Highlights of TAM 2013

Allecher

Critical Thinker
Allecher
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
445
It is time for the annual TAM retrospective. The schedule this year had a lot of new names so I am looking forward to hearing feedback from everyone.

I'll start: I anticipated that I would enjoy Dan Ariely and Sanal Edamaruku and I was not disappointed. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Brent Weedman who is so much more than a "dumb jock". I got to chat with Brent in the Del Mar and really enjoyed his insight. Joe Schwartz was such a great speaker and added a lot of energy on Sunday morning.

Again this year the Sunday morning papers were a highlight. I really enjoy the concise format and I'm sure we will be seeing those presenters on the main program in a few years.

There were a few talks that I skipped so I don't have much negative feedback. I love Susan Jacoby's writing but her talk was a train wreck because she was distracted first by a photographer and then because she could not find a place to put her drink down. Little things like that can really undermine the performance and I think that she totally lost the audience for the first half of her timeslot.

But enough of my opinion, what did you think?
 
I enjoyed all the speakers this year, I think I missed one panel and I know I was a few minutes late for am stuff and after breaks because of the forum table.

My highlight was that we had 500 First TAMmer buttons and did not run out!!!!! For the very first time, everyone who wanted a First TAMmer button got one and I still have a few left. Thanks to all who contributed funds to the printing of them, that was much appreciated. I will be ordering 500 for next year too. I will order them early, too ;)
 
Agreed on Sanal Edamaruku, along with Leo Igwe they really give one perspective... I risk upsetting someone. They risk imprisonment and jail. Also agreed on Joe Schwartz.

I spoke to Robert Sheaffer the CSI UFO guy.
I spoke to Leonard Tramiel but that was more of a Atari Fanboy thing for me.

I met so many new people this year. That was a big highlight. I really liked Sunday papers Jeffrey Weston (Ape not Monkey) and Eve Siebert (And that's why they're Going to Hell) and I got to meet and speak to them.

Oh yeah, I also got to present to a couple hundred people (early Sunday morning) at an international skeptical conference. It seemed to be well received. That was a highlight.
 
Last edited:
Allecher said:
It is time for the annual TAM retrospective. The schedule this year had a lot of new names so I am looking forward to hearing feedback from everyone.

I'll start: I anticipated that I would enjoy Dan Ariely and Sanal Edamaruku and I was not disappointed. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Brent Weedman who is so much more than a "dumb jock". I got to chat with Brent in the Del Mar and really enjoyed his insight. Joe Schwartz was such a great speaker and added a lot of energy on Sunday morning.


Again this year the Sunday morning papers were a highlight. I really enjoy the concise format and I'm sure we will be seeing those presenters on the main program in a few years.
Click to expand...
Agreed on all of those. I was on registration when Brent Weedman checked in, and he came across as an intelligent and likeable chap then, which was confirmed by the panel appearance.

(I vaguely remember a thread, maybe a year ago, asking why Swift (I think it was) had a piece about an MMA fighter, because how could there be skepticism in such an arena. I can't find it now, but if it was about Weedman, then his appearance fully justified the piece.)

There were a few talks that I skipped so I don't have much negative feedback. I love Susan Jacoby's writing but her talk was a train wreck because she was distracted first by a photographer and then because she could not find a place to put her drink down. Little things like that can really undermine the performance and I think that she totally lost the audience for the first half of her timeslot.
Click to expand...

I thought there were just three weak presentation; Susan Jacoby's (I walked out after 15 minutes; surely someone of her experience should know how to use a microphone, and have the poise to request no flash photographs without antagonising the audience, and handle a bottle of water. I also could just not work out what she was talking about, but that may have been because it was at the end of a long day. Whatever, she just rubbed me up the wrong way.), Cara Santa Maria, who just talked about herself (someone (from here?) I discussed it with put their finger on it, it was a talk that would have been suitable for a High School or University audience, not for a room full of people who are already skeptics), and one of the papers, where the guy essentially just read the slides that were on the screen (and that's more excusable, since the papers are meant to bring people who are new, though I think the actual content was a bit low on that one too).

The panels were pretty good, too; I know many people like to ask questions, but I was happy that these were limited this year, with the moderators making a good job of keeping the discussions going without input from the floor. Moderating takes skill and preparation, including knowledge of the topic and of the panelists. In the past there have been panels which were mostly audience driven, with the moderator not doing much more than relaying the questions, but I find that very hit-and-miss, and you spend too much time listening to people trying to be clever with their questions, and too little getting insights from the people with the knowledge and experience.

I skipped the SGU podcast; it's not one I listen to, but even if it was, I don't see much point watching it too (I skipped the Pod Delusion recording at QEDCon too, and that's one I do listen to, so at least I'm consistent. :))



ETA: I think this was the Swift article I was thinking of, but I can't find the forum thread about it.
 
