Poll

What is your opinion on how often we should have interviews with true believers?

Never - I don't want to listen to true believers
3 (1.2%)
Rare - Only in special circumstances
25 (9.8%)
Occasional - a few times a year with interesting people
147 (57.9%)
More frequently - Bring them on, it's good to hear and debate the other side
79 (31.1%)

Total Members Voted: 242

Voting closed: March 01, 2007, 08:19:59 AM

Author Topic: SGU Poll 2  (Read 22030 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Winick88

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1253
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #30 on: March 13, 2007, 11:50:05 PM »
I really liked the interview with B. Alan Wallace. Did anyone else enjoy it?
The human understanding is like a false mirror, which, receiving rays irregularly, distorts and discolors the nature of things by mingling its own nature with it. ~Francis Bacon

Offline jason

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3067
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #31 on: March 14, 2007, 02:58:58 AM »
Quote from: "Winick88"
I really liked the interview with B. Alan Wallace. Did anyone else enjoy it?

Really does depend upon your definition of "enjoy". It started off okay, in that it appeared that Wallace was at least coherent, but it went downhill once it become obvious he was listening with his mouth. He didn't answer the questions put to him, was irritatingly condescending to Steve, and was clearly unwilling to listen to any point of view that contradicted his own. Yet another TB masquerading as "open minded".

I'd say it was educational, but I certainly got no enjoyment out of it.
quot;Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
"Scientific skepticism: the buck stops at reality."

Offline SCriminal

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1126
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #32 on: March 14, 2007, 04:08:56 AM »
No more like Neil Adams...but I'd like to hear more bad science people who are not completely obnoxious.  A scientologist would be fun.  One of those aquatic ape people.  Not the aquatic ape, I hear they're rather dumb and violent, but someone who is a proponent of the hypothesis.

Other interviews I'd like to hear:

Idea from my Butter's episode - circlemakers and ghost hunter groups
Hoaxers of any kind like two kids (now grown) that Randi used to fool those scienticians
A moderate chiro
Someone who's actually been to space
A pirate
quot;I think it's a bunch of crystal-gripping hippy nonsense." Mythbuster Kari

Offline Ivan Lysenko

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 85
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #33 on: March 14, 2007, 03:55:53 PM »
What type of pirate do you mean?
digital or one of the high seas?
urprised cyclopes :idea:

Offline Winick88

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1253
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #34 on: March 14, 2007, 04:32:35 PM »
I loved the Wallace interview. I've listened to it a few times. Novella crushes him on every point. It just feels good to listen to Wallace go on and on only to be trumped so concisely at every response. We shouldn't forget that while it may seem like Wallace controlled the debate, he never got to explain how anything other than science can allow one better access to cognitive processes. He offered nothing positive and was immediately made to defend his assertion that science cannot explain consciousness. The Michelson-Morley exchange was great. Novella's parting shot was so perfect-- Wallace had been harping on "horse-and-buggy science" and Novella called him on the fact that the ghost in the machine is actually older than modern cognitive science. Man-- it's old philosophy.

Wallace isn't an idiot. That's why I like this debate. He's clearly intelligent and articulate. It's a more satisfying beat-down.  :D
The human understanding is like a false mirror, which, receiving rays irregularly, distorts and discolors the nature of things by mingling its own nature with it. ~Francis Bacon

Offline SkepThickHeaded

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4604
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #35 on: March 15, 2007, 09:12:57 PM »
I said bring em on more often.  I'd like at least 1 of every 4 interviews and guests to be True Believers of one kind or another.

Otherwise we're just preaching to the choir, listening to regurgitations of opinions we already know we agree with and congratulating ourselves on holding such a solid opinion.  Hell, nothing is more gratifying than hearing world renowned experts say the same damn thing I said at lunch yesterday, but all it really proves is that I listen to people who say the things I say at lunch.

The most valuable thing about hearing the rehearsed rants of the True Believers is it dulls the shock that you get from hearing it the first time.  MANY times I've heard a skeptical host confront a TB and get totally blown off course or even sandbagged completely by the deluge of bullshit that they're buffeted by.  Dealing with TB's is a lot like Kung Fu.  When you learn the forms and the attacks, you learn the defense and the appropriate offense to follow with.

Keeping the issues one sided basically keeps the audience untrained and unprepared to deal with the TB's in real life by keeping them mired in amateur Jr Skeptic status, when this could be the skeptic equivalent of training for the UFC Octagon.
"When push comes to shove, you've got to do what you love...even if it's not a good idea"  Hermes Conrad

Offline Bartmon

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 225
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #36 on: March 15, 2007, 09:31:45 PM »
Steve,

How far ahead do you plan guests?

