Sean Carroll

not rational or not correct or not nice of not listening to that kind of criticism because you've already decided that you're more rational, right? And so people become defensive. And in fact, there's a backfire effect where they double down on whatever it is they are believing.

I think that this is not specific to atheism and skepticism actually, but in progressive liberal circles more generally, there's a certain slice of people who feel nostalgic for the days when in their minds it was all just about the economy and class struggle, right? And they thought of themselves as fighting for the workers and the underprivileged and whatever.

I think that this is not specific to atheism and skepticism actually, but in progressive liberal circles more generally, there's a certain slice of people who feel nostalgic for the days when in their minds it was all just about the economy and class struggle, right? And they thought of themselves as fighting for the workers and the underprivileged and whatever.

And now it's about identity politics and like these black people and these trans people and whatever. They are all leaving the message that they thought was supposed to be the message. And you see the difference is that the people we're talking about here could think of themselves as the underdog when it was all about fighting for the lesser well-off.

And now it's about identity politics and like these black people and these trans people and whatever. They are all leaving the message that they thought was supposed to be the message. And you see the difference is that the people we're talking about here could think of themselves as the underdog when it was all about fighting for the lesser well-off.

But now you're telling me there are other groups that are disadvantaged that I'm not in. Maybe even you're implying that my group is causing the disadvantage. You know, you're kind of criticizing me. A lot of people in these communities, like the most irrational response you can get from them is to call them racist or bigoted or whatever.

But now you're telling me there are other groups that are disadvantaged that I'm not in. Maybe even you're implying that my group is causing the disadvantage. You know, you're kind of criticizing me. A lot of people in these communities, like the most irrational response you can get from them is to call them racist or bigoted or whatever.

No matter what the evidence for it is, they're like, you can't believe I'm that kind of person. I'm a rational person. I'm not that. And, you know, that leads them to some dark places when they try to justify that. So I don't know how much of the effect is caused by that particular syndrome, but I do think it's real.

No matter what the evidence for it is, they're like, you can't believe I'm that kind of person. I'm a rational person. I'm not that. And, you know, that leads them to some dark places when they try to justify that. So I don't know how much of the effect is caused by that particular syndrome, but I do think it's real.

And of course, there's plenty of people in the atheist skeptical movement such as it is that are very supportive of trans people. A lot of trans people are atheists, right? So it's complicated. I wouldn't want to oversimplify it. I do think that it's much easier to preach rationality than to practice it, especially when it comes to potential criticisms of one's own worldview and behaviors.

And of course, there's plenty of people in the atheist skeptical movement such as it is that are very supportive of trans people. A lot of trans people are atheists, right? So it's complicated. I wouldn't want to oversimplify it. I do think that it's much easier to preach rationality than to practice it, especially when it comes to potential criticisms of one's own worldview and behaviors.

Eric Stromquist says, this may be a long shot, but have you read The Problem of Molecular Structure is Just the Measurement Problem by Franklin and Seifert in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science last year? They argue that the favorite eigenstates of collections of electrons and nuclei are superpositions of all enantiomers and isomers.

Eric Stromquist says, this may be a long shot, but have you read The Problem of Molecular Structure is Just the Measurement Problem by Franklin and Seifert in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science last year? They argue that the favorite eigenstates of collections of electrons and nuclei are superpositions of all enantiomers and isomers.

These are chemistry words, I don't understand, by the way. Not the chiral molecules or individual isomers studied by chemists, which have less symmetry. They look at Everett, Bohm, and GRW and conclude that Everett and Bohm can explain classical molecular structure, but only due to the action of decoherence in each case. However, decoherence doesn't save GRW.

These are chemistry words, I don't understand, by the way. Not the chiral molecules or individual isomers studied by chemists, which have less symmetry. They look at Everett, Bohm, and GRW and conclude that Everett and Bohm can explain classical molecular structure, but only due to the action of decoherence in each case. However, decoherence doesn't save GRW.

No, I'm not familiar with that at all. Ordinarily, if I were not familiar with it, I would just skip over the question. But it's an interesting issue. I really want there to be experimental tests you can do to decide between these different theories. There are experimental tests you can do to decide between objective collapse models like GRW and Bohm slash Everett.

No, I'm not familiar with that at all. Ordinarily, if I were not familiar with it, I would just skip over the question. But it's an interesting issue. I really want there to be experimental tests you can do to decide between these different theories. There are experimental tests you can do to decide between objective collapse models like GRW and Bohm slash Everett.

As far as I know, there aren't any tests to distinguish between Bohm and Everett. But I'm open-minded about still looking. You know, there's arguments that Bohm and Everett should give the same result, but there's also arguments, in fact, there's arguments from both sides that the other side just doesn't make sense, right?

As far as I know, there aren't any tests to distinguish between Bohm and Everett. But I'm open-minded about still looking. You know, there's arguments that Bohm and Everett should give the same result, but there's also arguments, in fact, there's arguments from both sides that the other side just doesn't make sense, right?

So if you talk to either Bohmians or Everettians, who are more or less made up their minds, and you ask them the reason why they don't like the other one, it's typically because they don't think the other one does the job of being a well-defined theory that fits the data. and of course they think that theirs does.