Last edited:
nonews said:
I met so many new people this year. That was a big highlight. I really liked Sunday papers Jeffrey Weston (Ape not Monkey) and Eve Siebert (And that's why they're Going to Hell) and I got to meet and speak to them.
Click to expand...
Oh, yes, they were good, too. (Eve is a member here, btw, and her talk featured a slide produced by Akhenaten, another forum member from Australia. :))
 
Zooter, your observations about Jacoby and Cara Santa Maria are spot-on. As my wife put it, Santa Maria's talk would have been interesting to someone in college, but not an adult who has been around skepticism for awhile.

I also noticed a factual error in Massimo Pigliucci's talk, in which he used Arthur Eddington's "confirmation" of relativistic light deflection as an example of the predictive nature of science. In fact, the observations mostly contradicted Einstein--not because Einstein was wrong, but because the equipment was primitive in those days. Eddington cherry-picked the data in order to match the prediction. The experiment did not confirm Einstein's theory at all; it was more like an example of fraud. Massimo should have done a bit of research before touting this "example".
 
zooterkin said:
Oh, yes, they were good, too. (Eve is a member here, btw, and her talk featured a slide produced by Akhenaten, another forum member from Australia. :))
Click to expand...



I'm glad to say I started the clapping when she name-checked him! :D
 
I find myself in agreement with most of the posts here as well. I also wanted to call out Peter Boghossian for his presentation. I thought that was awesome! :)

And also thought that Andrew Hansford killed it with his Sunday Morning presentation. Go Granite State Skeptics!
 
LarianLeQuella said:
I find myself in agreement with most of the posts here as well. I also wanted to call out Peter Boghossian for his presentation.
Click to expand...

There were so many good presentations, but, for me, Peter had the best one, very powerful.

For me, in general, I tend to find panel discussions very boring, mostly people agreeing with each other, but this year I rather enjoyed the Magicians vs. Psychics Panel, especially the interaction between Jamy Ian Swiss and Mark Edward. Totally brilliant! Luckily no weapon of any kind was allowed on stage!

On the "Misses" section, I found Jamy's speech a bit flat. Perhaps, his last year's speech was so good that I expected too much. I also agreed about Jacoby's presentation.
 
What about the after-hours events? I was kinda disappointed in the Bryan and Baxter "show". It had a "this should have gone straight to YouTube" feel to it.
 
Allecher said:
What about the after-hours events? I was kinda disappointed in the Bryan and Baxter "show". It had a "this should have gone straight to YouTube" feel to it.
Click to expand...

Same here. I think it is that I have heard about some of the bits before at previous TAMs. There "exorcist" was bizarre. I still am a big fan though.
 
LarianLeQuella said:
I find myself in agreement with most of the posts here as well. I also wanted to call out Peter Boghossian for his presentation. I thought that was awesome! :)
Click to expand...
Agreed, quite an inspirational talk.

I also really liked Massimo Pigliucci's talks, although the demarcation problem is perhaps not for everyone.

I was a tad disappointed with the shows, especially Satiristas - what was with that patriotic intro? I get irony and all, but that was played a little straight.

For me the highlights were meeting people, including Randi.
 
I agree with most of you, Peter, Andrew etc were great, but nobody has mentioned Karen Stollznows exorcism talk which was really funny and informative. Joe Schwarcz's Worms in bloodvessels was hilarious and the presentation was excellent with powerpoint. Peter's use of powerpoint (or something similar) was over the top.
 
Cara Santa Maria was awful, I'm sorry. She had that "I'm gonna pace back and forth on the stage like I'm talking to a bunch of high school kids" thing going on - plus her talk was all "me, me, me, me...and now, ME!" Ugh.

Susan Jacoby's talk was erratic and seemed to go way off the purported topic; plus, the microphone/water/no flash things were really distracting. Plus, I think she lost a bunch of people when she started complaining about the internet and such. THIS audience - many of whom became skeptics at least in part because of internet forums, etc. - was the last audience that wanted to be chastised for using the internet!

Karen Stollznow's talk was great (and I'm not just saying that because she's a friend of mine -ha!). She is a great researcher and doesn't rely on gimmicks to get her information across, and I've always appreciated that.

Dan Ariely and Joe Schwarcz were both a lot of fun to listen to. The Gorski/Blaskiwiecz talk was really informative, as I haven't been keeping up with the Burzynski clinic stuff like I would like to. Also enjoyed Susan Blackmore.

As usual, I missed a few good talks - like Sanal Edamaruku, the first 4 papers, and the Magicians' Panel. Bummer.

I was somewhat disappointed with the Magic, Mayhem, and Mentalism evening show. Really seemed to draaaag on....and I expected more magic tricks than lame comedy. The MC was pretty funny, though, and Jamy Ian Swiss is leagues above most of those folks (comes with experience, I guess!).

Overall, I thought it was a pretty good TAM and it was nice to hear about Randi's marriage. Good for him.
 
Last edited:
I enjoyed the panel of philosophers and the individual talks they gave. Something new for TAM.

But, as usual, almost all the talks were good. I wish people would stop giving purely autobiographical talks. I enjoyed Jacoby's talk even though it started out rather strangely.

~~ Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom