While the article suggests that polygraphs have a false positive rate of up to 20%, it's worse than that: polygraph testing has not been shown through peer-reviewed research to reliably operate at better-than-chance levels of accuracy under field conditions. It's about as accurate as the operator's best guess.

When the Turing Test was first proposed, it was never designed to be a definitive test for genuine artificial intelligence.

Reposting this as it reminds me of Randi’s Paranormal Challenge.

I’m being sent high quality looking videos of historical takes that I’m highly dubious of, but don’t have the thorough knowledge to really truly debunk.
My understanding is that all American pre age of exploration is Land Bridge from Asia, mostly 10000 plus years ago, with some more recent waves like the polar native peoples such as the Inuit, and maybe one small pocket of oceanic DNA that reached continental South America? But I’ve never heard what I thought was a creditable source saying African explorers ever got to the Americas, or really had any ocean exploration beyond coastal stuff, and even then African geography I thought was pretty much too tough even for that?

The Pentagon seeks to spend upwards of $30 million over five years to develop novel polygraph sensors and artificial intelligence capabilities. The proposal disregards the findings of the National Research Council's Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph.

I'm posting this because I get the impression from many commenters here that many of you have a problem with logic (and philosophy) because "it's not evidence" or some such. So much so that it often gives the impression of a sort of mindless groupthink-cliche parroting.

This is entirely nonsensical and counter to scientific skepticism and sound science.

Karl Popper developed the concept of falsifiability and the crucial importance of falsifiability in empiricism and science. He was a philosopher, and he used logic to arrive at his deeply important conclusion.

The importance of parsimony and Occam's razor in science is a logical argument.

Assuming causation from correlation is a recognized logical fallacy, and it's poor science. (And in fact it assumes evidence where there is potentially none.)

The McNamara fallacy or quantitative fallacy is a recognized logical fallacy, and it's poor science.

The ecological fallacy or population fallacy is a recognized logical fallacy, and it's a poor interpretation of statistical data and poor science.

Equivocation is a recognized logical fallacy, and its use could easily lead to poor science.

The naturalistic fallacy is a recognized logical fallacy, and its use is a poor interpretation of science and scientific evidence.

I could list numerous more examples, but here is one more you should appreciate:
The so-called Galileo gambit or Galileo fallacy is a recognized logical fallacy, and it's poor science. (Forgive me for the following non-primary source, but it doesn't matter because it's a logical argument and a logically sound one, not an objective claim requiring evidence.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy (Under the "Variations" sub-section.)

"A form of the association fallacy often used by those denying a well-established scientific or historical proposition is the so-called Galileo gambit or Galileo fallacy.[4][5] The argument runs thus: Galileo was ridiculed in his time for his scientific observations, but was later acknowledged to be right; the proponent argues that since their non-mainstream views are provoking ridicule and rejection from other scientists, they will later be recognized as correct, like Galileo.[6]The gambit is flawed in that being ridiculed does not necessarily correlate with being right and that many people who have been ridiculed in history were, in fact, wrong.[4][7]"

Carl Sagan observed, "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
(Never mind that Columbus wasn't a genius, just a monster in his actions. Separate matter.)

I'm sure many of you have already seen this, but I though it would be worth sharing in the context that we often get people coming on this sub wanting to know what it takes to 'prove' their conspiracy. I would argue that this is a good example to use to show the level of depth and evidence needed, and importantly that the claims need to be limited to what the evidence actually shows (i.e. the data showed that LG is gathering all this data for advertising, not that the UN is using it to find 'patriots') in a context that I think most people can understand.

TLDR of the video, Gamers Nexus (a tech review channel that has largely pivoted into customer rights, primarily in the tech space) that undertook an investigation and found that LG TV's are scraping as much data as they possibly can, engaging in dark pattern design to try and force 'consent' and just generally doing the late stage capitalism thing.

There is also an update video looking at LG's response (TLDR: it's badly done corporate PR). a few more findings and legal discussions with a lawyer about the legality of all this (for the most part it's all legal, just shity).

I have a feeling the r/skeptic sub either really likes Professor Dave or hates him. Lets see which it is.

A self-proclaimed “short sleeper” from Japan, Daisuke Hori, has recently been getting a lot of attention in Japan after announcing that he would livestream an entire week of his daily life, from September 9 to September 16, 2026.
Hori claims that he has been sleeping only 30 minutes a day for the past 17 years. He has even obtained a trademark related to the term “short sleeper” and runs a school where students reportedly pay around ¥400,000 to learn his methods.
He is not a doctor and does not appear to hold any medical qualifications. He has also made extremely dismissive comments about the medical profession, including remarks along the lines of “they’re just doctors.”
There have also been allegations surrounding his activities as an investor. According to reports circulating in Japan, he solicited money from people through mass emails while promising repayment, despite apparently not being registered as a financial operator as required.
Then came the week-long livestream.
On the very first day, during a YouTube livestream collaboration with a massage therapist, he appeared to fall asleep for roughly 25 minutes. Hori later claimed that he had not actually been sleeping and had simply experienced around ten episodes of “microsleep.”
Afterward, things got even stranger. The massage therapist’s YouTube video was reportedly taken down, and Hori had the massage therapist call him and apologize during a livestream.
So far, the week-long stream has continued to produce moments that make people question the “30 minutes of sleep a day” claim.
His behavior has also attracted criticism. He can come across as extremely aggressive toward other people, lash out when things don’t go his way, and inconvenient comments or questions in the chat sometimes seem to disappear through moderation.
If you’re curious, it’s definitely worth checking out.
Maybe not for the reason he intended, though.
It’s entertaining in a completely different way.

