• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Topic for TAM6

Hawk one

Emperor of the Internet
Hawk one
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
13,685
Location
Right below The Hat.
OK, so I found out that the topic for TAM6 isn't decided yet. And so I am making this thread for the specific purpouse to give a suggestion for such a topic. Then you people can tell me if it's any good, or just a load of bovine-based natural fertilizer.

The short term for what I'm suggesting will be known as "social woo". Social woo is, for this discussion, defined as the following situations (and maybe more:

* Going against a new technology because it's "unnatural".
* The campaigns against rock music in the past, violent movies in the nearer past, and currently the ongoing campaign on violent video games, especially the escapades by attorney Jack Thompson.
* Discrimination
* Taboos against f.ex. swearing
* Certain medical issues such as assisted suicide, and the right to end your life, or have a legally appointed person to be able to take the decision for you. Terry Schivao is a case in point.
* Conspiracy Theories

And possibly other stuff as well. In short, if someone just shouts out hysterically "will someone please think of the children?!?" or something to that effect, there's a good chance social woo is going on.

Now, the main argument against this is that it may be a bit on the edge of the "main mission". I can certainly see myself that this isn't directly involving paranormal stuff, although much of the social woo is religiously inspired.

But I also believe that critical thinking should be permuating more aspects of our lives than just coming up with scientific explanations for allegedly paranormal phenomena, and that is why I am suggesting it.

So, there you have it. And now you're free to make your feedback to my suggestion. I cannot guarantee that this thread and its responses will be a deciding factor in any direction, but I do know Jeff Wagg will at least read it and consider it.
 
Having never (...sigh...) yet attended TAM, I'm possibly the last person to be giving an opinion.

It seems to me that discussing the problems and potential solutions of the day to day woo would go a long way to working on the bigger, badder stuff.
 
Hmmm. Reality TAM. Cool.

What is real? I find the mashing of science to make something that is "unreal" more real is the most annoying thing ever. And, in reality, what IS natural? Natural isn't always better. Natural aspirin will give you ulcers. Natural cyanide will kill you. Is "synthetic" really "unnatural"? Or is it simply natural and realistic to get a compound that won't hurt you more than it helps you?

It would be interesting to have a topic about reality vs paranormal vs natural.

Richard Wiseman would be a great resource to explore this topic. Our perceptions and science help us to determine reality. These can also be warped to make the "unreal" real to us.

That is how psychics are able to con, and alties are able to push their garbage (more cons).

So how do "real", regular, folks determine what is "real" or not if they don't have some kind of science background or training in critical thinking?

We must use more than a scientific method to determine who is a con, or what is real.

Common sense? What is that. I find I have to use common sense more than anything else. But I can't define it at the moment. I weigh nonsense against what makes sense. How do you explain that though?
 
Last edited:
To mention another example of something I think could be covered under this umbrella, the AIDS debate I've seen you talk about recently would be a good topic too, Eos.

So far, it seems nobody hates the idea, and quite a few like it. That feels... unusual for me. :D
 
I think some good examples of how we can be better skeptics, and certainly pointing out WHY fighting this everyday woo is so important. The video of James Van Pragh doing a "reading" for the parents of a dead child really changed a LOT of minds at one TAM I attended (TAM2 I think). People that were attending TAM that had gone in saying, "well, if people are stupid enough for fall for these guys, they deserve to get screwed". That video, and what was said afterward, changed a lot of minds.

We need to know WHY fighting this is important, and HOW to do it.

Why are we skeptics? That is a good question. Because you don't win a lot of friends being a skeptic. In fact, you tend to find out who your real friends are. Is if worth it? yes, now let's share WHY.
 
That's a funky question. Maybe I just can't think today. I don't know why.
I do know that what you say is so true. It hasn't won me very many friends. It has won me better friends, but it has lost me more friends than I have gained.

Selfishly, I don't want to lose money to con artists. I also don't want to support liars. I also selfishly don't want others to support liars and cons.

I know I could never try to be that dishonest myself, in that I could never become a liar or a con. I feel that people who have the ability to be be a liar or con should not get away with it. I know I couldn't get away with it, ethically or legally. It's not fair that people can make big bucks being a liar or a con, while the rest of us have to eek out an honest living.

It's not fair to lie to people and take their money just because you could dupe them. They get arrogant too, and feel they are smarter and better just because they get away with lying. They get superiority complexes.

