I thought I'd take a look at his forum thread for that episode. Interestingly, even his own people are pretty critical to the point of dragging him over the coals and even (proponents that they are) calling him out for many of the same things we've mentioned here. They also don't really approve of his style in the interview and his (rather childish) post interview monologue. One thing is clear from what they are saying and from my own experience listening to the show/reading accounts by guests of his show: His main tactic appears to be to ambush his guests with information and topics that they have no familiarisation with. He has every opportunity to send them relevant information in order for them to brush up and to ensure an amicable, informative and productive debate. But he doesn't, I suspect because on some level, he knows he can't stand up to a well-informed skeptic (See the episode of SGU he was on). My honest opinion is that he does this simply to leave his guests looking like they have no idea what they are talking about, as if they are dogmatically against psi. They are unable to defend themselves or comment, and in his mind, (and probably many of his fans') this equals victory. "Skeptic can't rebut, believer wins".
It fits in with a philosophy that Alex has appeared to employ for some time now: That he cannot sufficiently prove his woo, so the next best thing is to discredit its opponents, in order to elevate himself and his wacky ideas. It would appear effective to people not accustomed to critical thinking, but it's actually really juvenile and vindictive. Anyway, here's some interesting quotes there from Alex:
I like talking to Atheists like Seth. It's a great reminder of how pervasive this goofy thinking it... and makes it a little easier to walk the other path
Yes, the Thinking Atheist is goofy, and psychic dogs are... ... What exactly?
maybe... just maybe... folks like Jerry Coyne and Seth Andrews are not being 100% honest when they say they were "sandbagged"... maybe they are making excuses for losing a debate about stuff they claim to know.
My comment on this quote is that if there was ever an example of a guest being sandbagged on Skeptiko (That I've heard) those two interviewees would be the two cases I make for it.
I don't get your point???
I think these guys are misrepresenting-the-facts/mis-remembering/lying. I tried to engage in honest debate. they lost and then invented an excuse for losing. the onus is on them.
I entered into the dialog with Seth with the best of intentions (my emails and the interview itself show this). I wanted to get around the duck-and-hide game, so I proposed a two-part interview (which Seth twice agreed to... both before and after the first interview). I wanted to lay out the arguments in round one and dig into the data in round two. I wasn't even going to publish round one until we had completed round two.
You're giving way too much weight to these excuses. Anyone can invent excuses after they lose. Where is there ANY evidence that I misled Seth? And why the heck do you accept his transparent excuses for not engaging in this dialog? I think you (and other posters) are just uncomfortable with the inevitable conflict that arises from debates/dialog like this.
He talks a lot about skeptics "losing" these debates, but I have no idea about what his criteria is for winning/losing. Maybe whoever talks the loudest? Whoever can ask more questions that the other can't answer? It seems his measuring stick is whether or not his guest can give him an answer that satisfies him.
I do like that Alex has mellowed slightly and doesn't use such a confrontational tone.... He let's guest have a good opportunity to voice their opinions and rebutt his arguements. Unfortunately most Skeptics are woeee-fully ignorant of the subject matter they purport to endorse.
This is a quote from a random member of Alex's forum. It's here only for comedic relief.
Seth has a great voice for radio, but sound pretty sorry when it comes to debating this stuff because the materialist position is almost impossible to defend.
(emphasis mine) This speaks for itself.
I do apologise if this post comes off as more of an attack/whine about Alex and his people, but at this point I honestly believe that Alex and his show are little more than a really bad joke and at some point these things can be subjected to ridicule. Nothing else has worked.