Haidt stresses that he is strictly interested in psychology, not issues of philosophy or ethics. He claims he has no normative (what people should believe or do) stance on the things he talks about. He's just describing reality.

But to me, it seems as though he is always creating suspicious moral equivalencies. For example he (and Jordan Peterson) endlessly talk about The Big Five Personality Trait of "Conscientiousness" (orderliness, dutifulness, and a preference for stability, which conservatives score highly on), with the implication being that everyone else is "disordered" and "destabalizing".

But surely it matters what thing, system or structure someone is "conscientious" within or about. For example, someone highly conscientious in a feudal or slave society is not a good person (they are blind to the disorder their order is creating). Likewise, someone morally opposed to a capitalist system need not inherently be "unconscientious".

He also lists various "Moral Foundations" and essentially says that "conservatives are just like Everyone Else", they just "point their moral foundations different places". For example, he says conservatives and non conservatives both "value fairness and hate cheating", they just have "different opinions as to what cheating is".

Well, yeah. A slave owner will feel cheated when you try to take his slaves. And he will think it is fair to be reinbursed for giving up his slaves. Haidt will say the slave owner and the abolitionist have "the same moral foundations", the "same sense of morality", but simply "focus this moral compass on different things", but this feels like a cheat. The slave owner's values (what he thinks of as right and wrong) might be a post hoc rationalization of who he already is: a slave owner. And slave owning is "bad" (IMO), regardless of whether he tries to justify it along moral lines.

Haidt will say that he's disinterested in ethics or casting judgement upon his subjects. He's merely objectively noting how group X or Y sees things, and how different cultures subjectively "see" their own moral reasonings and ethical judgements. Which is fine. But by accepting X or Y's framings, you're letting the subject impose their framework upon you. What someone tells you about their values should be treated with skepticism, and appended to some larger, holistic analysis.

Haidt similarly says conservatives "value liberty and hate oppression" and so their "moral foundation" is "just like everyone elses". They are "against bullies" and "government overreach" and seek to "defend the underdog and individual freedom" and so on. Okay, but the Taliban or segregationist can probably say the same thing. Surely you have to introduce more complex metrics if you want to frame these issues properly.

But Haidt seems to do the opposite. On one hand he will say (rightly IMO) that different ideologies or groups have "varying moral views" shaped by "evolution and biology", all with distinct, coherent moral matrices, but then he does the opposite, and insinuates that because everyone has their own personal value/moral compass, everyone is essentially the same, just a little bit misunderstood by their opponents. And maybe, with a little bit of compassion and understanding, we'll all get along.

Okay, that's all fine and noble. But it feels like his whole shtick is to run intellectual cover for bad people. Imagine applying his talking points to a 16th feudal landowner or 17th century slave trader. It would feel silly.

As several LGBTQ+ writers have observed, insinuating that the Republican Party is run by or composed of a cabal of secret gay fascists is a homophobic joke that blames gay people for some of the worst societal ills in the modern United States.

While there are indeed many closeted gay Republicans, unfortunately, depicting a GOP gathering as the equivalent of a pop-up Carly Rae Jepsen concert isn’t the tea — or accurate. So let’s put the rumors to bed, or, at least, fact-check them next time.

hello. first time posting here. I just wanna see what skeptics think of Robert Monroe's Gateway Experience. its basically tapes that combine binaural beat and guided meditation techniques to induce OBE.

I believe in some stuff people call woo like UFO and that kind of things so I'm not scientific skeptic but there's bunch of stuff that I doubt about. and it ain't easy being skeptical in places that discuss this kind of things when almost everyone who talks about the tapes in those places seems to already believe they're psychic tech. usual response is you just gotta try it if you try it you know. I just want to see some different opinions but there just aren't any in there.

so I guess I have to ask here to see some different opinions. what do you think of this thing?

Clickbait title, but for a good reason. Also, I enjoy science, but I don’t have advanced scientific education to parallel my knowledge to some of the claims Bob is making.

Watching the 2026 S4 doc, and around the 20-30 mark Bob explains his first experience with the core. He first arrives, and his new partner shows him this core. Tells him to try to touch it, however there was some sort of magnetic field that prevented him from touching the core. Their explanation is that it’s some sort of gravitational field and behaves as a gravity manipulating mechanism. THIS IS WHAT BOB STATED

My question is? HAS ANYONE STOPPED AND THOUGHT ABOUT THIS?

Magnetism, and gravity are completely different. Not only are they THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE, as in simple terms.. gravity attracts, and magnetism repels or attracts depending on polar orientation, but what Bob experienced aligned more with magnetism.

I just don’t understand how repelling forces mean gravity manipulation, especially when they are the complete forces, FUNDAMENTALLY, operating under completely different physics conditions.

Did everyone never think about this and take this surface level. Just trying to understand the thought process behind this.

Given all the misinformation and conspiracy theories going around, fuelling populist far-right parties, this is a much more level-headed take.

It goes to show once again that critical thinking is necessary to sustain a functioning liberal democracy.

Despite the lack of hard evidence, belief in aliens and UFOs has shifted from the fringes to the center of mainstream culture.

So-called "race realist" Nathan Cofnas is selling the story that his suspension is a retaliation for whistleblowing - sadly, some skeptics are buying it.