DarkHorse Podcast Summary

Episode: Preventing Truth Decay: Michael Shermer on DarkHorse

Host: Bret Weinstein
Guest: Michael Shermer
Date: January 11, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode of the DarkHorse Podcast features an extended and spirited conversation between Bret Weinstein, evolutionary biologist and co-host, and Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic Magazine and executive director of the Skeptic Society. The discussion centers on the nature of truth: how we know what’s real, how scientific institutions function (or fail), the reliability of expertise, the mechanisms of peer review, and the role of belief—ranging from scientific theory to religion and free will—in navigating a world full of uncertainty and misinformation.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Shermer’s Book & Epistemology

• [06:46] Shermer’s Book Motivation:
  Shermer frames his new book as an exploration of how we identify truth, building from his previous work on conspiracy theories. Science, law, and journalism all have mechanisms—peer review, adversarial legal systems—to establish what’s true.
• Recognizing Fallibility:
  Shermer advocates for “fallibilism”—the stance that one should never assign absolute certainty (0% or 100%) to any belief:

  “You never assign a 0 or a 1 to any proposition just in case.” [07:30, Shermer]

2. Relying on Authority vs. Firsthand Knowledge

• Much of what people "know" is taken on authority rather than direct verification. Intellectual trust is necessary—but dangerous if authority is compromised.
• [09:53] Weinstein introduces the “Cartesian Crisis”:

  “In order to function, we accept almost everything on a kind of authority... If you live in an era where the quality of that authority is high, it's a very effective thing to do. If the quality… is not high, it's very dangerous.” [09:53, Weinstein]

• Both agree that most scientific and societal knowledge is never personally verified, but disagree as to whether expertise today, on balance, deserves that trust.

3. The Standards for Scientific Truth

• Distinguishing Facts, Hypotheses, and Theories:
  Discussion of Stephen Jay Gould’s dictum that scientific truth means “confirmed to such a degree it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”

  “A scientific truth is a claim for which the evidence is so substantial that it is rational to offer one's provisional assent.” [15:15, Shermer]

• Weinstein adds there exists a hierarchy: “provisional assent” for hypotheses, and “theory” only after all alternatives have been defeated, but everything remains liable to revision.

4. Self-Correction and Problems in Science

• Examples: The Big Bang, Piltdown Man, Margulis’s Endosymbiosis
  The progress of science is slow but self-correcting.
• Corruption and Ideology:
  • Weinstein argues that in certain contemporary fields, scientific institutions are fatally compromised by ideology and corruption, e.g., in nutrition (the food pyramid) and biology (sex/gender controversies).
  • [30:45] “Every single person in evolutionary biology knows... that sex is binary… and yet the field did not stand up.” [30:45, Weinstein]
  • Shermer concedes on the politicization of science (e.g., transgender debates in biology).

5. Peer Review: Mechanism or Cargo Cult?

• Failures of Peer Review:
  • Weinstein recounts personal experience where a major scientific finding was delayed and suppressed through peer review abuses for careerist reasons.
  • Argues for overhaul: open (non-anonymous) review, decoupling from insular networks, and reputational accountability for reviewers.

  “Anonymity has no place... Recprocity networks break out. People in general know who's reviewed their work...” [41:38, Weinstein]

• Shermer queries the alternatives:

  “To some people, Bret, it feels like you're doing an end run around the system.” [70:49, Shermer]

6. Science, Authority, and the Pandemic

• COVID-19, Vaccines, and Corrupt Institutions:
  Weinstein expounds on his skepticism of public health authorities, citing reversals on natural immunity and food guidance as evidence of system-wide failure.
  • Key Critique: Institutions sometimes invert truth rather than merely err:

    “They give you upside down pyramids. They give you the inverse of the right advice. That is an alarming fact.” [78:15, Weinstein]

  • Disagreement on vaccine risk claims, with Shermer relying on mainstream fact checking and Weinstein arguing that institutional consensus may itself be corrupted.

7. Religion, Metaphorical Truth, and Human Flourishing

• Religion as Evolutionary Adaptation:
  Shermer’s new position: Religious stories should be seen as mythic/metaphorical truths containing lessons about the human condition.

