Talk:Michael Shermer

Conclusion...?
Was there ever one? Nothing said in the article, nothing said here for over a year. So far, no charges against Shermer, but hey, no defamation suit either. Isn't it past time to put something in this article about what happened?&mdash; Unsigned, by: 212.188.147.35 / talk / contribs 15:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Add The Moral Arc
Shermer's newest book needs to be added to the list:

The Moral Arc of Science and Reason by Michael Shermer http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Arc-Science-Humanity-Justice/dp/0805096914/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423519673&sr=1-1&keywords=the+moral+arc

Also, an interesting link to an interview with Shermer by Libertarianism.org:

http://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts/moral-arc-science-reason104.33.225.241 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Shermer did not sue
This is highly indicative that he feared what the litigation would expose. The American pre-trial discovery process would almost certainly compel him to turn over every email sent or received to anyone in which he mentions anything about his sexual activities at atheist/skeptic conferences/events, or in which he even alludes to the women making the accusations. He, James Randi, the women, and many others could all expected to be deposed. If there is any truth to the accusations it would become very public. Deposition testimony is what felled Bill Cosby.

We should not, NOT, claim Shermer is a rapist; he hasn't been convicted of that. But the whole saga can be carefully set forth with an eye to a lot of "allegedlys" and other qualifiers. Michael Shermer is not gonna sue James Randi, and is therefore not at all likely to sue anyone who quotes him, especially if he thought it prudent not to sue PZ Myers.---Mona- (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Basing something off of what someone didn't do is sketch in and of itself, and using "allegedly" as a "get-out-of-court-free" card is both somewhat unethical and major sketch. 22:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. He demanded a retraction and said he would sue if none was forthcoming. No retraction was forthcoming and Shermer did not sue. I explained the reasons why a person would not desire litigation even after formally threatening it, and a very strong possibility is the concerns I described controlled his decision. As for copious "allegedlys" that's how journalists report on those accused but not convicted of crimes. Every. Day.---Mona- (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact that a prolonged legal battle would cost Shermer far more than a B-list educator like Myers would be able to pay, were Shermer to actually succeed in his suit.Bagatello (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Transistor radio story
Is this really such an important aspect of Shermer's life, career, philosophy, anything? I suggest deleting the section, or at best mentioning it in passing somewhere less prominent within the article. Preferably without using the word "tranny". 08:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed the needlessly edgelordy title of the section for now. -  Kitsunelaine  「SJW Illuminati shill.」 08:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - any particular reason you used an offensive term when you made that section? Lightning Dust (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tranny is UK slang for a transistor ratio and I thought the Rhyme in, 'Spooky tranny' was funny. I linked to a dictionary definition of tranny to prevent readers assuming the offensive meaning. Despite the link to the dictionary within a day someone assumed the offensive meaning.  Therefore either a better explanation is needed or 'tranny' is best left out. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The transistor section however titled includes a likely rational explanation of the event. Refuting dubious supernatural claims is on mission for RationalWiki. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The "Assumed" meaning is the more commonly known one. You can't exactly blame people for getting icked out with that rather provocative title. Where one has a high chance to cause needless offence, you should take the very easy steps to avoid it. This is like saying "Fag" and getting upset when people don't assume you mean a cigarette. -  Kitsunelaine  「SJW Illuminati shill.」 10:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For me the UK slang term for a radio was better known but people outside the UK seem to disagree. It's best out of the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in the UK and have never seen or heard a radio referred to as a tranny. 18:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The only slang meaning listed by my dictionary is "automobile transmission".--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tranny may have been a popular slang term decades ago when transistor radios were a new thing. Whatever. Poor Shermer. He's got an advanced case of all too human fallibility. Leuders (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

dumb conspiracy theory
People who wanted Shermer to stick with his new wife conspired to somehow obtain the radio without the Shermers knowing it and seamlessly install modern radio control circuits and then coordinate the timing so the Shermers would find it on a specific day during a specific moment? Really????????????????? Leuders (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was the caretaker from the old abandoned amusement park. & He would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for you pesky meddling skeptics.  01:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Got to admit all the weird and incoherent additions had me quite puzzled, but after reading, , and  now I understand. Leuders (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how likely it is that other people got a chance to alter the radio. We don't know anything about the radio or the whole affair except what Shermer told us. I'd rather not accuse Shermer of doing anything himself without further evidence. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Who cares? There are more interesting things to speculate about.  20:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This, along with the other details on the page, suggest very strongly that Shermer is a natural woowoo believer/victim, who has to work harder than most to stay rational. And that his apparent first instinct is to jump for the Woo explanation. Or am i reading that wrong?