The Amazing Moment: JREF, Skeptics Society and CSI Co-Sponsor TAM8

Like it? Share it!

Sign up for news and updates!

Login Form

The Amazing Moment: JREF, Skeptics Society and CSI Co-Sponsor TAM8

Swift

Written by Daniel Loxton

Friday, 14 May 2010 15:41

I wrote recently about an “Ode to Joy” moment I experienced 17 years ago, when I first walked into my university library and discovered the full depth of the skeptical literature. Since then, I’ve had many other wonderful moments in my life as a skeptic: the day I discovered Skeptic magazine (in a café in Sherbrooke, Quebec in 1995); the first time I saw hundreds of skeptics in one room (at “The Amazing Meeting 2″ conference in 2004); or, the day last year when the Skeptics Society announced the release of a free full-color Junior Skeptic-based evolution book to thousands of Portuguese school children.

Today I’m writing about another Ode to Joy moment — one of the greatest of my career. It’s a moment I’ve long hoped for, and never expected to see: last week’s announcement that The Amazing Meeting 8 conference (July 8 – 11, 2010, in Las Vegas) will be co-sponsored by all three U.S. national skeptics organizations:

In keeping with recent trends for national US skeptical organizations to work more closely together to advance shared aims, the James Randi Educational Foundation is very pleased to announce that…both the Skeptics Society, as well as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP), will officially be co-sponsors of the event, providing both financial and promotional support to the JREF for the meeting.

Long-time skeptics are aware that skepticism, like other intellectual movements, has seen its share of schisms and factions. This isn’t remotely unusual. Think of the many finely graded camps within, for example, atheism, feminism or animal welfare activism. Nor is it unusual for like-minded organizations to compete for resources or duplicate efforts.

Factionalism isn’t unique to skepticism, but it can be a bummer. When natural allies miss opportunities for mutual support, it reminds me of something a member of a colony-based anabaptist denomination once told me. I asked him to describe the key differences between his group and closely-related group they held very much at arm’s length. He told me, “Mostly the hats.”

Now, this is not to downplay the truth that skeptical groups do differ in emphasis and approach. Each of the big U.S. groups has its own strengths and specializations, as do national groups overseas and regional groups worldwide. It’s been argued that this vigorous variety is itself a strength, and I think this is often the case. A variety of groups and mandates covers more ground in more ways.

Still, skepticism and science advocacy are projects built on optimism — a “yes we can” sort of feeling. In skepticism as in other activist traditions, grassroots support lives and breathes on the hope that together we can make the world a bit better than it would have been. Optimism is a precious thing, and delicate. It flourishes best in an atmosphere of civility and cooperation.

A Long Hope

In the Spring of 2001, the Center For Inquiry’s then-Director of Education, Austin Dacey, asked me to write a proposal for a hypothetical print magazine to promote skepticism and humanism on college campuses. (That print project never went past the proposal stage, but the Center for Inquiry On Campus brought it to life as the online Campus Inquirer newsletter). Much of that proposal concerned production matters, but I also included some more general thoughts about promoting skepticism. In particular, I emphasized the practical and symbolic value (and public service benefit) of “close cooperative ties” between skeptical organizations.

I even went so far as to suggest a then-utopian example: why not “skeptical summits,” or skeptical conferences co-sponsored by like-minded national skeptics groups “under a joint banner”?

In the years since, I’ve often thought what a wonderful symbol that would be. And, in the skepticism 2.0 context, it began to seem possible. Buoyed by the enthusiasm of the new grassroots skepticism, fueled by the success of podcasting and online outreach, cooperation and collaboration between skeptical organizations has risen dramatically in recent years. I’ve been pleased to be a small part of that process, working with colleagues at many other groups, and helping to promote not only JREF projects (like TAM, which we have long supported through eSkeptic, Skeptic magazine, and Skepticality) but projects from CSI and other organizations as well. Cross-promotion and mutual assistance are emerging as the new normal for skeptical organizations. Early last year, D.J. Grothe and I even discussed the possibility of a hypothetical three-way conference — and reflected again how powerfully that would symbolize skepticism’s renaissance.

Ode to Joy All Over Again

I hasten to add that I had no part in arranging the three-way co-sponsorship of The Amazing Meeting 8. When the JREF’s announcement popped up on Twitter last week, I was as astonished as anyone else. But, I think you’d have to go a long way to find someone more pleased to hear the news than I.

