It’s worth a try, and it certainly would stand out against the near-universal background of credulity on television. The makers of the Skeptoid podcast are putting together a pilot for a program on skepticism, with Phil Plait and Steven Novella in the cast. Let’s hope it makes it! Network executives — it’s something new and different, and it’s the kind of thing that might get me and people like me (you know, upscale, highly educated technophiles with some disposable income to spend on high-end luxury items) to turn on our TVs again.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
It has become popular among some groups to pontificate on how bad Expelled is. Yet, having seen a portion of it, I can say I was very impressed. Ben Stein would ask simple questions and people would answer them. Some people looked very smart in their responses, some did not come across that way. Some looked informed and could talk about scientific evidence, and some talked as if they were biased philosophers and anyones philosophy but theirs was, by default, wrong.
I look forward to seeing the entire movie.
Let the veil of ignorance be lifted. Very cool. It will be very, very interesting to see what happens…I’m not sure society is ready but I say let ‘er rip!
What? You’ve never watched Penn & Teller’s show on Showtime? (Fun fact: Phil Plait was in the moon landing conspiracy episode, but he’ll ban posters from his site who mention the show’s title.) Mind, they waste too many episodes peddling libertarian politics as skepticism, but they have done very effective takedowns on creationism, ouija boards, and feng-shui.
Personally, I’m skeptical.
I am 100% rooting for it. I’ve always kinda wished that the Myth-Busters would take on some of the more serious myths. Perhaps this one will do what needs to be done. I hope they are successful. If they are, I wonder how the myth-believers will respond? With “Spiritology: Finding scientific truth in the supernatural”? (…hosted by Ben Stein of course)
Only one woman on the skeptologists squad? No blacks?
Kinda wondering how broad a casting call was put out.
’bout time.
I’m so sick of all the “ghost hunters” and “cryptozoology” shit they’ve been bringing back on the air lately.
there should be ten times as many media broadcasts that encourage skepticism instead of credulity.
Oh, maybe it could work.
But I doubt that any of the big networks would put it on, since they’re bound by demographics to appeal to the religious, who would fuss if skepticism were put on any network they watched.
Considering how many channels digital cable will have out there soon, a sort of city-oriented company might be willing to put it on.
But you have to think as well that many of us who are not believers in religion generally find programs promoting skepticism to be rather boring. The little series on the history of atheism on PBS, a few episodes of which I caught (I didn’t get the beginning, because it wasn’t advertised or during any popular watching time period), was fairly uninteresting to me.
Maybe that was partly because early on (in what I saw, that is) they claimed that there were no atheists prior to the 18th century or so, when in fact Descartes dealt with any number of (anonymous) atheists who were faulting his philosophy, which pandered to theism. But it wouldn’t have been very interesting anyway.
A problem is that there isn’t really much new in skepticism, rather the same old principles apply. Sure, it would still be new to some people, but mostly you’d be preaching to the choir, and this choir doesn’t have to listen if it doesn’t feel like it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
“Only one woman on the skeptologists squad? No blacks?”
Interesting point. Take it a step further – no xtians, muslims, or jews? Perhaps having a couple people who think their myths are real participating would spice things up enough for prime time. Plus it might get some religio-heads to actually watch the show instead of just the choir.
Beat me to it, Alex:
Skepticism on network TV? I don’t believe it.
generally find programs promoting skepticism to be rather boring.
Mythbusters.
I’m sorry, I don’t quite understand the advert- what does the plank falling off the bottle symbolise?
National Geographic Channel has a program called “Is it Real?” which is usually a pretty good skeptical examination of UFO’s, Bigfoot, Parapsychology, ghosts, etc.
“there should be ten times as many media broadcasts that encourage skepticism instead of credulity.”
I agree, but how do you convince broadcasters that encouraging skepticism increases their advertising sales ? Credulity is better for advertisers, makes it easier to market products.
Now, how does one solve that ?
Even though the teaser is very short and contains almost nothing, I want to see the show. I want to see it NOW goddammit!
Even though the teaser is very short and contains almost nothing, I want to see the show. I want to see it NOW goddammit!
#10: Mythbusters. You beat me again.
Curses.
