Mayim Bialik’s Breakdown – Part Two: The Rise of Cancel Culture, Distrust in Science & Misinformation

Guest: Dr. Steven Pinker
Date: September 24, 2025

Overview

In this electrifying second part of the conversation with renowned psychologist and Harvard professor Dr. Steven Pinker, Mayim Bialik (joined by Jonathan Cohen) dives into the complex intersections of cancel culture, the politicization of science, Big Pharma, mental health, and the line between skepticism and open-mindedness. The episode crescendos into a heated debate about the nature of reality, God, near-death experiences, and the value of subjective versus scientific truth. The tone is candid, sharp-witted, and frequently confrontational, providing an unvarnished look at how materialist and spiritualist worldviews collide in a contemporary context.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Politicization of Science and Cancel Culture

• Mayim Bialik asks where the boundary lies between science and politics, particularly regarding truth and veracity.
• Dr. Steven Pinker asserts that science should be about facts and best assessments of reality—these inform political decisions, but fact should be separated from value as much as possible. He laments recent failures in academic objectivity, especially in the wake of “wokeness.”
  • “The idea of science is that you try as much as humanly possible to separate what you want from what is. And that's what scientists have to convince others of by showing their work, acknowledging their fallibility…” (02:24)
• Pinker notes the danger of undermining science’s credibility when objectivity falters, giving ammunition to political actors who already distrust academia.
  • “...when science becomes too politically correct, too woke, it ceases to earn respect as a truth seeking institution, giving them the excuse to blow off the things they don't like.” (04:37)
• He underscores the need to keep science apolitical, sharing that it's why he co-founded the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard.

Memorable quote:

“The whole enterprise of science, scholarship, academia is corroded when people sometimes correctly think that there's a thumb on the scale; that if you say things that go against the consensus, you get canceled.” — Dr. Steven Pinker (05:31)

2. Academic Freedom, Funding, and Antisemitism Debates

• Jonathan Cohen raises the issue of defunding academic research, especially at institutions like Harvard.
• Pinker criticizes what he calls the “Harvard Derangement Syndrome,” where anti-Semitism has been weaponized for political purposes, risking crucial scientific research funding.
  • “It’s obviously a pretext.” (08:04)
• Pinker clarifies that while anti-Semitism exists and must be addressed, claims that Harvard is systemically anti-Semitic are false and political.
  • “It is just not true that Harvard is a deeply anti-Semitic institution. ...Three out of our last four presidents ... have been Jewish.” (09:09)

Memorable quote:

“We're not really doing the Jews a favor by saying, ‘Oh, your career is going to go up in smoke. All of the research that promises cures, we're going to cancel in order to further the interests of the Jews.’” — Dr. Steven Pinker (08:18)

3. Big Pharma, Mental Health, and Scientific Motivation

• Mayim Bialik voices skepticism over Big Pharma and the over-prescription and over-promotion of SSRIs, expressing concern about financial motivation in scientific research and mental health.
• Pinker concedes that psychiatry has become too medication-focused, with GPs often prescribing SSRIs rather than exploring cognitive or behavioral therapies.
  • “If you give a boy a hammer, the whole world is a nail. ...Their toolkit is drugs.” (13:49)
• Pinker argues that the problem isn’t just Big Pharma—it’s professionalization, journalism, and licensing structures that limit public access to alternatives like cognitive behavior therapy.
  • “Just because mental health...is so complex...We have to approach it with some humility.” (15:10)

Notable moment:

“People want the magic pill, right? We want the SSRI for our entire life. And that's not actually how the world works. And I think social media ... make people feel that there are much simpler answers than there actually are.” — Mayim Bialik (16:07)

4. Rationality vs. Mysticism: The Philosophy Showdown

Skepticism of Transcendental Claims

• Bialik and Cohen challenge Pinker on his staunch materialism, raising topics like ESP, remote viewing, and near-death experiences.
• Pinker dismisses all such phenomena as lacking credible evidence and being contradicted by fundamental scientific laws.
  • “Nature, the world does not go to a state of lower entropy. That violates the most fundamental law of science ... There's no such thing as esp. There's no higher power.” (20:26)
• He applies a high “extraordinary evidence” bar, citing Carl Sagan’s maxim.
  • “If ESP existed, the world would be unrecognizable. ...It also means that the laws of physics ... would have to be false.” (23:02)

Near-Death Experiences and Subjective Truth

• Mayim Bialik shares clinical stories of patients recounting remote events while unconscious, referencing researchers like Bruce Grayson.
• Pinker attributes these to misremembering, confirmation bias, or the brain filling in gaps, not evidence of consciousness outside the body.
  • “As a psychologist, people misremember stuff.” (25:50)
• Bialik defends subjective experience as worthy of curiosity; Pinker maintains it’s not evidence unless it can be objectively validated.
  • “People believe all kinds of false things, which is interesting to someone like me as a psychologist.” (33:19)

