When Skeptics Disagree: God, GMOs, and Gender | Steve Novella
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.พ. 2025
- Skeptics should largely agree about what science says, but that's not always the case. Exploring when and why skeptics disagree may be illuminating. In this talk, Steven Novella speaks about whether skeptics should be involved in challenging the existence of God, GMOs, and biological sex.
This talk was part of the exciting lineup for CSICon 2024. CSICon is the premiere conference in the US for science and skepticism.
Learn more at: csiconference....
Steven Novella is the host and producer of The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe, a popular and award-winning weekly science podcast. He is an internationally known author of three books on science and critical thinking and science communicator with multiple TV appearances and two popular blogs (NeuroLogica and Science-Based Medicine).
This talk took place during CSICon in Las Vegas on October 25, 2024
Watching this after hearing all of the hype on SGU and directly from other science communicators, this was just as wonderful as I was led to believe. Incredible talk, thank you Dr. Novella.
I really enjoyed his talk at CSICON. It was much better with his slides visiible; is there any way to get those or put them into a frame-in-frame on this video?
Second this request!
Third this request
Fourth this request
Neuropsychological humility should be in everyone's arsenal. Prior to reading an article by Steven Novella I did have a knowledge deficit on the science of biological sex. As it often time is the case that it's more complicated than I thought, and more nuanced of course.
Eh, see the evolutionary biologist's rebuttal.
This was great our brains are part of our biology. It's not just feelings Thank you CfI for posting!
This is Just great. I heard the slides were nice too. Thank you steve
While I wish we could've seen the images on display I won't complain. This was a fascinating and enlightening look at not only the issues addressed but how we look at them and our our biases.
Thank you so much for posting this
I'm so glad this got published. It's as good as I heard it was.
Great info. I really wish we could see the slides.
this guy is groovy! i got his critical thinking course from teaching co. 10 years ago and fell into his groove!
This was a really well structured setup, and smackdown. With science! Some context was missing because of the slides, but it was still fully understandable. And I am eager to watch people get out of their lanes to take on a neurologist on this conclusion. It seems a really strong and effective case, Steve. Well done.
Great job Steve.🐐
Loved the talk
I am happy these were put up for those of us who couldn't attend. Adding in a couple of the visuals, specifically for the sections where the pictures aren't even discribed, would help clarify his points. It's not a complaint. It is just a though for future videos.
This talk was impressive in person, and very impressive still. Thanks!
Disappointed almost half of the skeptics there thought skepticism shouldn't be applied to the super natural! How can you call yourself a skeptic yet believe gods are running around?! Also great talk on gender and Steven is spot on.
I interpreted the question as one of targeted effort, not the applicability of the skeptical framework.
So the question was 'should we be making a targeted effort to uncover evidence against God', as opposed to 'can the skeptical framework be used against the claims of religion'.
Amazing speech
Interesting talk
Just excellent.
It’s been nice to see how this talk has changed some minds on sex binary. Nice work Dr. Novella.
I don't think he did. If you can neatly divide people into male and female 99.99% of the time based on gamete size. For all intents and purposes sex is binary.
It sounded like he started conflating it with gender identity.
His talk was bolder than i expected, ill give him that.
My mind was changed but I am just a layperson (before this talk I would have used layman)
@@ScottishAtheist Good job either not watching the video or not getting the point. Seems like you are one of the "the brain doesn't count" people he talks about.
@@peterh.1199 Agreed, its fascinating to see reply's from people who can listen to an entire talk and absorb exactly zero of its content, yet comment as if they did. To do so after a Steve talk is embarrassing.
Coyne listened to Novella's talk and dismantled it the next day. Sorry. Intuitions about sex are not what actual biologists study.
Unfortunate we couldn't see the slides, but great speech nonetheless!
By the way, I believe Caster Semenya was the Olympic champion mentioned.
Or Imane Khelif
I am getting my popcorn...
Steve rules
Excellent talk. Thank you Steve
Who was the slide of that Steve was using as a representative of the non-binary? That's the big question I'm left with.
I am genderqueer, I discovered this last year as part of my psychological therapy addressing why I have so many emotional issues. I was born a woman (as far as I was concerned) who didn't have the right genitals. I was terrorized and abused by my mother and father and extended family, and I blocked this knowledge for 60 years.
I offer this as an explanation of why I would like to know who the person was. I'm genuinely curious and sympathetic.
Caster Semenya.
Birds are theropod dinosaurs. You don't have to choose.
I highly respect Dr Novella, but do not agree with his conclusion here.
The most practical and evidence-based answer to sex in humans is it is determined by the presence of a “Y” chromosome (a binary) but there are conditions and mutations in some individuals that impact things like secondary sex characteristics. And those mutations or conditions are physically measurable. This does not discount or belittle their existence, but is just objectively true.
If we go down the path of saying sex is a neurological state, and someone can identify as a man or woman completely separate from their physical state and therefore *be* that sex, then that leads to problematic and inconsistent reasoning.
For example, body dysmorphia. A young woman who is anorexic, physically underweight to the point of bodily harm, can truly identify as being overweight and needing to eat less to make herself skinnier. But this self-identification does not make it so and require society to accept her self-status of being overweight. It is just an example of self-identity in discordance with physical reality. Humans are complicated like that.
