Topic: The Skeptologists

[alexbutterfield]

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.

I agree also. That could really work.

(it could even be a section on a news network, like those spots where where they investigate dodgy companies. Bob has written to Winky Dinky Hotdogs 3 times, but is yet to hear from the customer relations dept... since this story was filmed Winky Dinky Hotdogs have settled with Bob - those things. A skeptical investigation into.. anything would be a great news spot - it should be the whole news tbh, but it might be a good start)

but it would work as a good show, a sort of science lab set or something, people ask questions, and you show the research.

The problem of foregone conclusion still applies a bit, but the show would show the research, so it makes the point of skeptics being open to the evidence, and promotes that idea.

its still kind of skeptoid, but it shows the method, the working out.

[Zarvox]

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.

This idea is genius. Assuming you keep the episodes wrapped around a loose theme, one episode could be Neal Adams' hollow earth, LHC as world-destroyer, and string theory. Or out-of-body experiences, dreams-as-premonitions, and sleep paralysis. Each time, make it something that the layman would not know about already so that A) they don't think of skeptics as cynics B) they see that science is pretty cool stuff, and C) they are keen to sit through the episode because their curiosity's been piqued.

[alexbutterfield]

Neal Adams' hollow earth, LHC as world-destroyer, and string theory. Or out-of-body experiences, dreams-as-premonitions, and sleep paralysis

This sounds good. those specific episodes sound really interesting too.

I'd watch that for sure, and I think it works better than just debunking stuff. It's strange the way you've named it - sleep paralysis. That's some positive spin, you could just call that the abduction/old hag myth and then the whole show is debunking.

It didn't occur to me before to just discuss one of the phenomena that way. its the same segment, old hag or sleep paralysis, but one has the debunking baggage, and the other has some bunking instead.

I keep wondering about using some kind of magic/illusions as part of the show. One of the big skeptics things is getting people to understand that they cant trust their own experiences, and therefore anecdotal evidence is worthless. What better way than by exposing the fallibility through illusions.

I remember Derren Brown doing a trick where he played against 7 chess players at once. including 4 grand masters - with the goal of winning more than he lost. He explained afterwards that his trick was to remember the moves made by the grand masters and duplicate them against the paired grandmaster. That way he wasn't really playing himself, just being an interface between the two masters - and was therefore guaranteed to win two of those 4 games. (barring stale mates). Then he just had some lesser players he could beat himself to boost the score in his favour.

It was a cool trick - and made even better by explaining it. maybe there could be a magician on the show to demonstrate points like this. to expose credulity or whatever is needed.

[Skulker]

These are all good ideas. I just hope Dr. Steves reads this thread and can convince the "Powers That Be" to rework things and make a second pilot.

[Dr. Nociceptor]

Yes!! Steve, we're counting on you!!

[rebecca]

These are all good ideas. I just hope Dr. Steves reads this thread and can convince the "Powers That Be" to rework things and make a second pilot.

I wasn't involved at all in the making of The Skeptologists pilot, but I can safely say that these things are absolutely enormous in terms of cost and time. The logistics are extraordinarily difficult, especially when the show requires a large, diverse group of people to star on camera. There is very little chance that they'd go to all that expense again to film a second pilot. Any input (which I'm sure they appreciate) that they incorporate will likely be in the form of a written proposal.

[Skulker]

Holy disappointment, Batman!

....but when skeptics take over the world , then we'll show them!  [queue maniacal laugh]

[Dr. Nociceptor]

MUA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAA!!!!

Sorry. Reflexes.

[alexbutterfield]

Thanks for the downer Rebecca.

I just had another thought though.

it's for a different skeptical TV show that the JREF could pitch.

The Million Dollar Challenge

Each week a psychic with a wacky claim enters the challenge and the panel of skeptics develop a scientific protocol to test the claims. then they test them and Randi proclaims the failures as what they are.

I think that's a really basic format, you make the protocol development more interesting than just sitting at a conference table. You could bring experts in, and then stand around a tool shed mythbusters style conductin little experiments as part of the protocol dev.

A few cool animations here and there.

Maybe even have 2 psychics each week. Or open it up to more paranormal claims.

That'd send out a great message.

And I'm serious about this. I know the JREF is phasing it out, but if they could get a TV show out of it, maybe it would rejuvenate it for them.

EDIT: I just looked up some youtube videos and it looks like this idea was done (in the 80s by the look of it). doesnt mean it wouldnt work again though.

[ohp]

The fact is, most practitioners of woo have been scared off the challenge. I don't think there's much chance you'd get many entrants

However, If you have a good idea for a show, it's not hard to create your own content. All you need is a camera, some microphones, perhaps a bit of lighting. By being on the amateur scale, you don't risk intimidating the subjects of your video.

If anyone in the UK (or further afield for that matter.. it's not hard to get raw material from A to B) is interested in video projects, let me know. I reckon that if you create a worthy show on youtube, there's a chance it could be picked up by media companies.

I'm currently working on a video about astrology to be put on youtube... watch this space!

[Damage Magnet]

Just add my voice to the concencus about the name.

Skeptologists may be descriptive but is it useful?

My own suggestion would be
Really[size=8]?[/size]

with you know colours and stuff to make it look good. Make it a question rather than a statement.

The other point would be that the idea of a journey of investigation is also a good one. Get a bunch of claims each week and have people look into them ~ try to get a proponent of each to join in. As someone else on here said have these things sometimes be true as well so it looks like a genuine process to everybody.

[brettv]

So I'm still curious to know if we can get any more info on whats going on with the show...I've been excited about this since they announced it, but havn't heard much else about it since then.

[Skulker]

I think they are still trying unsuccessfully to sell the show. It might be even harder now, with the economic down turn, to sell a show with such a limited potential audience.

[brettv]

Aw, that sucks, I didn't think about that.

I do hope if it does go through they can use that "Strange but true" kind of thing to not look like just downers lol.

I'm still excited about this, and I really hope that it eventually goes through.

[CKava]

I think they are still trying unsuccessfully to sell the show. It might be even harder now, with the economic down turn, to sell a show with such a limited potential audience.

I don't think it's fair to say 'unsuccessfully'. By all accounts things are moving along nicely behind the scenes. Read the Skepticblog for instance and all involved seem resolutely optimistic and quite happy with how things are going. These things take time. I would recommend reading a recent article on the blog from one of the behind-the-scenes guy about the potential/target audience. And once again considering the success of other skeptical shows i.e. Myth Busters, BullShit, Richard Dawkins documentaries I don't necessarily buy the arguments that there is no audience for this type of programme.