Indigenous Wisdom & Science

• Bialik presses Pinker on whether indigenous/traditional wisdom holds value.
• Pinker says he values knowledge only when empirically validated:
  • “A lot of indigenous wisdom is not so wise. ...It's superstition, it's ignorance.” (29:02)

5. The Ethics and Impact of Belief

• The panel debates whether it’s ‘bad’ to allow people to hold untrue beliefs if those beliefs are benign or even beneficial (e.g., spiritual comfort after a loss, or as with psilocybin research and end-of-life care).
  • “There is an ethical question of do you allow people to persist in a delusion that makes them happier? Sometimes yes.” (36:49)
• Pinker draws a line where false beliefs can motivate harmful policy, medical neglect, or violence.
• Jonathan Cohen brings up research that spiritual belief can objectively benefit health. Pinker is open, but warns against the “placebo effect” being conflated with evidence for supernatural claims.

Memorable quote:

“There are cases where we indulge people...But when it comes to anything that's a matter of policy...then it would be a problem allowing them to persist in a delusion.” — Dr. Steven Pinker (40:42)

Debating Science, Belief & Objectivity

Pinker’s Position

• Asserts a materialist, scientific worldview.
• Insists all extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
• Warns against conflating subjective experience with empirical truth.
• Is open to benefits from the placebo effect or spiritual practices, but doesn’t grant those beliefs objective reality unless scientifically corroborated.

Bialik & Cohen’s Rebuttals

• Advocate for curiosity about subjective experiences, especially when widely reported and life-changing.
• Discomfort with Pinker’s “certainty,” calling it as dogmatic as the religious faith he critiques.
  • “There’s a vibe about him ... that's so stupid, that's so ridiculous. ... I actually find [that] a real turnoff.” — Mayim Bialik (45:10)
• Point to research like Dr. Lisa Miller’s (on spirituality and mental health), suggesting benefits don’t rely on metaphysical truth for practical value.

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “When science becomes too politically correct, too woke, it ceases to earn respect as a truth seeking institution.”
  — Dr. Steven Pinker (04:37)

• “If you give a boy a hammer, the whole world is a nail. Psychiatrist ... their toolkit is drugs.”
  — Dr. Steven Pinker (13:49)

• “Nature, the world does not go to a state of lower entropy. That violates the most fundamental law of science, the second law of thermodynamics.”
  — Dr. Steven Pinker (20:26)

• “If ESP existed, the world would be unrecognizable. ... It also means that the laws of physics ... would have to be false.”
  — Dr. Steven Pinker (23:02)

• “People believe all kinds of false things, which is interesting to someone like me as a psychologist.”
  — Dr. Steven Pinker (33:19)

• “I think it's better that people believe true things and not believe false things.”
  — Dr. Steven Pinker (33:51)

Key Timestamps

• 01:06: Introduction to Part Two and framing the upcoming debate.
• 02:19: Pinker on distinguishing science from politicization and the importance of scientific objectivity.
• 06:50: Academic freedom, defunding, and the politicization of antisemitism (Harvard case study).
• 10:48: Big Pharma’s influence on mental health care, medications versus alternative therapies.
• 17:00: The human temptation for simple answers and scapegoats.
• 20:26: Heated debate on the reality of ESP, God, and mysticism (start of philosophy showdown).
• 25:50: Near-death experiences: are they real, misremembered, or explained solely by psychology?
• 33:19: The validity and psychological value of personal spiritual/mystical experiences.
• 40:42: The ethics of allowing “beneficial delusions” versus the harm of policy-level false beliefs.
• 45:10: Post-interview reflections on the confrontational dynamic and the limits of certainty.

Conclusion

Part Two of Mayim Bialik's conversation with Dr. Steven Pinker does not shy away from controversy or intellectual sparring. What begins as a structured critique of cancel culture and the dangers of politicizing science quickly morphs into a broader, deeply philosophical confrontation over what constitutes knowledge, belief, and well-being. Pinker stands firm in materialist skepticism, while Mayim and Jonathan champion a more open, experience-based curiosity—particularly when it relates to mental health and meaning-making. The episode provides no easy answers but leaves listeners with an engaging, honest, and sometimes fiery look at the ongoing battle lines between science, skepticism, belief, and the complexities of the human mind.

For further discussion and reference:

• Dr. Steven Pinker’s website and works
• The Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard
• Dr. Lisa Miller’s Spirituality Mind Body Institute (Columbia)
• University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies
• End-of-life psilocybin research at MD Anderson
• Previous Mayim Bialik’s Breakdown episodes with Lisa Miller, Bruce Grayson, Scott Barry Kaufman

(End of Summary)