EDIT – the same article, with a slight title change, has now been syndicated in the San Francisco News as ‘The Demystifying Adventures of The Amazing Randi‘.
I started to read a link that Richard Saunders (who you can follow on Twitter under the name @skepticzone) presented.
It was an article by Michael J. Mooney called ‘The God of Skeptics – Heretics, nonbelievers, and doubters worship the Amazing Randi. So what will freethinkers do when he’s gone?’ (link is to the full-length print version, so you can read it in one hit). It’s in the Miami New Times.
Naturally, certain phrases began jumping out at me, mostly the negative ones. Maybe it’s the mood I’m in at this time of the morning, which led me to pick out the ones which really weren’t complimentary. But here’s what I eventually tweeted in response. Maybe you’ll find something more positive in the article compared to me.
As it is, I think it’s one of the more depressing summations I’ve seen for a while. After having written extensively on how educational curriculum materials could benefit from organised skeptical resources that integrate with current needs and suggested ways that this could be done… well, I guess not surprised that it’s not something that was observed by the author who attended the Amazing Meeting. The bit about ‘we don’t trust anyone… particularly the government’ jumped out at me, for example. Maybe things will change.
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
What an article. Of course, the negatives are going to jump out first and foremost. Wasn’t there quite a few teachers at the conference? Pity if they’re all being painted as libertarians.
The party-atmosphere thing has been a bit of an issue raised already, I thought. So that’s nothing new. Remember Barbara’s blog at http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2009/07/19/open-mouth-attempt-to-remove-foot/ where some Science Blogger summed up his views of the Amazing Meeting as:
Maybe there could be a little more formality. But then, as you said, it’s not a very complimentary article. Yet I can’t dismiss the elements of ‘what is being achieved’, even as it’s really kind of kind and sympathetic to Randi.
Well, if you think that there should be solutions or if you think that it should be just ‘laughed off and we support TAM regardless’ – feel free to debate it out.
I just don’t think that it should be something kicked aside or called ‘tabloid journalism’, because overall, the article does have some elements that indicate that this is one impression that is being garnered and is then being publicised. Being dismissive seems… irresponsible? Again, maybe that is just me. :/
Agreed, CC – the overview of James Randi’s life in the article is quite a good one and I’d suggest people check it out for just that at the very least.
That was an enjoyable read.
But… on the JREF forum, although there are certainly a number of libertarians, it has been my experience that the majority of posters are not merely “not libertarians”, but are strongly opposed to either or both the theory and the practice of libertarianism. A ghetto shantytown is labeled “Libertopia”; gun-control threads descend into anti-libertarian rants; Ron Paul is mocked incessantly…
… money-hemorrhaging, ok. Atheist, mostly. Libertarian? A handful, of course, but I would never have thought them a significant minority, let along a majority.
As for worshipping Randi… again, in my experience, it happens, but it is not a defining characteristic.
But then, it has been a while since I have visited the forum.
Okay, my first response was ‘if you’re that upset about how skepticism is portrayed by this article, then just dismiss it and enjoy it for what it is regardless of what some journalist thinks’.
My second response was — ‘no, we should care. This is the picture that someone who has researched who Randi is and actually seems to care about the movement, despite their claims about what the JREF is doing and how people at TAMs behave’.
Then I went back to ‘maybe we should just enjoy TAMs and to hell with the critics because we know we’re all not like that’. Then I thought that maybe Podblack was being too harsh in expecting more formal education links that had relevance for parents and for those wanting to change their curriculum?
I ended up saying ‘if Podblack really was being too harsh or didn’t care or was that tough a critic, then why does this blog exist in the first place and why do they go to conferences and why do they write posts about it and so forth’.
I think I end up feeling that maybe there should be more articles like this which are taken with a more serious eye rather than just ‘drinking the cool-aid’ (which was a comment made to Podblack about how upset they got about this article, on Twitter, if it’s okay to mention that).
There’s still some good comments in the article:
‘But most want to give thanks to the man who got them sober to the ways of the world: “Hi, I saw you speak in Toronto, and you changed my life.” “You let me know it was OK to question my own beliefs.”‘
and
“Although the future is up in the air for the Amazing Randi, what keeps him going are the men and women who approach him every day with stories of their skeptical conversions. “That means I’ve changed someone’s life,” he says. “I get emotional. I say to myself: ‘Damn! That’s why I’m in business.’ The people here, they’re going to follow me. The movement’s going to go on.”"
