77. Mark Ireland Seeks Proof of Psychic Medium Communication (Podcast)

[CKava]

Originally Posted by Purple Scissors

However, it is also true that skeptics should not complain too much to be treated in the same manner that they have been treating their guests for years. Alex has done some real debunking of skeptics who have made false or foolish claims.

Could you point me to a skeptical podcast that treats it's interviewees in the same manner?

Also, I don't think Alex's debunkings have really convinced anyone besides those that already agreed with him in the beginning. I don't think for instance that Alex has debunked the million dollar challenge, or Richard Wiseman's dog that knows experiments... he has complained about them ALOT but that's slightly different.

[FastEddieB]

As for why I am here:

1. Because these kind of topics interest me. Hence why I listen to the show.
2. Because despite mounting evidence to the contrary I am still hopeful that there are believers who can present good arguments and engage in useful debate.
3. Because I think that if you are going to criticise something you should be willing to make your perspective known to the people you are criticising.

Big...



I swore off Skeptiko for a while out of sheer frustration. I've stated my reasons before, but basically Alex's not-so-well-hidden "slant" that periodically surfaces in the language that he uses and his demeanor with those he disagrees with.

But its like a scab I can't help but picking at. I'm going to attempt the Mark Ireland interview today on my dog walk. The mere titles of the prior two podcasts put me off - I'm really not that interested in subjective reports of woo - BTDT!

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by CKava

This is laughable. Have you ever listened to Alex's interviews? When he doesn't agree with the guest his interviews frequently descend into berating and interrogating his guest as to why they don't agree with him or find what he believes compelling. Suggesting that die-hard skeptics are being rude by wanting Alex to actually ask some challenging questions of guests who he ideologically agrees with is a bit off.


No open mind your mistaking the fact that skeptics don't automatically accept NDE's to be what people claim as being angry rejection. I have no problem with those who have NDE's and believe them to be proof of the afterlife, I think they are mistaken that's all. And that's the same with most skeptics. The frustrating individuals to deal with are people like yourself who seem to delight in making silly arguments and misrepresenting others opinions.

Let's take this down a notch... you may not realize this, but a lot of folks read this forum and choose not to contribute because of this aggressive style of dialog (i hear from them via email).

Let's try and keep the vibe as open and inviting as possible given the obvious differences of opinion.

[sr332603]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Let's take this down a notch... you may not realize this, but a lot of folks read this forum and choose not to contribute because of this aggressive style of dialog (i hear from them via email).

Let's try and keep the vibe as open and inviting as possible given the obvious differences of opinion.

Once again, Alex steps in to invoke the NAR when people express criticism or his show and tactics. Must be fun getting to act as judge on your own behalf...

I didn't see anything overly aggressive about CKava's dialog. Nothing more than we get from Alex on the show, or when responding to Ben Radford.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by CKava

Could you point me to a skeptical podcast that treats it's interviewees in the same manner?

They don't usually interview parapsychologists or informed opponents... good grief no most skeptical hosts would look foolish as their preconceived notions they have merely trusted from pseudoskeptical organizations fell apart as half truths....much like Dawkin's refused to debate with Sheldrake over the evidence for psi.... or like Randi gives a weekly commentary where he can select targets to deride who can't respond on the same page and if they do get selectively quoted.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by sr332603

Once again, Alex steps in to invoke the NAR when people express criticism or his show and tactics. Must be fun getting to act as judge on your own behalf...

Do you normally visit places just to heckle?

[David Bailey]

CKava,

Can you tell me anyone with something interesting to say (about anything) who doesn't have a point of view? The idea that if Alex is not utterly neutral (and how would you define that?) he is not doing his job, is just laughable!

Obviously, it is possible to become too unbalanced, but the main thing is to explore both sides of the argument. I would say that Alex is courteous with all his guests, but I would say he could push one or two of them a bit further.

David

[sr332603]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Do you normally visit places just to heckle?

Skeptiko is a podcast designed to instill open discussion and debate between believers and skeptics concerning parapsychology. I contribute to this board to that end, from a skeptical perspective, and have contributed much in that regard. That is why I am here and why I post.

Tangental to my skeptical contributions, I also take it upon myself to point out when Alex is being overly biased, such as not asking critical questions of guests with whom he agrees, or only using the NAR against skeptics.

If I only posted comments critical of Alex, then your question would have merit. Looking at my comment history, however, tells a much different story.

[CKava]

I already mentioned the 'point of inquiry' podcast as an example. The host there has an opinion and he often agrees with his guests yet he tries to play the role of a devil's advocate and ask them challenging questions. He also does not make every show revolve around his pet interests say by asking every guest their thoughts on James Randi for instance.

I'm not saying people can't have opinions or that they have to be 100% neutral. I am saying that Alex's show is a pro-psi/paranormal show that is dressed up as if it is a neutral examination of both sides. Any non-believer who listens to the show recognises very quickly that it is a show very hostile to non-believers. I am not the only one to notice this, even the title is as I'm sure you (and Alex) are aware is an issue that causes much amusement and much consternation among skeptic groups. Alex's show is a pro-psi/pro-paranormal podcast... that much should be clear, just look at the makeup of the people who support Alex, do you see many non-believers there?

Finally, if you think Alex's interview technique with skeptics is courteous I would hate to be your dinner guest! And as for pushing his guests... he only shows any interest in pushing those who do not agree with his beliefs but the show isn't supposed to be about Alex's beliefs it's supposed to be about "exploring controversial science topics with leading thinkers, researchers and their critics". If the show was called the 'Alex Tsakiris Open Minded Hour' and was presented as being about Alex and discussing HIS ideas with his guests rather than vice versa then I would say he is doing a bang up job.

[CKava]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Let's take this down a notch... you may not realize this, but a lot of folks read this forum and choose not to contribute because of this aggressive style of dialog (i hear from them via email).

Let's try and keep the vibe as open and inviting as possible given the obvious differences of opinion.

I'll try and avoid 'aggressive dialogue' though I would suggest you may wish to consider extending the same warning to believers who at the minute seem to be free to say anything insulting about skeptics with immunity.

Out of curiousity Alex and in the spirit of openness have you/the admins ever banned anyone here who was not a skeptic?