Jun 23 2008
The Skeptical Movement – Thoughts from TAM6
I spent the last week at The Amazing Meeting 6 (TAM6) – a skeptical conference hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). TAM consists of a series of lectures, workshops, and presentations by prominent skeptics and scientists, but is has also evolved into something much more. It is, in every practical way, the annual meeting of the skeptical movement. So it is not surprising that I return with some thoughts about how the skeptical movement is doing. I don’t really have a coherent thesis to present – just some random thoughts and observations.
Skeptical Meetings
First, TAM was awesome. These meetings alway recharge my intellectual and skeptical batteries. Their obvious utility is in providing educational lectures – to learn from experts in other fields. But the benefits of such meetings go way beyond that. It is also an opportunity for cross-fertilization, to exchange ideas with others in the movement in a concentrated forum. Everyone comes away with new ideas, deeper understandings, and plans for future collaboration. We need more meetings like TAM. Hopefully, as the skeptical movement grows, more meetings will emerge also.
The social aspect of these meetings also should not be underestimated, or dismissed as “mere” socializing. Skepticism is not just a good idea, it is an organized movement. These meetings allow people who share an intellectual outlook to be connected, and not just for networking, but to make a real social connection. Everyone was completely approachable and eager to answer questions or just chat. This grows and spread the movement. At least a dozen times I was approached by someone who was inspired by TAM to form their own local skeptical group, or to offer their specialized services to the movement.
Humans are social animals. No one wants to feel like they are socially isolated, and being a skeptic in some communities can have this effect. Meetings like TAM help forge the skeptical movement into a skeptical community – further increasing the motivation and possibilities for collaboration and mutual support. In short - we can get a lot more done as a community than as individuals.
How are we doing?
I have been to many skeptical meeting and events before and I have to say that for the first time I have come away from a meeting with the sense that the skeptical movement is on the brink of a significant cultural transformation – from the fringe to the mainstream. Here are some examples:
Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium and one of the current superstars of popular science, is also a no-nonsense skeptic. During his lecture he was generally well informed about skeptical issues and was unapologetic in his skepticism. The skeptical movement, to some degree, has changed the public perception of skepticism, and part of this change is that mainstream scientists feel as if they have permission to be openly skeptical.
At the meeting were George Hrab, a musician and writer, and Greydon Square, a hip-hop rap artist. Both of these artists have chosen to emphasize skepticism and reason in their music. Can you imagine a hip-hop rapper rapping about hardcore science and skeptical philosophy? Greydon and George are two of the coolest people I have ever met, about as far away from the nerdy scientist stereotype as you can imagine. Skepticism is now cool (at least it can be), and part of mainstream culture.
Adam Savage from the Mythbusters was definitely the most popular celebrity at the meeting (Penn & Teller, and of course James Randi, are also superstars, but it is my sense that the Mythbusters are better known outside the skeptical movement). He is a regular guy who loves to build stuff and sometimes then blow it up. He is also a skilled craftsman and artist who has built models for many movies. And he is also a total geek (in the positive connotation that the word may now have). And yet he is famous for debunking myths in a fun and entertaining way.
The size of the conference – about 900 attendees – also reveals the overall growth of the movement. People attended from Australia, Japan, Canada, and the UK, in addition to all over the US. It was a truly international meeting. For every skeptic there, there were many more who could not attend because of expense or time constraints. Also present were representatives (that I know of) from four podcasts, two published magazines, and numerous blogs all with readers/listeners in the tens of thousands or more. Richard Wiseman presented some of his psychology videos that he posted on youtube that are getting millions of views.
And, of course, we got to preview for the first time the finished pilot of The Skeptologists – an investigative reality tv show where skeptics tackle false claims and myths. (Full disclosure – I am involved with this project as one of the “skeptical talent.”) While this is just a pilot and the chances of any pilot actually making it on the air is slim, the show is pretty good, if I must say so myself, and stands as good a chance as any of getting picked up.
Conclusion
What I saw this past week was a vibrant and growing community of truly great people – open, friendly, excited, and unashamedly skeptical. The movement is enjoying increasing success and has its eyes hopefully on the future.
Tomorrow I will muse further about skepticism as an intellectual discipline and the challenges and successes of skepticism in the Web 2.0 world.
26 Responses to “The Skeptical Movement – Thoughts from TAM6”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It’s heartwarming to hear that the skeptic movement truly is starting to blossom, and it inspires me to do whatever I can as an individual to help it along.
