that has been the source of confusion and misinformation for a long time. Great to have smart, sophisticated folks like Loeb and @GarryPNolan with access to key players and info in a position to help the public make sense of it. And panel has a diversity of backgrounds and views, including @michaelshermer, so I'm optimistic it won't be fooled or coopted.

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

Example of the power of AI: a colleague asked me to send him my definitive article on David Hume as the philosopher of skepticism. I have no single essay, but lots of quotes & sections from several books, so he AI'd the question & got this from ChatGPT:

Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, calls David Hume the philosopher of skepticism. True?

Yes. Michael Shermer has often described David Hume as one of the greatest philosophers of skepticism, and it would be fair to say that Shermer regards Hume as a foundational figure—perhaps the philosopher most closely associated with modern skepticism.

There are a few reasons for this characterization:

Hume insisted that beliefs should be proportional to the evidence. His famous principle is often paraphrased as: a wise person proportions their belief to the evidence.

He analyzed miracles skeptically. In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume argued that reports of miracles should be weighed against the overwhelming regularity of natural laws and the known unreliability of human testimony.

He examined how people form beliefs. Hume argued that many beliefs arise from habit, custom, emotion, and psychological tendencies rather than pure reason.

He questioned assumptions that others took for granted. His skepticism extended not only to religion but also to causation, the self, and the certainty of knowledge itself. That said, there is an important distinction between philosophical skepticism and modern scientific skepticism.

Hume was a philosophical skeptic who showed that many things we think we know cannot be logically justified with certainty. Yet he was not a radical skeptic who thought we should stop believing anything. Instead, he concluded that human beings naturally rely on experience, probability, and common sense.

This makes him especially attractive to modern skeptics such as Shermer. Hume's approach was essentially:

Demand evidence, recognize the limits of certainty, and adjust confidence according to the strength of the evidence.

That outlook aligns closely with the mission of Skeptic Magazine and the broader scientific skepticism movement.

So if Shermer calls Hume "the philosopher of skepticism," that is not a universally accepted formal title, but it is a reasonable description of Hume's place in the history of skeptical thought. Many philosophers would rank him among the most influential skeptics who ever lived.

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

I would count ball lightening as ordinary natural phenomenon @JasonColavito
Unusual but still part of the natural world.
A 4th category might be "interdimensional or ultraterrestrial beings", "time travelers" (far future humans coming back, or distant ancestors coming forward)

[Jason Colavito @JasonColavito]

Those aren’t the only possibilities. For one thing, it’s possible (if unlikely) that some are otherwise undiscovered natural phenomena (e.g. ball lightning). Starting with possible conclusions and working backwards is a recipe for failure.

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

Was Lamarck Right About Evolution?
The question is not an example of Betteridge's Law of Headlines (if it ends in a question mark the answer is no) because, although Darwin still stands, Lamarck was not as wrong as we thought, says his biographer:
https://t.co/qwuHq3wfq9

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

90-95% of UAP sightings are explained by:
Ordinary Terrestrial (balloons, satellites, birds, etc.)
2 other options:
Extraordinary Terrestrial (Russian, DARPA)
Extraordinary Extraterrestrial (aliens)
UFO Files are suggestive of these 2, but not definitive. Let's get to the bottom of this mystery if we can.
https://t.co/jv068VMRh1

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

"and Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine, whose inclusion has drawn pushback from some disclosure advocates"
Why? I hope we find aliens!
I just need definitive evidence to reject the null hypothesis that they're here. Then I will believe.
https://t.co/vHnxGcceVS

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

Talking aliens, UAPs, and UFOs with Chris Farrell on Judicial Watch this morning, especially insightfu was our discussion of David Grusch and intelligence agencies role in UAPs because Chris worked in intelligence
Spotify: https://t.co/L09qgNeqYd
YouTube:
https://t.co/ZwCG9jOite

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

When this stops happening we will stop posting about it. Critics on X unbraid me for being “obsessed” with trans issues. I will drop it when men stop entering women’s sports and spaces. Transwomen are not women. They’re men.