Not that I needed any more reason to be excited. TAM is widely acknowledged as skepticism’s premier multi-day event — truly the summit meeting for North American skepticism. Every year, the contacts made there spin off into unexpected ideas and important new grassroots outreach projects. (For example, Canada’s influential Skeptic North blog site is a TAM7 spin-off. What a difference a year makes!)

Even before the co-sponsorship announcement, it was clear that TAM8 would be more representative of the wider skeptical landscape than any previous year. Never before have so many of skepticism’s pioneers been scheduled to participate in a single event: not only giants like James Randi, Michael Shermer, and Steven Novella, but also CSI legends Paul Kurtz, Ray Hyman, Joe Nickell, Kendrick Frazier, and Barry Karr. Even Martin Gardner is due to appear by video. Martin Gardner! (And that’s to say nothing of folks like Richard Dawkins and Adam Savage. Honestly, I’ve never seen a speaker list quite like this one.)

The Amazing Meeting 8 was already going to be something special. And then came the announcement of the co-sponsorship. The Skeptics Society, The James Randi Educational Foundation, and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry — all working together.

I had nothing to do with it, and yet I feel personally involved. I don’t quite know how to describe my feelings about this watershed moment.

Skepticism is my life’s work. It matters to me. And this announcement changes skepticism. Changes it for the better.

Set as favorite

Bookmark

Email This

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (12) Add Comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

BORING.............
written by Davis, May 18, 2010

Is it just me or has this site become astoundlingly boring lately? Whats going on?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: -2

Boring?
written by Caller X, May 18, 2010

@Davis:

No, the problem isn't so much that the site is boring, it's that this article is just about Daniel Loxton talking about himself. I could write an equally boring article but my personal moral code prevents it.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

...
written by Caller X, May 18, 2010

The problem is not so much that the site is boring, but the Randi Speaks vids are useless. The recent one on the Indian fakir who claimed to not eat or poop for two weeks was 5 minutes and 23 seconds of my life I'll never get back. Here's a clue: if you don't eat, you still poop. Scoop of vanilla, scoop of chocolate, don't waste my time. Randi, just keep the kids off your lawn, don't waste our time with your rambling videos.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: -2

@ Caller X
written by Davis, May 18, 2010

Amen to both posts!

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: -2

...
written by Jason Loxton, May 19, 2010

Yes, yes, you’re not supposed to reply to drive by posts like these, I know, but I can’t help it.

I try not to read comments sections because they get high-jacked by nameless hecklers mocking from behind the cover of an avatar. I get sucked in by my brother’s posts, however, since I actually know the person who is being recreationally attacked, I know the effort he puts into his posts, the good intentions, and the real emotions attached to the real guy. And so it gets my back up. But, the problem is pretty much universal. Sadly.

So, here’s two requests for the angry posters of the world: 1) Give some thought to the fact that real people exist behind the ones and zeros of the World Wide Web, and 2) If you have a problem, write a post or send an email, but for gosh sakes, do it in your actual name (or better yet, come up and have a conversation at TAM!). It's cowardly not to. If the problem is not so serious that you’re willing to attach your identity to it, then don’t waste everyone’s time.

P.s. Isn't it a little hypocritical to criticize someone for making "boring" posts about their personal reactions within a post about your personal reactions?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +3

Anonymity
written by TomFoss, May 19, 2010

"If you have a problem, write a post or send an email, but for gosh sakes, do it in your actual name (or better yet, come up and have a conversation at TAM!). It's cowardly not to."

Really? As someone who mostly posts online using my own name, I can't begrudge anyone the use of pseudonyms online (or, really, anywhere). It's one thing to make a drive-by anonymous comment, it's quite another to use a consistent pseudonym long-term, developing a style and a reputation under that kind of chosen name. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to conceal your meatspace name online, and they don't necessarily imply cowardice. Even if you stand by every word you've ever posted, having some degree of anonymity can be important for protecting your family or livelihood from people who might find your online speech unpopular. Also, some people don't like their given names. Heck, in some cases, an assumed name can offer more distinction--there are a lot fewer "Silver Ferrets" in the blogosphere than "John Smiths."

Your argument is, frankly, silly, and I think you know it. After all, I don't see your name popping up in a Google search of Respectful Insolence, full of your comments that Orac is a coward for blogging under an assumed name. I certainly don't see you calling out Randall Zwinge for his pseudonym. We all cultivate identities, reputations, and so forth. What name we do them under is a matter of choice, and we might make those choices for any of a variety of reasons.

