You may have noticed, if you watch the TV machine, that there is an incredible — literally — glut of credulous antiscientific woowoo garbage infesting the airwaves. UFO hunters, ghost hunters, psychics, speakers to the dead, and the like. You can look for a long, long time and never see any shows that actually lend a critical eye to such nonsense.
Well, that may be about to end soon.
Next week, I am flying to Los Angeles to film the pilot for a new TV show called "Skeptologists". It’s the brainchild of Brian Dunning, the brain behind the popular Skeptoid podcast, and Ryan Johnson from New Rule Productions, an LA production company. Here’s a quick summary:
The Skeptologists will be a reality-based TV series that assembles a group of highly educated and skilled experts to research, verify and de-mystify claims of the paranormal, pop-culture phenomenon, and other radical claims of interest to the skeptical community. The project will assume a skeptical viewpoint and will endeavor to use critical thinking, science, experimentation and the scientific method to produce valid and conclusive results in a fun and entertaining format.
The cast is actually pretty impressive, if I may so so myself, and I just did. Skeptics Guide to the Universe has more details, but here’s the quick version: The Skeptologists are:
- moi,
- Michael Shermer (top banana at The Skeptic Society),
- Yau-Man Chan (Chief Technology Officer at UC Berkeley’s College of Chemistry and contestant on "Survivor: Fiji"),
- Kirsten Sanford (neurophysiologist and host of This Week in Science),
- Mark Edward (mentalist), and
- Steven Novella (medical doctor, host of The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe, and professional Rebecca-reigner-inner).
We’ll be tackling claims that edge toward or wholly plunge over the cliff of antiscience. I can’t go into details here (it’s all hush-hush and sooper seekrit) but we’ll be revealing more as time goes on. It’s a reality show, but we won’t be locked into a house or forced to date each other or have to eat bugs. I hope. I’ll let Shermer eat the bugs if that comes up.
Mind you, this is a pilot we’re filming next week, and we’re going to shop it around to various networks. In other words, it has not been picked up and there is no guarantee it will. If any loyal BABloggees work at a network or have relatives at Discovery Channel, then by all means tell them how wonderful it would be to have a fun show about skepticism hosted by an incredible cast that should be showered with millions of dollars. Say.
Anyway, pray for us wish us luck send good thoughts let’s hope that some network out there is smart enough to realize that people want to be amazed, but that there is a deep need as well to see the world for what it is, and not how bamboozlers want us to see it.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Sounds like a great show!
Here’s hoping there’s more people out there that WANT to learn, as opposed to just wanting to be spooked!
Oooh…am I first?
March 27th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Sounds like a great idea! A nice antidote to the crap on SciFi channel. Discovery would be a good place for it. The History Channel seems to have abandoned their integrity, so they probably wouldn’t pick it up for lack of sufficient woo. If there’s no bug eating or dating each other, you can count Fox out. So, yeah, Discovery’s a good fit.
On a side note, I enjoyed Dr. Novella’s article on vaccines and autism in Skeptical Inquirer a few issues ago. Made good research material for a class paper I had to write.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Alternate title:
The “Woobusters”?
J/P=?
March 27th, 2008 at 11:18 am
@JP
Or maybe “Indiana Jones and the Skeptic of Woo”
March 27th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Best of luck; it sure would be nice to have some sort of counterbalance for the cheezewhiz that they constantly push as if it was reasonable.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Excellent News. I hope this kicks off.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Ha! I love it!
Great concept for a show. And I know that it’d never happen, but how fun would it be for you guys to film a joint show with any of the Ghosthunter-type woofests, where you can bust their BS live while they’re perpetrating it.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:28 am
@billsmithaz
“how fun would it be for you guys to film a joint show with any of the Ghosthunter-type woofests, where you can bust their BS live while they’re perpetrating it.”
It would never happen. The Ghosthunter-types would probably raise too much of a stink and just try to shout down the Skeptologists.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Is there a studio audience? And if so, give me the details so I can go! Finally, maybe a chance to meet you!
March 27th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Checking the Astronomy Picture of the Day, it looks like they’ve discovered the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
J/P=?
May you be touched by his noodly appendages
March 27th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Please please please! Phil you HAVE to get this show onto a UK network. BBC (obviously) or channel four or ANYWHERE that I (and my two skeptical kids) can see it. PLEASE! Begging is not beneath me here!
