I’ve seen division based upon egos. I’ve seen wasted money, wasted resources, wasted time and a lot of rallying that doesn’t make for empirical change to their local school, community, state or country. People thinking it’s funny.
A lot of waiting for something I could actually use in high school classes that wouldn’t get shut down easily by other people who say that questioning is wrong. A lot of hearing people suggest that the answer is in writing yet ANOTHER book or a similar reinvention of a ‘wheel’ – the same ideas being offered again and again… to no avail.
Do people genuinely think that the answer really as simple as just one podcast? One radio show? A magazine article? A single TV show? Just a handful or even ONE person?
It comes across as a lot of misguided belief that would quite honestly equally match the most avid horoscope aficionado. Maybe I’m just bored with it all?
I think it boils down to what Digital Cuttlefish says, though – The Natural State of the Featherless Biped:
It’s good to examine abnormal behavior
(Whatever “abnormal” might mean)
Just remember, we’re usually seeing ourselves
In the things we’re surprised to have seen.
We like to point fingers at somebody else
For the troubles, today, that we face;
But don’t point at others; the problem is us—
We’re the batshit-insane human race.
So, I continually look more and more often to those outside of ‘teh skeptic organizations’ for future directions, even though they may not be as ‘romantic’ as skeptic ones. Towards academics who share resources – and it doesn’t matter to me if they’re anomalistic psychologists or paranormalist with their publications, more often than not.
Towards Philosophy for Children. At organized science programs and charities that have accountability and researchers who have relevant experience and statistics on efficacy and improvement attached.
Initiatives that don’t come with atheist or humanist, secular messages or political causes ‘built in’ or touted with every second statement or blogpost. I hope more and more for a network of deist skeptics, for example, to start making themselves known. I guess that also boils down to the influence that Daniel Loxton’s Skepticality essay had on me, which also includes:
Thankfully, it is possible to make progress. The assertion that pseudoscience will always exist is no doubt true, but it is a trivial observation. (Disease will always exist, but that does not mean we should close the medical schools.) The persistence of paranormal belief should not distract us from the truth that skeptics can make progress in this area, on three important indices:
PREVENTION : we can decrease the total number (and scale) of scams and confusions;
HARM REDUCTION: We can reduce the total amount of harm suffered by victims and potential victims;
JUSTICE: We can make things less profitable or more difficult for specific scam artists.
Since I am researching gender differences in beliefs, it sometimes saddens me that there’s only a handful of women – Robyn McCarthy, Lynne Kelly, Loretta Marron, Dr Karen Stollznow and Dr Krissie Wilson – that immediately come to my mind as being role models in skeptic circles. They actually get their heads down and get seriously on with the job.
But then, I never was impressed with people wasting time with what boils down to just popularity contests in the first place, either. Call that a personal bias if you will, against attention-whores!
So, after hearing a great radio show today, I’m back to researching and endorsing solid goals rather than big vague ones. Again, I question if being ‘known amongst skeptics’ is enough. I again look over the stats that are available and see just how big that damned ‘dragon’ is.
And if the opinion of a nobody like me isn’t good enough, then I’m certain that a somebody like you has more than enough power to do some basic reasoning on your own about what you want – that is realistic.
So, I hope you enjoy listening to the broadcast I heard on Radio National, an interview with a woman who works at the school where my friend Michael McRae graduated from. I found it interesting: “After the scientific mums, how about their children?” In Conversation with Robin Williams.
If you go to the site – you can even read the transcript.
Listen Now – 24042008 |Download Audio – 24042008
Dr Sue Stocklmayer’s experiment with mothers was a huge success. She taught them science, so that they could, in turn, answer their children’s questions. The mothers loved the course at the Australian National University and interest in the scheme was sparked around the world. So what next? And how do we stem what seems to be a stampede away from science in our youth. Dr Stocklmayer has some firm suggestions — even involving soap operas on TV.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
That was great and Digital Cuttlefish quote is so very on the mark, IMHO.
“So, I continually look more and more often to those outside of ‘the skeptic organizations’ for future directions….”
It’s frustrating that skepticism is still so fringe a topic — a niche interest area. I work for what is, I think, currently the biggest skeptics magazine, yet it’s the case more often than not that even the science professionals I speak to have never heard of it.
Still, I’d add two points here:
1) Marginal as skepticism may be in PR terms, organized skepticism remains the only concerted effort to track, examine, and inform the public about paranormal claims, hoaxes, and scams. That may look like a niche project, but it matters.
2) Even in the realm of wider science popularization and general promotion of science literacy, the most influential voices have frequently come from somewhere within the skeptics movement (consider, for example, Carl Sagan, Bill Nye, or Isaac Asimov) or even humanism (Gene Roddenberry).
“Since I am researching gender differences in beliefs, it sometimes saddens me that there’s only a handful of women – Robyn McCarthy, Lynne Kelly, Loretta Marron, Dr Karen Stollznow and Dr Krissie Wilson – that immediately come to my mind as being role models in skeptic circles.”