Bart
esus Never Existed

Offline gary goldwater

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Variation on a Theme
« Reply #37 on: March 16, 2007, 09:19:48 AM »
I've listened to all your podcasts now. It seems to me that the paranormal proponents that you line up are good representatives in that they are basing their presumptions on a "tweaked" sensibility that may be societally reinforced. This is a strength of your program... as opposed to interviewing fakers or people with unfortunate and only-too-obvious psychiatric conditions.

Followup with your psychic detective in some timely manner would be important. I don't think you need to report on the results until it's over...but it would be good to know that the project is running. It may take a few tries before the criminal is caught and the psychic is debunked or verified.

Segments on fallacious reasoning are, in some ways, a functional equivelent to interviews with the paranormalists.  But I also think that the "Science or Fiction" segment is a great place to focus-in on how WE think and place borders around what we consider believable and what we find absurd. Here's a variation of the Science or Fiction game that may be instructive.

Science or Fiction: Take one topic....from a magazine, newsletter, or newspaper. Summarize the pertinent sections giving evidence or making claims about something in the real world. Then talk about it as a pannel and come to a conclusion as to if it is "science" or "fiction" and summarize the reasoning for that conclusion. This will simulate the process that a listener goes through when leafing through a magazine or newsletter at home. Practical applications of critical thinking can be observed.

I think it's worth a try &, in a way that simulates your listeners' regular interaction with these materials, IS an interview with the paranormalists or fakers....just through the use of print medium rather than the phone.

What do you think?
ary in Seattle

Offline Taeko

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 11
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #38 on: March 17, 2007, 05:37:30 AM »
No no no! Please! I feel very uneasy after listening to interviews of true believers. Not more than 3-4 per year please!

Offline dorbie

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
No free rides for them if you do have them on
« Reply #39 on: May 01, 2007, 08:44:38 AM »
I think some of the true believers get a free ride, I think treating guests with respect is OK, and the ballance is usually right but some of the worst guests get away with making absolutely huge errors or sweeping unsupported statements impugning the entire scientific community and nothing is challenged.

If you have guests on you can't just let them skate no matter how delusional they are.

Offline TurboCramb

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1397
  • Hyper-Rationalist Jerk
Re: No free rides for them if you do have them on
« Reply #40 on: August 08, 2007, 02:12:26 PM »
Quote from: "dorbie"
If you have guests on you can't just let them skate no matter how delusional they are.


dorbie makes a good point.  I can understand that Dr. Novella has to walk a tight line in being civil and not belligerent, but still it does seem that you could be a little tougher.

Maybe doing a dual podcast would be a good idea, one week interview someone, the next week spend time systematically breaking down their arguments and showing how to analyze them and debunk them.  That's the ONE thing i dislike about the true believer interviews, not enough time debunking after the fact.
There is no god, and Richard Dawkins is her prophet.

Expelled Exposed

Offline skidoo

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5881
Re: No free rides for them if you do have them on
« Reply #41 on: August 08, 2007, 03:23:26 PM »
Quote from: "TurboCramb"
Quote from: "dorbie"
If you have guests on you can't just let them skate no matter how delusional they are.


dorbie makes a good point.  I can understand that Dr. Novella has to walk a tight line in being civil and not belligerent, but still it does seem that you could be a little tougher.

Maybe doing a dual podcast would be a good idea, one week interview someone, the next week spend time systematically breaking down their arguments and showing how to analyze them and debunk them.  That's the ONE thing i dislike about the true believer interviews, not enough time debunking after the fact.

Which interviews in particular are you referring to?

Online wastrel

  • Great poster... or greatest poster?
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 13372
  • Science: A cold-hearted bitch with a 14" strap-on
Re: No free rides for them if you do have them on
« Reply #42 on: August 08, 2007, 03:27:48 PM »
Quote from: "TurboCramb"
Maybe doing a dual podcast would be a good idea, one week interview someone, the next week spend time systematically breaking down their arguments and showing how to analyze them and debunk them.  That's the ONE thing i dislike about the true believer interviews, not enough time debunking after the fact.


That would work for like three guests.  Tough to get the fourth.

Offline Schottky90

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 88
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #43 on: August 31, 2007, 04:40:44 PM »
Bring them on!!!!  :wink:
"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere." -Carl Sagan

Offline Mark7300

  • The Happy Bunny
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3930
  • Other people are the problem.
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #44 on: August 31, 2007, 04:52:51 PM »
Maybe more people working on the real fringes of science. That does not have to mean they are TB but it could just be people that have really far out there ideas on science issues. Be it the universe, biology, etc...
I'm a Pareidoliaologist.

 

personate-rain