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 21943 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jim

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 809
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #45 on: September 06, 2007, 07:34:22 AM »
I think I'd like to hear a debate with a conspiracy theorist, but I guess it depends on the conspiracy, If it's too whacky, I think I would be worried that giving them unwarranted attention might strengthen them in their believe.

It might actually be interesting to pick a member of the public off the street and interview them on a topic, see how they responded to logical criticism of any erroneous believes they had.

I think a lot of guests are unlikely to respond to even very sound arguements but it would be interesting to see what arguements made an impression on someone who's position wasn't quite so entrenched.

Basically I guess trying to replicate the kind of debate you might have at work or in a bar and see how the experts do it :-)
Jim

Offline quokka

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #46 on: September 06, 2007, 11:30:23 AM »
I'm for 5 to 10 interviews per year.  Neil Adams did give me the shits though; hijacking the show with his version of the 'Gish Gallop' was a bit much.  Apart from that, I really enjoyed the other interviews, even the Bigfoot hunter (sorry I can't remember his name).

I think a conspiracy theorist might be pretty painful.  From what I've seen on this forum, they tend to always run to the official explanation as an 'argument from authority'.  Ideally, what are the chances of getting Tom Cruise on board?  The way work is drying up for him at the moment, he might be looking for a bit of extra publicity.

Offline Mrs. Schaarschmidt

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #47 on: October 04, 2007, 03:33:02 PM »
I guess I'm a little crazy.  I love hearing the completely crazy true believers.  On an occasional basis, the outrageous ones are much fun to hear.
f you go to sleep at night and you're not dead yet - you got through another day.
~~Mrs. Schaarschmidt~~

Offline Kwisatz Haderach

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11170
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #48 on: October 04, 2007, 03:48:47 PM »
If we must hear interviews with wackjobs, at least let them be novel.  I found Neal Adams the be very entertaining, because his idea were not ones I've heard debunked a bazillion times before.  I cannot imagine anything more boring than an interview with a JFK or 9/11 conspiracy theorist!

I like th cutting-edge-borderlands-between-science-and-philosophy stuff, like the anti-free-will/naturalist guy and neurology/artificial intelligence.  I would love to hear an interview with someone in the same field as Alan B. Wallace, but not quite so wacky.  I suppose that kind of what Susan Blackmore was... she was sort of on the border between Skeptic and Believer.  I guess that's what I want to hear more of, Borderline Skeptic/Believers.

Offline matts30

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 159
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #49 on: October 05, 2007, 02:19:26 AM »
The true believers are immensely entertaining in their ridiculous notions, and sometimes are able to come up with interesting theories as well, which don't need to be ignored just because the people who come up with them are total loons.  This is the exception to the rule though, really they're mostly just funny as hell.
"the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data"
-Mark Crislip of Quackwatch
"Uranus is out of order"
-Neal Adams, AKA, crazy guy from 51st podcast

Offline kelsey

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 67
  • carthago delenda est
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #50 on: March 10, 2008, 03:55:58 PM »
It's true they vary - who here wasn't induced to violence by Neal Adams - but then so to do the rational guests. Some of them have been pretty lousy too.

Maybe you can use as the basis for an extended "spot the logical fallacy" segment.
Any monkey worth his salt would give any bird a beak-flip!

-- Perry De Angelis, an American skeptic of some note.

Offline Slash

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 58
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #51 on: March 23, 2008, 07:03:37 PM »
I am surrounded by true believers.  I talk to them everyday. Sometimes we even talk about our beliefs.  Unless you want to get some kid to talk to you about Santa Claus I can see no value of having a true believer on. Unless you had two true believers that believed in opposing views of the same nonsense.  Maybe have a Satinist argue with a Fundamental Christian. That may be fun. How many people did Satin kill in the Bible? How many people did God kill in the Bible?
Why is eyewitness testimony the lowest form of evidence in science and the highest form of evidence in the court?

