TAM7+: Thoughts, feedback, suggestions...

[PuckishOne]

What about those who are merely coming out as skeptics, but have no intention of, or even ability, to teach? I am talking about those who are merely struggling to come to terms with their former beliefs, those who have to keep silent about their skepticism, in fear of being fired or ostracised by their family and friends? They are every bit as skeptical as you. Only, they don't have the opportunities that you do.

Having been one of the people described above (occasionally I still am), I fully and intimately understand the precarious situation that this entails. I also understand the attraction of TAM as a skeptic love-in for these people as a valid and necessary outlet. However, I disagree about the lack of opportunities: the opportunities are always there, whether we choose to avail ourselves of them or have the ability to recognize them, they are there. We are all, in the course of our daily interactions with others, in a position to teach something to someone, and that makes us a potentially powerful force for the social change necessary to put critical thinking on the psychological map. Some need a little help with their "teaching" skills, however (myself included), and TAM seems to me an amazingly appropriate place for this sort of thing. I can't see this as pissing on anyone because as much as I value those who teach for a living, I see all of us as potential teachers, even if it's just one small thing passed along to one single person at one time. It adds up.

 

[athon]

Even if only to underscore my point and demonstrate just how ignorant Claus is being -

Can your educated self imagine that there are people who are not teachers, but still are skeptics? Is it possible that there might just exist people who are very much dedicated to educating people but who are not teachers?

I've been saying this for a while now, and for the most part it falls on deaf ears. Instead, I'm accused of focusing too much on a single group. If I was only concerned with a subset of teachers, then it might be a fair criticism. However, as I've said a number of times, many people 'teach' as a part of their lives. If you coach a team, lead scouts, run a library, a daycare, lecture at university, tutor, act as a consultant, train people to do a job... I could go on... you're having to consider how people learn....

I might make a small challenge here - there are far more people who promote skepticism, but there are only two groups who can create skeptical thinkers. Teachers, and anybody who is in a position to teach. The former is quite a small demographic. Thankfully the latter is incredibly broad.

To put it into even simpler speech - educating means you're teaching. If you're in a position to educate, you're in a position to change how another person thinks. Please keep in mind though, that education is not equivalent to simply telling people what to think. To change how one thinks demands more than just saying 'X is wrong'.

I'll again reiterate - there is a place for pure communication of the conclusions formed by skeptics. However, it is virtually useless if the target demographic does not have the capability of thinking skeptically for themselves. To do this, they must be taught, not just informed.

Many people are in positions to do this. I missed perhaps the biggest group from my list above (I've included it before when I've discussed this topic): parents - perhaps the single most important demographic who are also capable of teaching.

You can play whatever games you want, Claus. There comes a point when it's obvious you're trying to be ignorant intentionally, especially when clear points I've made such as 'this is not about the teaching profession, but rather about anybody in a position to teach another person' are obviously there for all to see.

It's incredibly simple - skepticism is more than imparting pre-formed conclusions. It is about changing how people think. If a skeptic group is concerned about creating critical thinkers it needs to access those people who are in positions to be able to do this. Note again I never said to the exclusion of community support, or those who assist skeptic groups, or anything else.

Athon

 

[Wolfman]

At this point...I've said pretty much everything that there is for me to say, and made my own opinions obvious; I see little purpose in simply repeating the same things

I welcome others to keep batting about their ideas and opinions.

I'd just like to conclude by again stating that I enjoyed TAM, and do think that both TAM and the JREF are worthwhile. Personally, I think that TAM could become far more effective and far more relevant than it is at present; but even if it remains relatively unchanged, it'll still remain as a popular event, and still continue to grow in size.

So I will now drop out of this particular debate, and start focusing my energies in more productive directions. A lesson I learned a long time ago...you can't make other people change. The JREF and TAM cannot be all things to all people. And rather than sitting about moaning about what others are doing, it is often far more effective to simply get off your butt and do it yourself.

So, this is me, getting off my butt.

 

[articulett]

I disagree that TAM is preaching only to the choir. I think the continual growth of TAM and the inspired feeling most attendees leave with is proof that the message is getting out... people are learning that, not only is skepticism an option,-- it's a fun and uplifting one as well despite the "faith in faith" meme that pervades cultures.

This doesn't mean we don't work to refine our goals and our techniques... but I think that TAM is increasingly Amazing, and I am certain that all sorts of seeds are planted. Inspiration can have a strong ripple affect. Sometimes a person doesn't know how valuable skepticism is until they get a taste of it from people they like. TAM does that... so does this forum... for all kinds of people of all ages and races from all over the world. That's amazing to me. I notice the growth every year... and in evolution, we call that a "toehold"-- everything great starts with that toehold-- including humanity itself.

I think some folks will always find fault. I hope they use it to make TAM better. But I find the undermining of one of the most amazing experiences of my life a bit off-putting. Tam doesn't have to be everything to everybody all the time to become a wonderful force for inspiring the spread of critical thinking. Yes, lets work to make it better-- but do we have to be petty in order to do so?

TAM is a place where many people are finally free to say, "I never saw any clothes on that damn Emperor" without people dashing about tsk-tsking them for daring to say as much. Geeks need love and acceptance too. It's fabulous we can find each other and let others know there is a place for us.

