let's not anger the Skeptics...

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by 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.

Bull! You're suggesting that I should take it easy on skeptical nonsense so that the same hard-core skeptics that are perpetrating it will continue to talk to me... I don't buy that!

In this last episode I assume you're referring to Dr. Clive Wynne... well, as I mentioned... I like Dr. Wynne, and even agree with him on some of his points, but I strongly disagree with him on others.

Same goes for Dr. Steven Novella, and DJ Grothe. I don't claim to have a strong personal relationships with these folks, but I find them very intelligent, likable and worhty of my respect -- but they are also DEAD WRONG about some of their beliefs.

I also think you have to examine the underlining message in what you and other "belivers" are saying when you take this position -- PLEASE LIKE ME.

Where is your public outrage at Wiseman? Why aren't you calling out Novella and insisting that he respond to the claims made in episode 35? Oh no, let's not anger the Skeptics...

[mcairo]

Alex,

I think you misunderstood my points. I have clearly expressed my outrage to you in personal emails I have sent you which usually you ignore or simply provide the response "cool".

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.

I have outrage, believe me, but I'm tried to temper myself publically.

Best,
Marcel

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Bull! You're suggesting that I should take it easy on skeptical nonsense so that the same hard-core skeptics that are perpetrating it will continue to talk to me... I don't buy that!

In this last episode I assume you're referring to Dr. Clive Wynne... well, as I mentioned... I like Dr. Wynne, and even agree with him on some of his points, but I strongly disagree with him on others.

Same goes for Dr. Steven Novella, and DJ Grothe. I don't claim to have a strong personal relationships with these folks, but I find them very intelligent, likable and worhty of my respect -- but they are also DEAD WRONG about some of their beliefs.

I also think you have to examine the underlining message in what you and other "belivers" are saying when you take this position -- PLEASE LIKE ME.

Where is your public outrage at Wiseman? Why aren't you calling out Novella and insisting that he respond to the claims made in episode 35? Oh no, let's not anger the Skeptics...

[David Bailey]

Alex,

I am basically 100% 'on your side' about the skeptics role in all this, but I think the humour has the effect of letting these people off the hook. One of the most effective points in the previous series was when you persuaded Wiseman to admit his data agreed with Sheldrake's. The slightest humour in that exchange would have given him enough room to wriggle out.

I think it is also important to remember that not everyone will have listened to the previous podcasts. Someone new is perhaps at the very beginning of questioning the approach of orthodox science, and they don't want to hear anything sarcastic or dismissive - otherwise they may not bother to listen to your arguments - IMHO, of course!

David

[mcairo]

Alex,

There is a big difference between the tone of humor vs. the content of the humor.

If you try see the comments in this vein, you might understand what David and I are really trying to say.

Challenging skeptics and their beliefs is your strong suit, nuanced humor isn't. As they say, "find something you're good at and stick with it."

:-)

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Alex,

I am basically 100% 'on your side' about the skeptics role in all this, but I think the humour has the effect of letting these people off the hook. One of the most effective points in the previous series was when you persuaded Wiseman to admit his data agreed with Sheldrake's. The slightest humour in that exchange would have given him enough room to wriggle out.

I think it is also important to remember that not everyone will have listened to the previous podcasts. Someone new is perhaps at the very beginning of questioning the approach of orthodox science, and they don't want to hear anything sarcastic or dismissive - otherwise they may not bother to listen to your arguments - IMHO, of course!

David

what humor are you referring to... specifically?

[David Bailey]

The whole flippant style. OK, I know it was not part of a discussion with a skeptic, so there is no exact analogy with the Wiseman interview, but if I hear someone put forward a serious argument in a flippant tone, I can easily get the feeling that they are using humour to cover up holes in their argument.

I mean, I think you really have the chance to nail some more skeptics as you did Wiseman, and you really should go for it!

Maybe this is just me - hopefully some other non-skeptics will contribute.

David

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

The whole flippant style. OK, I know it was not part of a discussion with a skeptic, so there is no exact analogy with the Wiseman interview, but if I hear someone put forward a serious argument in a flippant tone, I can easily get the feeling that they are using humour to cover up holes in their argument.

I mean, I think you really have the chance to nail some more skeptics as you did Wiseman, and you really should go for it!

Maybe this is just me - hopefully some other non-skeptics will contribute.

David

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

[mcairo]

Alex, it's called constructive criticism, if you don't like it, fine, but the people who generally post comments here are supportive of your program.

The point that both David and I are making is that when you address false comments made by skeptics with a smirky aside or sarcastic parenthetical commentary, you do more harm to your argument than to that of the skeptics.

Cheers.

[Open Mind]

There is no right or wrong here IMHO - different approaches work.

I wouldn't advise Alex or Marcel Cairo to present things in the same way. I've listened to Marcel's programme, it is safer, more conventional, nothing wrong with that. I enjoy listening.

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. 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.

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.

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

[mcairo]

Open Mind,

Thanks for the thumbs up.

Here's where I think Alex's show differs. I could never get a well-known skeptic on my show for various reasons - show title, my profession, poor production quality, etc.

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.

If you deviate from this mission, ok, but expect to pay a price. That price will be that fewer and fewer of the A-list skeptics will want to debate Alex. At least that's my fear. I could be wrong. Maybe the skeptics will want to trounce more on Alex. Now that may be good entertainment, but again, it deviates from the intended mission, which I was really excited about.

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.