It is articles like this, and others, that always prove to me that I just am WAY too busy at TAM, and any other skeptic events. Or, people just don’t invite me to the parties where people get all stupid.
The title still just says it all for me, the attitude that’s being expressed.
How to ruin a perfectly good morning, really. :/
Honestly Derek? I think my volunteering at TAM 3 and TAM 5 has made me take the attitude of it needing to be ‘a working formal conference rather than people saying it’s a party for skeptics’ – and the changes over time where there has been a growth in numbers has made some of the negatives this person has observed inevitable. Mind, I wouldn’t say the observations are indeed true of everyone there. But it’s a pity that those particular ones surfaced.
I thought it was a good and fair article.
Are atheists a majority at TAM? Probably so. And I just got a fundraising letter from Ronald Lindsay of CFI that, unfortunately, completely obliterates the distinction between skeptic and atheist/humanist, something that many of us were concerned about when CFI was first created. If that letter went out to all Skeptical Inquirer subscribers (the letterhead said “Center for Inquiry/Skeptical Inquirer/Free Inquiry,” and I subscribe only to Skeptical Inquirer, though I attended a CFI event a few years ago), I suspect that skeptics who are religious will not be pleased.
Are libertarians a majority at TAM? No, we know that from the informal survey during Shermer’s talk at TAM7–but it’s perhaps 1/5 to 1/4, which is greater than the percentage in the general population. The author was technically wrong in what he said there, but he’s right that there is a big libertarian presence.
Are there a lot of people at TAM who enjoy drinking and partying? Yes, that’s again accurate, though I had the same reaction to the paragraph at the end of the story you did–that’s not how I would like skeptics to be represented, but I can’t complain that he got it wrong.
I had to consult JREF’s Form 990s for myself after reading the article–they don’t support the author’s statements. Unless the hemorrhaging of which he speaks has occurred during 2009, it’s not so. JREF net assets went from $1.9M at the end of 2006 to $2M at the end of 2007 to $2.1M at the end of 2008, with revenue increasing each year–and revenue from “admissions, merchandise sold or services performed” has gone up a LOT ($208,743 in 2004, $249,652 in 2005, $328,480 in 2006, $492,566 in 2007, and $1,043,234 in 2008). Between 2007 and 2008, unrestricted net assets (everything other than the $1M for the award which is classified as “temporarily restricted net assets”) went from $989,337 to $1,104,381.
In the Form 990s, very little of the net assets are invested in publicly traded securities, but quite a bit in bonds and U.S. treasuries. I can’t believe they would have lost a quarter of their value so far this year.
So – what should the next action be, Jim? Is this something that warrants a response?
I don’t feel any particular need to respond to the article, but it does make me interested to know more about the demographics of organized skeptical groups–TAM attendees, Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic/The Skeptic readers, Skeptics Society conference attendees, local group attendees, online forum participants, and podcast listeners. How did they get involved, what do they think skepticism is, what are their views on politics and religion, their educational backgrounds, and so forth. I’d like to see some real data about who makes up the “skeptical movement.” (And I’d prefer to see it over time, but I don’t think anyone has collected this data before.)
Yes Jim – I in fact suggested such a ‘survey’ about two years ago… I think a copy of it is in the Australian Skeptic, in an article I wrote for them.
At Dragon*Con this year, I’ll be with a researcher who is currently collecting qualitative data on the matter, but via interviews. If you’re there, please catch up with me and I’ll introduce you to him!
Unfortunately, I won’t make it to Dragon*Con… but I’m definitely interested in the results.
I’m not surprised to hear that some people attend TAM for the parties or that some think skepticism and beer go hand-in-hand. As a teetotaller, I often wonder if there is a “group” on Earth who don’t think everything’s driven by alcohol.
But I am perhaps overly sensitive to any and every mention of alcohol – including the many “skeptics in the pub” meetings that seem to be dotted all over the globe. Why is it always “…in the pub”?
Overall the article seemed positive or balanced but why he chose to “end” it with some quotes from a random, unnamed piss-pot is anyone’s guess. Maybe he was trying to make the point that skeptics are just “normal” (everyone’s a piss-pot after all).
I spoke today with some teachers. They agreed that ‘education’ and ‘critical thinking’ is hardly something one associates with ‘the guy with three vodka shots saying that the parties are the best part’.
What’s more important in the end? Really?
You must log in to post a comment.