Topic: The Skeptologists

[GerryBeggs]

I'd also like to add that a different title would make the show much more appealing to newcomers of skepticism.
If the title wasn't already taken, I think "The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe" would make a great title for the show.
Sounds sexy and exciting
And it still has the word Skeptic in it.

Good luck with the show. My email has been sent.

[arthwollipot]

Is there any new news on the show? How's the progress in selling it to the networks?

[tiny333]

the truth will out go go go
 good luck im sure it will be fine

attack the biggest lies and go 4 it



hurrah

[alexbutterfield]

I'm sorry to not see or hear anything about this recently, I hope that isn't a bad omen.

To be honest, and this is difficult as I haven't seen the pilot (so take this criticism in that context), I dont get the show.

It does seem like a whole lot of preaching to the converted, and not just that but (maybe this is the wrong idiom) a bit of floggin' a dead 'orse.

I gather you are aiming for Myth Busters genre, but as a more specific attack on pseudo-science. Well the problem is, where's the mystery, where's the surprise in the show. In Myth Busters - as Adam Savage said on the SGU podcast - even the producers don't know where the show is going. But this almost seems like a glossy presentation of the Skeptoid podcasts.

Don't get me wrong, I'll listen to the skeptoid podcasts for the content, but if I want to know the outcome I just have to read the title. After two minutes of a skeptologists episode people will know - oh, this week they tell us that wheatgrass and ghosts are nonsense. It's a foregone conclusion that you will bust the myth. Despite it's title Myth Busters has the mystery of the outcome, will it be busted or confirmed? The producers and the audience don't know.

I've got to agree I don't like the title either. (although I like the microscope S in the logo)

I'm 50/50 on whether skeptic should even be in the title at all. Skeptics Guide to the Universe is better, as suggested, so nice one for going and using that right up. I feel bad for not offering another title but it's tough one.

You talk about how atheist is a dirty word, well I think skeptic is almost as bad. It's a turn off - synonymous with 'closed mindedness', that is to the people who you really want to reach.

You know what I thought was a really good title - Here Be Dragons. Maybe you could even recycle that.

Id have to agree with the equal representation of women, rather than a proportional representation. That way you might have a better chance of reaching more women (and if they are hot, more men), but specifically women, which I know is a goal of the skeptical movement.

As I said, I'm not sure of the exact format, so maybe some of this is redundant, but I think you need an element of surprise to the show. Maybe a format that is a reworking of Science or Fiction. (Maybe that's a better title) You could go with three or maybe with two subjects. There's always the issue that people could leave and forget which one was which though - but the point is really to promote critical thinking, not just conclusions.

I've got to say, the cast looked pretty big too, was it 9 of you? I know you split up, but I think that 4 would be more accessible, you can always bring experts in for certain segments.

I sort of like the idea of having laymen on the show, whether it's the public, some students, or a studio audience.

Maybe it could even be aimed at kids, and have some kind of game made out of it that ends it someone getting gunged. maybe that was just appealing to my generation when we were kids though.

To sum up - my main issue is the foregone conclusion of it. I'll try and think of some more constructive ideas to post that would solve that but it's a tough one.

All the best with the show.

[Evil Eye]

Skeptoid is a GREAT tool though. Especially since he puts a transcript on his site.

I can't think of how many times I have heard the guys on the radio talking some shit about water-gas, or some kind of super fruit juice, etc..... that I haven't been able to go right to his site, snatch the appropriate information, tag on some references, and other links to back it up and send it off.

Fortunately, the shows I listen to know me well, and read my emails (either on or off air) when I send them... often times refering back to them when they realize they had no idea.

THIS board here helped the Monsters debunk the Bigfoot thing.
This board here exposed much of Sarah Palin

We are the Farks of Geek!

[krelnik]

I gather you are aiming for Myth Busters genre, but as a more specific attack on pseudo-science. Well the problem is, where's the mystery, where's the surprise in the show. In Myth Busters - as Adam Savage said on the SGU podcast - even the producers don't know where the show is going. But this almost seems like a glossy presentation of the Skeptoid podcasts.

Don't get me wrong, I'll listen to the skeptoid podcasts for the content, but if I want to know the outcome I just have to read the title. After two minutes of a skeptologists episode people will know - oh, this week they tell us that wheatgrass and ghosts are nonsense. It's a foregone conclusion that you will bust the myth. Despite it's title Myth Busters has the mystery of the outcome, will it be busted or confirmed? The producers and the audience don't know.

I agree.  I really think this is going to be a big problem for the show to overcome.  TV needs drama, even in reality programming.  As you pointed out, Mythbusters episodes can be very dramatic, because you are never quite sure what conclusion they are going to reach until they get there.  That keeps people watching past the commercial breaks, and gives them a feeling of satisfaction when the show is over.  It is core to making good, compelling television.

I think this could be fixed.  Changing the title might be a good step as you point out.

The second step would be to widen the topic area of the show.  Include not only things that can be debunked, but "strange but true" stories from actual science.  As the "Science or Fiction" feature on SGU demonstrates nearly every week, there are weird, fascinating things happening in science all the time.  Put some of those into the TV show.