March 27th, 2008 at 11:33 am
@billsmithaz
A joint show would be a great idea! I watched Ghosthunters the first season, and they actually did have episodes where everything was debunked. Now, though…*sigh* they don’t even pretend they debunk.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:34 am
This sounds great! I hope it gets picked up, and proves wildly successful.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Don’t bust every giant woo in the pilot (and first episode of season one)! Hit one major woo – to be resolved at 8:57, of course – per episode and mix in some exotic, far-away woos to spice it up. This concept has to last for several seasons, at least.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:37 am
If there’s a petition or something you’d like us to sign, saying we’re behind it, then give the word.
THIS IS A SHOW I WOULD WATCH.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Awesome and goodluck!
Gotta have six degrees somewhere through BA?
March 27th, 2008 at 11:40 am
BA,
You forgot to mention the website:
http://www.skeptologists.com/
March 27th, 2008 at 11:49 am
@dre
There’s an awful lot of woo in the world. I doubt they’ll run out of material.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:51 am
I think being skeptical is like being closed minded. I prefer to be open minded and listen to all sides of the debate. It’s so easy to just say I don’t believe this and I don’t believe that. But we have to face the facts that there are mysteries out there and just saying it’s hogwash is not going to make these mysteries go away. I do think the skeptic show is a great idea because we all know the UFO and ghost hunters shows are totally biased for the reality of UFOs and ghosts, thus the need for the skeptic show to counter balance the debate. I think both sides have to be open minded towards the other sides point of view or we will learn nothing from each other.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:52 am
This show will have the single lowest rating ever of all science shows. That is, in the unlikely event some network will pick it up.
Sorry to rain on the parade but this is the scientific truth.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Gee, Phil…it’s just what you always wanted…to be a TV star.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Wow! This might actually convince me to go out and get a TV set!
March 27th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Being skeptical doesn’t mean you’re being closed minded. Quite the opposite, in fact.
All it means is that you’re asking for evidence before you accept someone’s claim. If they cannot provide that evidence, then you have no reason to accept that the claim is true.
Skeptics aren’t *unwilling* to believe any of these things. They’re just *unconvinced*. Any good Skeptic will gladly change his tune when presented with scientifically sound evidence that supports the claim in question.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
This sounds like a great show and I really hope it gets picked up! Considering the sort of television programs that are popular right now, I’m skeptical (heh) of how well it will do in the long run if it does get on the air, but here’s hoping.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Sorry to say, Al is right. You’re over-estimating the taste of the tv-viewing public. Unless it’s tarted-up, it won’t sell and the networks know that. Should you somehow initially fool them, they’ll be meddling before you can say “the tribe has spoken.” I hope that you do fool them, though. It sound interesting.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
So, how does a sceptic get eliminated?
March 27th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Great idea, but I think you need to add some explosions. That’s why Mythbusters is so successful: they blow stuff up.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
How much would you bet people will be saying this is a push by big pharma and the like to oppress natural healing and all around idiocy?
March 27th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Ah, if only – CSI shows some of the appeal of gathering evidence to show definitively what could and could not have happened, and true-crime is a draw. If only it could be framed in that way… along with a peter frampton/who song of some kind.
Oh, and make sure you have flashlights. For no reason. Or carry them around, lit, in the daytime in an homage to Diogenes of Sinope.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Ooh, and I bet the reason for the NASA cuts was to fund an episode to silence the 2012 people as well!
Seriously, though, who cares what conspiracy claims people make? Evidence is evidence, and I think a lot of people would see through that if they actually watched the show.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Great news!
Who gets to wear the Indiana Jones felt fedora?
March 27th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Ken B: d’oh! Fixed.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Michael, skeptecism is not saying it’s all “hogwash.” It’s putting reason above convention and testing things everyone knows to be true. Why does everybody know it to be true? Has anyone tested it?
If the answer is that it is very well documented, tested, and can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of reason, that is enough for a skeptic.
If the answer, instead, is an appeal to authority without proof (pastor, deity, etc.), anectdotal (“A friend of a friend had it done a few years ago”), or appeal to the popular wisdom (“everybody just knows this”), then it is ripe for the plucking.
