Michael Shermer Under the Microscope: The Critics, Researchers, Scientists, and Scholars Who Have Challenged the Skeptic-in-Chief
By JM Talboo
DebunkerBusters.blogspot.com
An ongoing catalog of challenges to Michael Shermer's arguments, interpretations, conclusions, and approach to skepticism
Michael Shermer is one of the best-known public skeptics in America. As the founder of the Skeptics Society and publisher of Skeptic magazine, he has built much of his public reputation around examining extraordinary claims, challenging pseudoscience, and separating evidence from speculation.
His subjects have included UFOs, paranormal phenomena, psychic abilities, religion, God, evolution, consciousness, near-death experiences, climate change, history, morality, and human psychology.
But what happens when the skeptic becomes the subject of skepticism?
There is another side to this story that deserves attention: the people who have challenged Shermer's arguments, questioned his interpretations of scientific research, disputed his conclusions, or accused him of applying skepticism inconsistently.
This isn't an argument that Shermer is always wrong. Nor does disagreeing with him automatically make someone right. Rather, it is an invitation to apply the same critical-thinking standards to Shermer that he applies to everyone else.
Below is a collection of some of the more interesting challenges, disputes, and counterarguments worth investigating.
1. Steve Weathers (SpookyOne): Challenging Michael Shermer's 9/11 arguments
Subject areas: September 11, WTC collapses, forensic evidence, thermite claims, demolition evidence, and the treatment of 9/11 researchers.
An interesting entry from the 911 Debunkers archives comes from February 4, 2010.
The article, titled "911 Truth: Michael Shermer's Amateur Disinformation Attempt Fails (again!)," was written by Steve Weathers, known online as SpookyOne.
Steve is a contributor to 911 Debunkers and a good friend of mine. His work is part of the history of this blog's ongoing examination of 9/11 claims, counterclaims, and the people who attempt to debunk them.
In this particular article, Steve challenged Shermer's response to 9/11 researchers and examined a number of arguments concerning the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings.
Among the subjects addressed were:
- The interpretation of the World Trade Center collapses.
- Claims concerning molten metal and thermite.
- Alleged explosive ejections during the collapses.
- Eyewitness reports of explosions.
- The collapse of World Trade Center 7.
- The significance of Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment.
- The removal and preservation of World Trade Center steel.
- Shermer's reliance on demolition-industry commentary.
The rebuttal also challenged the way Shermer characterized the people questioning the official account, arguing that he was dismissing substantive questions rather than adequately addressing them.
This is another example of the long-running debate over Shermer's treatment of 9/11 research and the counterarguments that have been published in response.
Original article:
911 Truth: Michael Shermer's Amateur Disinformation Attempt Fails (again!) — Steve Weathers (SpookyOne), February 4, 2010
Another contribution: Michael Shermer the Pseudo Skeptical Propagandist (October 15, 2013)
Steve Weathers returned to the subject of Michael Shermer in another article published on 911 Debunkers, titled Michael Shermer the Pseudo Skeptical Propagandist.
This time, Steve brought together criticisms from two researchers: Jim Hoffman, a prominent 9/11 researcher, and Professor Anthony Hall.
The article examines several recurring criticisms of Shermer's approach to 9/11:
- Jim Hoffman and the scientific method: Hoffman challenged Shermer's use of sweeping generalizations when dismissing 9/11 research and argued that Shermer failed to engage with the cumulative evidence presented by researchers.
- Misrepresentation of opposing arguments: The article examines Hoffman's criticism that Shermer reduced complex arguments to simplified versions that were easier to dismiss.
- Professor Anthony Hall and guilt by association: Hall criticized Shermer's tendency to group together very different researchers and controversial subjects under the broad label of conspiracy theory.
- The use of ridicule and psychological associations: Hall questioned whether Shermer's presentations encouraged audiences to dismiss researchers through association and ridicule rather than examining their specific evidence.
- The broader question of scientific skepticism: Both criticisms raise the question of whether Shermer consistently applies the scientific standards he advocates.