I just end up hating it all around, and want it to stop. That, and it's so annoying trying to stand by and bite your tongue when someone says nonsense like it's true, and you don't want to be the "skeptic" that bursts their bubble. When you're in a group of 10 to one, and you're the only one not buying the crap, you feel like you have to stay quiet or get a target on your head that says "I'm different, hate me for being close-minded".

If people could listen for one second without getting defensive, then it wouldn't be so bad. But you usually get branded as the idiot rather than the prerson trying to help.

Lately it hasn't been that bad. At school people ask me to confirm things for them. I've stood up to some stupidity, and it has paid off in some ways. I fear there will be consequences though, but I can't live fearing the "what if".

So, I'd like to learn to spread critical thinking, and not fear doing it. Being the "realist" may be not so risky if it can be done "right" (non-confrontational, just presenting some common sense or a question that makes people think). I've encouraged people to look things up and make their own minds up. It seems to be helping. Then I'm not alone in my skepticism as much.

A girl in my class did a presentation on the flu virus. She changed her mind about flu vaccination because of it. It was really cool.
 
What is the purpose of TAM?

You could state, generally (very generally), that it is to provide an opportunity for like-minded people from different walks of life to meet, face-to-face, and share their common dedication to shared principles and interests.

The foregoing could apply to any convention, annual meeting, and the like. However, for skeptics, we seek something akin to what religious-minded folks seek – shared commitment to our ideals.

But skeptics are unique in one important sense: Our commitment to reason over faith. And, in terms of the organizations we support and participate in, we take this commitment as seriously as religious folks. This attribute places us in a tiny minority. Sure we share a kinship with the atheists in many respects; however, atheists promote opposition to essentially all forms of popular religion, whereas skeptics promote thinking processes which apply to the full range of human endeavor – beyond religion.

The JREF promotes critical thinking in a number of ways, one of which is to challenge all forms of magical thinking and pseudo-science. Of course religious thinking is just one, albeit the major one, among all the many kinds of magical and pseudoscientific thinking.

As skeptics we remain all too human, tied to our failings, our emotional predilections, our needs for shared experience and those common bonds and reinforcements – of course the same emotional needs which bring the masses into the churches – and we profit from such shared experience. An oft heard remark at skeptical conclaves like TAM is, "I thought I was so alone in my beliefs and attitudes, and I am so gratified to learn that so many others share the same feelings and concerns!"

Just that revelatory discovery, alone, may be enough to justify TAM. Of course, it is just one among many other enormous benefits to TAM, but it is indicative of just how TAM can change lives and move those mountains.

To quote (of all people) Paul Tillich: "Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt." In that sense, as Dr. Shermer might agree, we skeptics are religious, because that which is most meaningful and important to our existence is the enterprise by which we seek to learn the truth no matter what that truth may be. The enterprise is of course our commitment to reason and science our form of religion. Though this use of the word religion invites a lively debate beyond mere semantics (e.g., see this current edition of Skeptical Inquirer).

So how does this integrate with the question as to the purpose of TAM? Simply put, the growing success of the TAM – despite much program repetition, a certain lack of sophistication in its execution, the preachy nature of many of its speakers, the anathematic nature of its venue, etc. – is routed in the need of our attendees to share the emotional intensity of our commitment to skepticism. The sharing experience includes the program participants as well.

But is this an important enough purpose such that we should and can build upon it and weave it into future TAMs and TAM programs? For me the answer is a resounding affirmative – so much so that I believe we should keep this in mind when we discuss any suggestions for improving TAM as well as the JREF and even the skeptical "movement" (if such a thing exists or may come to exist). And so activities that promote many forms of interaction among TAM attendees should be encouraged and planned. Discussion groups (and, is not the JREF Forum one form of discussion group?), interactive exercises among TAM attendees and TAM leaders and speakers (such as the special dinner at the TAM, the table hopping by the dignitaries during the TAM cruises), are a few examples that jump out to me. How can this list be expanded?

This is one challenge for the TAM program leaders at the JREF. Toward this end, a permanent TAM committee of the JREF must be formed and must set up a vigorous meeting schedule. While TAM 6 is being planned, TAMs 7,8,9, et seq., must also be in the works.

And issues beyond the mere TAM program abound:

Should there be a limit as to the number of persons who may attend TAM?