 

[Wolfman]

I think some folks will always find fault. I hope they use it to make TAM better. But I find the undermining of one of the most amazing experiences of my life a bit off-putting. Tam doesn't have to be everything to everybody all the time to become a wonderful force for inspiring the spread of critical thinking. Yes, lets work to make it better-- but do we have to be petty in order to do so?

I just wanna' say...I have real, real problems with the idea that criticizing what I see to be significant failings (such as some of the presentations that by far the majority of people feel were not worthwhile), or suggesting changes that I think could make TAM even better, is "undermining" TAM.

Here we have the whole thing going again...the almost cultic mindset that either you must support James Randi, and JREF, and TAM with almost religious fervor...or else you are someone who is trying to "undermine" their work and efforts. Criticize James Randi? Dare to suggest that TAM could actually become better? God forbid!

I trust that the staff at JREF themselves see it differently -- since they actually did make the effort to ask for feedback. But to me, the very best way to support TAM is not to be some slavish puppy salivating in abject admiration and unquestioning acceptance of everything they say/do. TAM has grown and changed over the years. And TAM has gotten better over the years.

And I'll guarantee you, those changes didn't come about as a result of people saying, "Aw, gee, everything was wonderful, I couldn't possibly find fault with it, or suggest any way to make it better". Those changes came about as the result of suggestions and complaints from those who thought, "Hey, this is good...but it could be even better!"

 

[articulett]

I just wanna' say...I have real, real problems with the idea that criticizing what I see to be significant failings (such as some of the presentations that by far the majority of people feel were not worthwhile), or suggesting changes that I think could make TAM even better, is "undermining" TAM.

What presentations were not worthwhile according to the vast majority and by which measure? Where id I suggest that I thought you were "undermining" TAM?

Here we have the whole thing going again...the almost cultic mindset that either you must support James Randi, and JREF, and TAM with almost religious fervor...or else you are someone who is trying to "undermine" their work and efforts. Criticize James Randi? Dare to suggest that TAM could actually become better? God forbid!

Apparently, something I said made you extrapolate this. Will you quote what it is please. I don't feel this way. Your interpretation is incorrect; a straw man, if you will.

I trust that the staff at JREF themselves see it differently -- since they actually did make the effort to ask for feedback. But to me, the very best way to support TAM is not to be some slavish puppy salivating in abject admiration and unquestioning acceptance of everything they say/do. TAM has grown and changed over the years. And TAM has gotten better over the years.

I agree. I just think there are better methods than asserting that TAM is "preaching to the choir" or that "some of the presentations that by far the majority of people feel were not worthwhile". I don't see how this facilitates making tam better, nor do I think such statements are supported by the evidence.

And I'll guarantee you, those changes didn't come about as a result of people saying, "Aw, gee, everything was wonderful, I couldn't possibly find fault with it, or suggest any way to make it better". Those changes came about as the result of suggestions and complaints from those who thought, "Hey, this is good...but it could be even better!"

And I'll guarantee you that they didn't come about by saying "TAM is preaching to the choir" and similar type petty pedantry that is based far more on a few peoples churlish opinions than anything factual. I think that we build on what worked and alter or eliminate that which doesn't. Whining without solutions just makes it annoying to those who have to listen. I'm not sure it inspires people to "try harder". It might. I just don't see the evidence that this is so. I'm all for helpful suggestions. I'm not sure individuals assorted silly disappointments and criticisms matter so much in regards to improving whatever goals James Randi et. al. might have for TAM.

I think that there will always be critics and that some people will always find fault no matter how amazing TAM is. I just want to state that these criticisms are not from me, and I'm not sure they apply to the majority despite the critics' assertion of such.

In my counseling classes, we learned that improvement is more often achieved by expanding upon what works rather than picking apart the stuff that doesn't.

 

[Wolfman]

What presentations were not worthwhile according to the vast majority and by which measure?

The vast majority of responses in the thread about Penn & Teller have indicated that people were not happy with their presentation. And that presentation from the guy who talked about how they caught Popoff? I have yet to find one single person who actually enjoyed it.[/quote]

Where id I suggest that I thought you were "undermining" TAM?

You made a general comment about people "undermining" TAM, that within this context most certainly seemed to be aimed at those criticizing perceived problems at TAM. I'm among the most vocal of those making such complaints. It isn't that big a leap to conclude it was aimed, at least in part, at me. If that is not the case, I apologize...however, your following comments certainly seem to indicate it is, indeed, aimed at me.

Apparently, something I said made you extrapolate this. Will you quote what it is please. I don't feel this way. Your interpretation is incorrect; a straw man, if you will.

I've expressed several complaints about TAM. I've been among those characterizing TAM as "preaching to the choir". Your comments were, so far as I can see, directed at people who are doing that. I therefore made the not at all illogical conclusion that I was included in the group to which you were referring. Again, if I was wrong about that, my apologies.

I agree. I just think there are better methods than asserting that TAM is "preaching to the choir" or that "some of the presentations that by far the majority of people feel were not worthwhile".

Wow. You said that you don't see why I thought your comment was directed at me...then go on to say that you do, in fact, mean those who are saying the exact things that I'm saying.