A skeptic is not simply a nay-sayer.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
If there’s justice in the world (and I’m not so sure there is), this show will become even bigger than Mythbusters.
And I agree with previous posters that Discovery would be an ideal network to put this on. The History Channel is currently overbooked with third season re-runs of “Was Hitler an Alien?”
March 27th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Let me just say in response to this news:
YEEEEEEEEEE-HAAWWWWWWWWW!
It’s about flippin’ time!
And to Al -
Really? Just like Mythbusters, eh? What a flop THAT turned out to be. I don’t think it’s merely the explosions that give Mythbuster’s its appeal. It’s the subject matter, the production values, and the charisma of the hosts that makes it a success. OK… and the explosions…
I have no doubt that a similar formula will be followed for this production. At least I hope so
March 27th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I can assign this as homework for my science classes.
Maybe I can tune the TV to something other than the Discovery Channel.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
great news . I think it may well succeed . Mythbusters and BS by penn&teller have been around for a while . And I’m sure BA’s usual tendency for accuracy will make it clear enough for the regular viewer to understand .
March 27th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
More evidence of the downfall of skepticism is the new film about Houdini, “Death Defying Acts”. The plot involves a scam-artist psychic preying on Houdini’s desire to contact his dead mother. So far, so good – since that’s how Houdini’s skepticism formed.
The vomit-inducing punch-line is that they’ve made the psychic “real” – which craps all over the memory of one of history’s great skeptics.
More info (including a scathing review) can be found here: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36170
March 27th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
When I heard the name Mythbusters for the first time I thought that this would be exactly the same show as is discussed here. In reality, it has more in common with American Chopper and the myriad of home improvement shows.
It seems that the objective of the show is to educate the unwashed masses. This is exactly why it’s going to fail. The point of all shows on all channels is not to educate but to ENTERTAIN. Does this show entertain? It doesn’t seem like anyone thought of that.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Sounds similar (in spirit) to an audio podcast we’re getting ready to launch next month. We’re going to provide audio commentaries to ‘paranormal science’ television shows, debunking the methods used to investigate.
We’ve got episodes coming for Ghost Hunters, Paranormal State, UFO Hunters, and Monster Quest.
As soon as you have a network, dates and times, we’d be glad to give you a shout-out on The Sl@p (one of our current podcasts) and the upcoming show (as yet untitled).
Truth above vanity,
Matt
PS: Worried about ratings and network viability with a REAL science show? Blow stuff up… explosions = success.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Only one woman? How lame. But I guess you had nothing to do with the casting. I’m so sick of the token woman on TV shows. Sigh.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I actually think real UFO-oligists, ghost hunters, and cryptobiologists would be a good idea – just I haven’t come across a real one yet. If they’re going to investigate something, then *investigate it.* Too often those shows first play on suggestibility by telling some lurid tale, and when something goes bump in the night, they cower in front of the night-vision lens and never investigate what’s going on.
The very term UFO-ologist makes me cringe because they’re actually LGM-ologists. If we knew strange lights were really extraterrestrial craft, then they wouldn’t *be* UFOs.
Grumble, grumble.
I’d probably give a skeptic’s show a looksee. But if it turns out to be scoffers, not skeptics (and there’s a significant difference), then I’d place it in the same category as those spook shows and see if Mythbusters is on.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Sweet, news, Phil!
Will it be shot in high-def? Channels like Discovery HD need good material. Besides, the number of HD channels is constantly growing and they all need content.
I’m always happy when I find out that a show I’ve been enjoying on a “standard” channel is available on the corresponding HD channel. But it’s a major disappointment when it turns out to be a standard-def show that’s been “stretched” into the wide aspect ratio. Ugh. Unwatchable.
If I were in your shoes (and I’m really trying not to be jealous here, with only modest success) I’d be pushing hard to have it shot in HD right from the get-go.