To what extent (if any) should the fund-raising needs of the JREF take a back seat to other TAM goals?

To what extent (if any) should the JREF subsidize TAM, TAM attendees, students, teachers, and others?

What kind of speakers should be sought for TAMs?

Where should TAMs be located?

How long should Tams be? How often?

How, if at all, should TAM be integrate with other skeptical events and activities?

What is the future of TAM after James Randi? In this regard I must quickly state that there are hundreds (more likely thousands) of committed JREF members who have every intention of continuing the JREF and the TAMs well beyond the lifetime of our founder, James Randi. Nonetheless, such planning needs to be taking place NOW.

The JREF Forum is an appropriate venue for general discussion and even some brainstorming along these lines; however, I for one am anxious to learn that the TAM Planning Committee is well at work on these issues. All thoughts from all interest Forum participants are more than welcomed.
 
atheists promote opposition to essentially all forms of popular religion
Click to expand...

That is absolutely NOT true. Atheists only oppose all forms of religion being stuffed down their throats. All they ask for is tolerance of their lack of belief in a deity. There is NO promotion of oppositon to ANY religion.

I ask you to check that quoted belief right out, forever.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
That is absolutely NOT true. Atheists only oppose all forms of religion being stuffed down their throats. All they ask for is tolerance of their lack of belief in a deity. There is NO promotion of oppositon to ANY religion.

I ask you to check that quoted belief right out, forever.
Click to expand...

Heh, read any Dawkins lately?
 
Ehmm, you know, I appreciate that people are taking their time with their comments and all, but...

It's only a "small" thread about a fairly specific suggestion about a possible topic/theme for the next TAM. What's relevant is pretty much comments saying what you think of this particular theme idea, and possibly more suggestions for particular panels, guests and whatnot, that would fit in under this umbrella. That's all I want feedback on. Really. The "Suggestions about TAM" thread should cover all the other aspects.
 
yeah, I think keeping it on subject is good. But I will say that the atheists I know HATE it when one atheist claims to speak for them.

One of the main points about being an atheist is that you have a pretty good ability to think for yourself!

I think promotig what is good and right about being a skeptic is important. Why this work is important to us. A little patting on the back, hey we do GOOD stuff is important also. One thing I find is that many skeptics I know think JREF and Michael Shermer and Robert Lancaster and skepchicks...are rather silly. One thing I hear again and again is, "well, smart people don't fall for that stuff." Or, "it's just plain silly". So WHY combating this is important, and why they should also being helping out, is important.

For instance Global Warming, the person I am thinking about sure thinks global warming is important. So how does being a skeptic help get the truth out there? Or help you figure out what is the good scientific work on this and the bad?

It's really hard to convince many smart, well educated people that they should be supportive.

NASA started out supportive and putting effort into proving they really DID land on the moon. They then changed their mind, thinking that any refutation would be just giving more respect to the moon hoaxers than they deserved. Because of this, almost any person on the street has heard the moon hoaxers, and while most probably don't believe them - enough do that it has crept into out popular culture. I have highly educated friends that questioned the moon landing (thanks to old Art Bell) before I reeducated them! History has been changed on less than a few kooks getting their word out. Many people think "just ignore them" but with TV and the internet, you ignore at the peril of history.
 
kittynh said:
For instance Global Warming, the person I am thinking about sure thinks global warming is important. So how does being a skeptic help get the truth out there? Or help you figure out what is the good scientific work on this and the bad?

It's really hard to convince many smart, well educated people that they should be supportive.
Click to expand...

Those of us who are committed to skepticism are certainly not "one issue" folks. We share common interests and issues, such as capital punishment, overpopulation, global warming (and environmental issues in general), animal rights, illiteracy, etc., etc., etc.

What distinguishes skepticism from all these important issues, and what makes it paramount to me, is what - to paraphrase Thoreau - strikes at the root cause of man's foibles. For Dawkins, it includes man's religiosity. For me, man's religiosity is part of man's nature (initiated by the reptilian portion of man's brain). Religiosity is a failed element of the human psyche, yet it is so very much with us. To attack religion - outright and with full barrels blazing - may feel good, but it may lack effectiveness. The issue as to how we deal with religion remains to be further discussed; however, I see skepticism as a process whereby we should come to think differently. It is a method (akin to the scientific method) applicable to the most significant issues as well as everyday problem solving. It then follows that all endeavors and all issues are aided by skepticism. That is why I place skepticism in the forefront. Skepticism is concerned with how we think, not just what we think or what we think about.