Steve's article also revisits Shermer's arguments concerning the World Trade Center collapses, molten metal, and the treatment of 9/11 researchers.
This is a particularly worthwhile addition because it documents not just Steve's own criticism, but also his effort to bring the work of other critics into the discussion.
Original article:
Michael Shermer the Pseudo Skeptical Propagandist — Steve Weathers (SpookyOne), October 15, 2013
2. Rupert Sheldrake: Is Shermer practicing skepticism or defending materialism?
Subject areas: Morphic resonance, telepathy, consciousness, the sense of being stared at, and the philosophy of science.
One of the most direct and extensive challenges to Shermer comes from biologist and author Rupert Sheldrake.
Sheldrake has repeatedly challenged Shermer's treatment of his research, particularly regarding morphic resonance and experiments investigating whether people can detect when somebody is staring at them.
In a response titled Do Skeptics Play Fair?, Sheldrake argued that Shermer had mischaracterized his hypothesis, including attributing a concept of a universal life force to him that Sheldrake says he never proposed.
Sheldrake also disputed Shermer's presentation of the experimental evidence concerning the sense of being stared at, arguing that Shermer left out relevant published research and independent analyses.
This is particularly interesting because the disagreement isn't simply about whether paranormal phenomena exist. It concerns the standards by which evidence is evaluated and whether a skeptic can dismiss a hypothesis without adequately engaging with the research behind it.
Further reading:
- Rupert Sheldrake: Do Skeptics Play Fair?
- Sheldrake: Countering the Reactions of Skeptics
- Michael Shermer's Attacks, Updated
- The debate continues
Sheldrake and Shermer have also participated in discussions covering the nature of science, psi phenomena, and the existence of God.
Their exchanges are collected in Arguing Science.
That's worth examining in its own right: two people who disagree about the boundaries of scientific inquiry actually putting their arguments on the table.
3. Pim van Lommel: The near-death experience controversy
Subject areas: Near-death experiences, consciousness, brain activity, and the mind-brain relationship.
Dutch cardiologist Pim van Lommel became well known for research into near-death experiences, including a landmark study published in The Lancet in 2001.
Shermer discussed the research in connection with the question of whether consciousness can exist independently of the brain.
However, critics disputed his interpretation of the study.
Science communicator Jay Ingram criticized Shermer's presentation, arguing that he had used the study to support a conclusion contrary to the researchers' own interpretation.
Van Lommel subsequently wrote to Scientific American to challenge Shermer's characterization.
There is an important distinction here: the study does not establish that consciousness survives death, nor does it prove that the brain is irrelevant to consciousness. But the disagreement over what the research actually says is precisely the kind of issue that deserves closer examination.
Further reading:
- Skeptical About Skeptics: Michael Shermer
- Pim van Lommel research and near-death experiences
4. Dean Radin: Can psi research be dismissed so easily?
Subject areas: Telepathy, parapsychology, experimental research, statistics, and consciousness.
Dean Radin is a researcher associated with the Institute of Noetic Sciences and a prominent figure in experimental parapsychology.
Radin has challenged conventional skeptical dismissals of psi research, including the question of whether statistical results across multiple experiments deserve consideration.
He is particularly relevant to Shermer's disputes with Sheldrake.
Sheldrake has cited Radin's meta-analysis of research into the sense of being stared at as evidence that the subject deserves more serious consideration than Shermer's criticism suggests.
Radin has also publicly defended Sheldrake's work against dismissals that he considers insufficiently informed.
The larger question is whether a collection of statistically significant experimental results should be dismissed because the proposed phenomenon conflicts with prevailing scientific expectations.
That doesn't mean the existence of telepathy has been established. It means the experimental evidence, statistical methods, replication record, and competing explanations should be examined rather than settled through labels.
Further reading:
- Society for Psychical Research: Michael Shermer
- Rupert Sheldrake: Do Skeptics Play Fair?
5. Freeman Dyson: When a respected physicist disagrees with the skeptic
Subject areas: Scientific evidence, telepathy, anecdotal evidence, and the limits of scientific certainty.
The late physicist Freeman Dyson is another important name in this discussion.