Plus, we’d all get to see your Bad Pores.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
BA, perhaps you could get Mr. Randi involved as well. Maybe work in the occasional JREF challenge. “This was what was claimed, and this is why it didn’t work. Not through lack of effort, of course.” Then BA and Mr. Randi can wire up a dummy with a bunch of road flares and set if off, for the viewers who can only maintain their attention span with something flashy and destructive >=oD
March 27th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
*shakes head*
We need more skeptics in the world, so hopefully there will be less of this:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/DiabetesResource/Story?id=4536593&page=1
Saddest thing I’ve read in a while.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Personally, I’m skeptical – skeptical that a show based on scientific logic and reality can attract an audience large enought to sustain it on anything but Jimmy and Bob’s tv station. The very word “skeptic” in the title has enough negative connotations to turn off a lot of people. I wish you luck, but remember what Sam Goldwyn (probably) said. “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public.”
You’ll be preachimg to the choir, and a rather small one at that. BUT get that one truly creative idea (ala “Cosmos”) with someone who can attract an audience no, not Vanna White – or maybe…
Good (oops, God reference) Luck (oops – superstition). Well, you know what I mean. I’ll be watching as long as you are interesting.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I thought the cutbacks were because there was no reason to spend money on projects that won’t launch until after 2012?
So, after an episode showing the fallacies of a WhateverHunters episode, pull the tape out of the player and blow it up.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Go go go, guys. Even if the show never gets picked up, it inspires me that you folks are out there trying. Man, this is a show I would watch.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Phil,
Sounds like a good show. Impressive cast. I’ll pray for you guys.
(And good luck!)
March 27th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I think the name suffers from two terminal issues, in that it plays off two terms that are known turn-offs to those who a show such as this could truly benefit.
Skepti
ology
I do not see this appealing to any young, pop-culture tainted, UFO Huntard fan.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Very, very cool.
Let us know if we can help get it on the air!
March 27th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
writerdd – We worked hard to get as diverse a cast as possible, but there’s no doubt that we’re heavy on white guys. This reflects the makeup of available prominent skeptical experts, more than it does a bias on the part of the producers. While I wish we were more diverse, I can’t say I’m at all dissatisfied with our final cast.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I have to agree with Don Wiseman regarding the name. In popular culture, “skeptic” conjures up images of sour-puss cranks that simply want to rain on people’s parades. Also, Skeptologists isn’t quite catchy enough. A bit too nerdy soundy for the general public, I think.
Anyone have suggestions for alternate names?
March 27th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
As it happens, my office is across the block from the Discovery Channel headquarters, I’ll be happy to go over and knock on their doors for ya.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Well Todd W., they could substitute “Science” in place of “Skeptic” to avoid those negative connotations. That would make them “The Scientologists.”
On second thought…=)
March 27th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Well, at least UFO Hunters has Ted Acworth, who seems to always rain on the parade (well, in the few shows I’ve been able to stomach). Of course, the True Believers will listen to Bill Birnes’s blathering instead, but they’re not looking for the truth anyway.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
@Derek
LOL. Brilliant. It would probably get people to tune in, but the down side is that it might lend credence to that cult, not to mention ruin the good names of the swell people involved.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Yes! About time; good luck.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Yau Man! I love that guy! Sweet.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Awesome! At the moment one of my favorite shows is Bullsh** on Showtime since they bust spiritual healers, speaking to the dead, aliens, and even secondhand smoking from a skeptic view, but sometimes Penn’s politics gets a little mixed in, Skeptologists would definitely become the new best thing on TV… I could get my BA fix ON TV.
Good luck on the pilot and the series!
March 27th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I hate to say it… but I might agree with Todd W. about the name “Skeptologists” perhaps not being all that catchy. (Not that I hate to agree with YOU, per se, Todd W.. .lol… just that I love this idea and hate to be in any way critical of it).
So I would propose some alternate names…
Maybe.. “Prove it!”
Or… “And Now for Something REALLY Stupid…”
Or… “Truth Hunters”
Or… “Can You Believe This?”
Or… “Debunked!”
Or, ya know… I can just stop pretending I have any idea what I’m talking about and stick with “Skeptologists”.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
This would be seriously AWESOME. If I knew anyone at a network, I’d plug it for you.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
@CE
Admit it…you hate agreeing with me. Just ’cause I’m relatively new to posting here. Sheesh! And to think, until this moment, I liked celtic things and was a big fan of evolution. You ruined both for me. *sigh*
How about a variation on one of your titles: Truth Seekers?
March 27th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I like the idea, but I think and have always though walking into an idea like that with a 100% certainty that you will be able to explain everything you encounter away is asking for something to come your way you can’t explain away.