My kids were watching “A Haunting” a couple weeks ago. My 13 year old daughter was getting all scared, and I told her, “They’re making it up, kid!”. It was hard to convince her.
I think my daughter, unfortunately, embodies how a lot of people feel about things like “A Haunting.” I bet over half the people watching it don’t even consider the point that people are just making stuff up.
Fortunately, my kids enjoy the heck out of Mythbusters, especially when stuff blows up. Maybe dad likes that part too.
There IS something you can do to help get this show on the air. From Phil Plait’s blog:
“Also, if you want to support the show (and given how many people responded to the call for a transcriptionist, I see that y’all do!), you can send an email to [email protected]. You’ll get an automated reply, but we’re collecting emails to show networks that there is a demand for quality shows for intelligent people who don’t buy into all the nonsense being aired right now.”
I agree, but how do you convince broadcasters that encouraging skepticism increases their advertising sales ?
again…
Mythbusters.
I’m going to have agree with other people who are skeptical about the chances for a show on skepticism. The Discovery networks have become a haven for both woo and reality makeover shows. I’d be happy if they’d just get some real hard science content on ANYTHING, the occasional show I find on something like quantum mechanics or what have you is so loaded with fluff and moves so slowly that I generally tune out after the second commercial break.
So I think Discovery is out. They’ve cast they lot with the unskeptical audience. I mean I was forced to watch a bit of one of their recent shows, “I can make you thin” in which the cretin hosting the show went on and on about how things like brushing your teeth count as exercise. The show just could not share a network with shows like that, that’d be like putting a show on Zen Buddhism on immediately after the 700 club, the two can never meet like that.
So the question becomes which network? Of course the Fox lineup is right out… I’m starting to think their only hope might be something like one of the Sundance networks. They occasionally have unusual stuff, I think I’ve seen some anti Bush documentaries on there. Perhaps that limited counter cultural element would embrace a show that’s skeptical about everything.
I actually would like to see Discovery pick it up. It would restore some credibility after they completely lost my respect when I accidentally caught an episode of Ghost Hunters where they took a picture of someone in low light, it blurred, and they tried to pass that off as an unexplained phenomena.
Simon – It’s a spiritualist thing.
*start spooky voice*
Oh ghost if you can hear me, give us a sign…
*end spooky voice*
Then the wood would mysteriously fall off of the glass without any evidence of bumping the table.
so…you’re saying a bald guy in a beret is the way to go?
Glen D #7 wrote:
I’m going to guess that this show is not going to be about atheism per se, and there are plenty of reasonable theists who draw the line for magic very far back — or, at least, far back enough to not only be able to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience, but care about it. From what I can tell there seems to be a growing public backlash against the incredible amount of irrational and superstitious tripe regularly trumpeted by the media. Some of it is obvious nonsense (did aliens build the space pyramids?) and some of it less obvious (does alternative medicine work?) This topic may bridge the theist-nontheist divide, and preach to more than the usual choir. Hope so.
We may know that most skeptics in the skeptic organizations are also secular humanists (about 70% in Skeptic Society, I think), but the two areas are not strictly identical. The audience won’t necessarily know it — and I suspect that some of the hosts are theistic (and that will be mentioned.)
Anyone know about Yao Man?
Yippee on that, btw. I’m a regular fan of Survivor, and those who watched him on the show know that he is generally respected by its audience as the all-time winner of the Embodiment of Integrity title. If he’s one of the “New Faces of Skepticism,” the good guys have scored a major coup.
Yeah, let’s hope this program and many more get on TV to help counteract that religious crap currently on. Being a Astronomy buff, the videos on Stars was cool also!
Ok, there’s Penn and Teller’s BULLSHIT, Mythbusters and didn’t Michael Schirmer have a skep show a few years back? I can’t remember the host was. I believe it was either Jonathan Frakes (Will Ryker, STNG) or William B. Davis, (Cancer Man from XFiles).
If this new show suggests a schism between science and religion or that the supernatural does not exist, it will fail. Evidently, we are a country of superstitious religious apologists (framing, anyone?) There has been some speculation that Penn exited Dancing With the Stars first because of his high profile as an atheist (lord knows he wasn’t the absolute worst dancer, that dishonor would go to Adam Corolla.) Not that I watch DWTS, I just happen to be in the room when my wife has it on….