Shermer criticized Dyson for being open to the possibility that paranormal phenomena might exist, arguing that anecdotal experiences and personal accounts are not substitutes for controlled experiments.
Dyson, however, had expressed interest in the substantial body of reported experiences and research surrounding psi phenomena.
The disagreement raises a broader question: How should scientists approach evidence that doesn't fit comfortably within existing explanatory frameworks?
Dyson's interest was not proof of paranormal phenomena. But his willingness to consider the possibility is worth distinguishing from an uncritical acceptance of extraordinary claims.
Further reading:
- Michael Shermer: Skeptical About Skeptics
6. Dallas Willard: Science, religion, and the limits of materialism
Subject areas: Philosophy, religion, consciousness, free will, and the relationship between science and spirituality.
Dallas Willard was a philosopher and professor who engaged with Shermer on questions involving science and religion.
A 2004 Veritas Forum discussion at UCLA brought Shermer into a conversation about free will and the application of science to spiritual questions.
Willard represented a philosophical perspective that challenged the assumption that scientific explanations necessarily settle every question about reality.
This is an important distinction. Science can investigate observable phenomena, but philosophical questions about knowledge, meaning, consciousness, and the nature of existence don't automatically disappear simply because somebody adopts a materialist worldview.
Further reading:
- UCLA: Forum Debates Connection Between Science and Religion
7. Ian Hutchinson: Does science refute the existence of God?
Subject areas: Physics, theology, scientific naturalism, and arguments for God's existence.
Ian Hutchinson is an MIT professor of nuclear science and engineering who has publicly challenged arguments that science disproves God.
In an Intelligence Squared debate, Hutchinson argued against the proposition that science refutes the existence of God.
His opponents included Michael Shermer and physicist Lawrence Krauss.
This is an interesting entry because it places Shermer's arguments against religion in direct confrontation with someone who has a professional background in science.
The important question isn't whether Hutchinson's position automatically wins because he is a scientist. It's whether Shermer's arguments adequately address the philosophical and scientific arguments presented by his opponents.
Further reading:
- Does Science Refute the Existence of God? — Intelligence Squared debate
8. Dinesh D'Souza: A public debate over science and God
Subject areas: Religion, atheism, philosophy, and the relationship between scientific knowledge and belief.
Dinesh D'Souza participated in the same Intelligence Squared debate, arguing against the proposition that science refutes God.
D'Souza is a controversial political commentator and author, so his arguments should be evaluated independently of his political positions.
Nevertheless, his participation provides another opportunity to examine Shermer's arguments in a formal debate setting.
It also illustrates why a catalog of Shermer's opponents should not be restricted to scientists or paranormal researchers. Philosophers, theologians, historians, and public intellectuals have all challenged different aspects of his worldview.
9. Robert Todd Carroll and the wider skeptical movement: Skeptics disagree with skeptics, too
Subject areas: Skeptical methodology, parapsychology, scientific reasoning, and competing interpretations of evidence.
Not every interesting disagreement involving Shermer comes from somebody defending paranormal or religious claims.
The skeptical movement itself contains disagreements about methodology, evidence, and how extraordinary claims should be evaluated.
Robert Todd Carroll was the creator of The Skeptic's Dictionary and a prominent figure in organized skepticism.
Sheldrake specifically challenged Carroll's criticisms of morphic resonance and his treatment of research involving the parrot N'kisi.
This is worth including because it demonstrates that the disagreements surrounding Shermer's subjects extend beyond a simple skeptic-versus-believer divide.
Sometimes the dispute is between two people who both identify with skepticism but disagree about the interpretation of the evidence.
Further reading:
- Sheldrake: Countering the Reactions of Skeptics
10. Other areas worth investigating
There are additional areas where Shermer's arguments deserve examination, even when the criticism isn't necessarily a direct rebuttal from a named opponent.