I’m a pretty skeptical guy mind you, I just think with that approach your asking for a situation to pop up that ruins the fun of it.
Let me ask this, what if you have a situation you simply can’t prove and have to make an educated guess about? Is that considered a failure? Is there a category for it?
Or even worse, how about one you simply cannot prove? Where all inherent scientifc data goes against the case your trying to make? Will you be able to remain objective enough to honestly classify it as unknown?
Keep in mind man, I don’t believe in any of this “out there” paranormal crap that gets hyped on a lot of this shows, I’m just curious how a show that is the complete opposite tint of those ridiculous shows would be any more credible.
If I go into an argument believing the world is flat, I can easily be shown proof that it isn’t, and have my mind changed.
However, if I shut out of my mind any possiblty that world might not be flat, that it must be flat, and I will use all of the data (that supports my arugment) to prove that its flat. I’m .
I’m not saying your that unreasonable Phil. But you are a seriously heavy skeptic, and hey man I’d watch it for that reason alone.
But good luck man I hope they pick this up.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Don’t take it personally Todd W… it’s not you… I’m not fond of agreeing with anyone.
Actually, I just happen to like your time paradox duplicate(s) better than you.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
As an employee of Discovery (by way of HowStuffWorks), I really hope my company considers this show. I just wish I had some influence with the folks who make those kind of decisions.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
@CE
Hmm…remind me in the future to travel back to destroy my time paradox duplicates. That should set things right.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Another here who strongly suggests the show be taped in HD.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I will watch every episode of this for the length of its run.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Yau – Man and Phil? Who wouldn’t watch that?
March 27th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
oooooh! Got it!
The Seekers. They will find the truth….
Comes with built-in catchy C.S.I. style theme song-”The Seeker” by The Who. Works a little with the younger crowd too-that song is on the “Rock Band” game.
“I looked under chairs, I looked under tables,
I tried to find the key to fifty million fables,
They call me the seeker……”
Opening credits showing a detective movie/C.S.I./ Indiana Jones- style montage of The Seekers doing field work,investigating a scary looking house, running experiments in a lab, ransacking a library for research, maybe an explosion or speeding vehicle other exciting visuals, etc.
Give it just enough of the rugged underdog feel to make it seem “open-minded” or “rebellious” to the woo crowd, use some dramatic presentation of the evidence and vivid visuals to keep them hooked, and then cheerfully hammer some facts in to them.
I’m not as familiar with the rest of the group, but B.A. and Shermer are both excellent writers and clear, likeable speakers. you might have to up the drama alittle to keep folks interested, but that doesn’t mean you have to sacrifice the skepticality and science. Just keep it fun and relevant, like any great teacher does.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
People – check out the online TV show, which is already up to its fifth episode online – The TANK Vodcast at http://www.tankvodcast.wordpress.com. It’s already demonstrating how a show can deal with a wide range of topics and issues with a skeptical bent.
It also doesn’t have the ‘token woman’ issue nor does it have just one country (or even just one side of Australia!) represented!
March 27th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
@Neil
Up the drama? Add PZ to the lineup and watch the fireworks between him and the BA.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I’m all for it. I hope that the first thing you do (maybe even in the opening credits) is define skepticism, because if you’ve seen that video of J.Q. Public being asked to define what a skeptic is, you’ve seen how a lot of people have it wrong.
I’m not fond of reality TV, but this’d be a new twist on the concept. Sort of a cleaner version of P&T’s BS would be fantastic (although I have no problems with the way they present, either).
So, I hope this gets picked up, and I agree that Discovery is a perfect place for it. If not, you could always do it as a vodcast.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I think it is a neat idea but I don’t think it will be successful!
People who think logically aren’t looking for confirmation that there aren’t ghosts and UFOs. They don’t need it, they’ve already figured it out.
In contrast, people who DO believe in those things do so hazily, and are desperate for proof and justification of their wacky believes.
Skeptics don’t need you to keep proving the non-existence of those things because their worldview is shakily based on huge assumptions without proof.
I think the show could be neat but I think there’s a reason the wacko nonsense is popular – because of the kinds of people who watch it.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
their worldview isn’t* shakily
March 27th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
“it’s all hush-hush and sooper seekrit”
Please stop saying “sooper seekrit”.
please?