"Preaching to the choir" means that everyone at the conference already believes what is being said. Which, for the most part, is true. How many times during the conference did different speakers say, "This is the only crowd who would understand this" or "This is the only crowd that would get this joke"? Why? Because pretty much everyone there is already 'converted'...we share the same beliefs. That isn't necessarily a bad thing; but since we do already share the same beliefs, should not more time be spent on teaching us how to go out and spread critical thinking among the general populace, rather than sitting around telling each other how good we are, and laughing at inside jokes about how ignorant everyone else is?

And I've already given concrete examples of speakers that the majority of people did not feel were worthwhile (at least based on all the feedback I got at TAM, and that I've seen within these forums).

Yet -- and let me stress this -- you are objecting to me stating a plain truth. Do you really think that the majority of people felt that Penn & Teller's presentation was relevant to skeptical thinking? Do you really think that the majority of people felt that Adam Savage's talk about making a Maltese Falcon replica had anything whatsoever to do with the theme, or with skepticism in general? And I'd challenge you to find even ten people who sat through the presentation from the guy who talked about catching Peter Popoff, who felt that it was anything other than awkward, boring, and painful to watch.

I don't see how this facilitates making tam better, nor do I think such statements are supported by the evidence.

And there we go. Just as I said initially. You are including me among those who are "undermining" TAM. And you are saying that it is wrong for me to -- *gasp* -- suggest that some of the speakers at TAM actually did not do a good job.

And again -- I state that it is a fact that in the thread about Penn & Teller's presentation, the majority of people were dissatisfied. I state that it is a fact that by far the overwhelming majority of attendees did not at all enjoy the Peter Popoff presentation. And I do not see how being quiet about this, or how mumbling mindless incantations of how wonderful TAM was, in plain ignorance of the fact that there were problems, accomplishes a damn thing.[/quote]

And I'll guarantee you that they didn't come about by saying "TAM is preaching to the choir" and similar type petty pedantry that is based far more on a few peoples churlish opinions than anything factual. I think that we build on what worked and alter or eliminate that which doesn't. Whining without solutions just makes it annoying to those who have to listen. I'm not sure it inspires people to "try harder". It might. I just don't see the evidence that this is so. I'm all for helpful suggestions. I'm not sure individuals assorted silly disappointments and criticisms matter so much in regards to improving whatever goals James Randi et. al. might have for TAM.

I agree that "whining without solutions" is pointless.

However, myself and many of the other people who are making these comments are not "whining without solutions". We are stating the problems that we see. And we are making practical suggestions as to how those problems could best be solved.

You're all for helpful suggestions, as long as people don't criticize? That is exactly what I said before...the cultic mentality that it is wrong to criticize. And this from someone who calls herself a skeptic!!! You sure as hell don't have problems with criticizing other people when you disagree with them...apparently, criticism is only wrong when it is directed towards something that you think is right!

I think that there will always be critics and that some people will always find fault no matter how amazing TAM is.

I sure hope that there will always be critics! Because I do not see how TAM will ever improve based on people just sitting around and saying, "Oh, that was wonderful, that was perfect, there's nothing that needs to be changed or improved!" The moment that you start saying that something could be changed or improved, you are implicitly stating that the way it is currently being done is not perfect; you are, in fact, criticizing it.

I'll guarantee you that many of the most significant changes that have come about in TAM over the years have not come as a result of people saying, "Oh, gee, that was wonderful" (although such feedback does a lot to encourage and support those who are making the tremendous effort to put TAM together). Many of those changes came about as a result of people criticizing those aspects that they felt detracted from their experience at TAM, and suggesting ways it could be improved.

Case in point -- the Sunday papers. People complained...they criticized the organizers that there was no opportunity for 'average joes' to present information and resources that would be of interest to people at TAM. So, they started the Sunday Paper Presentations. Then they tried running the Sunday Presentations so that two presentations were given at the same time, in different rooms. Again, people criticized this, and suggested that it was better to have them done in the same room. The entire process of evolving and improving TAM has been based on feedback that has included criticisms, as well as suggestions how to improve it.

And then, here comes Articulett, proclaiming that in fact, no, we should not be criticizing, and that by doing so, we are somehow "undermining" TAM.

May I point out that "critical thinking" and "criticize" have the same root? Or perhaps I'm supposed to suspend "critical thinking" when it comes to TAM?

"I'm not sure individuals assorted silly disappointments and criticisms..." I'm glad that you feel confident enough to assert that any disappointment or criticism that you personally don't agree with is "silly". However, for myself and others here, I hope you'll understand that our standard for determining the merit of our concerns is not based on the "Articulett Silliness Scale".

I paid a total of over $1500 to attend TAM 6. I did so in expectation of presentations that A) would give me information and resources that I could bring back to China to promote skepticism and critical thinking, and B) would have speakers who would address the specific theme that was stated for the conference. I was disappointed on both counts. I heard lots of speakers reaffirming everything that I already know/believe; but few that gave tools that could be taken and used to promote skepticism to people who did not already believe the things I do. And there were several speakers who failed entirely (or didn't even make the effort) to address the theme of the conference.

Those are legitimate, serious concerns for me. They may not be things that are relevant for you, and that is fine! But I am, most definitely, going to get pissed off when someone tells me that stating those concerns is "silly", or that giving criticism along with suggestions of how to improve it is somehow "undermining" TAM.

