Jack Symes

And what I've thought from the perspective of philosophy and good public conversation on this stuff is that when we're in our car listening to the radio or listening to a podcast at the gym or something, we don't have the time and the mental strength or maybe even the skills in some cases to pick apart someone's argument and analyze them in the way that might be needed. Right.

And so I wonder if you've got any views on like, What the moral responsibility is or what the best thing to do as an interviewer is in terms of whether or not one should be, let's just like say, read up on like a topic in order to pick holes in someone's arguments or something.

And so I wonder if you've got any views on like, What the moral responsibility is or what the best thing to do as an interviewer is in terms of whether or not one should be, let's just like say, read up on like a topic in order to pick holes in someone's arguments or something.

And so I wonder if you've got any views on like, What the moral responsibility is or what the best thing to do as an interviewer is in terms of whether or not one should be, let's just like say, read up on like a topic in order to pick holes in someone's arguments or something.

So I know you've been like there's been previous things, right, where people have said that you should be analyzing people's arguments in more detail. Sometimes I don't know what they're going to talk about, which is a problem.

So I know you've been like there's been previous things, right, where people have said that you should be analyzing people's arguments in more detail. Sometimes I don't know what they're going to talk about, which is a problem.

So I know you've been like there's been previous things, right, where people have said that you should be analyzing people's arguments in more detail. Sometimes I don't know what they're going to talk about, which is a problem.

Well, I think maybe what we do to avoid that problem, because we're just doing philosophy as well, right? We're just doing a philosophy podcast, and we say to them, we're just sticking with this book or this paper. And so we've got four researchers working on this, and we know all the ins and outs of it, like the back of our hand.

Well, I think maybe what we do to avoid that problem, because we're just doing philosophy as well, right? We're just doing a philosophy podcast, and we say to them, we're just sticking with this book or this paper. And so we've got four researchers working on this, and we know all the ins and outs of it, like the back of our hand.

Well, I think maybe what we do to avoid that problem, because we're just doing philosophy as well, right? We're just doing a philosophy podcast, and we say to them, we're just sticking with this book or this paper. And so we've got four researchers working on this, and we know all the ins and outs of it, like the back of our hand.

So we can give the audience member the best analysis they can get without having to go and do it themselves. When you're doing such a broad project like this on so many different topics, it's impossible to be able to do that. But I wonder if you think, I'm genuinely interested and curious to hear your thoughts on it.

So we can give the audience member the best analysis they can get without having to go and do it themselves. When you're doing such a broad project like this on so many different topics, it's impossible to be able to do that. But I wonder if you think, I'm genuinely interested and curious to hear your thoughts on it.

So we can give the audience member the best analysis they can get without having to go and do it themselves. When you're doing such a broad project like this on so many different topics, it's impossible to be able to do that. But I wonder if you think, I'm genuinely interested and curious to hear your thoughts on it.

Is a better situation for our public discourse a media in which we've got lots of different, let's say podcasts, for example, lots of different podcasts, lots of different hosts who all specialize in a different thing in order to analyze?

Is a better situation for our public discourse a media in which we've got lots of different, let's say podcasts, for example, lots of different podcasts, lots of different hosts who all specialize in a different thing in order to analyze?

Is a better situation for our public discourse a media in which we've got lots of different, let's say podcasts, for example, lots of different podcasts, lots of different hosts who all specialize in a different thing in order to analyze?

Having this general public facing podcast, which has not an area of speciality with people talking about things which are, you know, in some cases dangerous, right? Or like are important at least. Like is this is the situation better when we have lots of hosts on lots of topics and lots of podcasts? Or is it when we've got a general podcast which is covering all of these topics, right?

Having this general public facing podcast, which has not an area of speciality with people talking about things which are, you know, in some cases dangerous, right? Or like are important at least. Like is this is the situation better when we have lots of hosts on lots of topics and lots of podcasts? Or is it when we've got a general podcast which is covering all of these topics, right?

Having this general public facing podcast, which has not an area of speciality with people talking about things which are, you know, in some cases dangerous, right? Or like are important at least. Like is this is the situation better when we have lots of hosts on lots of topics and lots of podcasts? Or is it when we've got a general podcast which is covering all of these topics, right?

So it's sort of on the listener to not just go, I've just listened to this person for two or three hours. I should leave my church or like, I don't know, go out and live in the middle of nowhere.