Offline Naon Tiotami

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • http://naontiotami.livejournal.com
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #52 on: March 29, 2008, 04:19:57 AM »
I think that a podcast about skepticism needs to deal with pseudoscience directly by having more interviews with pseudoscientists or pseudoscience proponents. Plus, it's good for listeners to hear how these people think and talk about what they endorse. So, 'bring it on'.
img]http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g74/NaonTiotami/LiveJournalSig1.png[/img]
I have a grudge against cults and religions due to a conflict of reality, and therefore am a naturalist.
My YouTube Channel

Offline kelsey

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 67
  • carthago delenda est
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #53 on: March 29, 2008, 04:46:54 AM »
Quote from: "Slash"
I am surrounded by true believers.  I talk to them everyday. Sometimes we even talk about our beliefs.  Unless you want to get some kid to talk to you about Santa Claus I can see no value of having a true believer on. Unless you had two true believers that believed in opposing views of the same nonsense.  Maybe have a Satinist argue with a Fundamental Christian. That may be fun. How many people did Satin kill in the Bible? How many people did God kill in the Bible?

I'm sure we all are... I've got a 9/11 truther at my work place and it's amazing how quickly these things can get out of hand. I'm sure we're all familiar with the frustration of the true believers.

So I guess the challenge then is to figure out the difference between the total true believers that just make us angry (Neal Adams) and those that are a bit closer to being rational (that big foot guy and the psychic investigator woman, McGee I think), but still being fallacious in their reasoning.

For example people that are "out" in my mind would be Ann Coulter, Jonathan Wells and the like.
Any monkey worth his salt would give any bird a beak-flip!

-- Perry De Angelis, an American skeptic of some note.

Offline freelancecynic

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 3
    • http://freelanceguru.co.uk
True Believers
« Reply #54 on: April 01, 2008, 03:19:45 PM »
I enjoy your posts with you true believers. It makes for a nice change, gives us all a different view point and helps remind us that not all true believers are completely insane.

You guys always do it with great respect too, which I like.
b] The Freelance Guru - One Man - One Pole - One Mission - And one snake named Luke[/b]


Offline adr150

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 317
  • Ranch?
    • Me On YouTube
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #55 on: April 02, 2008, 11:22:44 AM »
i would enjoy 5-10 TB interviews/year. however i definitely think it is important to get guests who can have a coherent conversation.  

After reading some of this thread and the reviews of Neal Adams and Alan Wallace, I went back and listened to them for the first time (in that order).  I was bored and angry with the Neal Adams interview for a couple reasons: 1) he hijacked the show and just babbled on. at one point i think i had him up to over 10 minutes uninterrupted. what a jackass. which leads to 2) Steve was way too polite with him.  Don't get me wrong, being a polite host is a HUGE strength for Steve and the show, but I kept saying to myself "C'mon Steve!  Knock that bastard down. Pick him apart!"  I felt like Steve should have been much more assertive

The Alan Wallace interview I thought was much better.  Wallace didn't go on forever/Steve didn't allow him to and challenged his points.  Also I enjoyed the banter between the two.  This is the most fun part.  The only thing that kind of irked me was that at one point, Wallace kind of took over directing the course of the interview.  

All that said, the Tskiris (sp?) interview was great as I remember it when it first aired.  Alex really didn't get away with anything egregious.  

An interesting interview might be Bill Marher to interview him on his big pharma conspiracy theories along with his more reasonable views

all in all, I enjoy a healthy dose of a (suitable) TB interviews

-edit sp/bold
Expelled

"A Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms 'have a reasonable expectation of privacy.'"

Offline kelsey

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 67
  • carthago delenda est
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #56 on: April 02, 2008, 05:07:20 PM »
Yeah, I also wish at times that Steve had pushed a little harder. Neal Adams in particular he kept making such idiotic claims and I was just yelling in my head and I would have LOVED to see Steve nail him on one particular issue.

I know it's much harder when you're the one in the hotseat, and he did keep wriggling away to yet another insane idea all the time.
Any monkey worth his salt would give any bird a beak-flip!

-- Perry De Angelis, an American skeptic of some note.