Now, that does not mean that trans individuals cannot be supported and accepted to take on that trans identity. I am happy to accept anyone’s desire to express themselves however they like. But it is an expression in discordance with reality. So it does not require equivalence of, say, “a trans-woman is a woman”. No, I would say “a trans-woman is a trans-woman” and that is great if that is what they desire. I would defend their ability to live that life openly and freely. But that does not force social or legal equivalence.
Yes, this is much more complicated than A or B, yes or no, male or female; but most people don't like "complicated" and will always choose the overly simplistic construct. BUT this is not why the topic is such a big deal at the moment. This issue was specifically chosen, and elevated, for the political gains that it brings. People will always be quick to unite against the "other", especially if their numbers are small. I realize this is not some great revelation on my part, it's obvious. What drives me crazy, is that every time well-intentioned people feel the need to have this discussion, right-wing political strategists everywhere are laughing their asses off.
steve my shaylaaaa my shaylaaa
15:50 Not sure that it's the 'right' of politics that are in favour of nuclear power - they seem, from my informal observations, to be more pro-fossil fuels.
Maybe he's referring to the skeptic community, specifically those that recognize global warming is a threat needing to be addressed. I wouldn't consider the average person, politician, or oil executive to be a skeptic
This is a pretty interesting topic that has come up more and more in the past few years. I am an electricity sector professional, and the shift to "pro nuclear" has been pretty sudden and strong. My personal view is that the political right has supported nuclear as a way to pretend to support decarbonization without supporting green energy sources. Essentially whenever the answer/solution is "no need to change status quo" you know their true feelings. For example, "we don't need to lower oil and gas production, or do any other green or low carbon initiatives, we just need nuclear. So lets end wind and solar "subsidies" and go 100% nuclear". The catch is that nuclear power plants take 10-20 years (and sometimes infinite time) to build, so its a great way to Fein support for decarbonization but in reality its just kicking the can down the road.
Dr. Steven Novella has long been an influential figure for many who follow his work, admired for his dedication to scientific reasoning. However, in this latest video, it seems his perspectives may be evolving towards a more personal ideology rather than the objective analysis he's known for. It's natural for views to evolve, and it brings an important point to the forefront for discussion among us here.
The presentation raised some points that seemed to oversimplify complex issues. This isn't about undermining Dr. Novella's extensive contributions but rather about encouraging a deeper discussion on these topics here in the comments.
One significant area of contention is the societal impact of the changes advocated by the transgender movement. There's a balance to be struck between advocating for minority rights and considering the broader implications these changes might have on societal norms and safety. It's crucial we discuss how to support transgender individuals effectively while also considering the wider community's comfort and security.
Furthermore, the experiences of those who transition and then decide to detransition are often underrepresented in discussions. These stories are critical to understanding the full scope of the transgender experience and to improving the support systems in place. By not fully addressing these perspectives, we miss out on learning from these experiences to better support individuals through their journeys.
Let's use this space to engage in a respectful and constructive dialogue about these sensitive topics. My aim is to broaden our understanding and consider all viewpoints thoughtfully. I welcome everyone's thoughts and hope we can foster a well-rounded discussion here. If anything I've expressed has caused any discomfort, please accept my apologies, as my intention is to foster open and honest dialogue.
Couple of question for you:
1) Why did you mention 'safety' as though transgender people are dangers to society, when the evidence shows the exact opposite: society is a danger to transgender people?
2)Why are you more concerned with the tiny fraction of de-transitioners than the vast majority of people who don't de-transition (particularly when the main reason given for de-transitioning is a lack of acceptance)?
many times in his talk he states that these issues are complex and nuanced, to start off by saying that he is simplifying things is dishonest.
I agree that there is contention about a perceived "harm to society" that greater transgender, and as you say, minority rights may have. As we are all skeptics, I am curious to know more about the harms greater transgender and minority rights would introduce to society?
@@emokkiidd I believe you’re likely aware of many of the claimed societal harms, but starting by questioning my honesty isn’t the most conducive way to foster civil discourse. 😊
While the presentation may not have seemed overly simplistic to you, it’s important to consider that others might have found it so. My point remains that using strawman arguments and oversimplifying opposing views-such as suggesting they merely say, "they've got a penis, therefore they are a man"-is both reductive and, as I’ve noted, a clear example of a logical fallacy.
@@splinx2813 my intention is to be civil, apologies that it came across otherwise. Steve has, in this talk and in essentially every talk he gives, and on frequently on his podcast stated that these topics are always complicated and nuanced. He is the last person I would say simplifies topics.
Maybe I am naive, but I can't come up with any significant societal harms that occur when transgender people or other minorities have their rights increased, perhaps you can give a few examples.
I do agree that some of his comments may have come across as strawmen, but I think he is referencing actual opposing viewpoints of people he has encountered. Those "simplistic" viewpoints are ones we likely agree are incomplete if not entirely incorrect. As these discussions continue the dialog will get more sophisticated and get to the "real issues" that skeptics disagree on.