 

[articulett]

I think that the majority of people were very glad to have Penn and Teller there... in whatever fashion.

We're just expressing assorted opinions with the same goal. I don't want my opinion counted among those who thought Penn and Teller were a waste. They give a lot to JREF-- and freely so, because they adore Randi. They offer up their home and they contribute money to JREF. They are part of the draw for TAM... even if not everyone likes them. You felt they were "overpaid". They are not paid at all. I suspect more people would prefer Penn and Teller in whatever form they come in, then the critics of Penn and Teller making it so they don't show up.

That doesn't mean I don't think that things can be made better. I think the fact that tam is growing and so many people leave feeling so inspired means that JREF is achieving it's goals. That doesn't mean we can't streamline the process or do it better. We all have individual goals and goals for the group... as does James Randi. I think my opinion counts as much as anyone else's. And I think that they are multiple ways of achieving an improved TAM for a majority of the people. I just suspect that the biggest critics have less of an impact on that goal than those who build upon that which "worked".

People will always complain... especially in a group that size. We cannot eliminate complaints... we can just find the methods to make them fewer and build more positive commentary and spread critical thinking along utilizing the uplifting feeling many get from being at TAM. I don't begrudge you your methods. I'm glad everyone has a right to express their opinion. I just want the right to express mine as well... and not to have it twisted into a straw man version of what I actually said because someone feels defensive.

I'm not trying to criticize any one. I just don't want my voice included in the supposed "majority" who feels as you and athon do. I agree with some things. I agree with the goal. I disagree with others and the method.

I'm not sure that what you would find an "improvement" is the same thing that I would find an improvement or Randi would find an improvement or the "vast majority" would find an improvement and I think it might be presumptuous if you were to assert this is the case.

By the way, I don't think you are "undermining" TAM or JREF and I never said so. Also, I did not say that you should not criticize. Both are straw man--your interpretation. But I also think you are confusing the "plain truth" with your opinion... and assuming that the vast majority agree. I, for one, do not. We have no way of knowing what the vast majority think.

I think you should assert your opinion as your opinion... not the "plain truth". It's insulting to me because it claims to speak for me... along with a whole bunch of others not asked. The truth is the stuff that is the same for everybody no matter what they believe. An opinion requires an "according to whom"... even if everybody shared your opinion as you presume... it would still be just an opinion... not a "truth".

I like both You and Athon... a lot. But I think you've both confused your own personal opinions for the opinions of the majority it some cases... and your own personal goals with the goals of the majority.... and you've employed methods to achieve these goals that are probably not the best. Moreover, your defensiveness from me pointing this out (criticism/"critical thinking") has caused you to interpret motives and meaning from my words that I never intended. I think you should model respect for my opinions on the subject the way you hope to have your opinions on the subject respected. Let's show that we don't have to agree on everything and we can still be friends.

 

[athon]

I like both You and Athon... a lot. But I think you've both confused your own personal opinions for the opinions of the majority it some cases... and your own personal goals with the goals of the majority.... and you've employed methods to achieve these goals that are probably not the best.

I've received this criticism a few times, which has been considered long and hard. Obviously I'd hate for my personal opinions to be confused with those of the JREF in such a manner, so I take the criticism personally and welcome the objection.

However, I'm at a loss to see it. As you well know, I spent this TAM talking with people. It meant I only saw about half of the stuff I wanted to, but it did mean I got to research the views and opinions of a great many people. So I don't say this lightly when I say that my interpretation of the goals of skeptic groups such as the JREF seem to echo my own - educating people in society to be a) more aware of how they can be fooled, and b) how to develop good thinking skills. Randi and I had a rather extensive private conversation about education and I can say we both agree that education is significant and cannot be taken too lightly.

So I now take some offence at being told again that this is about me pushing my own agenda. The fact of the matter is that I happen to support the JREF's goal of creating a future generation of critical thinkers. More importantly, I feel that while creating a community of like-minded people is extremely important, more can be done to educate this community in methods of effective communication and education. Astonishingly the one person who has not rebutted this point with me has been Randi himself, who has requested to be kept informed on ongoing discussions between educators who attended TAM.

If this was a group concerned with the health of a population, it would be surprising if we didn't hear from medical experts. If it was a group concerned with the weather, something would be amiss if we didn't hear from meterologists. Here is a group concerned with getting people to think differently...and there is a hue and cry when we suggest there should be more from educators who are studying that very thing!

I've said it before - if TAM is simply a pride march, then it has served its purpose well. But even if it is just this, there is an element of attendees who now feel enthused enough to go out and act, but are asking for more information on precisely how to go about it. I for one feel that if this is done without reference to empirically supported studies on how to educate people (and yes, there is a whole field of research into how to effectively teach), then it is a hypocritical token effort. Afterall, skepticism is all about 'show me the evidence that it works'.

Athon

 

[Terry]

And that presentation from the guy who talked about how they caught Popoff? I have yet to find one single person who actually enjoyed it.

Well you just found one. I thought the explanation of how critical thinking and evidence/fact checking were used in forensics was fascinating and most definitely on topic.

 

[articulett]

I enjoyed it as well.