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

One of those things that never happens if you open up women's changing rooms to any man who wants to come inside has happened. Again.
https://t.co/B3CoQkqcNF

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

A classic article by @sapinker well worth reading, especially for how far the science has developed since

[Steven Pinker @sapinker]

Thanks to another colleague, George Church, I was one of the first people to be genotyped, and agreed to post my genome on my website (together with a scan of my brain). The NYT invited me to write about the experience, and put me on the cover the Sunday magazine; the article was called "My genome, myself" (a play on the 1970s classic Our Bodies, Ourselves). https://t.co/59fHpAgiee

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

Exactly @MiddleOfMayhem It's a New Age religion, an idea I've suggested for decades but goes back to the 1951 film The Day the Earth Stood Still, which is a Christ allegory (Klaatu is "Mr. Carpenter"). See e.g.:
https://t.co/Tfe9p240FO

[Steven Greenstreet @MiddleOfMayhem]

Swap out aliens for Jesus Christ and this is basically prophecies about The Second Coming. Humans have always yearned for myths about the imminent arrival of God(s).

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

No @I_D_Official Fravor did not witness the Tic-Tac object drop 80,000 feet in a moment. Here is SuperGrok's explanation:

No, Commander David Fravor did not personally witness the Tic-Tac object drop from 80,000 feet to sea level in less than a second. That dramatic descent was part of radar data collected by the USS Princeton (a Ticonderoga-class cruiser with advanced Aegis/SPY-1 radar) over the prior two weeks. https://t.co/QybXevxKaJ

The Princeton operators tracked multiple “anomalous aerial vehicles” that would appear suddenly at high altitude (above or around 80,000 feet), descend rapidly (often described as hurtling toward the sea and stopping/hovering around 20,000 feet or lower), remain for periods, and then ascend straight back up or drop out of radar coverage. Fravor and his flight were vectored to investigate these existing radar contacts during a training exercise on November 14, 2004. https://t.co/fXpsIVdr6u

What Fravor Actually Saw
Fravor (flying an F/A-18F Super Hornet with Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich as his wingman, plus their two weapons systems officers) arrived in the area at around 20,000 feet. They had no initial radar contact on their own jets for the object. Instead, they visually spotted a white disturbance in the otherwise calm ocean surface (“white water”) and, next to it, a solid white, oblong/Tic-Tac-shaped object roughly 40 feet long with no wings, rotors, visible propulsion, exhaust, or control surfaces. It hovered or moved erratically just above the water in random directions, like a ping-pong ball bouncing. https://t.co/QybXevxKaJ

All four crew members in the two jets saw it visually with their own eyes for several minutes (roughly 5 minutes total). Fravor descended for a closer look while the wingman provided high cover. The object appeared to react: it aligned its axis with Fravor’s jet and began climbing in a mirroring turn. When Fravor maneuvered to get a nose-on intercept at about ½ mile range (object around 12,000 feet while he was descending), it rapidly accelerated and disappeared right in front of his aircraft. The white water disturbance also vanished. https://t.co/QybXevxKaJ

Shortly after, the Princeton controller reported the object had reappeared on radar at Fravor’s original Combat Air Patrol point roughly 60 miles away, covered in under a minute—performance far beyond the Super Hornet’s capabilities.

Was It Filmed by Fravor’s Jet?
No. Fravor’s aircraft did not record the released “Tic-Tac” video (or any widely known visual/IR footage of the object during his encounter). The now-famous ~90-second FLIR (forward-looking infrared) video was recorded later by Lt. Cmdr. Chad Underwood’s F/A-18 on a subsequent sortie using his jet’s ATFLIR targeting pod.

Underwood’s crew did not see the object visually with their eyes—they tracked it on sensors (infrared), noted radar jamming on their APG-73 radar, and saw no conventional propulsion plume. Fravor’s group told the next crew about the encounter before landing, leading to that follow-up flight. https://t.co/fXpsIVdr6u

Fravor and his team had a clear visual sighting (naked-eye observation by multiple trained observers in daylight conditions) corroborated by ship-based radar before, during/after the visual phase, and on follow-up tracks. No gun-camera or pod footage from Fravor’s specific jet of the visual encounter has been publicly released.

Summary of Sources
Radar descent data: USS Princeton Aegis system (prior two weeks of tracking). Fravor was sent to investigate it. https://t.co/QLAoE0jfOp

Visual encounter: Fravor, Dietrich, and their WSOs (eyewitness accounts). Fravor has repeatedly described this in interviews, his 2023 congressional testimony, and statements (e.g., “we saw this little white Tic Tac-looking object” moving over the white water). https://t.co/QybXevxKaJ

Video: Underwood’s later FLIR recording (sensor data, not visual sighting by that crew).