@ Thank you for your understanding, and I appreciate your graciousness-no need for apologies.
I've been reflecting on how the SGU seems increasingly "human" as they delve into personal ideologies in their live podcasts. It's a natural evolution but one that brings mixed feelings.
Regarding the concerns about transgender issues and the shifting societal roles, there are a few prevalent worries:
Influence on Youth: There's concern that impressionable young people might be encouraged to make life-altering decisions during a naturally rebellious phase, supported by well-intentioned adults. This can lead to significant physical and psychological impacts, which are not always fully considered.
Parent-Child Relationships: Many parents fear irreversible rifts forming with their children due to fundamental disagreements over gender identity. This generational gap isn't new, but the stakes seem higher with the current pace of change. The uncertainty about gender roles can be disconcerting and challenging for parents trying to guide their children through these issues.
I'll pause here, though I have more to say on this subject. I'm open to discussing this further if you're interested.
Interesting talk. My complaint is that he is setting humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom as a special case. Biologists divide individuals of a species into male, female, and hermaphrodite categories, and just as with humans, there are intersex or indeterminate individuals due to developmental abnormalities (eg. butterflies where one side is male, and the other side is female). Since sexual characteristics differ greatly among the animal kingdom (eg. the sex of alligators determined by temperature rather than chromosomes), it is a lot simpler to focus on gametes as a good characteristic to focus on. Since sex relates to reproduction, you can classify an individual based on the gametes they can, or potentially could, produce (There are octopi that are so similar in appearance, even the octopi can't tell until they try to mate. Male seahorses give birth.). So why make humans a special more complicated case in terms of classifying sex? I'm not discussing gender.
I don't think he is setting humans apart, I think he agrees that there are two sex roles but the boundaries between these two sex roles are fuzzy, that is the case in humans as it is the case in any other species with intersex specimens.
So you listened to the whole thing and still managed to miss the point about brains? How do you know that there aren't butterflies with androgen insensitive brains? Or alligators? Are you a biologist or neurologist?
It’s a question of definition, and which definition you use depends on what your goal is. If you’re trying to study reproductive roles in fruit flies, that may well need a different definition than if you’re studying the effects of sex discrimination in a workplace, or what the best division of sporting competitions might be.
How do you know that all animals identify as the sex of their bodies? Do you talk to them?
The reason for setting humans apart is that humans _are_ different to other species. We live in societies that grant or withhold rights to groups of people, we have the technology for medical interventions, and we have politicians fishing for votes by playing to misinformation and prejudices. Other species don't have that.
I desagree!
😉
Who said that a Theistic God is not testable?
The proposition isn't always testable - the claim can hide behind traits like omnipotence that allow the deity to hide from testing. I do think that specific theistic god proposals are testable though. If reality does not behave as we would expect it to behave given the proposal, then it is very reasonable to assume the theistic god does not exist.
@@nacasius Anyone who actually understands science and methodological naturalism and the constraints around the kinds of questions that science can answer?
A good test would be to test if praying does anything. Sadly for theists it's been done already and the results were not good. Heart patients mortality rate increased due to the pressure of trying to get better.
Study title:
Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP)
@@siwilson1437 The existence of a god does not imply praying does anything.
@ Then why invent a deity if the universe looks and behaves exactly like there isn't one?
Conflating sex binomial distribution with social expression is a logical fallacy.
Who was the actress he was thinking about, Audrey Hepburn? I will go with woman every time. He didn't name one so I did, got a problem with that? I think about her too, he must be a classy dude.
Using "sport" as an excuse to categorise people is not something that "has to be done" it is something we choose to do. All sport is irrelevant. It is strictly for monetary gain or society would not attribute such a high priority to it.
Individual feelings have never been decisive as objective evidence.
Congrats, you didn’t watch and listen with an open mindset, you came in headstrong and didn’t pay attention to the facts. Be a better skeptic
"Individual feelings have never been decisive as objective evidence." Have you never been to a medical professional for a diagnosis?
So?
"THEY" want to ignore things.
Also we should ignore the people who detransition. Seriously?
We shouldn’t and we don’t. Some of the major reasons that people detransition are that they face social isolation and persecution and that they cannot access continuing care. Since you seem to care about people who detransition, you care about fixing those issues, right? Right?
Who said to ignore or even implied we should ignore people who detransition?
@@Overonator he did, he dismissed them by pointing out that there are too few.
@@DrockDrackI didn't say we shouldn't or don't.
Citation needed for your claims there.
Maybe if you deal with what I actually said instead of doing your best to twist what I said into something you can put a sarcastic ending on, we might have a productive conversation where we can understand and move in the direction of truth. Whatever that happens to be. You do care about such things, right? Right?
@ No he didn't I listened near the end where he talked about detransitioners. He talks about extreme fringe cases of detransitioners and how gender affirming care has lower regret rate than pretty much every other medical intervention. This is a response to those that say that the mere existence of deteransitioners should stop gender affirming care. The point being is that there are other medical interventions that have a higher regret rate than gender affirming care and yet we don't stop those interventions. The existence of detransitioners does not undermine gender affirming care.