And I agree with your goals Athon... just not your methodologies or criticisms. I think JREF IS educating people in regards to critical thinking as evidence by the increasing number of attendees, the growth of this forum, and the afterglow that people take and pass on to others. Moreover, I think that we cannot tell how these affects will ripple, but we can look at what works and build upon it. I don't think it's just "patting each other on the back" or "preaching to the choir". I think you are engaging confirmation bias and negating the evidence that shows otherwise when you continually say so.

I suspect as many people share opinions similar to mine on this subject as share opinions similar to yours... perhaps more. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, right? Critical thinking involves sorting the opinions from the facts so that we can achieve common goals (amongst other things.)

We don't each have to like everything about every part of the experience to find the readily available evidence that TAM IS achieving it's goals despite your statements that it has not. It can do better, I'm sure.. I'm just not sure that you are the one to guide it in that direction... or that your methodologies or criticisms are more likely to work than mine, or Terry's or Randi's or anyone else's.

I think I enjoyed all the speakers and got more out of them then I get out of reading the criticism of the speakers. This might be true of TAM in general; it might not.

 

[athon]

I enjoyed it as well.

And I agree with your goals Athon... just not your methodologies or criticisms.

Fair enough - nobody has to agree with what I am proposing. Although it would be far better if those disagreements were supported with some argument. I'm confused as to what precisely people have problems with, as so far the arguments have been strawmen such as 'I'm wishing to only target teachers' or 'to only focus specifically on one target group'.

Is it a problem with having time devoted to hearing from pedagogical experts? Afterall, we've had time devoted to hearing from celebrities, journalists, magicians, paranormal investigators...why not actually hear from somebody who knows how to educate?

Do you disagree with my 'method' of asking that a workshop be established for anybody interested in learning how to effectively address critical learning needs of children? Afterall, we've heard from many, many people giving us information on 'what' to say. Why not hearing from somebody who might have some good evidence on 'how' to say it? Fewer people in our skeptical community seem to know how to teach people how to think than who know that homeopathy is bunk, and yet we seem to have time to once again learn why that old chestnut is nonsense.

Do you have a problem with my definition of education? We abandoned the idea of education being solely concerned with informing people on facts decades ago - skepticism should be about promoting 'how' to deal with novel information. Yet still we hear how education is simply the act of informing people. Until skeptics learn otherwise, we'll have another 150 years of homeopathy being opposed with no decrease in its popularity.

I think JREF is educating people in regards to critical thinking as evidence by the increasing number of attendees, the growth of this forum, and the afterglow that people take and pass on to others.

Of the 900 people who attended, most seemed to be first timers. People aren't returning. Imagine if they did.

Now, even forgiving that point, the observations of a growth in a community's size does not necessarily translate into evidence that critical thinking is spreading beyond a demographic. Skepticism has a long way to go before it is taken seriously even amongst science communicators, let alone the rest of the population. And I say that as somebody who lives, works and studies in a country which is far more accepting of critical thinking than the US!

What evidence do you have that we are doing more than gathering a community of like-minded people? Groups like the JREF have done that for a long time, and done it well. They are to be congratulated for making skeptics feel part of a larger group. Now we need to take the next step and do what we preach - find evidence that we are effectively educating people in thinking skeptically, rather than just finding skeptics who are attracted to a community.

Moreover, I think that we cannot tell how these affects will ripple, but we can look at what works and build upon it.

That's an argument from ignorance - we can't tell if we're effective, so we'll assume we are and keep hammering away at it. I'm not mocking you by saying it, as I've heard it time and time again. The classic was when I was told by Jeff that we're 'still in the dark ages when it comes knowing how people learn'. Try telling that to somebody studying cognitive psychology, or somebody who has been involved in researching pedagogical techniques for most of their lives. Sure, we're by no means at an end, but we understand far more about how people learn today than we did even a decade ago.

Skeptics would never accept such blaze rhetoric from any other group. They'd demand good evidence that they are doing what they claim. If skeptic groups are happy with selling conclusions and claiming it's skepticism, or gathering skeptics from the community and claiming this is evidence of being effective in creating critical thinkers, then I guess my goals aren't the same as theirs and I should indeed retire and fight this on my own.

Athon

 

[Hokulele]

Of the 900 people who attended, most seemed to be first timers. People aren't returning. Imagine if they did.

Just a minor nitpick with this point (which I have seen several people make so far). IIRC, the audience was asked for a show of hands for those "who were attending their first TAM". I personally know of at least 5 people who heard that as "who attended the first TAM". I think the evaluations would be a much better tool for determining the number of first-timers in the audience than the show of hands.

To the OP, most of my serious comments were either on the evaluation, or will be sent directly to the JREF at some time in the future, although most of them have been made in one thread or another. Having been both an attendee and a speaker at various conferences of various sizes (150 people for the smallest and a predicted 11,000 attendees this fall for the largest), I will add my voice to those who have seen/prefer the multiple track option.

 

[athon]

I don't think it's just "patting each other on the back" or "preaching to the choir". I think you are engaging confirmation bias and negating the evidence that shows otherwise when you continually say so.

What evidence shows otherwise? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the talks, but they are indeed selling ice to the eskimos. I might be speculating, but I'd be shocked if we did a poll before TAM asking how many people thought homeopathy was credible and came up with a high percentage.