Our species evolved to live in tribes; therefore, we have politics. It is perfectly understandable and natural. But politics and reason don’t always mix. Dr. Novella feels elated after meeting with his skeptics tribe, and that only strengthens my skepticism about the skeptics movement.
When pec takes exception to something, you can be fairly certain it’s of the type that proves the proverbial rule.
Pec must be on his/her last intellectual legs and is willing to be nothing but a pure, unabashed a-hole.
Sounds like it was a great thing, Dr.
Pec writes: Our species evolved to live in tribes; therefore, we have politics. It is perfectly understandable and natural. But politics and reason don’t always mix. Dr. Novella feels elated after meeting with his skeptics tribe, and that only strengthens my skepticism about the skeptics movement.
____
Oh come on , you got to tell us where you got your random non-sequitur generator from!!! It is much better than mine, as all mine spitted out was the rather lackluster:
Pec is a human whose species evolved to live in tribes; therefore we have politics. It it perfectly understandable and natural. But politics and reason don’t always mix. Pec feels elated after posting at a skeptics’ blog, and that only strengthens our skepticism about Pec.
Yes, I am hearing other positive first hand accounts from the skeptics bash.
Oh, I suspect that if the whole world went totally woo, pec would then become a skeptic. Internet contrarian, and quite bad at it. Dime a dozen.
I could not make this TAM, but attended TAM 2&3. Thankfully, what happens in Vegas does not always stay in Vegas.
I too find it encouraging that skepticism is becoming more acceptable socially. In many places the term remains synonymous with Godless Atheist, and I recall the 1970s when being a ‘skeptic’ was tantamount to admitting (in the beholder’s eyes) you loved Satan and found babies quite tasty. I live in a rural area of the Bible Belt, just one hole back from the buckle.
I’m not sure if I’m being cynical or realistic when I caution that most social movements are cyclical and that woo won’t go down easy. Ebb & flow, ebb & flow.
Looking forward to another post on TAM6.
I was just pointing out the irony. Skeptics, supposedly, care more about science and reason than about belonging to a tribe. Traditionalists put tribalism first, so you would expect them to feel elated when meeting with their tribe.
A real skeptic, like me, does not often experience intense tribal feelings. Pseudo-skeptics, on the other hand, are intensely tribal and Randi is their priest.
pec is the Groucho Marx of skeptics – he won’t belong to any tribe that would have him as a member
“Skeptics, supposedly, care more about science and reason than about belonging to a tribe.”
Is this true? Does pseudoscience count? How about traditional skeptics? I can’t be a skeptic because I’m elated when I meet with my children? I don’t get it. Skeptics are not supposed to have feelings?
Pec said “A real skeptic, like me, does not often experience intense tribal feelings. Pseudo-skeptics, on the other hand, are intensely tribal and Randi is their priest.”
lol – now hes on to the “No True Scotsman fallacy”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
a wannabe blog troll, like pec, does not often experience intense tribal feelings. real blog trolls, on the other hand, are intensely tribal and posting is their prestige.
All this time I never knew what a real skeptic was. You, pec, have boldly anointed yourself as such, so now you are my “priest.” pec, teach me please. Please give me the address of YOUR blog. As of now I can only catch snippets of your wisdom when you capriciously choose to appear with your sacred droplets on these FAKE skeptical blogs. Guide me, oh real skeptic. Show me the way! Help me pec, you’re my only hope.
Peter piper picked a pec.
he should have returned it.
“pec is the Groucho Marx of skeptics – he won’t belong to any tribe that would have him as a member”
Comment of the week!
Except that pec is a “she” who thinks she understands science by getting a degree in computer science! (use the advanced google search for pete’s sake!)… like that means anything (while an engineer with a disabled kid, I must endure the idiocy of folks who claim he is mercury poisoned because they learned it on Yahoo groups that say so… groups run by CHEMICAL ENGINEERS like Andy Cutler… aargh).
I like belonging to tribes as much as any homo sapien. I meant to say I try not to mix politics with my search for understanding.
Your “skeptics” movement is political and ideological and utopian. You are more interested in banding together and feeling superior and elated than in improving your understanding of nature.
pec, as usual, totally misses the point.
This is not about belonging, it’s about confronting nonsense in an organised and systematic manner, and most importantly, exchanging ideas like free-thinkers are supposed to do. If we had a dogma to uphold, such meetings would be entirely political in nature. Since we have none, it’s all about learning and confronting experiences .