That being said, welcome to the Internet. If you can't handle getting criticized by the occasional blunt, uncouth, and potentially idiotic commenter, then you're in the wrong place. Perhaps you'd feel more at home at ~~an echo chamber~~ a heavily-moderated blog with oft-used blocking capability. Might I recommend Uncommon Descent?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: -1

anyonymity vs. just being a jerk
written by badrescher, May 20, 2010

I'm a little sick of hearing "if you can't take it, you're in the wrong business/shouldn't be on the internet". Not only is that ad hominem, but it suggests that criticism should just accepted without response or evaluation. It is also presumptuous, condescending, and ironic.

To the posters who claim the blog has gotten boring, vote with your mouse. Don't read it. Comments are meant for people who have something to say.

As for the anonymity part: although I find it less than palatable to use a pseudonym, it really shouldn't matter as long as the author is making an argument. This is where holding up Orac as an example of hypocrisy falls apart. Gorski is an exceptionally rational man. I am sure that examples of errors in logic and sacred cows can be found, but I wonder how difficult that would be.

The message is what matters. When the message is not an argument, but rather a personal attack, poorly-backed opinion, or stupid, unnecessary comments about how you'd rather see PZ duke it out with the Pope, the messenger becomes the issue.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: -2

...
written by badrescher, May 20, 2010

Again, this appeared in my email as having been posted by Jason Loxton, but does not appear here. This is the second half:

When I post or dialogue on the internet (or anywhere else) I do so in attempt to genuinely exchange information. I post only my real opinions (wrong or right), and I stand behind whatever I say. This is time I take away from my PhD work (and time Dan takes away from his family and work with Jr. Skeptic). I don’t at all mind being disagreed with, or even being wrong, but I want to know that if I am having a discussion in good faith. *That the dialogue is not a game to the other participant.* Adopting your own name eliminates the possibility of debating multiple incarnations of the same guy, but more importantly to me, (and this leads back to my first point), it makes people much less likely to state things they do not actually believe. It increases accountability.

There is plenty more to be said on this topic (and layers of complexity I have not explored: e.g., ee Christopherson, 2007, Computers in Human Behavior, 23:6). If you’re coming to TAM, I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone. You know who I am. Track me down!

(P.s. Orac is a weird case. Everyone knows who he is now, so ‘Orac’ is more of a nickname then anything else. I had mixed feelings before though, since he does take on genuinely dangerous crazies. That said, I much prefer the openness of Steve Novella. James Randi *is* Randi’s real name. He legally changed it.)

P.p.s. Back to the point of this post... HOLY CRAP!!! TAM is being co-sponsored by all the major skeptics’ groups. I never thought I’d see that, and I sure am pumped!!!

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: -1

Internets is SRS BZNS
written by TomFoss, May 20, 2010

I'm a little sick of hearing "if you can't take it, you're in the wrong business/shouldn't be on the internet". Not only is that ad hominem, but it suggests that criticism should just accepted without response or evaluation.

Ad hominem? How, exactly? Nothing in the sentiment you quoted implies that a person's claim is incorrect/argument is invalid because of who they are (i.e., an ad hominem fallacy). It may be insulting and condescending, but unless it's specifically used to discredit the person's argument (e.g., "this person obviously has never been on the Internet, so who cares what they have to say"), it's not ad hominem.

Nor does it suggest that you shouldn't respond to or evaluate criticism. What it suggests is that, if your only response to criticism is 'what you said was mean and I don't even know who you are,' then you're not responding to or evaluating the criticism. You're responding to the tone of the criticism, you're attacking the style and ignoring the substance.

Not that there was much substance in the original comment, but that's when you evaluate the criticism and find it unworthy of response (or worthy of a vocal dismissal, such as your "vote with your mouse").

But when you respond to the style of the criticism in such a petulant, wounded way, you don't come across as someone with a valid point. You come across as someone who A) is extremely thin-skinned and B) is more concerned with how a thing is said than what is said.

It is also presumptuous, condescending, and ironic.

Yes, and there's nothing condescending about 'I post with my real name, therefore my opinions are more valid than anonymous ones' or 'there's a real person behind that article, you know, and you could hurt their feelings!'

Or, for that matter "Comments are for people who have something to say."

it really shouldn't matter as long as the author is making an argument. This is where holding up Orac as an example of hypocrisy falls apart.