Now there's nothing wrong with having a choir to preach to, or even feeling good about being part of a community. But now we need some more substance that goes beyond P&T Q&A and Neil Tyson brain dumps.

I suspect as many people share opinions similar to mine on this subject as share opinions similar to yours... perhaps more. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, right? Critical thinking involves sorting the opinions from the facts so that we can achieve common goals (amongst other things.)

Careful Articulett, you're risking sounding like Claus there. Just because everybody is entitled to an opinion does not make all opinions equally correct. Opinions can also be weighed on the basis of evidence.

We don't each have to like everything about every part of the experience to find the readily available evidence that TAM IS achieving it's goals despite your statements that it has not.

I never said TAM wasn't achieving its goal. However, that's because I'm not sure what its goal really is. I've said that. If it is about raising money, then I'm assuming it is successful. If it is about gathering like-minded people into a community for a few days of feeling good about skepticism, then again, I can't find reason to disagree. If it is about reaching a wider community and creating more critical thinkers, then I'd have to ask for good evidence, as I don't think it's doing that.

If that isn't one of TAM's goals, then I feel the JREF is missing a great opportunity to achieve one of their own personal goals. Sadly by addressing that, I appear to 'have my own agenda'.

It can do better, I'm sure.. I'm just not sure that you are the one to guide it in that direction... or that your methodologies or criticisms are more likely to work than mine, or Terry's or Randi's or anyone else's.

Ok, I'm again lost. How should we decide how to make improvements if nobody is allowed to criticize, suggest or ask questions?

Athon

 

[athon]

Just a minor nitpick with this point (which I have seen several people make so far). IIRC, the audience was asked for a show of hands for those "who were attending their first TAM". I personally know of at least 5 people who heard that as "who attended the first TAM". I think the evaluations would be a much better tool for determining the number of first-timers in the audience than the show of hands.

Not a minor nitpick at all - it's a very valid one. And I agree that my comment is only as strong as the evidence for it (which was merely my noticing that a majority of hands went up after that question). I'd be interested in seeing the results of the survey.

Athon

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Well you just found one. I thought the explanation of how critical thinking and evidence/fact checking were used in forensics was fascinating and most definitely on topic.

I agree.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Just a minor nitpick with this point (which I have seen several people make so far). IIRC, the audience was asked for a show of hands for those "who were attending their first TAM". I personally know of at least 5 people who heard that as "who attended the first TAM". I think the evaluations would be a much better tool for determining the number of first-timers in the audience than the show of hands.

I also heard it as "who attended the first TAM". By the number of hands that went up, I knew that a lot of people heard it differently.

 

[articulett]

What evidence shows otherwise? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the talks, but they are indeed selling ice to the eskimos. I might be speculating, but I'd be shocked if we did a poll before TAM asking how many people thought homeopathy was credible and came up with a high percentage.

The increased growth and the increased number of people eager to spread the news and attend next year... the increased number of people who learned something this year is the evidence. What does how the percentage of tam attendees who thought homeopathy was credible have to do with anything?

Now there's nothing wrong with having a choir to preach to, or even feeling good about being part of a community. But now we need some more substance that goes beyond P&T Q&A and Neil Tyson brain dumps.

I would hesitate to guess that the majority did not find these "brain dumps". That, if asked, they might find your opinions more of a "brain drump". But this is conjecture.

Careful Articulett, you're risking sounding like Claus there. Just because everybody is entitled to an opinion does not make all opinions equally correct. Opinions can also be weighed on the basis of evidence.

I totally agree. So what is your evidence? And just because lots of people hold an opinion doesn't make it turn into "truth". Lots of people think they are better than average... nearly half of them are wrong.

I never said TAM wasn't achieving its goal. However, that's because I'm not sure what its goal really is. I've said that. If it is about raising money, then I'm assuming it is successful. If it is about gathering like-minded people into a community for a few days of feeling good about skepticism, then again, I can't find reason to disagree. If it is about reaching a wider community and creating more critical thinkers, then I'd have to ask for good evidence, as I don't think it's doing that.

Athon-- you have said that TAM is not spreading critical thinking and that it's not meeting it's goal. But the increasing numbers of attendees followed by the glowing report and number of returnees shows that this is not correct. Moreover, I use lots of what I learn at TAM to pass on to my students... Even that little quirkology video is a big hit and a cool way of teaching people how they fool themselves... how we aren't as rational as we think we are. And I know I'm not the only one spreading what I've learned on this forum and elsewhere... that IS how this sort of education of masses takes place. It gets a toehold... and TAM HAS created a toehold. You may be of the opinion that it isn't doing anything, but I am of the opinion that is because you are using confirmation bias to negate the evidence that I see every where I look.

If that isn't one of TAM's goals, then I feel the JREF is missing a great opportunity to achieve one of their own personal goals. Sadly by addressing that, I appear to 'have my own agenda'.

I didn't accuse you of having your own agenda. I just think your bias is keeping you from seeing that JREF IS achieving it's goals. That doesn't mean it can't do things better. But I suspect focusing on what works versus what your opinion regarding what doesn't work is likely to be more fruitful.

Ok, I'm again lost. How should we decide how to make improvements if nobody is allowed to criticize, suggest or ask questions?