Sure. However, it’s pretty hard to run a skeptical line without being skeptical of religion as well. And if they didn’t attack religion along with the rest of magic, they’d look hypocritical and dishonest.
Thus I assume that it would all be tied together, and most religious folk would see it as an attack on their beliefs.
That’s why I focused on the religion/irreligion issue–though I certainly agree, it’s not just about that.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
some talked as if they were biased philosophers and anyones philosophy but theirs was, by default, wrong.
I know I shouldn’t feed the trolls. But doesn’t his sound like a particular majority in America?
so…you’re saying a bald guy in a beret is the way to go?
heh.
just to be clear, what I’m saying is that there IS an example of a marketable program dealing with skepticism.
It might not be the kind of precision one might want, but it’s a far cry from “Where is Bigfoot Now?”
It does indeed reinforce the idea of critical thought, and it does it in a fun way. It’s been (speaking of the Discovery Channel) a very popular program for them.
personally, I’d like to see an adult version of “Bill Nye the Science Guy”; or at least see the original resurrected for kids.
Look?
You mean you HAVEN’T seen the TANK Vodcast? I think the team in general are quite amused that the pilot for Skeptologists is being touted on YouTube when TANK has been out since well past 2006 – 16 videos up so far: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F6F7F91DAC017F37
And yes, the show has more than what people rail about as ‘token’ women and heading into its second season with the six presenters very soon.
http://www.tankvodcast.wordpress.com – if you’re at Dragon*Con, PZ, expect to be set upon by the Skepbitch and the PodBlack Cat for an interview!
Bullshit! seems to do pretty well, but it’s hard to say if this has more to do with skepticism or the rather risque nature of most episodes…
There’s definitely a need for something like Bullshit! that’s both skeptical and clean enough to recommend to people who don’t live in frat houses.
There was (is?) a show like that on PBS. “Eye of Nye” or “Eye on Nye” or something like that.
Alas, it wasn’t showing on my PBS station, so I don’t know much about it, just that it was marketed as Bill Nye for adults, and stared Mr. Nye.
“Scooby Doo, Where Are You!” isn’t skeptical enough? geepers (and zoinks), you people want everything!
Alas, it wasn’t showing on my PBS station, so I don’t know much about it, just that it was marketed as Bill Nye for adults, and stared Mr. Nye.
lol
interesting. I’ll scan for it.
I’m skeptical about the chances that any show will survive–regardless of what it is about.
Making a successful show is difficult and there is no guaranteed formula, even at the top level. So, if the show succeeds or fails it won’t, I think, have to do with whether a show based on skepticism can succeed but whether the show is any good.
We already know people love to watch investigation show, secrets revealed, thieves caught and some such. Penn & Teller’s Bulshit! and Mythbusters are both quite successful, so it’s clear that skepticism could work. But from that promo, I don’t have a lot of hope. The cheesy yet obscure djinni out of the bottle gag and Indiana Jones font do not bode well for the editorial choices of the producers. They’ve probably also assembled too big a team. Both BS and MB depend primarily on the dynamics of two interesting people who work well together (and, in MB’s case, the 3 people in the MB farm league–a mix it took a long time to develop). To develop a brand and a rapport, with viewers a couple of people will have to be the primaries and the producers will need to be good at creating dynamic story development.
There is more to a good show than being a skeptic. It needs to be a good show. That’s something the Minnesota Atheists radio show is fighting right now, how to be a good show and not just a boring, unprofessional outlet for skepticism or atheism. Thus, we’ll just have to wait and see.
Just throwing skeptics at a tv show and hoping they’ll stick isn’t all there is to it. You need personality and charm and wit. There are science TV shows and podcasts and classes that have great information that would be riveting on its own, if it weren’t being delivered by someone with the charisma of a wet sock.
If The Public can’t like the interplay of the people on the show, there’s little chance. Hopefully it’s not one big geek party and not edited like Smash Lab with 4 minutes of content followed by 2 minutes of repetition and then 4 minutes of content and 2 minutes of repetition again and again. Neat Ideas only hold attention so long, and I find myself skipping through huge chunks of shows like that.
I think one of the biggest potential saving graces on the cast is not Phil or Michael or Brian… it’s Yau Man. That is the closest thing that they have to built-in pop culture appeal.
#30: yeah, it’s called “The Eyes of Nye”, and you can get it off bittorrent.
I watched it a while ago, and thought it was pretty good. Too bad it only had a single season.
No black people but there is a woman and an Asian guy.
One guy (who just happens to be black) that would be pretty good is Greydon Square (Atheist rapper and physics student).
My household has been a Nielsen diary family twice in the past year, as well as having the “privelege” of previewing some piolts. In each diary I have left written commentary about seeing more skeptical programming on TV. Maybe I’ll mention that in my email . . .
My favorite skeptic, because he wasn’t one, was Harry Houdini, a true believer in the supernatural (or one of the best fakes ever) who tried again and again to contact his mother and managed to destroy any number of reputations of the mediums who had claimed to have done something.
I read through a few of the posts this ‘skeptoid’ site does, and for all his high opinions of his own opinion, he doesn’t post footnotes, end notes, or references.
He might as well be talking out his ass- he may be 100% right, but without proof he’s just another internet-based, opinionated waste of time.
I am all for shredding myth, but I don’t think the skeptoids are a reliable source of truth.
@35:
thanks for the link.
I look forward to seeing Nye in action again.
AFAIK, he is actually quite active in the promotion of science in the public arena, still.
If you want a skeptical podcast that actually researches the literature and provides citations on the website there is only one show: Quackcast. Highly recommended. Mark Crislip’s show is sarcastic, funny and snarky, but quite well researched.
http://www.quackcast.com/
They really need Yellow Thunder Woman on this show to up the “Va-Voom factor” and glue eyes to the screen.
Dr. Steve was talking about exactly that photo on the SGU podcast: the cast having to stand around and “look” skeptical, and people not being quite sure what that look entails. I think the woman has the best idea (I forget her name atm), though points to Phil with the “head tilt” idea. :)
The picture sort of reminds me of Law and Order for some reason, which in turn sort of reminds me of this: the greatest thing ever.
The Bad Egg Balancer gets to be on T.V. and you don’t?
[hrrrrmph]
If they had any sense they would follow it with a show called:
Random Ejaculations from Godless Liberalogists (or something).
(Hey, the word ejaculation is sure to boost ratings!)
Personally, I can’t wait until Feb. 2009, when my TVs (old) will only work as monitors for my DVD players. Perfect. The daughter can turn them on all she wants and only static will be thrown up – which is a damn sight better than the crapola it disgorges most hours of most days now (PBS excepted).
Another nauseating group of egotistical skeptics.
I’m not sure the word ‘skeptic’ should really be in the title. More like “The Investigators” or “Kicking Ass for Science” or something interesting, active rather than passive.
Or maybe “You Are Being Fooled”. That’s the angle we need. People like to believe stuff, but they hate being taken advantage of, they hate being lied to.
Another nauseating group of egotistical skeptics.
another driveby credulous robot?
P&T’s Bullshit! is extremely popular, I think it gets good ratings on Showtime and I know the DVD’s sell very well. I haven’t agreed with every position they’ve had, but I believe they help people to be a little more willing to thoroughly investigate both sides of any story.
If this show doesn’t find its audience on television it surely can find it on the web. There are plenty of successful web based show that rake in some good advertising dollars.
I’m with Richard at #34. With evidence like Mythbusters and Bullshit around, we have sufficient reason to believe that if Skeptologists make the investigating entertaining and engaging, it will sell. But just because it’s skeptical is no reason for it do well (or bomb for that matter). This is tv after all. Entertainment value comes first.
The reason why Mythbusters hasn’t attacked religion – apart from the fact that it’s not a good idea to be viewed as antireligion in the US – is that, unless you get really into it, you can’t really work explosives or air cannons into debunking religion
I’m excited but I’m not getting my hopes up.
No explosions (like Mythbusters) and no naked women (like Penn and Teller’s BS) so I don’t see much of an angle here.
Not sexy enough for TV and no doubt way too smart.
Dr. Kirsten Sandford’s kinda cute. :)
Perhaps if they hired me as a consultant…?
