Advancing the Skeptic Movement

[UKBoy1977]

Before this conference I used to enjoy reading Randi's site and laughing at how funny people are and what they will believe, but took it no further than that. But this whole experience along with reading the Uri Geller book over the last couple of days has made me start to really feel angry about everything (the deception,the money being made, the implication for the advancement of knowedge in society) which is how every serious skeptic should feel I guess.
Although I don't feel I am ready to start a skeptic group, I certainly intend joining my local skeptic movement so I can play my part.
However I can't help feeling that skeptics face an almost impossible task t change society's opinions.

 

[Guest]

However I can't help feeling that skeptics face an almost impossible task t change society's opinions.

Being right is its own reward, and it's a damn good thing because it's the only reward you're assured of.

 

[UKBoy1977]

(oops! submitted too early)
I can't help feeling that skeptics groups will continue to mainly attract people who are already inclined to think the way we do, but have trouble actually converting believers, particularly as we battle th all too uncritical media and programes such as Edward, Van Praagh etc. which pull in millions of viewers. Hoaxes like Carlos are the sort of thing that is needed to reach large amounts of the population but even things like this seem to make little impact and are soon forgotten. I think people like Randi need their own series and so the public get used to regularly seeing the other side of these things and not just see the odd programme or odd article which is soon forgotten.
Of course I'm not saying anything new and I'm sure skeptics regularly try to get as muc media exposure as possible but face a media which isn't much interested in the truth as it doesn't make good T.V. I'm just letting off steam but I just wondered what anyone else thinks is the way forward for the skeptic movement. How can we really start to reach significant numbers of people and start to effect real change? (Although I guess if anyone knew the answer to this we'd be doing it right now! But bear with me, I'm a newbie!)

 

[sadluxation]

I have heard this argument before and I can sympthise with it.
One ex-skeptic in the U.K. is Ian Rowland , a magician who was interested in the movement.
On his site is the reasons why he changed his mind.

I disagree with a main point, that goes something like "....most people will want to believe in the paranormal, weird stuff, etc, and there is nothing you can do to change it".

I disagree with this, as I know lots of people who converted once they were given explainations . Which I think goes to prove you need more people out there to give a common sense view, and less time to the clap-trap (Check out Kilroy this morning - I'm the bumbling fool in the front row).
I do sincerely believe, that if you give out the information people will make quite informed decisions.

Would anyone out there like to give me any percentages on "rational,reasonable non-skeptic people"?