Athon

That is a straw man Athon. I never said that. So why did you "perceive" that? I think that there is a pretty good body of evidence that shows that teachers and parents improve behavior of kids by noting what is right and building upon that--deciding the goal and helping the kids see themselves as moving towards that goal. If people feel powerless, we empower them by noting little steps in that direction so they can begin to see themselves as having choices or becoming increasingly independent. We don't empower them by telling them how helpless they behave. If your goal is to see JREF teaching the joys of critical thinking to the masses... then it helps to expand upon the successes rather that make a big fuss over your perception of the failures. Your perception is not "the truth". Even if lots of people shared your perception... it still doesn't become "the truth". Yes, some perceptions are more in line with the majority than others. You seem convinced yours is. I don't see the evidence that this is so.

I'm not claiming to know the best way... I just don't think your method is as helpful for achieving your goals or JREFs goals as you seem to think they are. These are of course opinions... I'd be glad to come up with ways of testing and measuring these opinions. I just went to a great speech given by TAM/Forum member Zytheran, and he is a cognitive researcher who helps devise just such tests. I learned that from TAM, and I got him to speak to a local group here... so we all learned something. Many of that group were teachers... I'm sure we'll be passing on lessons. You don't know what seeds have been planted... but the continual growth and the gushing of new attendees is a good sign in my book.

 

[athon]

The increased growth and the increased number of people eager to spread the news and attend next year... the increased number of people who learned something this year is the evidence.

What evidence do you have that there was a number of people who 'learned something this year'? I'm sure there were a few facts and figures, but I guess we risk getting bogged down in what makes for a significant amount of 'learning'.

More importantly, however, what evidence is there that those who attended had poorly developed critical thinking skills, or couldn't be defined as skeptics, prior to attending TAM? I'm more confident that those who attended already held a high regard for skepticism and critical thinking. Hence it doesn't so much as create new critical thinkers as pull existing skeptics from the woodwork.

This latter point is far from a bad thing. However we cannot pretend that this is the same as effectively creating new skeptics.

What does how the percentage of tam attendees who thought homeopathy was credible have to do with anything?

My above point. TAM is preaching to the already converted.

I would hesitate to guess that the majority did not find these "brain dumps". That, if asked, they might find your opinions more of a "brain drump". But this is conjecture.

Um, 'Brain Dump' is the term Tyson himself used to describe his talk. They were entertaining for sure...but it was more of a celebration of our shared skepticism than anything.

I totally agree. So what is your evidence? And just because lots of people hold an opinion doesn't make it turn into "truth". Lots of people think they are better than average... nearly half of them are wrong.

I never used any argument from popularity. Hell, going on my record here, if it was a popularity contest my opinion seems to surely be as wrong as wrong gets.

As far as evidence goes, I'm simply waiting for evidence of what TAM's goals are, and if they reflect those of the JREF itself to get evidence of them effectively creating a new generation of critical thinkers. As for whether I feel its efforts are as good as they could be, I'm basing it on my view of pedagogy which says it takes more than communicating a conclusion to change somebody's epistemology. As a teacher yourself you should know that while content is always useful, it takes more than that to create a critical thinker.

Athon-- you have said that TAM is not spreading critical thinking and that it's not meeting it's goal.

Seeing as I'm not sure what its goals are, I can't make that claim. If I did, I retract it. But I can't find where I said this.

But the increasing numbers of attendees followed by the glowing report and number of returnees shows that this is not correct.

How are you correlating the number of returns and the appeal of those attending with the creation of new skeptics? How are you correlating the numbers with the effectiveness of these people communicating and educating others? And can you make the claim that how this is being done cannot be improved upon through bringing in experts in communication and education?

Moreover, I use lots of what I learn at TAM to pass on to my students... Even that little quirkology video is a big hit and a cool way of teaching people how they fool themselves... how we aren't as rational as we think we are. And I know I'm not the only one spreading what I've learned on this forum and elsewhere... that IS how this sort of education of masses takes place. It gets a toehold... and TAM HAS created a toehold. You may be of the opinion that it isn't doing anything, but I am of the opinion that is because you are using confirmation bias to negate the evidence that I see every where I look.

Can we cut the strawmen? Seriously? I've never said 'TAM...isn't doing anything'. I've also said it has created a toehold, and has great potential in that. I've also never said it has zero educational content. I have said now that we have this, can we do something better with it? I believe we can. Yet fighting through having my arguments constantly misrepresented is showing that this is not a worthwhile argument to be having here on the forums.

I didn't accuse you of having your own agenda.

Very well. Your exact phrasing was:

But I think you've both confused your own personal opinions for the opinions of the majority it some cases... and your own personal goals with the goals of the majority....

I stand corrected.

I just think your bias is keeping you from seeing that JREF IS achieving it's goals.

Hm, interesting you think that. I'm amazed that the evidence demanded of all others in society doesn't need to be so rigorous when it comes to supporting our own claims here.

That doesn't mean it can't do things better. But I suspect focusing on what works versus what your opinion regarding what doesn't work is likely to be more fruitful.

Two points: one, we don't have hard evidence that what we are doing is more than drawing skeptics from the wider commmunity and giving them a sense of place. Once again (I'm feeling the paranoia of being misquoted again, so I feel obliged to constantly say this), it isn't in itself a bad thing, and is damn useful. But where is the evidence that it is more than this? And two; how does one determine what can be improved upon if we don't examine the things that don't work as effectively as they could?

