Fri, 29 October 2010
0:00:00 0:19:50 Comments[6]
|
- Aviation Cocktail should be considered for the official SZ cocktail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_(cocktail)
I believe it must be made with the crème de violette
My take the 'conferences and elitism'
http://skepticalastronomer.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/why-worry-about-preaching-to-choir/ - "The big issue then is this: Who does this research? What resources are available? Is it the big organisations who should be funding it? Should it be driven by academics who happen to have an interest? What are the important questions to ask? And then, how do we do things differently if we find that we need to? What about those individuals out there who are “grassroots” – how do they evaluate their efforts?"
Have you tried asking people like Desiree Schell of Skeptically Speaking? She's referenced in the Token Skeptic podcast. She is an example of a person who evaluates efficacy of activism.
There is also plenty of examples of science activism being evaluated:
http://ascevaluation2.eventbrite.com/
As you can see - they're free if you're a member of the Australian Science Communication group. I write about them here:
http://podblack.com/2010/07/live-blogging-event-evaluation-workshop-australian-science-communicators/
- This is my first time commenting, and it saddens me a bit that it has to be criticism. While I don't think it was the intent, the discussion during the Think Tank came across as incredibly classist. The question of cost is something that cannot be dismissed out of hand, yet the implication was that people who raise that point are whiny gits. Eran's comments were especially unpleasant in this regard. Big S skepticism (in the US, at least) already has a bit of a stigma as being a middle- to upper-class community, and sneering at those who can't afford to make it to any TAM is the last thing anyone should be doing.
- Hi Richard,
I was one of those involved in the Think Tank this week and feel strongly about some of the discussion going on at the moment regarding the skeptical community. I applaud the efforts of those calling for closer evaluation of whether our methods are effective. I am not calling for anyone to be silenced - in fact I specifically said during the show that conflict and debate is important.
I have not yet read Karen's article so I cannot comment on what was said. As one of the organiser's of TAM Australia I am also aware that the Tank was almost entirely composed of the organising committee and thus we are somewhat mired in it at present.
As such, I would like to address your comments:
As I said, I have not read Karen’s article, so I am not sure what was said, but I am not aware of her article being the starting point of this discussion in the community. Dr Rachie, did not criticise Karen’s article – she merely referenced it as she said that Karen has mentioned in her article that some criticism was levelled at TAM8. I certainly don’t think Dr Rachie “outed” Karen for her article. I think this was a reference point for her, while for me I am aware of Alom Shaha’s article amongst a few others. I am aware of discussions of these issues going on for a while now, and certainly, before I became active in the community.
“You don't name ANY other writer, but allude to some others (and laugh at them without showing any serious consideration of how they might have some useful points).” Personally, I do not dismiss what is being said. I disagree with some of what is being said, but I certainly do not dismiss it. I don’t think we are critical of everything that is being said – I think we were addressing some specific aspects of it. I have gone back and listened to our discussion again in response to your criticism. There are many instances in the Tank where there is laughter, but they are actually in response to banter that was not necessarily on topic. However, I take your point, and see how this can come across as being dismissive or sneering.
In terms of criticism about “whingers”, this goes to our experience as organisers. We found during the last year that many public criticisms were made about costs etc, without checking anything with us. This led to the perception that some people were happy to publically complain without doing any fact-checking or giving us the opportunity to address their concerns – not very sceptical in my opinion. For example, accusations were made about no effort being made to accommodate students, when we had in fact spent a great deal of time trying to ensure students could attend the event.
Regarding feedback about conferences, I can tell you that we take that very seriously. Indeed, in our own design of TAMOZ, we listened closely to feedback about previous events to avoid repeating mistakes, and to improve on past events. I must remind you that the Think Tank is a casual, off-the-cuff discussion, so it is not fair to assume from our discussions that we would not be intending to obtain feedback about the convention, or that we would not use that feedback constructively. Are there any other instances outside of this Think Tank that give you that impression?
I do not agree with you about our scepticism stopping at looking at the efficacy of our efforts. I think this is a very important part of carrying out any activity. It is something I do in my work every day and something I would hope that those in the sceptical community would do in order to ensure our efforts are not for nought.