Here are several research directions for expanding this catalog.
| Subject |
People or material worth investigating |
| Near-death experiences |
Pim van Lommel, Bruce Greyson, Sam Parnia |
| Psi research |
Dean Radin, Rupert Sheldrake |
| Consciousness |
David Chalmers, Bernardo Kastrup |
| Religion and philosophy |
Dallas Willard, Ian Hutchinson |
| Scientific skepticism |
Robert Todd Carroll, Rupert Sheldrake |
| Climate change |
Shermer's earlier climate skepticism and subsequent change of position |
| History and morality |
Academic reviews and critiques of The Moral Arc |
| Evolution and intelligent design |
Formal debates and responses to Shermer's arguments |
These are research leads, not a claim that every person listed has directly debunked Shermer. Some have challenged the broader positions he defends, and those distinctions matter.
For example, Shermer himself publicly changed his position on human-caused climate change in 2006 after concluding that the evidence had become persuasive. That's an interesting example of a skeptic revising a position in response to new information.
And that's exactly the kind of intellectual honesty that should be encouraged.
11. Can Shermer's own standards be applied to Shermer?
One of the most useful ways to approach this subject is to compare Shermer's stated philosophy of skepticism with the criticisms directed at his work.
Shermer has argued that skeptics should be willing to change their minds when presented with new evidence.
He has also emphasized the importance of avoiding confirmation bias, examining competing explanations, and distinguishing genuine evidence from unsupported speculation.
Those are reasonable standards.
But they raise some equally reasonable questions:
- Has Shermer accurately represented the research he criticizes?
- Does he adequately investigate subjects before publicly dismissing them?
- Does he distinguish between a lack of an accepted explanation and evidence that something cannot happen?
- Does he give competing interpretations a fair hearing?
- Does he apply the same skepticism to materialist assumptions that he applies to religious and paranormal claims?
- When somebody challenges his conclusions with published research, does he address the substance of the criticism?
These questions aren't accusations of dishonesty. They're questions that should be asked of any influential public intellectual.
12. Resources for continuing the investigation
Here are some useful starting points for readers who want to dig deeper.
- Psi Encyclopedia: Michael Shermer — An overview of Shermer's views, controversies, and criticisms from the perspective of psychical research.
- Michael Shermer: Skeptical About Skeptics — A collection of critical examinations of Shermer's work.
- Rupert Sheldrake: Countering the Reactions of Skeptics — Sheldrake's responses to criticism, including disputes involving Shermer.
- Do Skeptics Play Fair? — Sheldrake's direct response to Shermer.
- Michael Shermer's website — Shermer's own website, including articles and responses to criticism.
A note about the sources: Some of these are written by Shermer's critics, rather than independent assessments. Their allegations should be checked against the original research, publications, and responses from Shermer himself.
13. Jeffrey Armstrong: Challenging Michael Shermer on astrology—on his own show
Subject areas: Astrology, Vedic astrology, double-blind testing, experimental methodology, and confirmation bias.
An especially interesting entry comes from astrologer Jeffrey Armstrong, who participated in a filmed exchange with Michael Shermer in which Shermer challenged him to demonstrate the accuracy of astrological readings.
The video, titled Michael Shermer Debunked by Astrologer Jeffrey Armstrong on His Own Show!, presents a direct challenge to Shermer's skepticism about astrology.
The experiment reportedly involved nine participants. Armstrong was given their birth information and recorded short readings without seeing or speaking to the participants. Shermer subsequently evaluated the readings against their responses.
A later examination by Kenneth McRitchie discusses the experiment and reports that participants agreed with 105 of Armstrong's 137 statements, approximately 77 percent. McRitchie also raises questions about the handling of two readings that were allegedly switched, and what happened when the participants heard the corrected readings.
This raises some interesting questions:
- How were the readings evaluated?
- How much of the reported accuracy could be attributed to general statements or chance?
- What effect did the alleged switching of readings have on the results?
- Did Shermer adequately address the reported outcome?
This isn't proof that astrology is scientifically established. But it is an interesting historical challenge to Shermer's position, particularly because the experiment was conducted in the context of his own skeptical investigation.
Further reading and viewing:
14. Del Bigtree and Michael Shermer: The Unexpected Vaccine Debate
Subject areas: Vaccine safety, childhood vaccination, scientific skepticism, autism, clinical trials, and the interpretation of medical evidence.