Except that's not what Jason said. He didn't say "it's cowardly to use a pseudonym unless the author is actually making a reasonable argument." He said "If you have a problem, write a post or send an email, but for gosh sakes, do it in your actual name (or better yet, come up and have a conversation at TAM!). It's cowardly not to. If the problem is not so serious that you’re willing to attach your identity to it, then don’t waste everyone’s time." The clear implication is that if you're writing pseudonymously, you're being a coward and wasting people's time. He can feel free to come in and clarify his position if that's not what he meant, and I'll try not to accuse him of backpedaling. But I can only respond (and only did respond) to what was actually written.

The message is what matters.

I agree, which is why I find it laughable when someone's response to a message is 'I didn't like the way you said that.'

the messenger becomes the issue.

Really? Because again, I'm pretty sure that's the textbook definition of ad hominem. The message stands or falls regardless of who the messenger is or how they said it. You can evaluate the speaker based on what they say, certainly--like thinking Davis up there is a jerk--but the validity (or lack thereof) of what they say has nothing to do with who they are.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Continued
written by TomFoss, May 20, 2010

Jason: Adopting your own name eliminates the possibility of debating multiple incarnations of the same guy, but more importantly to me, (and this leads back to my first point), it makes people much less likely to state things they do not actually believe. It increases accountability.

Bull, and here's why: you have no idea who lies behind any name online. You can't know who's using their own name, and who's just using "John Anderson" as a nickname or semi-anonymous handle. Having a first and last name attached to a post might give you some personal peace of mind, but it does none of the things you're suggesting.

As for stating things one actually believes, who (aside from idiot trolls) takes the time to express an opinion they disagree with online, pseudonym or not? You speak like you and Dan are the only ones with jobs and families. "Give some thought to the fact that real people exist behind the ones and zeros of the World Wide Web," Jason. Just because someone's calling himself by a handle doesn't mean they aren't taking their own valuable time to express their own genuine opinions.

Orac is a weird case. Everyone knows who he is now, so ‘Orac’ is more of a nickname then anything else.

But it wasn't before. And yet, anyone talking with Orac online knew who it was. They could be reasonably certain that they were having a discussion in good faith, that he wasn't treating it as a game, that he wasn't engaging in sock puppetry in the threads, that he was stating what he actually believed, and that he was accountable. You can build all the same traits into a pseudonym that you do with a given name, and you can accomplish all the same dastardly tricks with given names (or apparent given names) that you can with a pseudonym. Your argument simply doesn't wash; it's understandable that you'd be more comfortable speaking to someone with a first and last name that sound genuine, but doing so accomplishes absolutely none of the things you describe.

That said, I much prefer the openness of Steve Novella.

And Steve's in a position where he can say what he wants under his given, professional name. Plus, he's got a pretty cool name. Don't begrudge others for not being Yale Neurologists, or for preferring a name they choose themselves.

James Randi *is* Randi’s real name. He legally changed it.

And so a pseudonym is fine and dandy and expresses no cowardice so long as you have gone through the process of legally making it your real name? Great. Can you demonstrate that Caller X and Davis haven't done the same? You're trying to build a logical argument on your own feelings of security, and that's not a reasonable foundation.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

...
written by Jason Loxton, May 21, 2010

Just going to note that only half of my comment ended up being posted. If you want to discuss this further I am happy to do so at TAM.

Cheers!

Jason

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: -1

Sigh
written by TomFoss, May 21, 2010

Sure, we could. I imagine, thanks to wifi and such, that you can post on message boards and leave blog comments as easily from TAM as you can from home, but I don't know why you'd want to. Seems like it'd take away from the TAM experience.

Oh, or are you just assuming that we can all take time away from our busy schedules and families and other plans to drop several hundred dollars on a trip to Vegas? Not everyone gets to go to TAM. But if you want to carry on this conversation at GenCon, be my guest.

Frankly, I'd much rather talk about this sort of thing online. Writing a post gives me the opportunity to compose and revise my thoughts before posting, ensuring that what I say is clear and relatively succinct, before the other party ever sees it. Plus, it's conducted in a public forum, which not only actually increases accountability, but also might provide some insight or source of entertainment to people reading. Debates are rarely for the benefit of the debaters; rather, the utility is in laying out two sides of a position for an audience. Not much audience in a private discussion at TAM.

But, hey, if you'd like to pay for my ticket, my hotel room, and my plane ride, I'll totally talk to you at TAM. Otherwise, we could discuss this like people of the 21st century: through any means available.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Write comment

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.

You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

Last Updated on Monday, 17 May 2010 11:19