So, if you are concerned about global warming (e.g.), you should support the skeptical movement. If your concern is overpopulation, capital punishment, democracy, human rights, separation of Church and State, freedom, etc., you should support the skeptical movement.
 
feldesq said:
Those of us who are committed to skepticism are certainly not "one issue" folks. We share common interests and issues, such as capital punishment, overpopulation, global warming (and environmental issues in general), animal rights, illiteracy, etc., etc., etc.

What distinguishes skepticism from all these important issues, and what makes it paramount to me, is what - to paraphrase Thoreau - strikes at the root cause of man's foibles. For Dawkins, it includes man's religiosity. For me, man's religiosity is part of man's nature (initiated by the reptilian portion of man's brain). Religiosity is a failed element of the human psyche, yet it is so very much with us. To attack religion - outright and with full barrels blazing - may feel good, but it may lack effectiveness. The issue as to how we deal with religion remains to be further discussed; however, I see skepticism as a process whereby we should come to think differently. It is a method (akin to the scientific method) applicable to the most significant issues as well as everyday problem solving. It then follows that all endeavors and all issues are aided by skepticism. That is why I place skepticism in the forefront. Skepticism is concerned with how we think, not just what we think or what we think about.

So, if you are concerned about global warming (e.g.), you should support the skeptical movement. If your concern is overpopulation, capital punishment, democracy, human rights, separation of Church and State, freedom, etc., you should support the skeptical movement.
Click to expand...

Well Said!!!
 
I foresee feldesq writing up a TAM paper if the "social woo/everyday skepticism" topic gets accepted for TAM6... He's practically half done already. :)
 
Still think there needs to be a "Education" themed TAM. About educating young and old, but especially the young. It is like targeting beer ads at young people to get them hooked young, except instead of beer it's skepticism (and beer).
 
I know we're flogging a somewhat tired horse, but I think the debate around the relationship with skepticism and atheism is far from over.

I'm not sure if an entire TAM needs to be spent on the topic, but I'd like to see a breakout session or a pre/post event that examines the need for unity in the skeptic/atheist/freethought/humanist community.

There are so few voices of reason out there, that if we remain focussed on separate group goals and needs, each group is doomed to be stunted in its growth and impact.

Sure, some of us may not care for the stance of Dawkins in 'the God Delusion' or the work of Brian Flemming in the production of 'the God Movie'. Others feel that the time for politeness and acceptance even of religious moderation is over, and that all the focus on individual issues such as the spread of Islam in Europe is really just missing the elephant in the closet - the one called faith.

My personal opinons aside, I DO feel that the JREF at times suffers from the perception that its a bit wishy-washy. A telling point was when Ellen Johnson (Johnstone?) of American Atheists asked the question at TAM IV and about 20% of the field identified as theists. Granted, many of these theists who attend TAMs are not theists in a traditional (Judeo-Christian) kind of way.

We tried the 'Bright' movement, which seems to have sort of fizzled out. Events like 'The Blasphemy Challenge' have succeeded in getting media exposure to the atheist side of the coin. And, in the words of Andy Warhol, there is no such thing as bad publicity. Dawkins has been very successful in getting media coverage for his book, and the sales of 'The God Delusion', not to mention Sam Harris' two books have been very solid and positive. Attendance at TAM (if one metric of the growth / reach of the JREF message) wasn't significant at TAM V vs TAM IV. And while Randi's exposure on the Sylvia Brown situation was promising, again, this is just one small topic, and one specific issue.

Exciting young skeptics / atheists such as Rebecca Watson, The InfidelGuy and other online venues are definitely growing in listenership. Putting our atheist/skeptical lobbyist at work in Washington needs to be examined further.

Basically, if we all got in the same sandbox, we'd all look less dogmatic / curmudgeonly, and could accomplish more with more.

I'm not suggesting reopening the debate on whether one can be a skeptic or not and still believe in god. I think the hatchet has been buried on that one. But I would like to see productive, genuine debate on how we can resolve our differences (as I suspect that deep down they are slight) and try to develop a strategy for moving forward. Really pursuing the 'Educational' aspect of the JREF from the viewpoint of having a positive impact in the world.

-AH.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom