With so much information available today, it can be hard to find the truth. If you want to believe something badly enough, you’ll find someone out there supporting your belief—true or not. Brian Dunning, the science writer behind the award-winning podcast “Skeptoid: Critical Analysis of Pop Phenomena,” puts it like this: “Production companies call me all the time to be the scientist to support the other side, but in reality, they are just looking for me to say something to support their fictional idea.” You’ve likely heard people talk about the earth being flat or say the moon landing was a hoax. Dunning’s mission is to reveal the truth behind popular misinformation permeating our culture.
In 2005, Dunning watched the Macworld keynote address in which Apple CEO Steve Jobs mentioned “Skepticality” as one of the top podcasts at the iTunes Music Store. It inspired Dunning to develop his own podcast. He studied film and television and had a background in science, but had never worked in the field. Podcasting was a way he could combine his interests, so he started the “Skeptoid” podcast for fun in 2006. “I was very fortunate that it caught on,” said Dunning. “It resonated with people and grew quickly.” This week, Dunning released episode 637.
“Skeptoid” is like Gimlet’s “Science Vs.” podcast if you removed the goofy sound effects and cheeky puns and made it more serious. Dunning typically tackles four basic types of prominent pseudo-sciences: consumer frauds like magic jewelry, urban legends like Sasquatch, alternative medicines like acupuncture and conspiracy theories like chemtrails. “Skeptoid” packs so much critical thinking and facts into each episode, it’s even popular with teachers. Because of its traction in education, Dunning turned the business into an educational nonprofit so the company could provide educators and students access to content free of cost or ads.
“I don’t do anything political or religious because of the education mission. I don’t do current events because everyone else is doing it, and I want all the episodes to be timeless.” —Brian Dunning
I asked Dunning if there were any subjects he won’t research or touch. He quickly said, “I don’t do anything political or religious because of the education mission. I don’t do current events because everyone else is doing it, and I want all the episodes to be timeless.” Not touching politics or religion is a good way to avoid provoking people but, surprisingly, serving up facts can be dangerous. Dunning has received death threats, had random people show up at his doorstep, and every day has to block people on Facebook and Twitter.
When Dunning isn’t producing the “Skeptoid” podcast, his hands are in all types of media. He wrote and presented the documentaries “Here Be Dragons: An Introduction to Critical Thinking,” and “Principles of Curiosity,” both free to view online. This summer his book, “Conspiracies Declassified: The Skeptoid Guide to the Truth Behind the Theories,” was published, debunking popular theories, like the one about The Illuminati running the world. Currently, he has a revealing feature documentary film, “Science Friction,” in production, about scientists who get misrepresented in the media. “In an extreme example one scientist had his video edited to switch his words around,” Dunning said.
Bend has been home to Dunning for a little over a year. Since then, he’s brought two Bendites onto his team. “We’re trying to grow roots in Bend,” he said. “With these documentary films we want Bend to be known for producing high-end, educational content.” You might think with everything Dunning is doing he’s science and business all the time, but he says he also loves the Bend lifestyle. He likes to camp, kayak and head out in his Jeep with his family. I asked him if he was a beer drinker before he moved here, and he responded, “not as good of one.”
This article appears in Aug 22-29, 2018.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
For anyone looking for an alternate look at Brian Dunning and his latest film you can check out this recent review at Skeptopathy Magazine: http://skeptopathy.com/wp/?p=502
Actually I do encourage people — if you can stomach some pretty far-out thinking — to click on Michael Fullerton’s blog that he links above. He is one of a number of well-known people with Google Alerts set up for a large number of science writers and public science communicators, and he posts something similar to this anytime one of our names comes up. (Think of Don Quixote mixed with Alex Jones.)
It’s a fascinating glimpse into the kind of mind that guarantees science communicators are going to have our hands full for the foreseeable future.
A couple of things to ask yourself:
1) how would Brian know what Google alerts I have setup? He is either simply lying about me as a pathetic attempt to discredit me or he somehow (terrifyingly) has access to my personal Google account. Which is it Brian?
2) why would he attack me instead of attack the arguments I made about his film? What he is employing here is a boringly common fallacy called ad hominem, attack the person not the argument. This champion of “critical thinking” employs fallacies (the direct opposite of critical thinking) instead of reasoned debate.