I hope the show doesn’t reflect the bad science and logical errors that are often contained on the Skeptoid podcast. I’d hate to see such brilliant skeptics like Dr. Novella parroting Libertarian propaganda that’s portrayed on Dunning’s show.
” I don’t see much of an angle here.”
Especially since skepticism isn’t the same as debunking. The show could be really short, “We don’t have to disprove the claim, the claimants have the obligation to prove their point. Good night everybody!!!!”
“. I’d hate to see such brilliant skeptics like Dr. Novella parroting Libertarian propaganda that’s portrayed on Dunning’s show.”
I haven’t seen Dunning’s show but I have seen P&T’s and theirs is very Libertarian, with a fairly obvious bent. Likewise the odious libertarian “Junk Science” website. I’d hate to seek Libertarianism falsely linked with skepticism.
PZ: now we know who to blame for all those people coming around here complaining about “militant” atheism…
Regarding Mythbusters… don’t use that as an example. That show is, let’s just face it, about blowing stuff up. People watch that show because they want explosions. It’s practically spawned a spinoff that’s basically an excuse to blow up more stuff. It’s called Smash Lab.
I am a MB fan, but at the same time I’m getting continually peeved at how frequently they make convenient logical leaps in order to declare things “busted” that they never adequately tested at all. Someone needs to tell them that sometimes the result of a test can be uncertainty.
They’re technically very competent, I love watching them design and build things. But their testing methodology is nightmarishly bad and their conclusions are often unsupported. My big example up to date was the Hindenburg test. They were supposedly testing to see if the dope used on the Hindenburg might have been flammable. To test this they made a beautiful model and filled it up with a mixture of hydrogen and air. They’ve established this on previous episodes, pure hydrogen does not burn, but hydrogen and oxygen can. Their scale model was filled with a very unscale gas mixture, and as such it caught fire and burned from the inside.
This is not a show to hold up as a successful application of skeptical thought. Some of their tests DO work, I’ve seen some surprising things apparently proven on it before. But I’ve also seem them rationalize away test results that they didn’t like and redesign a test in order to make it give them the result they wanted.
As for Bullshit.. I lost all respect for it when I saw Penn hand wave away the problem of radioactive waste from nuclear reactors by saying that he’s fine letting his children worry about that problem. You could say at least he was being honest, but if he was being honest it would have been more a matter of being his children’s problem, and their children’s problem, and THEIR children’s problem, so far into the future that we’re likely to either work out a practical fusion power system or else we’ll all be dead from some self inflicted problem long before the waste ceases to be a problem.
At the same time he dismisses solar and wind power in a manner reminiscent of Homer Simpson, who said: “And Lord, we are especially thankful for nuclear power, the cleanest, safest energy source there is. Except for solar, which is just a pipedream”.
Nomad: remember the words of zombie feynman!
Nomad,
While I share your concern for accuracy and rigor, I have to disagree. MB and Bullshit are perfect examples to use in asking if Skeptologists will do well on TV, which is different from asking if they’ll do top notch science. While MB may not be as rigorous as you’d prefer, they do indeed spread the meme of testing ideas and being skeptical and are fantastically popular. As is Bullshit, even when it’s not doing it as well as it could be, or it gets something flat out wrong. And that is the precedent that we are concerned with.
I think you’d have a case if we asked, “can a skeptical show be both popular AND highly rigorous?” In such a case, MB and Bullshit might not work as positive examples. Though, I wouldn’t actually say that myself. We should remember that only so much can be done in a half hour show, and with those restrictions in mind, I think they end on the positive side of the equation more often than not. You are of course, perfectly free to disagree with that conclusion. Though I think the point about “can a skeptical show be popular” is pretty settled.
My biggest question is what will be their gimmick? How will they hook people? Bullshit, is crass and often hilariously vicious, and MB is funny and blows all kinds of things up. What will the Skeptologists do to entice the average tv viewer? Because in the end it most likely will not be up to the skeptical content to make the sale, but instead it will be up to the entertaining packaging.
“My biggest question is what will be their gimmick? ”
Indeed. What does skeptologists propose to wow us with? MB builds stuff and you watch to see if it works, or if it blows up. On the other hand, a lot of very lame psychic shows are also popular–but they are way easier to produce because the psychics can just make stuff up. Skeptics will have to do actual investigations and viewers will want a conclusion, and not just “who knows?”
