Title Pending 16721

This article offers an appreciative but critical response to Donovan Schaefer’s book Wild Experiment, focusing on the connection between emotion and reason, particularly in the context of conspiracy theories and scientific inquiry. While acknowledging the valuable insights provided by Schaefer’s cogency theory and its emphasis on the role of emotions in shaping beliefs and reasoning, I argue for a more nuanced understanding of the factors that contribute to the popularity of conspiracy theories and the success of science. In particular, I challenge Schaefer’s characterization of scientists as primarily driven by cold emotions and a fear of making mistakes. Instead, I emphasize the social structure of science and institutional practices that enable collective intellectual vigilance and the advancement of reliable knowledge.