Dude, you just don't get it, do you.
He's not "dismissing all those who are doing something else". Far from it. He's arguing to broaden things so that it meets the needs of MORE people! It is you who is essentially arguing that we cannot do anything more, and should not change anything...thereby implicitly excluding anyone and everyone who has interests and needs different than those addressed in the main sessions.
I've been baffled by those same responses for ages, Wolfman. Seriously, I've moved on and found other avenues. Yet I'm no less baffled.
Maybe it is just me (and a few others who seem to share my view), but I saw it as this; skepticism is a philosophy by which people create beliefs according to evidence weighed against objective, empirical standards. Skeptics, as people who hold this philosophy, feel that society as a whole is negatively affected by philosophies which embrace other means of weighing evidence, such as social (aka folk) thinking.
Over time, skeptics have spoken out and, eventually through media such as the internet, have found communities where they can share their views and philosophies. For this, we have people like Randi to thank.
Now, if most skeptics were satisfied with simply creating communities of like-minded individuals, I'd have no problem. TAM is certainly a celebration of this. Yet tellingly, a substantial part of this 'celebration' involves lamenting how a substantial part of the outside community continues to hold non-skeptical beliefs. Going on this, and the JREF's goals, it's only natural for one to assume it would be a worthwhile venture to investigate ways of effectively reaching that outside demographic and promoting skepticism.
Since skepticism is about empirical evidence in support of a belief, I would think the best way to do this would be to bring in experts who do this for a living. People who make it their business to understand how people learn.
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.
The amazing thing I find is that skeptics feel selling the answer is effective at creating skeptical thinkers. Shout long and loud and you'll change how people think. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. You might change what people think, but this is not skepticism. Getting people to think skeptically takes more than simply telling them homeopathy is nonsense.
OUTSIDE of TAM, who are the front-line in promoting skepticism and critical thinking?
Teachers.
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.
OUTSIDE of TAM, who should be the number one target group to whom we should promote skepticism and critical thinking?
Students. The next generation.
It might be of interest to some people that this is a rather critical question in the fields of cognitive development and pedagogy - by what age does one have their epistemology defined?
You might be able to tell an adult that psychic phenomena is better explained by psychology, and they might even take your word for it. But, does this give them the epistemology - a way of creating beliefs - which will sustain them beyond just believing in psychics? Evidence shows that it is incredibly difficult to change the way adults think, at least compared with pre-adolescence. If we're interested in changing how society thinks, we're doing it the hard way by telling adults X is rubbish.
My point is that even just targeting students is a tricky field; knowing how to do it and when to do it could be the critical difference between wasting time and resources and successfully creating good thinkers.
WITHIN TAM, what percentage of the program or activities are designed to address the needs and interests of either teachers, or students?
Not much.
I'd be happier seeing more talks and presentations given by experts in science communication, pedagogy and cognitive psychology aimed at giving people the skills to go back to their own lives and making small changes which maximise their chances of creating critical thinkers out of the kids they have an influence on.
Neither Athon nor myself are arguing to get rid of the existing programs. Not one iota of the things that you, personally, are interested in would need to be changed. What we are arguing for is to expand the scope of the activities to not only be relevant to a wider variety of people, but to specifically equip people on the front-lines of promoting skepticism and critical thinking with the tools that they need to do so.
Not just sitting around singing kumbayah, and patting ourselves on the backs for how much smarter and wiser we are than everyone else.
I'd love to be surprised by TAM7 taking this view into account. I really would be overjoyed. But while this view is twisted into accusations of narrowing the scope, or avoiding the question of whether we are really concerned with education or merely happy with communicating our conclusions, I don't see any monumental changes.
Athon