This remains one of the best-documented UAP cases due to multiple corroborating sensors (ship radar), visual witnesses, and the declassified FLIR footage, though the object’s nature and origin are still unexplained by conventional means. Fravor has consistently emphasized that what he saw operated outside known aerodynamic principles for aircraft in the atmosphere.

[Richard Dolan Intelligent Disclosure @I_D_Official]

During the 2004 Nimitz encounter, Commander David Fravor witnessed a Tic-Tac object drop from 80,000 feet to sea level in less than a second, completely outmaneuvering our most advanced fighter jets. We know the government has a lot more classified data on these encounters.
🛸 Which aspect of these anomalous craft fascinates you the most?
A) The complete lack of visible propulsion or exhaust
B) Their ability to operate in both air and water without resistance
C) The mind-bending speeds and G-forces they generate
D) The apparent advanced cognitive interface required to pilot them

Let me know your choice in comments.

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

The Problem of Induction embodied…

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

As well @rosscoulthart since so much of your reporting is based on eyewitness testimony, please note this observation from pilot and astronaut Scott Kelly, in response to the UAP videos at a NASA press conference, on the unreliability of eyewitnesses, including pilots/astronauts:

[Ross Coulthart @rosscoulthart]

Not an auspicious start for sceptic @michaelshermer in his appointment to the UAP Science Advisory Committee. He deleted the puerile and snide tweets he posted about UAP former IC informant David Grusch and then he wonders why he's getting push-back from a community looking for an objective analysis from a Govt committee.

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

Fair enough @rosscoulthart X posts can be snide & snarky responses to extraordinary claims made there with 0 evidence in support (such as that we know aliens are here). I retracted those posts & I hereby apologize to David Grusch (he doesn't appear to have an X account & I don't have his email).

I have written dozens of articles, book chapters, essays & articles about aliens, had all the major UFO writers on my show, & done countless interviews on the subject, so how about a conversation on your show?

In the meantime, here is an excerpt from my chapter on aliens in my new book Truth. Please take a few minutes to read it instead of assessing my output based on a couple of X posts:
https://t.co/4ipqVGsFfH

[Ross Coulthart @rosscoulthart]

Not an auspicious start for sceptic @michaelshermer in his appointment to the UAP Science Advisory Committee. He deleted the puerile and snide tweets he posted about UAP former IC informant David Grusch and then he wonders why he's getting push-back from a community looking for an objective analysis from a Govt committee.

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

Re eyewitness testimony, credentials/experience of observers seem to matter, yet as pilot/astronaut Scott Kelly explains in response to the UAP videos Go Fast, Tic-Tac, etc. at a NASA press conference, referencing his pilot/astronaut/Senator twin (screen shot from Truth chapter):

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

Of course, the Vatican (the DoW, et al.) could be lying & covering up aliens.
How can you tell the difference between:
"we don't have aliens"
&
"we have aliens but won't say"?
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
Testimony by itself is not extraordinary evidence.

[Sam Adams @Bensam123TV]

@michaelshermer @NewsNation You think the Vatican is just all of a sudden going to tell a random reporter about a massive coverup that they're part of out of no where?

'We sent a reporter and asked the DoW about UFOs and the said they have no evidence.'

Well case closed! What even is this logic.

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

Neither @realstevenslate Options:

1. Grusch's stories are true—aliens are here.
2. Grusch is lying.
3. Grusch is repeating lies by insiders.
4. Insiders are honestly mistaken about what they think they saw & Grusch is honestly reporting their stories.

I strongly suspect #4.

[Steven Slate @RealStevenSlate]

@michaelshermer @NewsNation Grusch says he has spoken with people in the program and has seen evidence of craft and bodies. I don’t think he’s lying about either of those things, so the question is, are people lying to him and is the evidence fake?

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

Perfectly stated @GarryPNolan and properly nuanced between skepticism and gullibility

[Garry P. Nolan @GarryPNolan]

Why do we need a UAP Scientific Advisory Board?

As has been widely reported, the US government has asked Professor Avi Loeb, of the Department of Astronomy at Harvard University (see the main announcement at the end of this posting), to create a UAP Advisory Council. The members of this advisory group span a range of disciplines from astronomy, psychology, physics, biology, data analytics, psychology, entrepreneurs, and more. I am thrilled to have been invited alongside a notable list of scientists, academics, entrepreneurs, and others.

