This is what we need more of: much more. And much less of the kind of shrill superiority & name-calling that one sees in many places.

People will listen to these programs to learn something about the subject matter. If they learn enough about the subject matter, their BS-detectors will improve. Slow steady progress.

Re. the specifics: Yes it’s also important when scientists talk about what isn’t known, and where the puzzles are, as much as talking about what is known and what puzzles have been solved. And it adds much when there’s “credit where credit is due” for other fields e.g. in this case, psychology, sociology, philosophy.

We do need multiple sets of language to refer to phenomena at different levels: brain, mind, society, empirical facts, experiential facts, logical reasoning, value judgements, moral codes. That doesn’t mean that these are mutually exclusive, only that they’re useful in different ways and for different purposes, and syntheses between them are as well, just as long as one doesn’t over-extend conclusions.

Skeptically Speaking just made it onto my list of “periodicals” for regular reading/listening. Hopefully they maintain the kind of tone throughout, that they have in the present piece.