The important skeptics you mention are certainly noteworthy, but this short list seems a little Aussie-centric. It also omits some towering figures, even just within the English-language skeptics literature. Among them, Susan Blackmore (the world’s leading expert on out of body and near death experiences, and among the world’s most important critics of parapsychology); Elizabeth Loftus (the world’s leading expert on false memory), Eugenie Scott (the world’s leading watchdog against organized creationism), Ann Druyan, and Carol Tavris.
My personal suggestion for “most influential woman in skepticism,” however, deliberately avoids the limelight and therefore has almost zero name recognition: the powerhouse co-publisher of Skeptic magazine (US), Pat Linse. Pat co-founded the Skeptics Society with Michael Shermer, created Junior Skeptic, and remains the Art Director of Skeptic. She created the first skeptics magazine available on newsstands — among skepticism’s largest milestones by any measure.
Yes, but how well? I mean, seriously, the last TWO efforts I’ve seen where someone tried to pull together the number and population within skeptic ‘circles’ as it were: one had some out-of-date material and did it as best as he could; one did it so badly that the only value it seemed to have was that it inspired me to me to start getting into some research in Australia!
Who’s tracking? What, exactly? Now, Skeptic magazine printed one of the research papers of Aarnio and Lindeman, for example, that represented measuring beliefs. Are skeptic groups helping out with that? Let’s say Skeptical Inquirer might feature an article about ‘revisiting Big Foot’ or whatnot. Australian Skeptics Journal may be producing some article on attending a psychic convention and so on. But who to? Are they being published elsewhere too?
Who’s the audience, really? What should be the audience? Are we tracking what makes us what we are, what subjects concern us the most? Is there anyone writing anything on powerful medias and how to crack them? Is being an ‘important niche’ enough – you write yourself that scientists don’t know the magazine… but do the public? Do people who are skeptically minded? Do kids?
In short, I’d like to know if organised skepticism is ready to track who we are first to get an understanding of ourselves and our beliefs, because it’s becoming a little odd to think that I have more in common with authors who are more pro-paranormal simply because I don’t have a clear enough picture of who skeptics are…
But two of the modern-day ‘heroes’, Dr Richard Wiseman and Dr Karl Kruszelnicki are stepping away from the word ‘skeptic’. The podcast of Skepticality has shown that, in the interviews done by Michael McRae.
Times have changed, Daniel, and even the younger-by-comparison Bill Nye is looking very dated. Who’s influential now? Al Gore? What happened? You wrote yourself of the changing of eras – three on your list are already dead…
That’s because I only have five fingers on one hand! As I wrote – ‘immediately comes to mind’ and ‘handful’.
I was dithering about including Susan Blackmore, for example, as I had her speech in a book right next to my elbow. But if her, then what about Lindeman and Aarnio? And if them, what about Dr Caroline Watt, who wrote to me encouragingly about my research? But she’s a paranormalist… so shouldn’t I include those who do not openly identify themselves as skeptics? Like Australian women scientists I’ve met? Like the one on the podcast I link to at the end of the paper, or the West Australian Chief Scientist, Lyn Beazley?
In short, I wrote ‘immediate came to mind’ (as in, rolled off the tounge as I asked myself aloud) and ‘handful’.
Rather than ‘here’s an extensive list that I wrote out on a piece of paper and dithered over and scratched out and then used Google to make sure I spelt “Lyn” with one “n” and then realised that in history, there’s quite a few cool women I should include and hey, what about all those cool ones I heard on Skepticality who weren’t really skeptics but were damned nifty and oh…”
If you like, you can check out this much earlier blog post here, where I DID dither and namecheck ALL of those people you mention, and more…. I’m not neglecting them, in fact, I’m kind of feeling, rather … uh, that I’ve done it to death, kind of.
As for ‘Aussie-centric’ – I’d probably point to the ‘Women and Superstitions – Part Two’ post where I point out cultural bias on our beliefs. I’d feel upset with myself if I couldn’t wave the flag. It’s tough enough to get people to name scientists in their own country, when everyone seems more able to name sports-heroes…
Only one handful, only one tounge to roll off, as I said.
Those and more, you can find in that list from earlier in the year. I appreciate them, but I want more…. guess I always will?
“Do people genuinely think that the answer really as simple as just one podcast? One radio show? A magazine article? A single TV show? Just a handful or even ONE person?”
Most skeptics I think would agree that a multi-prong approach is needed, but don’t know where to start.
Looking outside skepticism, as you suggest, is a great idea. Reaching-out is great. I’d offer that we also look for ideas that have been successful elsewhere as well, applying them to skepticism as an experiment to see if they stick.
Barcamp, as we’ve discussed offline, is but one small example of an idea that could help. There are at least a dozen more such ideas, coming from the world of tech, religion, etc. that could offer a future of growth, participation and influence.
You must log in to post a comment.