Misnomer

[Opcnup]

Skeptiko is really poorly named. It is not a skeptical podcast, if you renamed it to something more appropriate I'm sure the iTunes rating would budge from where it is at which is as low a rating as you can get.

Just a thought.

Anyone else care to contribute?

[jacob]

How would you name it?
Do you think it is poorly named because you assume the term "skeptic" to represent a view that definitely opposes any psi possibility?

[Yafi]

Originally Posted by jacob

How would you name it?
Do you think it is poorly named because you assume the term "skeptic" to represent a view that definitely opposes any psi possibility?

You could call it "Credulo"...

A true Skeptic doesn't oppose any possibility. We just don't instantly accept strange claims without some solid evidence to back those claims up. In many cases, parapsychology seems to be trying to find mechanisms for such phenomena as telepathy and NDEs, without first establishing the reality of the phenomena (in the case of telepathy) or invoking evidence-free supernatural explanations just because they're exciting and sexy, when simpler and more plausible explanations are at hand (in the case of NDEs).

So, as for Psi possibility - show us the evidence and we'll look at it. But don't expect us to accept flimsy "evidence" that proves nothing. It needs to be solid stuff that can't be interpreted in a more prosaic way. Nothing else will cut it.

[Opcnup]

Originally Posted by jacob

How would you name it?
Do you think it is poorly named because you assume the term "skeptic" to represent a view that definitely opposes any psi possibility?

I don't know, but not Skeptiko. I think that the low rating is evidence of something (you don't do as poorly as anyone possibly can through no fault of your own, do you?) and that its not necessarily going to be like that with the content. I also find more fault in the way premises are accepted with out evidence; who am I to say what is and is not correct? But the fact of the matter is that skeptiko does not attempt to build a strong case for what they believe, and any "skeptic" not building a strong case is misusing the term skeptic, like creation scientists misuse the term science. I really dislike people making claim to the scientific method for credibility and not using it, I really like science as a method and I think that people who take the name but not the method are devaluing the name; And going back to the low rating I think that the public agrees with me.

[Grayven]

The name "skeptiko" simply strikes me as dishonest. You're not a skeptic, at least not in the sense the word is commonly used today. By using this name, you're attracted the attention and ire of those who use this name in the more common, current sense. When they listen to the podcast, expecting scepticism, and get something else instead, they're irked. Then they give you a bad rating.

If you're name was something besides "Skeptiko", you'd have better ratings. Skeptiko is not bad, as woo-woo podcasts go, its well produced and the guests are often interesting. If it were named more aptly, I think your ratings would be better. It's just poor marketing, similar to selling dye with the brand name "Bleeech". People are upset when they find they aren't getting what they were sold.

[GaSS PaNiCC]

Originally Posted by Grayven

The name "skeptiko" simply strikes me as dishonest. You're not a skeptic, at least not in the sense the word is commonly used today. By using this name, you're attracted the attention and ire of those who use this name in the more common, current sense. When they listen to the podcast, expecting scepticism, and get something else instead, they're irked. Then they give you a bad rating.

If you're name was something besides "Skeptiko", you'd have better ratings. Skeptiko is not bad, as woo-woo podcasts go, its well produced and the guests are often interesting. If it were named more aptly, I think your ratings would be better. It's just poor marketing, similar to selling dye with the brand name "Bleeech". People are upset when they find they aren't getting what they were sold.

What is it you expect alex to do? Simply find way to debunk and dismiss the ideas the scientists are presenting in his podcast? He is allowing other skeptical scientists to present their viewpoint on the controversial science, and as such is not misinforming the public at all. He is simply providing an alternative view of skepticism in which both viewpoints of the subject are debated. So i do not see why you feel he is misinforming people, when he even provides a summary of to expect on the podcast, and when skepiko's purpose is illustrated on the front web page (Explore controversial science with leading researchers and their CRITICS).

[mcromer]

Let's be honest here. The "skeptics" you mention are in fact not skeptical at all about the status quo of academia, reductionistic materialism.

If dogmatic materialists can label themselves as "skeptics", then why shouldn't Alex?

[Opcnup]

Skepticism is based on studying the methods people use, he does not do that, there for he is a doubter, not a skeptic. He is only a skeptic in the way that the term skeptic is misused.

[GaSS PaNiCC]

lol how exactly is he not examining the methods people use? He is directly communicating with these scientists, and as such their viewpoints are being explained sufficiently, which does not violate the definition of skepticism whatsoever. It isn't about debunking or forming conclusions based on blind assumptions, it suggests we remain open to new possibilities and inquiries without forming conclusions unless we know for certain.

[Opcnup]

He isn't drilling them on their methods sufficiently. If one of them were trying to publish in a real peer reviewed journal they would be examined 6 ways from sunday, skeptics do for the main stream edia what scientists do for peer reviewed journals, he does not.