I see they are soliciting support. Of course the problem with soliciting support from skeptics is that they want proof before they support the show. Although the show has some great people in it I don’t know if the show is any good and I’m not going to blindly support a show just because it has a skeptical theme.
Regarding Mythbusters… don’t use that as an example. That show is, let’s just face it, about blowing stuff up.
Yes do use that as an example. (They do more than blow up stuff.) You have to keep things interesting, and that’s what Mythbusters does. Yes use Mythbusters as an example!
Well it could go two ways.
They could carefully and rationally explain the scientific basis for phenomenon that many in the population suspect are supernatural in origin.
Or…
They could relentlessly ridicule the credulous idiots that believe in this nonsense.
I actually suspect the second approach would be the most entertaining and would have the greater effect on the public.
I’ll believe it when I see it!
Magnifico said:
I’ll believe it when I see it!
THAT’S the idea mate! ;)
Doug (#57):
Exactly. Brian, the guy behind Skeptoid, is just another naive anarcho-libertarian corporate apologist.
He gives skepticism a bad name since he is unable to separate his political ideology from the actual evidence.
I wrote him and encouraged him to read “The Maxism of the Right,” the best critique of libertarianism I’ve read lately: http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html
Haven’t heard back.
By the way, Penn and Teller’s show has also lost all credibility for this reason.
I read disciplined’s link, but realized the author was completely off base when he wrote:
“…libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run [society] purely on selfishness and individualism.”
I have been a student of libertarianism for 20+ years and have never, ever believed that one can run society “purely” on selfishness and individualism.
The author continues, “Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function.” Libertarians believe this as well. At least I do and I am happy to label myself a libertarian.
The difference comes from the discussion of whether or not collectivism and altruism should be mandated or voluntary. To the extent that it is voluntary, it is libertarian, to the extent that it is mandatory, it is totalitarian. Some people don’t mind being told with whom they can associate and how they can exchange their efforts for goods and services they want. Some people prefer to have more say in how they run their lives.
I have to add that there is very little I hate more in a discussion than someone else telling me what I believe. It means to me that the other party really doesn’t care about trying to convince me of the benefits of their POV, they are more concerned with scoring points and trying to bostler their arguments with logical fallacies. Anyone who relies on logical fallacies must not feel that their arguments merit integrity, IMO.
Which brings us to “Bullsh!t!”: Penn and Teller’s show lost credibility for me because most of their “debunkings” were incomplete and often inaccurate. I took it as being more because of the medium through which it was presented than the producers’ idealogies, but, since I do not know Penn, Teller or anyone else involved in the program, I just have draw conclusions based the evidence at hand.
Let’s grant the premise, however, that P & T’s ideology was the motivation behind how they presented their debunkings. I have agreed that their arguments were not very sound, sometimes complete strawmen. Does that mean that I have to abandon libertarianism because Penn and Teller made bad arguments using libertarian ideas? Is there any philosophy that is immune from this? Doesn’t every philosophy suffer from the “true Scotsman” fallacy? No matter what your labelled philosophy, don’t you know others who use the same label and “aren’t doing it right”?
Penn & Teller lost the most credibility with me through their environmental debunking. In one tale involving a woman, Wal-mart and a bird, P&T tried to claim there was some sort of conspiracy. The woman filed to develop some property but was denied, while Wal-mart was permitted on the same type of property, both of which housed, as was reported, an endangered bird.
Never mind the woman doesn’t have the team of attorneys like Wal-mart and may have just not filled out the paperwork correctly but a simple Google search would have revealed the bird in question wasn’t endangered, it was merely threatened. Being on the threatened list doesn’t prohibit land development. So the entire basis of the show was built upon a faulty premise which less than five minutes on the internet would have revealed. But that wouldn’t have allowed P&T’s huge anti-environment rant.
On the Skeptoid show about organic food Dunning made the argument that people boil water for their tea because organically grown tea is so filthy that the boiling is used to sterilize the tea. Um no, you boil water because that’s how you make tea.
Naturally there is a lot more shoddy research on both shows so I can’t listen to them any more without having to be skeptical myself and verify their claims.