Results:
It went reasonably well. I don't think any skeptics in the stands would be standing, cheering, and shouting "Great job, boyo!" but I still think I won on points.
It was a bit of a surprise in that I was the show's one and only caller; that surprised me a bit. Because of that, I got to stay on a fairly long time and have an actual conversation that remained polite throughout. I commend the host for letting Paul Smith and me talk without interrupting except to clarify for the listeners some points when we got esoteric (e.g., Smith and I kept throwing out the names Utts and Hyman; the host asked us to explain who they are).
Once on, I decided not to go for the kill shots about the JREF Challenge and finding missing children. I did this partly because before I got on Smith had already addressed the idea (not JREF itself but tests in general) and how a one time test wouldn't work. I pushed him a bit on this point and got him to change his stance from "testing isn't really possible" to "testing is possible but difficult and time-consuming."
The biggest step I made (and I'll explain later why I think it's the biggest step) was getting Smith to admit that his complaints at the beginning of the show about "skeptics" was both a generalization and unfair mischaracterization. He had said something to the effect "skeptics don't want to believe even when evidence is right in front of them" and "skeptics are scared to believe."
When I said that similar derogatory statements could be made about some believers and said that most skeptics would be happy to believe once presented with sufficient evidence that did not crumble under scrutiny, Smith admitted that he had presented a "caricature" of skeptics in the interest of brevity.
The rest of the majority of our talk was about the AIR Review of the Stargate program (actually, it was mostly on the portion done by Hyman and Utts). Smith claimed that Hyman, in effect, sabotaged the whole review to start with and was determined not to have a positive review regardless of findings.
I pointed out that any procedural shortcomings in the review were a contractual artifact based on the short timeframe allowed for it and that Utts concurred with Hyman that Stargate did not represent proof of RV. Smith then tried to say that Utts did think it was proof, but I was able to point out how he was mischaracterizing her statements which were mainly in reference to a cumulative history of psi research but which excluded Stargate.
Smith also kept coming back to the canard about their being lots of proof for RV but AIR didn't get a chance to look at it. I said he couldn't fairly expect them to comment on what they could not review. Smith agreed but said the whole Stargate database is now available to the public (as of June 2004) either from the CIA on 14 discs for $140 without any indexing or comments or from Smith's own site on 10 discs for $100 with indexing and comments.
I suggested he find the bits he thinks constitutes proof.
There were other and smaller side comments, but that was the bulk of it.
Others may think I should have been more bullish in my attack, but I think the opportunity to discuss the issue civilly and gain some admissions without granting any is more valuable in the long run. Particularly, I think I now have some credibility with the host and might be allowed a bit of leeway for any calls in the future.
Beyond that, Smith suggested I e-mail him so that we can continue the discussion offline. I plan to take him up on that.
Boring, I know, but essential in the eternal quest to spread skepticism.
Edited to add:
I'm glad I took the (lengthy) time to visit Smith's website and do other research. I'd have been unable to gain any admissions otherwise. Always do your homework before doing this stuff, I suppose.
