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.
No, they are unfortunately not always there. It is often impossible for someone living in JesusLand to stand up and state their skepticism. It is not all that easy to go against your own family and friends, if they have wacky beliefs of some sort.
Even if only to underscore my point and demonstrate just how ignorant Claus is being -
Attack the argument, not the arguer.
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 have not seen
anyone say "X is wrong", thereby telling them
what to think. What I have seen is "X is wrong, because Evidence1, Evidence2, Evidence3...".
Can you point to a couple of examples from TAM where someone does that?
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.
Attack the argument, not the arguer.
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.
Do we not see people asking questions, and then change their minds about their supernatural beliefs?
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!
What a bunch of hooey. Nobody has said that Randi, JREF or TAM couldn't be criticized, or that we should support them with almost religious fervor.
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!"
Exactly. But not all changes are equally good for the conference. Some things have been tried that didn't work out well, so they were dropped. E.g., the split sessions.
The vast majority of responses in the thread about Penn & Teller have indicated that people were not happy with their presentation.
No. You can't say that.
You can say that the responses from those forum members who have chosen to voice their opinion were both favorable and not so favorable.
Without a tally, you can only say that there were pros and cons.
And those forum members who have chosen to voice their opinion is not the same as the whole body of TAM attendees.
Logical fallacies all around.
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.
I did, even though I have heard it many times before. It is always a pleasure to hear about a crook's downfall - be it ever so brief.
Don't you sometimes go back and read some of the articles on StopSylviaBrowne? Especially the one about Shawn Hornbeck?
Don't you ever discuss cases with fellow skeptics?
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).
And you know how little credibility such self-governed studies have here.
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.
What, then? What if we can find those ten people? Will that make you change your mind?
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.
You know, you
really, really don't sound as if you thought TAM6 was any good....
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.
If a little gross...
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'.
But that is the
only thing you keep talking about, so why should we think otherwise? It is either your way, or TAM is a "pride march".
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.
Didn't you run the (not-very-well publicised) workshop at TAM on just that issue?
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.
No, we don't hear that education is simply the act of informing people. Why do you think there are workshops that teaches people how to investigate paranormal phenomena, and how memory works? Or is that not "education"?
And the reason we still have homeopathy is not because we haven't educated people your way. It is a far, far too simplified explanation - there are many factors that determine if a particular belief is popular or not.
If you were right, then we would also still be seeing a widespread use of phrenology, animal intestine readings and other flimflammery. But we don't - simply because these particular beliefs have - for now - been squashed.
Of the 900 people who attended, most seemed to be first timers. People aren't returning. Imagine if they did.
There can be many reasons why people don't return. But don't jump to the conclusion that it is because they don't like it. They could also have gotten enough "ammo" to continue on their own, or simply can't afford it. You know damn well that money is a huge issue with a lot of attendees.
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!
How the heck do you measure that?
One of the reasons is certainly that a lot of scientists - and journalists, and politicians - simply don't realize that superstitious beliefs is a huge problem. Scientists are comfortable in their ivory tower, journalists look for the good story, and politicians don't want to upset their voters. All too often, they aren't even aware that it is dangerous to believe in false things, or that it is such a big problem.
That's where skeptics can do something, even if they are not (your kind of) educators. They can write letters to the editors, and contact their local politicians.
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.
Pardon me, but what
evidence have
you given in favor of
your opinion?
Um, 'Brain Dump' is the term Tyson himself used to describe his talk.
"Brain droppings".
They were entertaining for sure...but it was more of a celebration of our shared skepticism than anything.
No, I disagree. He came up with some pretty good points, ones that were brief, and to the point. I particularly liked the one about UFOs that somehow always become spaceships. It is a very good way to show how the mindset of believers work: They are, at first, very cautious about describing what they really believe, but their subsequent choice of words reveal all.
Here's one attendee's opinion:
I loved everything. It was my first time and I have been wanting to go for years. I was awestruck the entire time and could barely believe that I was actually there and it still feels really surreal to me. Even though everyone I met was great I was still a bit self conscious and wish I could have come out of my shell more and talk to more people. I wish I had a chance to chat with Saganite more.
But just to be in the same room with 900+ like minded people made me feel all gooey inside and listening to all the speakers and people who are out there trying to educate and help people do some critical thinking made me feel compelled to be more than just an armchair skeptic. Now if I just had the nerve to go out and DO something about it.
Think Tamazon will someday find her own way to contribute? I do.
*