Hello, my name is Ryan Rutherford and welcome to this short introduction for a new podcast, Skeptically Curious. So why this particular name? Let’s first start with the adjective, curious. Like many people, I have an insatiable curiosity about many subjects, and in my case, this includes politics, philosophy, history, literature, psychology, religion, economics, and different branches of science such as neuroscience, evolutionary biology, climate science, and physics. The main reason for deciding to launch this new podcast venture is because I would love to further indulge my curiosity and, in the process, hopefully continue to inform and educate myself, as well as any potential listeners. I am from Cape Town, South Africa, although I have lived and worked in a number of different countries, including South Korea, France, the United Arab Emirates, and, most recently, China. I have also been very fortunate to travel to dozens of countries over the years and hope to do more travelling once conditions allow. While it may be a well-worn cliché, it remains inescapably true that travelling widely and living in different parts of the world has the salutary effect of expanding one’s cultural and intellectual horizons, among many other positive benefits. In my experience, travelling both reflects and encourages curiosity. My educational background includes a bachelor’s degree in literature and a master’s in International Relations. It might seem strange, then, that many of the early episodes of the podcast involve scientific topics. As noted, science happens to be an area I am greatly interested in, so what better way to continue my personal education than to speak to experts in their respective fields? I also believe this gives me a perspective to ask the kinds of questions that many other non-experts would pose. To give some sense of what I am attempting to accomplish with this podcast, as of this recording I have conducted interviews with guests to discuss the Enlightenment, climate change, Buddhism, psychopathy, sleep, and therapeutic writing. This might seem like a hopelessly heterogenous hodgepodge, but it reflects my eclectic interests and the kind of variety in subject matter that awaits potential listeners. My overriding goal is to have engaging conversations with fascinating people on an array of topics I find intriguing, whatever these might be, and hopefully others will as well. Now for the adverb. The term skeptic is often bandied about, but as with the way theory has a different meaning when employed by scientists than it does in everyday usage, I have a rather more specific definition in mind. The skepticism I hope to bring to bear in my interviews and to promote through this podcast is the kind associated with the scientific method. In fact, skepticism is crucial to assessing the validity of claims and being guided by empiricism. The word scepticism is derived from a Greek term, skeptomai, which means to “consider carefully.” Paul Kurtz, the secular humanist and philosopher, described a sceptic as someone “who is willing to question any claim to truth, asking for clarity in definition, consistency in logic and adequacy in evidence. The use of scepticism is thus an essential part of objective scientific inquiry and the search for reliable knowledge.” Here my interest in science should become clearer in that I consider the scientific method to be the supreme epistemological framework ever devised by human beings to apprehend the natural world, a point I will make repeatedly in the episodes that follow. There is simply no other game in town, as it were, to reliably discover the nature of reality. This is an ever-ongoing process, however, because even though the scientific revolution has expanded our knowledge further than ever before, much yet remains to be deciphered in the grand book of nature. Other elements integral to scientifically-informed skepticism include critical thinking, rationality, and logic, all essential tools necessary to think more clearly and understand more fully. The last major theme worth noting and related to the kind of skepticism I just hinted at, is that of universality. This is a cornerstone value of the Enlightenment project that emerged in Europe in the 18th century, but which is still unfolding into the present, and probably always will so long as any society has room for improvement. The universal values associated with the Enlightenment, and which still carry immense relevance, include democracy, secularism, free speech, individual liberty, legal equality of the sexes, freedom of the press, and, crucially, the scientific method. If anyone can make a coherent argument about why any culture or country anywhere would not be better applying Enlightenment principles, enshrined perhaps most vividly in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights first promulgated in 1948, I would love to hear it. Of course, to espouse a value is to articulate a universal ideal, whether one intends to do so or not, because any maxim that cannot be generalised, as Immanual Kant famously pointed out, is liable to render the person holding said value a hypocrite. Put simply, to have a principle is to have a universal principle. Much more can be said on this topic, and I hope to elaborate upon it in future discussions, but the kind of Enlightenment universalism I have in mind cuts through all the nationalism, tribalism, and identity politics, in all its manifestations, that seem to be on the rise just about everywhere. Furthermore, there is a link between universalism and science, as renowned sociologist Robert Merton identified this aspect as one of the essential characteristics of the scientific method in ‘The Normative Structure of Science.’ The others were communalism, disinterestedness, and organised skepticism. Taken together, I can think of few better values to strive towards than those. Lastly, if this podcast were to have a tagline, which many seem to have, it would be my hope for everyone listening, including yours truly, to “know more and think better.” So please join me on this new journey as we engage and broaden our skeptical curiosity.