I think that people like Alom Shaha, make some excellent points about the need for our efforts to be less inwardly focused. However, I think there is possibly a good reason why they are like this at present. I guess what I’m saying, is, I think they are right, but for the wrong reasons. I think, and I am speculating here, that we are so inwardly focused because so many of us are so new to this. So many of us are putting our feelers out there; getting to know where our strengths lie and finding our feet as skeptics. There is so much to be done that at times it is overwhelming. I would love to do more to communicate the message to the general public. One of my concerns is that a huge amount of time and effort is going into writing blogs and doing podcasts. While I value these hugely (especially as a contributor to a podcast) and as someone who was drawn into the community because of Skeptoid/SGU etc – it is becoming too easy to jump on that bandwagon. I can’t keep up with them all anymore. I barely have time to listen to the one or two that I am dedicated to. I thought about doing a blog at one point and decided against it because I didn’t want to just rehash what is already being said. But then the vital point here, is that this is all based on assumption, and going back to the issue, if we don’t evaluate our efforts, we don’t know whether they are working. So, it would be extremely helpful to conduct research and look into it. The big issue then is this: Who does this research? What resources are available? Is it the big organisations who should be funding it? Should it be driven by academics who happen to have an interest? What are the important questions to ask? And then, how do we do things differently if we find that we need to? What about those individuals out there who are “grassroots” – how do they evaluate their efforts?
I certainly hope that no one shies away from providing feedback/criticism. I for one welcome it and am more than happy to take it on board if I think it is valid.
- At twenty four minutes into this episode, Dr Rachie said about negative feedback to conferences:
"This kind of started, Richard, 'cause there's an article in this month's Skeptical Inquirer by Dr Karen Stollznow..."
Are all recent (and some are certainly not recent, there are plenty in the past that have been made - such as 'more women at TAMs') nonconstructive criticism of conferences are due to Karen Stollznow?
You don't name ANY other writer, but allude to some others (and laugh at them without showing any serious consideration of how they might have some useful points).
I think that laughing and sneering at people like you did is wrong, and poisons the well - another fallacy that you didn't mention. You may think some people are just 'whingers' or 'grumblebums' (here's yet another fallacy for you - heard of 'Strawman'?) - but to dismiss any questioning as laughable without detailed analysis is unworthy of you as people who promote science.
How many of the mentioned Dr Rachies's conferences have feedback afterwards by participants about 'what to improve for next time' and take it on board and do so? Isn't that standard for conferences? Or are they all just overwhelmingly happy and feeling like nothing should ever improve at future events to incorporate changes and developments, which are inevitable to ensure progress?
Do you expect conferences to be deemed successful based on 'some grassroots happened after with this made up percentage of 100 people that I have no evidence really did happen to have occurred but it sounds good when I say it about TAM as a hypothetical' -- or do you have success of conferences based on actual data, just the same way you expect success of a Powerbalance bracelet to be based on actual data?
Does your skepticism stop at the point of where it makes you uncomfortable about how efficacious you really are? Maybe it just makes you feel good to work so hard as you do -- and not look behind you to see if that hard work is really paying off?
I expected a more mature attitude from people who are providing a paid-for service by running a convention, to take in any future comments that may be somewhat critical but meant to be constructive -- with a open mind. Were there ANY comments made by anyone that you thought 'they have a point'? Or did you cherry-pick to suit yourselves and your blatant stance that there's nothing wrong with organised skepticism?
Clearly there must be some issues, even just a few, for so many voices being blogged, printed, et al. Is Karen Stollznow, for example,deserving of being outed from the start as someone who has done the wrong thing for just discussing 'is this about preaching to the choir'?
Yes, some will be negative and rightly dismissed. But MAYBE some of them will have a point -- but how can they expect you to take them seriously if you're poohpoohing them before they even put pen to paper, so to speak?
Poor show, Skeptic Zone Think Tank. I feel like if I did have something to say about TAMOz that I meant as constructive criticism and you'd immediately interpret as just criticism -- you won't take me seriously and won't do anything to improve, because you have already shown me that you openly laugh, use one person like Karen as your scapegoat and blame others for shortcomings that could very well be a legitimate issue.
Overall, I was upset by your tone. And for people who talk about tone and 'not being dicks', you were blatantly being dicks about potential future feedback that might irk you but still have a good point made.
But maybe even by saying this you will just dismiss me too and just laugh me off as you did other people on your show. That would make it even worse on your part, IMHO. Show me that you can do better, and that means do better by people who will give you feedback that you might not have seen coming but should be taken on face value :(
Post your comment:
