let's not anger the Skeptics...

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Come on... specifics... what put you off?

Well for starters, all that stuff at the beginning about your son almost made me click away right then (no offence to your son) you must have been to lectures or watched TV shows where you were all ready to plunge into the subject, and things start with a huge 'funny' digression - it can be hugely irritating!

Please don't take offence, I have greatly enjoyed your previous podcasts, but for me at least, the humour does not work!

David

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Well for starters, all that stuff at the beginning about your son almost made me click away right then (no offence to your son) you must have been to lectures or watched TV shows where you were all ready to plunge into the subject, and things start with a huge 'funny' digression - it can be hugely irritating!

Please don't take offence, I have greatly enjoyed your previous podcasts, but for me at least, the humour does not work!

David

I appreciate your opinion. Most folks who have emailed me really liked that part.

I take this subject seriously, but I don't take myself too seriously, and I do plan on lightening things up a bit.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by mcairo

My comments to you were written almost as a producer. As a producer, I would worry about securing future skeptical guests on your show if somehow your humor is misconstrued by the skeptical community at large.

It's true that I was already completely surprise that he could still have a skeptical guest (Dr. Clive Wynne) on his last show. Since his clearly bashing the skeptics in the podcast, it's gonna be really difficult to find some to come on the show.

I think especially because Alex cuts the interview in small pieces and then comments everything out of context. That's really anoying (for pro- and for skeptics).

It would be much better to put the full interview (well just edited for quality sound and stuff like that) in an episode. Not take some bitesize and talking about them...

Well, the deeper issue is that Alex likes to be the one talking. I think he wants the Skeptiko Podcast to be about him (and what he believes) and he doesn't really care about what the people he interview have to say (well, he cares if they agree whith what he believes, because of course that confirm in his eyes what a genius he is).

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by mcairo

As far as your hope that scientists might keep their mouths shut on psi in fear of being ridiculed by Skeptiko, I just don't see that happening.

Marcel, I didn't say that. What I did say is that there are quite a lot of scientists out there who have encountered evidence of psi who aren't going to debate their opinion in public due to skeptic organization's success in convincing most in academia psi doesn't exist or isn't worthy of serious investigation.

Cheers

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Alex approach is more provocative and confrontational and I think that is great, I think that in today's world, with the success of CSICOP, JREF, COPUS, it really has to be.

Thanks I know what yo mean... but I don't think digging thru research papers and making folks accountable for what they say is "provocative and confrontational".

Trying to convince skeptics with data or logic isn't enough.. it hasn't worked in past ...... one either lets them get away with misrepresentation or confronts them.

Big disagreement here... I mean, I understand the spirit of what you're saying, but I think you're kinda selling the Skeptics short on this one. They (at least the good/smart ones) believe that logic and reason is enough. They are just not convinced by the evidence and while we might see suspect that they'll always say that, it does behoove us to help move that evidence along... let's be honest... we need a heck of a lot more research before we can really figure out what's going on.

What really troubles me is the chilling effect Skeptics have had on our ability to get that evidence.

As for 'tone' .... I mean who would have advised Randi to take the approach he took? He is hardly charming, sarcastic, rude, grumpy as hell, the guy hasn't done proper research, has tested far less numbers than he claims, has chosen easier targets, avoided conducting long term trials ......yet people accept him, they got used to him, I even like the old fox Randi too ... because is sometimes right, sometimes funny .....but the problem is 'skeptics' rate him as an expert or trust his viewpoint - they shouldn't. They are impressed by his incredible confidence. In fact the whole 'skeptic' movement is based upon misplaced confidence in others with confidence.

Do pull me back if I ever go that far

If Alex and others provoke skeptics to actually read properly the other side of the debate, who knows it might get the scientific debate into the mainstream and get a few more scientists to give their opinions on the quality of psi research in public, organized media skeptics motives, rather than just express these in private in fear of ridicule.

This is something I'd like to see us all get behind... it's not about Skeptiko -- how can we create a community to support this idea?

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Thanks I know what yo mean... but I don't think digging thru research papers and making folks accountable for what they say is "provocative and confrontational".

Perhaps a careless choice of words. It certainly doesn't apply to the majority of skeptiko programmes. However programmes 33, 34 and 35 probably did stimulate more heated responses from skeptics.

If it is true, as Marcel put it, the original intention was 'Skeptiko's mission, as well as that of opensourcescience.net has been to establish a safe, mutually respectful collaborative environment between psi and mainstream science. well probably format 1-32 is more appropriate format to return to......but i must say I did not feel program 36 was sarcastic because it wasn't aimed at any individual, for example the attitude of people dismissing a scientist because he showed an interest in UFO phenomena... it happens.

Perhaps I'm too cynical these days but did any of the media skeptics show willingness to get involved in these shared experiments? Or were they suddenly too busy?

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

for example the attitude of people dismissing a scientist because he showed an interest in UFO phenomena... it happens.

It depends, if you are skeptical of the extraterrestrial hypothesis, I won't dismis you as a good scientist. Because I myself have an interrest in the UFO phenomena.

But of course if you're like Sturrock, and you're a extraterrestrial hypothesis proponent, I would dismiss you has a being not a good scientist, that's for sure...

It all depend how critical you are of weird hypothesis... or not...

Like Alex is not at all critical in any kind of way (that's call being gullible) of any weird hypothesis (he's in the realm of the "anything weird goes" as I call it. Only mainstream science doesn't do it for him). So (he's not at all a scientist, but for the argument's sake) I would dismiss him as being not a good "scientist" (or are not a good thinking, because not critically-minded thinker).

[David Bailey]

Venom,

I suspect you don't have a science background (please correct me if I am wrong), and that you genuinely don't realise that at the forefront of science there are lots of researchers that hold different opinions. People don't go round saying "he thinks X so he is clever, and this other guy thinks Y so he is stupid".

Granted, the debate over what might loosely be termed paranormal sometimes seems in danger of descending that way, but this really is an aberration.

David

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

I appreciate your opinion. Most folks who have emailed me really liked that part.

I take this subject seriously, but I don't take myself too seriously, and I do plan on lightening things up a bit.

I guess part of my beef is that it seems OK to make a highbrow program about art, music, or poetry without littering it with distractions, but science programs (at least in the UK) seem to get stuffed with silly jokes and visual gimmicks - as though the content can't be interesting on its own terms.

David

[Larry Boy]

I think you did a great job confronting Dr. Wynne's claims, and I din't perceive it as flippant at all. You simply corrected him, that's all. So I don't really understand where the problem is.