I sometimes get asked for a simplified definition of critical thinking—the gist, if you will. I made numerous attempts to do this in a previous post, one of which was "playing devil’s advocate." And that’s exactly what I’m going to do here.
Joe Rogan is no stranger to controversy, but it seems that following recent conversations with his guests about climate change and the pandemic, the proverbial straw may have broken the back of many people’s tolerance for with the podcast host. A number of musical acts have removed their discography from Spotify in a stand against being associated with the same platform that hosts Rogan’s podcast. The primary grievance: the use of his podcast as a platform for misinformation. Regular readers of this blog know that misinformation and disinformation are among the core enemies of critical thought and that one of the aims of this page, since I started it in 2017, is to give people the tools to identify and help combat the spread of such spurious information. However, we must play devil’s advocate here.
Am I a fan of Rogan’s podcast? Not particularly—"indifferent" might be a better description—but I do listen from time to time. Does he make frequent "less than considered" statements? Yes. However, he also frequently states that he’s no expert when discussing topics outside of MMA or show business. He’s open to being wrong. That’s intellectual humility. He treats his guests with respect, asks them questions, and engages them in conversation—regardless of what they say. Does he host a lot of less-than-credible individuals? Yes. But for every quack he has on his show, it seems, he also has a credible, well-respected expert—Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, and Steven Pinker instantly come to mind as examples, having appeared on classic episodes of the podcast.
It seems much of the coverage around the controversy is asking whether what Rogan’s doing is wrong. Some may argue that yes, it doesn’t matter how many credible guests he has had on, giving just one individual an opportunity to spew misinformation or disinformation is wrong. I can certainly side with that sentiment, given the telos of this blog; but I also recognise that right-and-wrong is a completely subjective moral construct. It’s relative. For example, are we calling for bans on other podcasts—or even many news outlets—for their biased views or misinformation? Sometimes, yes. But eventually, we forget about it and move on with our lives. I imagine this situation is not likely to be much different. Is Rogan doing his audience a disservice by providing a platform for such misinformation? Arguably, yes, because some people will unfortunately fall for the nonsense, such as in cases where experts in one area unwarrantedly speculate on another. (Stick to the evidence-based psychology, Jordan.)
On the other hand, it can also be reasonably argued that Rogan isn’t doing a disservice. Consistent with Socratic questioning, providing someone a platform, such as in the long-form as Rogan does, we give them opportunities to contradict themselves or "get found out." This is precisely what has happened here. Spurious information has been brought to light and research communities can come together to debunk it in a more public manner than they ever could before. In a way, Rogan can be said to be doing a service: Researchers may now be better aware of what kind of misinformation is out there. However, calls for boycotts of free speech—no matter how ridiculous the speech may be—by those who generally stand up for such civil liberties is a bit hypocritical. Moreover, boycotting or banning quacks just gives their followers more ammunition of how "the man is trying to silence" them.
So, where does that leave us? One unfortunate thing I’ve learned over 15 years researching and teaching critical thinking is that some people just don’t care about it: They know what they believe and that’s all that matters. They will never engage with falsifiability and will never be open to evidence that refutes them. Perhaps the saddest part about this is that these people often believe they are critical thinkers. Moreover, the people who buy into some piece of misinformation generally believe it (or something similar) already and are actively looking for sources to confirm their bias(es). If it isn’t Rogan’s show, it will likely be someone else’s.
People who engage in critical thinking will hear misinformation, question it, and ultimately reject it. I hear misinformation all of the time and try not to let it ruin my day. If it comes up in conversation with an actual person, I try to "walk through their thinking" with them and refute it with evidence. If the person does not want to accept that evidence, I cannot force them. It has taken a great deal of time (and frustration) for me to acknowledge and accept that. Unfortunately, people are free to be stupid—but then, that is freedom.
There is also an implied issue of responsibility here. Rogan hosts a podcast. He is not responsible for your intellectual development. If you learn something from Neil deGrasse Tyson or Steven Pinker on the podcast, Rogan’s a hero. If you wind up believing something a conspiracy theorist said, Rogan’s a villain. The question of whether Rogan is at fault isn’t the real issue. The real issue should be whether you're taking responsibility for yourself and your beliefs. If you’re someone who believes what they believe and that’s it, then there’s probably not much that education can do for you. If you are a critical thinker, then you can tell the difference between credible and spurious information. If you’re one of the people who wind up believing misinformation, but are open to learning and want to think critically, then work on it: Read about it, take a course on it, make better efforts to think critically. We can’t go off on a witch hunt every time someone’s guest says something lacking credibility. We’re all adults; take responsibility for your own thinking.
You might respond: But that’s just it: We’re not all adults. Impressionable teenagers also listen to Rogan.
Is this the 1980s all over again, when we tried to ban Twisted Sister and Ozzy? OK, fine, I get you … corruption of the youth and all that—so, then, take responsibility for your kids, too. Be engaged parents, talk to your kids about their interests, thoughts, and beliefs. Have conversations regularly. Educate them and don’t rely on someone else to do it, because if you do, it might just be Joe Rogan’s less-than-credible guests. If your kid listens to Rogan’s podcast, listen to it with them and discuss it after. Make it a thing you do together and use it as an opportunity for further bonding.
To conclude, if you think boycotting or canceling Rogan’s podcast is going to stop the spread of misinformation, I’m going to sadly disagree with you. There are very misinformed people out in the world, many of who relish spreading their nonsense. The platform doesn’t matter. It will continue to spread, as it always has. The big question is: Will you take personal responsibility for thinking critically about the information pertinent to you?