Yes that’s nicely put. I’ve followed Shermer for a while and he does often seem to be ignorant about a lot of information or evidence that might have changed his view. 

And he always seems to fall for information that I believe has been put out to muddy the waters so to speak. So in other words I think that he lacks discernment to separate genuine information from propaganda. 

cristaiji

conspiracy

Science and Conspiracy debate Michael Shermer Brett Weinstein JFK/911/UFOs 🧐

I don't know if Brett brings it up in this debate, but on his podcast he raised the very important question "Who gets to pick the null hypothesis?"

Skeptics, like Shermer insist on compelling evidence before they adopt a view. That's fine, as far as it goes. What I think you're picking up on is that he does hold a bunch of undemonstrated views. They're just the prevailing views.

That strikes some of us as naive, because we think many of these views are pushed on society through propaganda, rather than really being better supported by the available evidence.