  “To me, biblical stories are narratives. They're literature that carry some other message for people.” [95:32, Shermer]

  • Weinstein: Such stories solve real game-theory problems for groups, so belief—literal or not—is advantageous for group and lineage survival.

    “They are... solutions to game theory problems. And crucially, they only work if you actually believe them.” [98:25, Weinstein]

• On Religious Literalism:
  • Christians resist metaphorical interpretations because the value of belief depends on believing in the literal truth.
• Secular Humanism and the “substitution hypothesis”:
  • Discussion of whether secular or “enlightened” humanism can replace religion’s social function. Weinstein is doubtful; ceremonial substitutes (like secular “churches”) fail to inspire or bind people.

8. Free Will vs. Determinism

• Approach to Free Will:
  • Shermer advances a “compatibilist”/”self-determinism” view:

    “The past is determined… but the future is not predetermined... We are free to in a sense influence our future conditions for our present self.” [131:15, Shermer]

  • Weinstein: The universe is likely not strictly deterministic; free will is limited yet real, and a mark of a life well lived is expanding it through effort and self-mastery.

    “A life well lived is one in which you take the small amount of free will that you have and you use it to increase the degree of the freedom of your will.” [133:25, Weinstein]

• On Determinism in Practice:
  • Both question if hard determinists (e.g., Sam Harris, Robert Sapolsky) truly live out their philosophy.

9. The Hard Problem of Consciousness

• Mutual Skepticism:
  Both doubt that the “hard problem” (“what is it like to be...?”) will ever be solved, considering it conceptually unanswerable with current tools.

10. Closing Reflections

• Respectful Disagreement:
  Both note the rarity and value of honorably disagreeing:

  “I find you disagreeing with me honorably. It never gets personal. And that is a rare characteristic.” [10:53, Weinstein]

• Agreement that the process of open, accountable argument—rather than deference to authority—is the best route to collective knowledge.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Scientific Truth:

  “Scientists make no claim for perpetual truth, because in science, fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree, it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” [15:13, Shermer quoting Gould]

• On Institutional Failure:

  “You have an entire field. Every single person in evolutionary biology knows... that sex is binary… and yet the field did not stand up. Not one department... Not one medical school said it. So there's something rotten in the land of science.” [30:45, Weinstein]

• On Peer Review Abuse:

  “The process that we believe exists is a cargo cult. It is embedded within a network of people who are largely cynical and careerist, who have an interest in shutting down interlopers...” [55:23, Weinstein]

• On End-Runs Around the System:

  “Why the information landscape changed is because I went on Rogan and Malone went on Rogan... Bypassing the system that was set up to shut us down.” [77:26, Weinstein]

• On Religion and Group Selection:

  “These stories aren't just literature. They are actually the solutions to game theory problems. And crucially, they only work if you actually believe them.” [98:25, Weinstein]

• Sarcastic on Science’s Social Trends:

  “Maybe we science types should come up with some term that explains this distinction... How about sexual dimorphism?” [130:55, Weinstein, on gender debates]

Timestamps for Major Segments

• [06:46] Epistemology and foundations for Shermer’s new book
• [09:53] The "Cartesian Crisis" – Authority, trust, and the epistemic problem
• [15:15] Definitions: Scientific fact, theory, and provisional assent
• [30:45] Transgender ideology and the failure of biology departments
• [41:38] What’s wrong with peer review and proposed reforms
• [55:23] Peer review as a “cargo cult”; the cost of exposing fraud
• [77:26] How podcasts and the “end run” around institutional controls changed COVID narratives
• [95:32] Religion, metaphorical truth, and the evolutionary frame
• [131:15] Free will: compatibilism, psychology, and emergent properties
• [153:26] Hard problem of consciousness – why we may never solve it
• [155:41] Final thoughts on truth, collective reasoning, and respectful disagreement

Tone and Takeaways

The episode is intellectually rich, candid, and at times passionate (and heated), yet remains collegial. Both Shermer and Weinstein share a love for rigorous debate, questioning assumptions, and the desire to see scientific and societal systems function better—while sharply disagreeing on key points such as the extent and nature of current institutional failure.

Listeners will leave with a nuanced understanding of how “truth” is pursued, why our institutions sometimes mislead or fail, and what might be done to restore epistemic integrity—plus plenty to ponder about belief, authority, and the possible limits of human knowledge.