Another interesting confrontation involving Michael Shermer took place on The HighWire in October 2023.
In an episode titled Michael Shermer: The Unexpected Vaccine Debate, Shermer appeared in a discussion with Del Bigtree, host of The HighWire and a prominent critic of established vaccine policies.
The episode description explains that Shermer attempted to challenge claims made by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but the conversation took an unexpected turn when he encountered Bigtree's familiarity with the vaccine debate.
Among the issues raised in the discussion were childhood vaccine testing, placebo-controlled studies, vaccine safety, autism, and the evidence used to support claims about vaccination.
This is an interesting addition because it takes the examination of Shermer into medical science and public-health controversies. It also raises a question central to this article: Does someone who makes a career of challenging questionable claims apply the same level of scrutiny when defending established scientific and medical positions?
The debate should be examined in its entirety, including the claims made by both participants. The fact that Shermer was challenged does not automatically establish that Bigtree's arguments were correct. But the exchange provides readers with another opportunity to evaluate Shermer's reasoning in a direct discussion rather than relying on secondhand characterizations.
Original video:
Michael Shermer: The Unexpected Vaccine Debate — The HighWire, October 16, 2023
15. Jesse Michaels and Jason Jorjani: Challenging Shermer's Dismissal of an Unusual UFO-Related Case
Subject areas: UFOs, intelligence agencies, unexplained disappearances, and skeptical interpretations of unusual cases.
Another interesting reference to Michael Shermer appears in the November 7, 2026, interview There's A Cosmic War Going On Above Your Head (Jason Jorjani Part 3), published on Undebunking UFOs.
During the conversation, host Jesse Michaels brings up his recent interview with Shermer and their disagreement over the disappearance of retired Air Force Major General Neil McCasland. Michaels recounts Shermer's position as essentially dismissing the circumstances as nothing particularly unusual. Michaels pushes back, arguing that McCasland's background and his role overseeing thousands of Special Access Programs made the case worthy of much closer scrutiny.
Michaels also questions Shermer's suggestion that the matter was simply for local authorities to investigate, arguing that the FBI and intelligence agencies should be involved. He even acknowledges that he may have been too accommodating during his own interview with Shermer, saying he was probably too nice.
This is not an extensive examination of Shermer's arguments, nor does it establish that any particular explanation for McCasland's disappearance is correct. But it does provide another example of someone questioning how readily Shermer dismisses an unusual case—this time in a discussion that touches directly on UFOs, intelligence agencies, and the possibility of information being withheld from the public.
Source:
There's A Cosmic War Going On Above Your Head (Jason Jorjani Part 3) — Undebunking UFOs, November 7, 2026
Final thoughts: Nobody gets a free pass from skepticism
Michael Shermer has spent much of his career questioning claims made by other people. He's challenged paranormal investigators, religious believers, UFO researchers, alternative medicine advocates, and proponents of numerous unconventional theories.
That's his prerogative.
But skepticism isn't supposed to be a protected position occupied by a select group of people who get to decide which ideas deserve consideration.
If a paranormal researcher misrepresents a scientific study, that deserves criticism. If a skeptic misrepresents a scientific study, that deserves criticism too.
If somebody makes an extraordinary claim without adequate evidence, challenge it. If somebody dismisses an extraordinary claim without adequately examining the evidence, challenge that as well.
The objective shouldn't be to replace one unquestionable authority with another. It should be to question everybody, including the people who make a living questioning everybody else.
And that includes Michael Shermer.
This article is intended as a starting point for further investigation. The inclusion of an individual or controversy does not imply that Shermer has been conclusively debunked on that subject. Readers are encouraged to examine the original arguments, evidence, and counterarguments.
This is an ongoing investigation. More critics, debates, rebuttals, and documented disagreements can be added as they come to light.
Many people subconsciously make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of gray. This is known as the black-or-white fallacy. In this case, the false dilemma is: 9/11 was either carried out by Al-Qaeda or it was "an inside job."