In fact, if you could fit it into an hour, I would pick three stories that are related in topic each week.  Two would be debunkable nonsense, and the third would be actual new science.  Split the team up and each group tackles one of the stories.   Then you score up at the end.

You could even add to the drama by creating some (semi?) fictional rivalries between the "skeptologists" and keeping a running score of who found true stuff.  (Or take another page from Science or Fiction and have each team try to predict what the result will be without researching it first, and score them on that).

That would put some drama back into the show and would make it appealing to those outside the choir.

[Evil Eye]

I gather you are aiming for Myth Busters genre, but as a more specific attack on pseudo-science. Well the problem is, where's the mystery, where's the surprise in the show. In Myth Busters - as Adam Savage said on the SGU podcast - even the producers don't know where the show is going. But this almost seems like a glossy presentation of the Skeptoid podcasts.

Don't get me wrong, I'll listen to the skeptoid podcasts for the content, but if I want to know the outcome I just have to read the title. After two minutes of a skeptologists episode people will know - oh, this week they tell us that wheatgrass and ghosts are nonsense. It's a foregone conclusion that you will bust the myth. Despite it's title Myth Busters has the mystery of the outcome, will it be busted or confirmed? The producers and the audience don't know.

I agree.  I really think this is going to be a big problem for the show to overcome.  TV needs drama, even in reality programming.  As you pointed out, Mythbusters episodes can be very dramatic, because you are never quite sure what conclusion they are going to reach until they get there.  That keeps people watching past the commercial breaks, and gives them a feeling of satisfaction when the show is over.  It is core to making good, compelling television.

I think this could be fixed.  Changing the title might be a good step as you point out.

The second step would be to widen the topic area of the show.  Include not only things that can be debunked, but "strange but true" stories from actual science.  As the "Science or Fiction" feature on SGU demonstrates nearly every week, there are weird, fascinating things happening in science all the time.  Put some of those into the TV show.

In fact, if you could fit it into an hour, I would pick three stories that are related in topic each week.  Two would be debunkable nonsense, and the third would be actual new science.  Split the team up and each group tackles one of the stories.   Then you score up at the end.

You could even add to the drama by creating some (semi?) fictional rivalries between the "skeptologists" and keeping a running score of who found true stuff.  (Or take another page from Science or Fiction and have each team try to predict what the result will be without researching it first, and score them on that).

That would put some drama back into the show and would make it appealing to those outside the choir.

VERY GOOD!

[Skulker]

I gather you are aiming for Myth Busters genre, but as a more specific attack on pseudo-science. Well the problem is, where's the mystery, where's the surprise in the show. In Myth Busters - as Adam Savage said on the SGU podcast - even the producers don't know where the show is going. But this almost seems like a glossy presentation of the Skeptoid podcasts.

Don't get me wrong, I'll listen to the skeptoid podcasts for the content, but if I want to know the outcome I just have to read the title. After two minutes of a skeptologists episode people will know - oh, this week they tell us that wheatgrass and ghosts are nonsense. It's a foregone conclusion that you will bust the myth. Despite it's title Myth Busters has the mystery of the outcome, will it be busted or confirmed? The producers and the audience don't know.

I agree.  I really think this is going to be a big problem for the show to overcome.  TV needs drama, even in reality programming.  As you pointed out, Mythbusters episodes can be very dramatic, because you are never quite sure what conclusion they are going to reach until they get there.  That keeps people watching past the commercial breaks, and gives them a feeling of satisfaction when the show is over.  It is core to making good, compelling television.

I think this could be fixed.  Changing the title might be a good step as you point out.

The second step would be to widen the topic area of the show.  Include not only things that can be debunked, but "strange but true" stories from actual science.  As the "Science or Fiction" feature on SGU demonstrates nearly every week, there are weird, fascinating things happening in science all the time.  Put some of those into the TV show.

In fact, if you could fit it into an hour, I would pick three stories that are related in topic each week.  Two would be debunkable nonsense, and the third would be actual new science.  Split the team up and each group tackles one of the stories.   Then you score up at the end.

You could even add to the drama by creating some (semi?) fictional rivalries between the "skeptologists" and keeping a running score of who found true stuff.  (Or take another page from Science or Fiction and have each team try to predict what the result will be without researching it first, and score them on that).

That would put some drama back into the show and would make it appealing to those outside the choir.

krelnik and alexbutterfield are on the right track. The concept for the show is brilliant but the presentation needs work.

The more you can appeal to the masses the better your chance of getting picked up.

I like the contest idea maybe if you have "contestants" from off the street and have them guess which stories are science or fiction and take them through the process of the investigation. That way the audience can see critical thinking in action.  Maybe even have the home audience vote for their choice for the fictional story.

I hope the show gets picked up in some form. We need this kind of programming on TV and by all means change the title 

[CKava]

I dunno if I agree. Everyone knew what was going to happen in every episode of the X-Files and they tuned in. Everyone knows whats going to happen in every John Edwards show and they tune in. Everyone knows whats going to happen in every ghost hunters or pyschic detectives show and yet they tune in. And for perhaps the no. 1 example... what about Bullshit?

