Point of Inquiry

Host: Chris Mooney

So who's right, factually, about politics and science? Who speaks truth, and who's just spinning?

It's kind of the million dollar question. If we could actually answer it, we'd have turned political debate itself into a... well, a science.

And is such an answer possible? What does the scientific evidence suggest?

In this episode of Point of Inquiry, Chris Mooney brought back a popular guest from last year, Yale's Dan Kahan, to discuss this very question-one that they've been emailing about pretty much continually ever since Kahan appeared on the show.

In the episode, Kahan and Mooney not only review but debate the evidence on whether "motivated" ideological biases are the same on both sides of the political aisle—or alternatively, whether they're actually "asymmetrical."

Dan Kahan is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at the Yale Law School. He's also the Eli Goldston Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School. His research focuses on "cultural cognition"-how our social and political group affiliations affect our views of what's true in contested areas like global warming and nuclear power-and motivated reasoning. Before then, he served as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall, of the U.S. Supreme Court (1990-91) and to Judge Harry Edwards of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1989-90).

Host: Chris Mooney

We had Lawrence Krauss on Point of Inquiry less than a year ago, to discuss his recent book on the scientific works of Richard Feynman.

But in order to keep up with him, we had to have him on again. Already.

You see, Krauss has a new book out that's causing quite a stir right now—A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing.

Here's a hint as to why: Krauss's answer to this age-old question isn't God. In fact, as discussed on the program, Krauss has arguably written the book that "kicks God out of physics."

And along the way, he also manages to explain a heck of a lot of science.

Lawrence Krauss is an the internationally known theoretical physicist and popular author. He has published hundreds of scientific papers, as well as acclaimed books like the bestselling The Physics of Star Trek and Fear of Physics. He's director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University.

Host: Chris Mooney

Earlier this month, Point of Inquiry host Chris Mooney attended Science Online, the premiere science blogging conference, in the research triangle area.

There were many science aficionados, communicators, and wonks present, but Chris found himself hanging out a lot with Brian Malow—aka, the Science Comedian.

And get this—Malow lived up to his name. He was pretty funny. Chris decided he had to get him on air.

Now, obviously, we couldn't have Malow do stand up for this program. Instead, Chris had to try to... draw humor out of him. And in the process, however inadvertently, he may have even told a joke himself.

Brian Malow describes himself as Earth's Premier Science Comedian. He makes science videos for Time Magazine's website and contributes to Neil deGrasse Tyson's radio show—and performs widely. He's been featured on the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson and in Nature, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.

Host: Chris Mooney

Eugenie Scott is no stranger to Point of Inquiry, or to the secular community. Her endless travails to defend the teaching of evolution have won her immense respect.

And that's why, when Scott and her National Center for Science Education take on a new initiative, everybody listens. So for this Point of Inquiry episode, we invited Eugenie to break some news about why she is venturing into a very new and very challenging area—defending the teaching of accurate climate change science in schools from a mounting ideological assault—and how you can help her out.

Host: Chris Mooney

It's the beginning of a new year here at Point of Inquiry, and we've got a pretty good guest to kick it off.

He needs no introduction. He's Brian Greene—celebrity physicist, bestselling author, television star and all around science communication maestro.

Officially: Greene is co-founder and director of Columbia University's Institute for Strings, Cosmology, and Astroparticle Physics, author of the bestselling books The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos, and co-founder of the World Science Festival.

We caught up with Greene to discuss the recently aired four part NOVA special based on The Fabric of the Cosmos, as well as, well, sciency things in general.

Host: Karen Stollznow

Dr. Stuart Robbins is a postdoctoral researcher in astronomy at the University of Colorado, Boulder. His work focuses on planetary geophysics, and he’s currently researching craters on Mars, and on the moon. Stuart received his PhD in Astrophysics through the Geophysics program from the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Stuart has a special interest in astronomy education, especially correcting myths and misconceptions about astronomy. To that end, he has a blog entitled Exposing PseudoAstronomy, and a podcast by the same name. Since 2012 is supposed to be our last year on earth, again, Stuart dispels some claims about the Mayan Prophecy.

In this interview with Karen Stollznow, Stuart provides a rundown on the Mayan Long Calendar, and discusses the different calculations and end dates. He talks about the link, or lack thereof, between the calendar and the end of the world. Stuart talks about the many ways in which the world is supposed to end in 2012, via planetary lineups, galactic alignments, pole shifts, crustal displacement, solar flares, or the mysterious Planet X.

Stuart delves into metaphysical claims that 2012 isn’t the catastrophic end of the world, but represents some kind of beginning, or new age of transformation. Finally he tells us, when December 21, 2012 has come and gone, when is the next Armageddon?

Host: Chris Mooney

How do you successfully debunk misinformation?

The question is a deceptively simple one—which is precisely the problem.

Debunking is easy—just refute false claims, and provide corrective information.

Debunking successfully is something else again-you have to change minds, and make the corrective information stick. And how does that work?

Well, as it turns out, we actually don't know very much about the process. But what we do know was recently compiled into a brilliant short document, the Debunking Handbook, available free for download from the website Skeptical Science.

Point of Inquiry recently caught up with one of its authors, John Cook, in San Francisco at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

John Cook is the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia. He studied physics, and maintains the popular global warming website "Skeptical Science," which refutes misinformation by explaining, in user friendly fashion, the findings of the peer reviewed literature.

Guest Host: John Shook

Recently, the Center for Inquiry held a conference titled "Daniel Dennett and the Scientific Study of Religion: A Celebration of the Fifth Anniversary of Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon". During that conference, John Shook, CFI's Director of Education, sat down with Dennett for this interview.

Host: Chris Mooney

Over the last decade, there have been many calls in the secular community for increased criticism of religion, and increased activism to help loosen its grip on the public.

But what if the human brain itself is aligned against that endeavor?

That's the argument made by cognitive scientist Robert McCauley in his new book, Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not.

In it, he lays out a cognitive theory about why our minds, from a very early state of development, seem predisposed toward religious belief—and not predisposed towards the difficult explanations and understandings that science offers.

If McCauley is right, spreading secularism and critical thinking may always be a difficult battle—although one no less worthy of undertaking.

Dr. McCauley is University Professor and Director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Culture at Emory University. He is also the author of Rethinking Religion and Bringing Ritual to Mind.

Host: Karen Stollznow

Scott Gavura is a registered pharmacist in Ontario with a personal and professional interest in improving the way we use medication. Scott started the Science-Based Pharmacy blog in 2009 to scrutinize pharmacy practices, and to begin a discussion within the industry about its obligations as a health profession.

Scott has a Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy and a Masters of Business Administration degree from the University of Toronto, and has completed an Accredited Canadian Hospital Pharmacy Residency Program. His professional background includes pharmacy work in community, hospital and government settings. Scott is also a contributor to the Skeptic North blog and the Science-Based Medicine blog.

In this interview with host Karen Stollznow, Scott talks about the changing scene of the pharmaceutical industry. They discuss the pseudoscientific products and services to be found in compounding pharmacies, integrative pharmacies, and general pharmacies. Scott explains his position on taking supplements, fortified foods and placebo prescriptions, and answers a few practical questions about generic drugs vs. brand name drugs, expiry dates, and storing and disposing of medication. Scott speaks about the new applications of old drugs, and answers the all-time question: How does a pharmacist learn to read a doctor's handwriting?