Hey Michael:
I do find it curious that you – who apparently lives in Canada – quickly responded to a free small town publication. You did this to provide a link to a review on your website criticising one of Brian’s works. Your first paragraph of this review is also a blatant ad hominem attack on Brian…project much, Michael?
Regardless, The fact that you don’t live in central Oregon, but felt compelled to weigh in on this article is enough information to trust Brian’s comments. Oh, that and this article summarizing your 2014 debate with Dr. Steven Novella (who, BTW, totally CRUSHED you and your absurdly delusional 911 truther vomit) :
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/539dex/are-911-truthers-still-science-proof
I’ve committed no ad hominem. I suspect you have no idea what this fallacy is. This fallacy involves attacking a person instead of dealing with the person’s argument. Like you’ve done here.
You’ve actually committed this fallacy by refusing to address the points my article exposes about Dunning and instead post a completely irrelevant Vice hack job involved a debate I’ve had with another “skeptic”. Your attacking me instead of my arguments.
The following article shows how I was not in any way crushed by Novella. The next shows Vice’s complete lack of journalistic integrity.
http://skeptopathy.com/wp/?p=330
http://skeptopathy.com/wp/?p=341
Once again, Michael, you are the king of projection. Your penchant for employing the playground tactic of “I know you are, but what am I” is exhausting and pathetic.
Obviously, you are desperate for attention when you share a link to an article you wrote – on a website that you manage (and apparently created) – to garner hits. Continuing this tactic by providing 2 more links to your website, as a counterpoint to the well researched Vice article, becomes even more laughable knowing that YOU wrote those 2 linked articles. You continue to defend yourself with your own flawed circular logic…what a surprise.
My reference to the Vice article was to give any readers who may be following this thread, context into your agenda: self promotion built from an easily (and repeatedly) debunked conspiracy theory. The best part of my first post is that it provided a link to an article written by someone who objectively followed a public discourse (providing a link to the debate transcript) and came to the same rational conclusion about your viewpoints as myself.
Perhaps I would attack your arguments if the Novella debate (which was summarized in the Vice article) did not already prove that engaging in any debate with you is fruitless. Your arguments are not science based and your logic is unsound. I find your obfuscation of science offensive and dangerous.
LOL “Dee”, your posts consist of nothing but logical fallacies. Here you continue with your attacks and pepper these with raving pronouncements of unadulterated faith (bare assertion fallacies). This is all “skeptics” like you can do to support your grossly distorted view of science and critical thinking.
Hopefully the rational readers here will understand that your contributions are nothing but a diversion away from the imminently serious topic at hand, the scientific and critical thinking butchery meted out in Dunnings recent documentary. Perhaps my article contained some errors? Why then doesn’t someone rationally point them out rather than engage in attacks and other sophomoric diversions? To me that is always a clue: when arguments can’t be attacked, the arguer is attacked instead. Talk about playground tactics.
LOL indeed, “Michael.”
You apparently never tire of repeating yourself, so I will repsond in kind (from my previous post): Perhaps I would attack your arguments if the Novella debate (which was summarized in the Vice article) did not already prove that engaging in any debate with you is fruitless. Your arguments are not science based and your logic is unsound. I find your obfuscation of science offensive and dangerous.
Your attacks on fact- and science-based skepticism would possibly carry a modicum of weight, if any semblance rational credibility wasn’t forfeited by your ridiculous 911 conspiracy theory. If you sincerely apologize for your pathological 911 truther quest and denounce it as the uneducated, attention-grabbing, nonsensical trash that it has been proven to be, I might consider engaging you on another subject.
And now, for something not quite completely different, as an example of your “logic”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
This is my last post on this subject.
People like Dee are what we call pseudoskeptics or pathological skeptics. They pretend to be skeptical of “dodgy” claims, practice critical thinking and adhere to scientific principles but they rarely ever do. As you see here, Dee continually makes grand purely faith-based pronouncements but is completely unable or unwilling to support them in any way, because you can’t provide evidence for what doesn’t exist.
Instead of rationally dealing with the topic at hand he attempts to malign people by introducing irrelevant information. An actual skeptic will be skeptical of those who steadfastly refuse to support the claims they make, substitute ridicule for evidence or redirect attention away from the topic at hand.