Of course the whole process can be fun, and there is nothing to be ashamed of if we enjoy each other’s company.
It’s weird that we are called to explain these very simple facts, when pec could simply have asked the dead, or read them in his tarot cards.
FFS, guys, don’t feed the troll. Without attention, he’ll soon get bored.
About feeling superior pec. Here are all these people more or less always giving solid sober arguments with valid logic as to why they disagree with you, yet you still won’t listen. *pssst* (i don’t think it is them feeling superior pec;-))
“I don’t get it. Skeptics are not supposed to have feelings?”
See, here’s the thing… Most of the anti-science or pseudoscience types I’ve run into are essentially dualists. They talk about unity and “all being one” but they divide the world into highly artificial and simplistic categories (all pretty much framed within a very religious good vs evil paradigm). Examples of this avoidance of complexity include ideas such as East vs West (which ignorantly compresses a variety of cultures into an artificial and simplistic duality, and ignores the diversity of cultures that have contributed to contemporary science), natural/botanical=good vs man-made/distilled/synthesized=evil, traditional=good vs innovation=evil. The other idea I keep seeing proposed is that reason and emotions are at war (no doubt because they’re experiencing an inner conflict) – as if one can’t think and feel concurrently (maybe they can’t?) or feeling and intellect are mutually exclusive. Once again, this is creating a false dichotomy that shows a rather glaring lack of understanding and respect for both emotions and intellect – though I guess if someone’s intellect and emotions are continually in conflict their subjective experience is of an internal dichotomy between intellect and emotions and it may be hard for them to see that many, many people don’t experience this kind of conflict or need to shut down either emotions or intellect to avoid internal conflict.
Steve Page, I know you’re right. I always know it, but I still do it. I’m like a child. I can do it, though. I think I can, I think I can, …
What pec is missing is that the skeptical “movement” does not promote anything but science and critical thinking. We do not have beliefs or high priests. The only thing we agree on is that science and critical thinking are the best guides to truth about how the real world works. Not surprisingly, when we use those guides we often arrive at the same provisional conclusions – for instance, that the apparent success of dowsing is an illusion. On issues where the evidence is less clear, we often disagree with each other.
When we live in an everyday world full of gullible non-thinkers and true believers, it is a true joy to go to a meeting of questioners and thinkers. It feels like I imagine someone might feel when released from an insane asylum.
“It feels like I imagine someone might feel when released from an insane asylum.”
I can confirm that.
It is so mentally stimulating (hence pleasurable) to be around other free thinkers, whether on the Net or in person. There seems always an opportunity to learn something new.
On the other hand, our resident “true, blue” skeptic, only “teaches” by presenting such sloppy thinking that we are indirectly taught by her example of what not to think. However, I don’t find her lessons as interesting as the lessons I receive from “faux” critical thinkers like Steve. Or as pleasurable.
Once again, Pec, gets hold of a subject that can be worthy of discussion and just mangles it. Politics is seen from her rigid, absolute perspective, as not being perfectly pure. Therefore, she sees its corrupting influence everywhere (she automatically applies her useless definition of what politics are to a group of people who actively and consistently confront and challenge her wonky grasp on reality, after all, we are impure materialists, so ‘naturally’ politics must be running rampant in our lives).
But what I find to be Pec’s great talent is in her ability to sound so vague when presenting her strong, rigid perspective. Skirting around issues so adroitly allows her to keep her core narrow grasp of reality alive and well and prevents her from learning. It is not a style of living that I envy.
Steve, there are a good number of science writers created each year but they are not going into news. AAAS offers an internship (http://www.aaas.org/careercenter/internships/scienceminority.shtml) Increasing demand inside industry and academia are absorbing writers far as I know. Probably the best way to find out about it is to contact the science writers’ professional association: http://www.nasw.org/
Poor science reporting is a complex problem as you know. I have the impression that there is a population of writers who could be drawn on, but the news industry is not offering sufficient incentives. My local newspaper is cutting twenty percent of its staff this week for instance. A good resource for following trends in the news business is the Journalism school at Columbia.
Finally, the trend toward sensationalism may be a symptom of desperation in the face of declining viewership/readership rather than foolishness. As you mention the power of the Internet, Google’s advertising revenues are taken out of other channels. Also, every time I listen to Skeptic’s Guide, I am not listening to the radio. There’s a lot going on.