r/skeptic

In "Communion", JD Vance seeks to explain his shift from atheism to Catholicism, but illustrates only the dangers of putting religion at the heart of politics.

For decades, scientists believed the Moon was completely dry. This video explores how Apollo samples, Clementine, Lunar Prospector, Chandrayaan-1, LCROSS, LRO, and SOFIA gradually revealed the presence of water on the Moon and transformed our understanding of lunar science.

The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of profit-driven media catalyzed political polarization in America.
It caused a historical shift from a regulated broadcast era—where stations were legally required to present diverse viewpoints—to a modern landscape dominated by partisan outrage on talk radio, cable news, and social media.
Not long after followed the telecommunications act of 1996 and the 'homogenization of radio' , which led to the consolidation of most of the US media under the boot of a few mega corporations.
Media companies transitioned from informing the public to monetizing anger, using psychological manipulation and algorithms to keep audiences engaged. While I note that the original doctrine was sometimes weaponized by politicians, its absence allowed for an "attention economy" that rewards conspiratorial thinking over civil debate.
Ultimately, the pursuit of commercial engagement has replaced the media's former obligation to serve the public interest

As in, I want a playlist where some dude (Professor Dave, miniminuteman, Jamies, and people like them) react to some dumb video/tv show and debunk it.

Hey guys
So I have been searching for people who studied astrology and know a bit more than average about it, but then stopped believing.
Why am I not seeing them anywhere?
It’s either the rational minds who never tried or crazy “astrology is 100% correct it can predict anything”

Is there an in-between?
I have seen some patterns in Jyotish (sideral vedic astrology) but my rational part of brain wants to discuss this and find answers.

People who know their charts and realised that it’s bs , where are you?

For context, I believe in God but not in divinations… altho some knowledge of my chart spooked me. So I am searching for people who figured that it’s bs 🫪

Edit: please stop downvoting me 😁 it’s enough I downvote myself every day
The reason I came here is cause I need you, rational people. I need to battle those superstitions I have lived in my whole life

Hey folks! I'm pleased to let you know that I just successfully defended my PhD in astrophysics :) to do so, I had to write and publicly defend a dissertation on my work in high-energy/gravitational astrophysics. While doing this, I had a really interesting idea.

I received very helpful and constructive feedback from my committee on several chapters in my thesis, and the thought occurred that maybe I could have polished it more before sending it to them if I had passed it through an LLM first, to see if it could spot at least the most significant issues. I was intrigued by this because (1) this is WAY easier than the previous experiments I've done. Reading an intro chapter containing knowledge *comfortably* within its training dataset and fact-checking it for technical issues should be well-within the applicable use cases for a "PhD-level expert in your pocket" that is "too dangerous to be released" as they are marketed. And (2) this would be a shockingly useful use case for me. If I could get reliable, substantive feedback on my writing I would run everything I have through these things. It's like having a free grader that you can converse with as much as you want--I would be thrilled by this.

My method was fairly simple. I have a rough draft of my introductory chapter, and comments from my committee. If I pass the same text through an LLM, will it give me similar feedback? I'm not asking it to do new science or make any discoveries; just to check my descriptions of frankly very well-established concepts, which should be a piece of cake for something that is "better than PhD level" in "all subjects no exceptions" which does well on tests that "most PhDs would fail". I use Claude Opus 4.7 with extended thinking activated on the maximum effort mode, which is the best model I had access to (this was conducted back in April).

The results were frankly quite shocking to me. It read through the text in detail and returned about 30 comments. Claude returned 13 of what it called "genuine technical errors", four of what it called "citation/factual issues", and five "logical/expository issues". Of the 13 technical errors, one was accurate but extremely minor (suggested word change from "evaporated" -> "released"), three were factually correct but not an error I made--Claude simply restated something I said correctly--and 9 were fully inaccurate, hallucination-level claims, like confidently claiming I reported a formula incorrectly and even citing the original paper when what I had written matched the original formula exactly. Just straight up hallucinations of honestly not very complicated material. One of the best illustrations of this was when it claimed a formula for Type IIP supernova plateau luminosity L ~ Ec/(k M) was dimensionally incorrect, which is an incredibly simple check that it got wrong. I was absolutely blown away by this error (and there were many more like it) since a high school student could have correctly checked the units on that expression and realized it was right. I go through a few other examples with more detailed explanations in the video, if you want to see more.

Of all the comments it gave, basically zero were correct besides very minor typo fixes. The worst part of it was there was actually a glaring conceptual error in the chapter that my committee flagged immediately, that Opus should have been able to spot as it was a pretty severe mis-statement of an important concept. Its the exact kind of thing I would have been raving about had it spotted it since that would be incredibly useful as someone who needs to learn new things frequently and would love a check on my conceptual understanding.