That is a straw man Athon. I never said that. So why did you "perceive" that?

Because I am not 'the one to guide it in that direction' and it is unlikely that my 'methodologies or criticisms are more likely to work than mine, or Terry's or Randi's or anyone else's'. I might be wrong, but I interpret this to mean my (or anybody's) criticisms aren't likely to work. So why should we make them in your opinion?

I think that there is a pretty good body of evidence that shows that teachers and parents improve behavior of kids by noting what is right and building upon that--deciding the goal and helping the kids see themselves as moving towards that goal. If people feel powerless, we empower them by noting little steps in that direction so they can begin to see themselves as having choices or becoming increasingly independent. We don't empower them by telling them how helpless they behave. If your goal is to see JREF teaching the joys of critical thinking to the masses... then it helps to expand upon the successes rather that make a big fuss over your perception of the failures. Your perception is not "the truth". Even if lots of people shared your perception... it still doesn't become "the truth". Yes, some perceptions are more in line with the majority than others. You seem convinced yours is. I don't see the evidence that this is so.

Ok, you've now lost me entirely. Are you insinuating that I'm suggesting we point out failures as a way of promoting critical thinking? I hope not. Sorry - it might be me, but I just don't see clearly what you're trying to say.

I'm going stab in the dark here and guess that you're trying to say that we shouldn't look at the things at TAM which don't contribute to the JREF's goal of creating a new generation of critical thinkers, but rather look at the things at TAM that actually do accomplish this and do more of that. Am I close? If so, what do you propose gets culled from the program to make way for 'more of that stuff'? I might be a fool for suggesting it, but I would think we drop those things which aren't as effective at reaching those goals...or is that still being too 'critical'?

I'm not claiming to know the best way... I just don't think your method is as helpful for achieving your goals or JREFs goals as you seem to think they are. These are of course opinions... I'd be glad to come up with ways of testing and measuring these opinions. I just went to a great speech given by TAM/Forum member Zytheran, and he is a cognitive researcher who helps devise just such tests. I learned that from TAM, and I got him to speak to a local group here... so we all learned something. Many of that group were teachers... I'm sure we'll be passing on lessons. You don't know what seeds have been planted... but the continual growth and the gushing of new attendees is a good sign in my book.

Great - those are the 'seeds' which need to be encouraged. I think it would be a great feature of TAM to have those people there, to promote that more.

I don't get this 'don't agree with your method' line. I'm suggesting that in order to determine whether such goals are met, we need more evidence than simply 'look at all the people who showed up'. We need to bring in more people who can not only inspire action, but define how it can be most effectively done. If this 'method' doesn't work for you...well, I guess we can only disagree with that.

Athon

 

[articulett]

Athon, if the goal is spreading the joys and uses of critical thinking... teaching people how they can be fooled and ways to enjoy it and what real and true "secrets of the universe" are out there to be discovered-- then I think TAM and JREF are meeting their goals... and increasingly so and evidenced by the growth of both and the joy of the attendees and their eagerness to spread what they've learned. I think that focusing on this and how TAM and JREF have achieved this is a better means of achieving more of this than having assorted people air their personal pet peeves as though their opinion represents a "majority".

I'm not going to be derailed with the other stuff. It doesn't matter. And I could be wrong. Maybe the way you are expressing yourself will achieve whatever it is you hope to achieve or help TAM and JREF reach uncritical thinkers and make them moree critical. But people don't really jump from one extreme to another... you whet their appetite and they move in the direction of that appetite... TAM is not for the homeopaths or those deriving pleasure and benefit from their woo. The message will trickle down to some of their potential victims.... just as RSLs message is getting out. We would never expect them to "choose" to learn this stuff. TAM is for people who figure it's already worth learning... they want to learn more... and will teach others by example and through that which impassions them... the same way we all came to skepticism, right? We don't become skeptics over night... and we never perfect it.

Just read this as my opinion. Take away all the parts where you see me as attacking you. I'm just expressing my opinion on the topic in the OP--exactly as you are doing.

Your assertion that TAM is preaching to the masses suggests that you don't think the message is spreading. I note that the masses keep getting bigger and see that as evidence that the message is, indeed, spreading and a lot of people seem delighted to be getting it! Read the warm fuzzies thread and see for yourself. And don't insult people by inferring that these people are "yes men" or worshippers of Randi. They are people glad to find a way to learn more about critical thinking.

And Tyson referred to "brain droppings"-- not a brain dump. It's actually a title of a George Carlin book... and I think many were thrilled with Tyson's "brain droppings". I was. I spoke to many who felt similarly at TAM. I don't think the majority feel your displeasure at his speech. I suspect you'd be similarly critical of most anyone. Some people might feel your posts are "brain droppings"-- and they may or may not find them useful or enlightening or in line with the furtherance of TAMs goals.

You've complained a lot about some sort of goal you think TAM should have... but you have not clarified exactly as to what that goal is or how you might go about achieving it better than we are doing currently. You voice your opinion as to what is wrong but you don't offer evidence that some other way is better. You assume others share your displeasures and criticisms, but you have not done any studies or checked for confirmation bias regarding this assumption. Or maybe you have done all this, and I missed it.