I listened to the interview with Alex the host of Skeptiko and author of the book about evil. I liked it. I thought Greg did a nice job. Good energy. Interesting topic. The extended dis of Nassin Heriman was an odd note, but I was intrigued enough to give Skeptiko a try.
The first episode I listened to was the one with Tom Cowan who, full disclosure, I’m a fan of. I gotta say for someone who rails against evil he’s got a dark and mean spirited side. He was super disrespectful and condescending the whole time. His whole shtick of calling Tom “Cohen” instead of “Cowan” came across to me as super anti-Semitic. His snide little asides, arguments to authority, and straw man attacks were hard to listen to. Not a fan.
Give me THC Greg every time! My guess is Tom won’t come on THC because Alex has poisoned the whole “conspiracy podcast” ecosystem for him. What a shame.
Check out the transcript here if you like. Tom was done with Alex in a mere 13 minutes.
https://skeptiko.com/tom-cowan-insists-we-show-him-covid-19-472/
That was my experience with his podcast as well. Greg’s interview style is easy to take for granted - it’s not until you see a bad host that you really recognize how good the good is.
Hmmm, thats disappointing to hear about Alex.
But i recently came across Tom Cowan, and I was really getting into what he's saying about water however he said something which was scientifically wrong (something very basic), I can't remember what it was now but I just remember he said it with so much confidence that I felt put off. Just because most of the science he talks about I have no background in so I'm listening and being taken in because it sounds right but I have no idea.
And I just find there are certain people in life who have a sales man quality about them. This brand of confidence which at first just seems so right. I get a similar vibe from Alex tbh,
And maybe I'm wrong but in listening to a few hours of Tom, I never heard him point the audience to proof of anything that hes saying. For instance he disputes the existence of cells in live human beings. But I don't remember him saying he has evidence of what his alternative explanation is
Regards Gregs interview abilities, he's extremely talented. He remains calm, fair, probes for the answer he wants, refrains from inserting his opinion too much. And he doesn't shout, I feel like that is rare in conspiracy land. One unique thing I did like about the Alex interview was the way he was actually asking Greg what he thinks about certain things.
He (Alex) does have a combative and adversarial style, which does play well for some people. I usually find it annoying. He also drives the topic towards what he is interested in, more like a pundit than an interviewer, more Bill O'Reilly/Rachel Maddow than Charlie Rose/Larry King.
I probably personally more resemble Alex than Greg in this regard, which is some of why I prefer Greg's show--- we especially dislike those who we share our negative qualities, and like those whose positive qualities we lack.
Of course, there's nothing wrong in itself with the adversarial approach--and it is definitely necessary for the health of a discursive community if total bullshit isn't to proliferate.
Here's where I draw the line between "science" proper and speculation. Science should be able to withstand adversarial investigation--it needs data and evidence and rational argument to back it up--to be called "science" something should be extremely well established and grounded. Speculation is necessarily still a fledgling -- it needs to be considered and entertained, not put through the crucible, if it is to be allowed to develop its full interesting potential.
I believe Alex at least fancies himself to be dealing primarily with "science" as so described in his podcast -- thus the adversarial approach and crucible, which is probably appropriate. Greg's podcast is more broadly para- oriented (paranormal, parapolitical) and so he has to understand his guests' subject matters much more through the lens of speculation.
Scientific claims should be interrogated, speculative claims should be entertained. Thus it's no surprise that approaching topics speculatively is more entertaining, where as approaching them scientifically feels like an interrogation!
Also not an Alex fan. That mocking tone thing he did several times speaks volumes about how high above others he regards himself. That Nassim thing was odd, mean and very lopsided, too.
This was my feeling on that second hour with Alex too - my perception was that it was a lot of low vibe shit talk about people in the alternative space who are trying to do good. I can understand his skepticism, definitely didn't care for the delivery.
Alex interviewed Whitley Strieber recently. Supposedly, the interview was to be about Whitley's new book JESUS - A NEW VISION. Now regardless of what you think of Whitley Strieber and his literary products, I have never heard a worse interview. Alex was obsessed with the historian Josephus and kept badgering Whitley about him, even though Whitley's book did not use Josephus as a source material. It was painful and a "grinding the teeth" interview. I was amazed at how professional Strieber was, since I thought he had a reputation as a lose cannon when challenged. Alex came off as slightly deranged.