I understand that we are sort of getting societally acclimated to the approximately correct nature of LLMs. But based on my experience with this particular experiment, I would be extremely cautious when relying on any unsourced statements or interpretation from them, no matter how seemingly trivial. The wide range of hallucinations ranging from direct mis-statements of literature to completely missing deep conceptual issues raised alarm bells for me, especially given how these tools are touted based on their supposed expertise level and even their performance on graduate exams. This task should have been comparatively easy and I'm honestly at a loss for why it was so difficult. I know there will be comments saying that I should use the $200/mo version but I strongly believe that this task (which solely required information synthesis and comparison of a very tightly constrained set of ideas fully available online and in its training data, ZERO creativity or discovery ability required) should have been well within the purview of Opus 4.7 + extended thinking + maximum effort. It's not like I ran out of tokens--the response was just wrong on all counts.

I'm really curious to know your thoughts on this. We've had great discussions here in the past and the general sense I got was that people are not surprised these things can't do science. But did you have a vague sense they were at least good at *literature review* and information synthesis? Have you had a chance to do a very deep dive with an LLM on something you are an expert in? Would love to hear your thoughts! Thanks so much for taking the time to read this.

I knew DNA evidence wasn‘t perfect, but I had no idea it was being used so recklessly and was so easily contaminated.

From their YouTube description: DNA evidence is supposed to be the gold standard of criminal investigation. But what happens when that same technology sends innocent people to prison? Featuring interviews with Amanda Knox and forensic DNA expert Dr. Greg Hampikian, this is my investigation of DNA forensics, and what happens when we trust the science but don't ask the right questions.

Ky Dickens sits down with neuroscientist Dr. Mayim Bialik to explore the tension between science and skepticism.

With a PhD in neuroscience and a career shaped by both scientific rigor and cultural storytelling, Mayim has explored the questions on the edge of scientific understanding and that which can’t be quantified. From near-death experiences and spontaneous healing to telepathy, savant abilities, and the limits of measurement, she reflects on where the scientific method holds and where it begins to fall short.

As more people share experiences that don’t neatly fit into existing frameworks, this conversation asks: what counts as evidence? And is it possible to build a framework that allows both skepticism and wonder to coexist?

Hi all, archaeologist Flint Dibble here.

Giorgio Tsoukalos (Mr Ancient Aliens) came at me yesterday on Twitter, insulting me with crude language. He then slid into my DMs to continue the rant

Today, I am challenging him to a public debate about the Ancient Astronaut Theory

This is a short video summarizing situation.

I've listened to every episode. EVERY ONE.

I feel the show's really going downhill, and I want to get this off my chest somewhere where it won't be instantly moderated. I hope this is the place - if not tell me where.

So Evan got booted off the show for trolling in social media. Fine, but the larger issue is that Kara is RUINING the show! She constantly interrupts Steve when he's on a roll and it makes the show unlistenable.

Jay is also bad now, and Who's That Noisy is a the worst segment (What's the Word second).

This is something I've noticed in real-life also and I get this may be hurtful, but ppl on anti-depressants (as both Kara and Jay have openly admitted to on the show) seem to have no idea when NOT to speak. Bob and Evan (now gone) know when to keep their mouths shut.

It's at the point that when I hear Kara I just hit fast forward until I don't hear her anymore. But there's no escape because she talks so much. I end up blasting thru much of the episode, hoping for something from Bob and definitely listening to Science or Fiction.

Anyone else?

Megalithic Mysteries is a Twitter account and YouTube channel promoting pseudo-archaeological narratives about history, such as claiming there is no evidence ancient Egyptians could have built the pyramids, and asserting the structures which Incan records say they built were in fact “beyond their capabilities”.

In his video The Ancient Mystery The Spanish Tried To Bury, published on 9 January 2026, Megalithic Mysteries claims the Spanish could not believe humans had built the Incan structures at Sacsayhuamán, attributed their construction to demons, tried to destroy them with cannons, then tried to hide them by burying them.

He further claims the Inca could not have built these structures since they did not have the necessary technology, and instead found the structures already complete on their arrival, repairing, maintaining, modifying, and building on top of them.

This video is the first in a series showing none of these claims are true. Megalithic Mysteries fails to mention all the historical evidence which contradicts him.
_______________________
Time stamps
00:02 Introduction
01:11 Were the megaliths carved with precision?
05:22 Did the Spanish believe the walls were made by demons?
_______________________
Tony Trupp's excellent article on Incan construction methods & history.
_______________________
Media credits & sources.

I’ve been looking into the famous 2009 Guyuron et al. twin study on facial aging. While it’s widely cited as definitive proof of how smoking and sun exposure cause aging, I think the way it's being "fact-checked" and reported in the media right now is actually a masterclass in oversimplification.

The study (Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2009) actually identified a complex set of environmental and biological factors—including BMI, hormone replacement therapy, and lifestyle environments. Yet, media outlets (like Yahoo/Snopes) often treat the "smoking vs. non-smoking" comparison as an isolated variable experiment.

As someone who looks at systems, I’m concerned about the "Fact Check" narrative here. Are we really auditing the study, or are we just reinforcing a clean, binary narrative ("Smoking = Old") while ignoring the systemic "noise" (stress, career, socioeconomic factors) that the original researchers actually attempted to correlate?

When high-profile science journalism "fact-checks" a study by stripping away the nuanced variables to make the takeaway more digestible, does it actually help the public understanding of science, or does it just create a new, more "official" set of oversimplified myths?