36 Academic Snobbery and the Journal of Scientific Exploration (Podcast)

[mcairo]

I also want to welcome Skeptiko and Alex back for season 2.

I do, though, think Alex should examine how he wants to format upcoming shows. While I appreciated the humor used in reference to Alex's son Zack's response of "un huh", I don't think the humor worked in other spots.

At points, Alex tends to sound sarcastic and sometimes sardonic. Perhaps it's a matter of delivery. When I did my show, I never tried to be on par with my guests or the scientific skeptics. I always take the approach of a curious outsider, too dumb to know the science, but too smart to ignore the evidence. Alex's persona is different than mine. He is now an active supporter of psi research, and a spokesperson for a more collaborative environment between survivalists and materialists.

My only fear is that the more sarcastic humor may work against him if he hopes to continue to get quality skeptics on his shows. No one will want to be ridiculed in the editing process.

Anyway, I offer my observations in support of Alex and his show. Like others, I want Skeptiko to prosper for years to come.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by mcairo

At points, Alex tends to sound sarcastic and sometimes sardonic. Perhaps it's a matter of delivery. When I did my show, I never tried to be on par with my guests or the scientific skeptics. I always take the approach of a curious outsider, too dumb to know the science, but too smart to ignore the evidence. Alex's persona is different than mine. He is now an active supporter of psi research, and a spokesperson for a more collaborative environment between survivalists and materialists.

My only fear is that the more sarcastic humor may work against him if he hopes to continue to get quality skeptics on his shows. No one will want to be ridiculed in the editing process.

Anyway, I offer my observations in support of Alex and his show. Like others, I want Skeptiko to prosper for years to come.

I started a new thread on this:

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptik....html#post3643

[The skepTick]

From my perspective, I thought most of the podcast was effective. It spurned me to do a little research on a few of the council members behind the Society for Scientific Exploration and I found them to have extensive scientific credentials. They each have their own particular “hobby”, whether it is Loch Ness, UFOs, or some other phenomenon. I have noticed that other general paranormal or pseudoscience groups do little to criticize one another’s belief. For example, I never hear Bigfoot hunters lambasting UFOlogists, Astrologists deriding Psychics, or Ghost Hunters ridiculing Homeopaths. Is it that they all believe each other’s claims? I doubt it. Rather, I think they are more willing to say that anything is possible, therefore if their pet claim is possible, the gates are thrown wide open to allow the possibility of other claims.

From what I’ve read about JSE editors, they are not above debunking claims outside of their particular “hobby”. They draw a clear distinction between their day jobs and their night jobs. They acknowledge the precarious position this might put them in, and recommend other scientists join as full members only after receiving tenure.

Not having read any of the JSE’s issues, I’m wondering how the “Letters to the Editor” read. Usually this is where scientists will retort against other past articles, so it would be interesting to see if they try to debunk anything that might be considered pseudoscience.

As for the humor, it makes the podcast enjoyable. The sarcasm and ridicule aren’t particularly objectionable, but they do show Alex’s proclivities and serve to solidify his supporters as well as his opponents. That’s not bridge building, but I get the sense that Alex has decided to move away from that goal.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by The skepTick

From my perspective, I thought most of the podcast was effective. It spurned me to do a little research on a few of the council members behind the Society for Scientific Exploration and I found them to have extensive scientific credentials. They each have their own particular “hobby”, whether it is Loch Ness, UFOs, or some other phenomenon. I have noticed that other general paranormal or pseudoscience groups do little to criticize one another’s belief. For example, I never hear Bigfoot hunters lambasting UFOlogists, Astrologists deriding Psychics, or Ghost Hunters ridiculing Homeopaths. Is it that they all believe each other’s claims? I doubt it. Rather, I think they are more willing to say that anything is possible, therefore if their pet claim is possible, the gates are thrown wide open to allow the possibility of other claims.

From what I’ve read about JSE editors, they are not above debunking claims outside of their particular “hobby”. They draw a clear distinction between their day jobs and their night jobs. They acknowledge the precarious position this might put them in, and recommend other scientists join as full members only after receiving tenure.

Not having read any of the JSE’s issues, I’m wondering how the “Letters to the Editor” read. Usually this is where scientists will retort against other past articles, so it would be interesting to see if they try to debunk anything that might be considered pseudoscience.

yea, the JSE is pretty solid and very interesting. As far as everyone having their little corner of the unexplained... I suppose that's true. The do have some very good back and forth with contributions from skeptical folks as well.

Even if you don't suscribe to the journal you can google the papers and get an idea of the topics. Here are two of my favorites:

- Henry Bauer - AIDS Wiki

- Plate tectonics: a paradigm under threat http://www.scientificexploration.org...14.3_pratt.pdf

As for the humor, it makes the podcast enjoyable. The sarcasm and ridicule aren’t particularly objectionable, but they do show Alex’s proclivities and serve to solidify his supporters as well as his opponents. That’s not bridge building, but I get the sense that Alex has decided to move away from that goal.

yea, I think I made it clear a few episodes back that what I've learned thus far doesn't allow me to play dispassionate observer... I look forward to engaging in useful dialog, but now think we need better maps rather than more bridges (i.e. more research).

[Venom]

Originally Posted by The skepTick

[left][left]From my perspective, I thought most of the podcast was effective. It spurned me to do a little research on a few of the council members behind the Society for Scientific Exploration and I found them to have extensive scientific credentials.

Well, I knew it before the show... Since Peter Sturrock is famous in ufology which is my pet subject ), I looked at the Society for Scientific Exploration a few years ago...

But I also think the podcast can be informative sometimes, especially when we can hear an interview in some length.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Venom

Well, I knew it before the show... Since Peter Sturrock is famous in ufology which is my pet subject ), I looked at the Society for Scientific Exploration a few years ago...

But I also think the podcast can be informative sometimes, especially when we can hear an interview in some length.

got the message on longer interviews. I too like longer interviews when listening to podcasts. This last episode was just unusually short.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

got the message on longer interviews. I too like longer interviews when listening to podcasts. This last episode was just unusually short.

Yeah, sure, I'm looking forward to the entire saison 2 of Skeptiko, don't worry about it. I'll be listening, that's for sure.

[David Bailey]

Alex,

I have probably said enough about my views on humour, but it is interesting to feel how it comes across from the other side. When Steven Novella said "I mean psychic dogs!" he probably got a few laughs, but totally alienated those people who were interested in Rupert Sheldrake's work.

In an ideal world, I imagine you patiently working through the issues with a prominent skeptic until he or she publicly concede on some of the issues.

David

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Even if you don't suscribe to the journal you can google the papers and get an idea of the topics. Here are two of my favorites:

- Henry Bauer - AIDS Wiki

- Plate tectonics: a paradigm under threat http://www.scientificexploration.org...14.3_pratt.pdf

Perhaps my irony-meter is broken. Are you serious about these being your favorites? Do you really think that either of these have made any contribution to HIV/AIDS or geology?

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

Perhaps my irony-meter is broken. Are you serious about these being your favorites? Do you really think that either of these have made any contribution to HIV/AIDS or geology?

If course he does. It's Alex man. You should know better.