The question is whether a skeptical show can appeal to a broad enough audience and I think shows like Mythbusters, Bullshit and Dawkins documentaries show that they certainly can. In the UK I would go so far as to say there is a bit of a demand for skeptical shows like this.

I'd like to get an update though... is there ANY news?

[allmhuran]

I'll echo the notion that the title might not be the best. My initial gut reaction just to the title taken in isolation was "uh oh, skeptologist sounds a little like scientologist". I think this is a problem because even though there are a lot of believers out there in various types of nonsense, the general public (happily) seems to have little love for scientology.

I realise that the "ologist" suffix is entirely legitimate, we have biologists and geologists and many other perfectly respectable ologists. But the one people seem to know best is "scientologist".

[krelnik]

krelnik and alexbutterfield are on the right track. The concept for the show is brilliant but the presentation needs work.

The other reason to include real science stories in the show, aside from adding some drama, would be to help counteract the popular conception that skeptics are just naysayers or cynics.  Even if you didn't do it every single episode, if you occasionally showed investigations where the skeptics turned out to be wrong and they were surprised about it, you'd help raise the credibility of skepticism as a whole.  You'd also be teaching a good lesson about the scientific method.

I like the contest idea maybe if you have "contestants" from off the street and have them guess which stories are science or fiction and take them through the process of the investigation. That way the audience can see critical thinking in action.  Maybe even have the home audience vote for their choice for the fictional story.

That's a very interesting idea.  It might help humanize the show some more and help the viewer understand which scientific concepts are prone to misconceptions and which ones aren't.

You know what would be fun for man-on-the-street segments?  Get someone like Richard Wiseman involved and do some "live" demonstrations of some of the psycho-perceptual stuff that he talks and writes about.  That would be especially good on an episode where the investigations tied into that, such as if you were investigating ghosts or UFOs.

[Evil Eye]

With the group they have, they could change the name to "What do you WANT to know?"

Let people ask questions via video or on the street, and then give all the facts along side the fiction that most people believe.

[Dr. Nociceptor]

For some reason I can't view the videos, but by judging from this forum discussion, it sounds like a good idea, especially if there's some kind of audience participation. You know, try to get the audience to think? "Now, how would we figure this out?" and the whole Science or Fiction bit would be a great idea I think!

Even better, if they asked people on the street, "How would you go about figuring this out?" and of course watching many of them, "I don't know," demonstrating that we really do need to teach people how to think critically!

Oh, and the title... too bad America is not among one of those countries in which the word 'skeptic' invokes the image of someone who is very thoughtful and reasonable. How can we get rid of negative connotations?

Anyway, I'd definitely watch that program if I had a television....

[alexbutterfield]

Everyone knew what was going to happen in every episode of the X-Files ... every John Edwards show ... every ghost hunters or pyschic detectives show and yet they tune in. ... what about Bullshit?

You are right that the "question is whether a skeptical show can appeal to a broad enough audience", but your examples aren't shows that do that. X-Files was drama; John Edwards, ghost hunters and psychic detectives are only watched by true believers. Bullshit might get a bit of a cross-over audience - Teller said on SGU that they get a frat-boy demographic because they are waiting for the boobs. I think that show is funny and that's why it gets the cross over - it has recognizable celebrity hosts too, all things that Skeptologists won't have.

I think your point is that these 'shows' all have an element of foregone conclusion and they still get an audience. But they don't get a cross-over audience, which is sort of the point of this project, ie. to spread critical thinking. You kind of have an element of mystery in 'how will they show this is wrong?' But, as I mentioned, this is what attracts skeptics to skeptoid, but it wont attract any new viewers/listeners.

Should the title include the word 'skeptic'?

EE- I don't think that it's just America where the name skeptic is synonymous with cynic. It certainly is in England too. I just think the skeptic 'movement' is insular and 'our' definition for skeptic is different to from the popular definition.

I never liked skeptologists, it's not catchy for a start - but I've thought about it some more and I don't think the title should say skeptic at all. It'll be a turn-off for most casual viewers, in my opinion.

(This is the sort of thing you could do a study on though. Just a poll in the street, ask like 20 questions that give you an idea of whether someone is open to skepticism (ie. ask about the Creationism questions, or ask people to rate urban myths on their likelihood) without directly asking are you skeptical, then ask the more direct questions at the end. eg. Have you heard of a skeptical movement? Do you know who James Randi is? Do you think you would watch a TV show with the word skeptic in the title. - it's need wording correctly so you didn't make it too unspecific so that people would all say 'it depends'. But it should be quite a simple thing to do. Maybe that's something very productive we could actually formulate on the boards!

The issue of format is still elusive though. I'll have to think about it, but I doubt there's an obvious, aha! I cant believe noone thought of that before, idea.

[Shivierie]

With the group they have, they could change the name to "What do you WANT to know?"

Let people ask questions via video or on the street, and then give all the facts along side the fiction that most people believe.

That's a good idea too.