About this episode
The episode explores the distinction between sincere questioning and bad faith inquiries that undermine established truths.
There's a certain kind of question that raises suspicion as to the motives of the person asking it. 'Was the Holocaust really as bad as historians have made out?' 'Is there really a scientific consensus on climate change?' 'How do we now for sure that vaccines aren't harmful?' These kinds of questions can be read on the surface as innocent enquiry, but sometimes they can function as a kind of epistemic sabotage, casting doubt on settled issues and seeking to undermine confidence in established truth. How can we tell the difference between sincerity and bad faith? And how should we respond to the latter?
People in this episode
Host: ABC
Topics covered
- bad faith
- epistemic sabotage
- sincerity
- truth
- questioning
- motives
Keywords
- bad faith
- questions
- Holocaust
- climate change
- vaccines
- epistemic sabotage
- truth
Mentioned in this episode
Products: vaccines
Books & works: climate change
More episodes of Philosopher's Zone
- Can sport survive AI? · June 11, 2026 · 38 min
- Purity, filth and 'promiscuous defecators': why we're weird about poo · June 4, 2026 · 36 min
- 'Natural' disasters and climate justice · May 21, 2026 · 32 min
- Where am I? Buddhist philosophy and the self · May 12, 2026 · 39 min
- Common sense vs reason: when philosophy gets weird · May 7, 2026 · 35 min
- Adam Smith, economics and moral philosophy · April 30, 2026 · 32 min
Explore listener stats, chart rankings, contacts and more on the Philosopher's Zone podcast page.