Where DO We Go… Carroll, Loxton, Williams?

One of the wonderful things about Skepticality podcast is how it is a show that is willing to be investigative and critical – of skepticism itself.

It’s not a show willing to rest on the proverbial laurels or just think that just existing is enough for promoting science or communicating the need for critical thinking. Skepticality has always fostered a broad audience appeal due to incorporating speculative fiction, technical innovations, overseas correspondents and issues – and most importantly I’ve found that it distances itself from the ‘frat-boy sneer-fest’ that I occasionally worry about when skeptics get together!

Recently I received the latest email newsletter from the Skeptics’ Dictionary. Okay, it has to be said – Robert Todd Carroll can come across as grumpy at times. He launches into a somewhat uncomplimentary-to-start-with response to Skepticality?s Episode #63:

The title of Loxton’s piece asked of the skeptic movement “where do we go from here?” My initial reaction was to start talking to myself. There is no ‘we’ to go anywhere, I said. “Nobody cares what you think,” I responded. In fairness to Loxton, he focuses on “classic skepticism” and uses Paul Kurtz’s organization as a model. Kurtz runs CSI, formerly CSICOP, publisher of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, Skeptic magazine’s only competitor. I couldn’t help but wonder why somebody from Skeptic was writing about what the other folks should be doing. Whatever the reason, I’m sure it stimulated a lot of self-reflection in the skeptical community.

“Why should we care what he thinks”? Well, Loxton may be the editor of Junior Skeptic, the insert for Skeptic magazine, sure. “Competition”? I thought we were all in this together, but oh well. Maybe we’ll see jelly-wrestling at the next TAM…

In that Loxton has demonstrated time and time again a passion for communicating not only to the younger years but promoting a pared-down, accurate summation for all ages on some of the most important issues facing us in the modern times in regards to public policies on the environment, the separation of science and religious education… oh, let’s face it. Why shouldn’t Loxton make an observation with some professional experience in what he says? Not as if people like Carroll can’t question it, after all.

The answer is, there’s room for many approaches to skepticism and projects and issues – and we can see that skeptics do do a great many things. There is clearly room for all the strategies and modus operandi of the various groups, whether it be ‘climate change’ (the focus of the Australian Skeptics Hobart Convention on right now) or even the influence of theistic attitudes on science or what-have-you – Loxton just urges us to keep in mind the small, widespread tragedies of the paranormal when tackling the issues that hit home the most.

We should consider Daniel Loxton’s message because, as he says himself in the aforementioned podcast episode: “People get hurt”. Isn?t this what we primarily worry about when communicating the practical application of the scientific method? The educating of those who are most at risk? I particularly liked the emphasis on consumer affairs, which is another overarching theme no matter what particular focus you choose.

I notice that Carroll himself says in the same newsletter about the most recent survey of Ipsos MORI (the second largest survey research organization in the UK) that the poll found that almost two in five people believe in ghosts, with women more likely to believe than men (44% compared to 31%). There’s a good example of potential disaster with mediums, psychics and spiritualists for a start!

My own studies aim to find out more about what influences such beliefs… but I must admit, on the whole Carroll is very much reflecting what Loxton is saying positively. Oddly, I have the funny feeling that he might also have read my own essay on ‘Forums for Skepticism’ as he echoes my attitudes towards the dangers of group-thinking and prefered emphasis on our local communities’ needs:

We’re a very loosely connected group of independently thinking individuals with some common interests and I predict we will always be this way… There is about as much likelihood that all skeptics are going to get on the same bus, driven by our chosen leader, as it is that all fundamentalist Christians are going to set aside their differences and follow the Roman Pope. For that, I give thanks.

Loxton speaks out through an online medium (both the podcast and a pdf version) that with all fairness, any person with access to the internet could very well do. It’s agreed that this technology is a benefit to education, the same way it can promote frauds and scams. As Carroll says:

We now have no need to rely on the mass media to be our advocates. The Internet has given each of us access to start our own newspaper, radio program, or television show with very little investment.

It’s this which leads me to look askance at what Robyn Williams despairs of in the recent Australasian Science magazine:

You can?t just dash out to the bush with your gear and have the animals perform as you require. If you are untrained there?s a fair chance you won?t comprehend what you are looking at anyway. Of course, the independent film-making sector is important and times change, but is anyone out there actually training the next generation in the skills required? Has anyone asked?

Oh yes – I’ve asked. Asked what actually works in terms of educating the young and promoting a scientific world view, at the last Amaz!ng Meeting when speaking about the CSIRO science circus, podcasts, educational programs and journalism. Are we doing enough – but more importantly, are the skills required moving with the times and being shown to work?

Has Williams considered the talents being developed in online communities and local radio stations? I remember Michael McRae of Canberra Community Radio’s 2XX show ‘Fuzzy Logic’ presenting a guest interview with Richard Wiseman on Skepticality, for a start. What of the CSIRO Science Circus, through ANU, which does research efficacy and teaches how to be a science communicator across many mediums? There’s a great many of these institutions world-wide and like any educational provider, they must and do acknowledge new media.

Of course, podcasts are one of these. But do young people listen to the likes of Brain Science Podcast, Science, the Tank, Skepticality or even Robyn William’s own work on the ABC that is broadcast online? I don’t often see a breakdown of age and gender, even on the proclaimed popular podcasts that shoot to the top of iTunes.

And does it only take what Carroll says are the key qualities of being “attractive, self-confident, likeable, appear[ing] honest and authoritative and know[ing] how to make direct eye-contact”? Well, qualifications and training would still help, quite frankly, as Williams says. A sober reputation and avoidance of the cliquey groupie-for-scientists approach would be nice too! You can fool people some of the time, after all…

When Carroll and Williams demonstrate skepticism themselves about the factors involved in communicating science well… it all feels like Skepticality will continue to have its job cut out for them, encouraging us to question even ourselves. So kudos for them for broadcasting one of the most inspirational essays on the internet airwaves this year.

Tagged as: Daniel Loxton, Education, Michael McRae, podcast, Robert Todd Carroll, Robyn Williams, skeptic, Skepticality, Skepticism