What follows are my personal thoughts and are not any official position of the UAP Advisory Council. Dr. Loeb has already elaborated on the formation of this Council, along with his views through postings on his blog and in public interviews.

Importantly, no one on the Council has been asked to sign any non-disclosure agreements. We are told that we are free to discuss matters that come before the Board, but without attribution of the source (Chatham House rules). By the same token, I am not obligated to answer any questions either. I plan to treat this effort like I do my day job in cancer immunology—not talking publicly about results until I am sure the answer is as close to correct as I can determine.

So, how did this Advisory Council come to be? Well, one answer is simple—through the dedicated action of thousands of individuals across decades, the coming forward of credible military and government officials in public testimony (sometimes under oath), the work of members of Congress and the Senate, along with testimonials of public witnesses, and much more.

Collectively, those actions have led to the extraordinary and courageous decision by President Donald J. Trump and his administration to release to the public US government-owned UAP-related files and information as vetted by a UAP Governance Board and other government agencies. As publicly announced, our group will report to the UAP Governing Board, which is under the direction of the Executive Branch.

Many people have openly wondered, “Why create a new Board when elements of the government or even commercial institutions already (allegedly) know the answer?” The UAP Advisory Council doesn't have any funding, and we don’t have subpoena power. We are all volunteers. We advise. Given that, there are some straightforward answers to the criticisms and commentary I have seen.

First, appreciate that the complexity of what UAP might represent is not definable in a single technological or cultural framework. It is so complex that even I, who have been steeped in the matter for over 15 years, have a hard time encompassing the breadth of explanations from “it’s real, and it’s here” to “it’s all misidentification”. My mind spins trying to make sense of it all.

What is clear is that the data released so far is not enough. The anecdotes are not enough. Sure, interesting videos, but where’s the metadata? What are the parameters of how the data was collected? Why are there extreme redactions of files and data? Why the incredible pushback? Where are the alleged retrieved technologies? There’s simply not enough to convince me when I put on my serious scientist’s hat.

Yet what I do know is that the question of what it might be will not go away while the data remains locked up. The answers to what any data might mean will require a comprehensive effort across disciplines that expand well beyond “nuts and bolts” science. Hence, the broad makeup of the team that comprises the UAP Advisory Council. Every person on the Board is, I believe, devoted to taking a logical and deeply skeptical approach to this matter. We will let the data guide us and cross-check each other.

For me, despite my widely known bias that I think there’s something deeper to the matter than misidentification, I remain like any scientist a trained sceptic at heart. I am terrified of making a mistake, but I’ve yet to reach a formal conclusion despite my public musings. I can believe a thing might be true, but as a scientist, I must believe enough in the possibility of an idea being true to justify my time and effort to prove it to myself— and more so to prove it to colleagues or the lay public.

There is data that, when contextualized as a hypothesis, becomes evidence that invites us to wonder whether the answer to “Are We Alone?” might be sitting right in front of us, but we choose to ignore it or let others tell us it should be ignored. Remember, data is only evidence towards supporting a conclusion when you pose a question (hypothesis) around what the data means. But evidence is not a conclusion. Evidence is what you put in front of a jury, where the data has been sufficiently scrubbed of doubt to allow one to decide what it means.

So, back to “Why do we need a UAP Scientific Advisory Board?” Well, we all want objective, and even subjective, expertise to interpret whatever data comes our way. Even if tomorrow a saucer landed in Times Square, we would still need a swath of expertise to interpret what opens the door, how it got here, and what might be the intent. Better to be prepared, in my opinion.

We obviously risk that this is a misdirection from some essential truth or that we might be being used in some elaborate disinformation campaign. We are also aware that we might be in for the possibility that there is simply nothing there but elaborate stories and misidentifications.

But I can tell you this—the risk is worth it. We have come further than ever before to open the door (or Pandora’s Box) to a potentially incredible opportunity. “Are we alone?” might be answered as “We are one of many.” Coming to know what others might have already learned about the nature of reality is, for me, well worth the effort to ask the question.

One way or the other, I believe humanity can handle the answer.
https://t.co/QZEUu6AZAa

[Michael Shermer @michaelshermer]

Massimo Pigliucci on Doubt, Moral Courage, and Living Without Illusions
My latest podcast:
https://t.co/dcsGWFESof