His conversion was over some time in which he was arguing on the net with folks arguing for evolution. The people that got nasty with him would generally provide some good evidence, then basically kick him in the balls (using words). He said this really pissed him off, but he said it did challenge him.

Eventually he met within these conversations someone that took more time to calmly explain any questions he had without judgement…

So it seems to me that in this “conversion process” – the problem with such critiques of approach is that they are trying to force a dichotomy?

Perhaps for some a “kick in the pants” will not be what is needed or helpful…but perhaps for others it will be.

And of course a video that is “tough” can rally the troops and get them talking about the topic more in society and having either calm debate or terse/snarky debate…either way its stimulating discussion.

Just some thoughts….

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=”

I don’t think that his view is”unskeptical.” Free will is a topic I rarely get into, because people tend to be opinionated yet don’t know what they are talking about. I find Massimo’s take on it nuanced and informed yet still unsatisfactory. Perhaps its because I’ve yet to hear a coherent definition of the term.

” his main point seems to be that there also seems to be aspects to the skeptical movement which are lacking in skepticism”

Like his own lack of scepticism regarding free will?
…especially when he accuses those opposing him as holding unsceptical views on free will.

“Ironically one of the reasons Steve is pretty much my favorite skeptical blogger is his reasonable, considered approach which is not as confrontational as others. ”

Now read his most recent article on the Shuzi Magic Power Braceletand and see if you don’t think he can be just as scathing when the situation demands it.

As a science-minded person with a background in molecular biology, I’ve seen this first hand in the corporate world. There have been many times when I made patient, fact-filled arguments for my position in high level meetings only to have half the room miss everything, probably thinking I was an idiot as a kicker. It was very frustrating to watch the company waste time and money as I quietly worked for weeks to bring people together around a project that should have been a no-brainer from the start.

One of our sales executives explained it to me very succinctly. The CEO and I were discussing a marketing strategy that revolved around communicating the facts about why our products were better. We said “If I was buying this, that’s what I’d want to know!”

The sales executive stopped us right there: “You just don’t get it. You are not ‘most people’!” In the same vein, the people who read skeptic blogs are in no way “most people”. Although we can be susceptible to sales-speak, we are far more likely to prefer technical specs and real world data. Direct appeals to emotion are less effective for us.

Not so the average Joe. Particularly Joe the Baptist who says “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!” No, that 85% of the population is turned off by fact-based argument. They live in a world of emotional appeal. Don’t believe me? Watch any TV advertisement. Watch any political commercial – or the conventions. They have nothing in common with the reasoned argument approach favored by skeptics. (Bonus points if you recognize that it isn’t just “the other political party” that is nothing but a bunch of empty talking points)

Why? Because that’s how most people learn. Not by having somebody say “you are wrong, and it is dangerous to your kids for you to be wrong!” I mean, really…. how many atheists have been swayed by that argument? “You can choose not to believe in God if you want, but let us educate your kids to believe in God because it is better for society!” Yeah, that’ll sell…. Why the hell do you think it would work in the reverse?

I think where is disagree is that I don’t think Massimo is making this point exactly (perhaps that is his motivation, but I am not going to speculate there). Although he has implied that an aggressive style has become too common (not that it has no place), his main point seems to be that there also seems to be aspects to the skeptical movement which are lacking in skepticism. I don’t disagree, and I think it is very important for a group to be self critical in order to ensure that these issues are discussed and that there is growth and maturity on such topics. Of course just because a person identifies as a skeptic (and may even be a big name in the community) does not mean that that person is skeptical in all respects. Being part of such a community means that there are others there to point out when you are (or may be) wrong.