Exploring the under-representation of women in skepticism and science, sparked by recent incidents. Discussions on misogyny problem in skeptic communities, women's exclusion, and experiences. Data-driven behavior changes and addressing gender disparities. Challenges faced by women in skeptic spaces, debates on responsibility and offense. Gender representation at conferences, lack of diversity, and experiences of women in skepticism. Book and essay recommendations on society, culture, and education.

Julia and Massimo discuss the limits of reason, including failures in foundational projects. They explore the evolutionary psychology of reasoning and cognitive biases. The conversation touches on the difficulty of grasping profound scientific concepts and the intersection of technology and philosophy.

Imagine a time when a dispute between two philosophers was the talk of high society. That is the time that our guest, Robert Zarertsky, describes in his book "The Philosophers' Quarrel: Rousseau, Hume, and the Limits of Human Understanding." He tells the story of the short and dramatic friendship between Hume and Rousseau. Hume, who championed the progress of the sciences and arts, and Rousseau, who questioned progress, wondering whether it was just another word for moral decay and despair. He also discusses the implications their friendship may have had on the Enlightenment's conceptions of reason and human understanding. Robert Zaretsky is a professor of French history at the University of Houston Honors College and the Department of History. He has published several books about philosophy and history of philosophy.

Massimo and Julia answer listeners' questions. In this installment the topics include: what would they teach in a class in critical thinking, their view of analytics vs. continental philosophy, the ethics of profiteering from a drought in examplistan, how do they compartmentalize their rationality, how does modern technology affect the way we think about things, and what is or should be the primary purpose of our species. Also, is there really a rational argument to prove the divine origin of the bible?

The podcast explores the concept of free will from philosophical and scientific perspectives, delving into the determinism of the universe, subconscious influences on decision-making, the illusion of introspection, and the debate on moral responsibility in legal contexts. It also discusses creativity through analogies in computer programs and ethical considerations in regulating markets.

Holden Karnofsky, founder of GiveWell, discusses evidence-based philanthropy, evaluating charity effectiveness, the dual nature of microfinance, under-supported areas in philanthropy, ethical reasoning for giving, and perspectives on poverty alleviation.

Psychologists study what factors truly impact happiness, like money and love. Debates on whether parents are less happy than non-parents and if happiness has a 'set point'. Philosophical questions arise regarding the measurement and types of happiness. Ancient Greek philosophy on happiness and ethics is explored. Can happiness really be measured objectively with societal influences and cultural expectations? Economic principles and pursuing happiness indirectly are also discussed.

Universities all around the country are closing programs in the humanities, at least in part because of the increasing widespread attitude that higher education should be treated as a business, and that programs that bring in money in the form of high tuitions from students and external grants are to be prioritized. SUNY Albany, for example, announced in the Fall of 2010 that the departments of French, Italian, Classics, Russian and Theater Arts were being eliminated. So, what is the point of studying languages, literature, history or philosophy? Can we, and perhaps more importantly, should we quantify their value? Can we have universities that focus only on science and marketable skills?

Exploring the purpose and impact of philosophy of science, contrasting methodologies of Popper and Kuhn, flaws in standard hypothesis testing, role of philosophers in science, debunking a Feynman quote, and technological limits in discovery.

If the recent hoopla about the royal wedding wasn’t enough to remind you, we live in a culture of celebrity, one where famous people command our attention and often pontificate on things they know nothing about. Obvious examples include the nonsense spewed out by Prince Charles about alternative medicine, and the former model Jenny McCarthy and her dangerous notion that vaccines are harmful because they cause autism. But these, of course, are easy targets. What are we to make of Ray Kurzweil (he of Singularity fame), who recently co-authored a book with a homeopath? Or of otherwise savvy political commentator Bill Maher, who doesn’t trust vaccines or anything coming from “Western” medicine? And then there are highly respectable intellectuals, like Stephen Hawking, who write off entire fields of inquiry (philosophy, in his case), without apparently knowing much about them. So what is going on here? Why do so many people listen to Jenny McCarthy? And why do so many bright minds go public with ridiculous notions? Is there a pattern? Can we do something to defend ourselves and the public from the celebrity attack on reason?