Seriously, a TV show needs some entertainment quality to it, some hook,
what will you have?
Humor? Any humor is going to have to be meanspirited at the expense of the gullible and some fraudsters (who have it coming). Not everyone’s cup of tea, but on cable all you need is a niche audience.
Blow Things UP? Been done.
Focus on current events?
March 27th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
A lot of folks have said that this show wouldn’t work because the True Believers would reject it out of hand, and skeptics wouldn’t watch because they don’t need the confirmation.
Part of what I’d hope for, though, is that this show might appeal to kids around high school or junior high age. Adults who believe in hauntings, etc, are probably already lost. We might be able to convince some of the fence-sitters, but not the True Believers.
Maybe we can get into the minds of the next generation, though. Maybe a show like this could help teach them how to think critically and evaluate claims.
The entertainment and coolness level would have to be kept consistently high to keep them watching, of course. But anything that would help boost the woo immunization level of the next generation is worth trying!
March 27th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
After checking out the cast members in somewhat greater detail, all I have to say is: wow. I knew that Phil and Shermer are both energetic and good at speaking, and would make for good TV, but I hadn’t heard some of the others speak.
Particularly impressive were the works of Kirsten Sanford:
http://www.onnetworks.com/videos/food-science/
If this show is even partially as informative and well narrated as those food science episodes, it will be a major win for logic.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
*Rock And Roll*
We want to watch it in Britland too so go for it.
Bob(Big)
March 27th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
If nobody like us close-minded skeptics and science nerd types, then why are B.S. and Mythbusters so popular that they’re being sold on dvd, illegally shared on the internet, and inspiring the development other shows? If nobody likes non-superstitious know-it-alls, then why is House one of the most popular medical dramas of the last several years? I have seasons 1-3 of B.S. on dvd, and all my friends have borrowed them, though they don’t bother borrowing my Carl Sagan books or starcharts.
For all the naysaying, I really do think it’s largely a matter of selecting interesting topics and giving a good presentation. I think it will be good for the public, but also good practice for our skeptic hosts in picking out current, interesting topics to explore from a skeptical viewpoint.
If the content is made as dry as possible, with no relation at all to the everyday world, then yes, it will be a big challenge to draw an audience. But just a sprinkling of humor, righteous indignation, good visuals, or real-world applicability go a long way toward holding the attention. And even if all they get is the geek market, so what? It is a large and growing international market. It took years to build up, but between the comparitive openness of the cable market and the internet, and the constant activism of science blogs & skeptic/freethinker sites and organizations, we have become a much bigger market than the smattering of nerds who grew up watching Nova on P.B.S.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Here’s a suggestion: Revive Arthur C. Clarke’s “Mysterious World.” Consider it both a tribute to Clarke as well as a catchy title. Each week focus on genuinely weird phenomena and investigate it. And if you honestly can’t make a determination, stamp it “Unknown.”
March 27th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Woohoo hope this show is successful. Anyone know how or if we the regular folk can show support for this show right now?
March 27th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
I have to say that all the naysaying going on is making me laugh.
I have given you very little info on how the show will be done, and some of you folks are already condemning it? How about you give me some benefit of a doubt here! While any TV pilot has a grim chance at getting on TV, I don’t think this is any worse than any other. There are plenty of skeptical shows on TV, they’re just not billed that way. They’ve made an impression though. MythBusters is one of the two or three biggest shows on The Discovery Channel, after all.
And saying that any humor will be mean spirited is just silly. Have I ever written anything here on this blog that made you smile or laugh? Was it mean spirited? Well, OK, some of it is a bit teasing, but I think I’m a fairly funny guy. I’ll figure out some way to make jokes without kicking puppies or pushing orphans into traffic.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
See… i disagree with the many many posts here that insist such a show won’t work because “skeptics will always be skeptical and Believers will always believe”. Saying such a thing makes the totally false assumption the everyone fits into either one camp or the other.
Using myself as an example, I grew up having an affinity for the weird… things like UFO’s and Bigfoot were… well… COOL to me… and because of that I wanted to believe in them. I grew up in the “Close Encounters”, “ET” and “Unsolved Mysteries” culture. It was actually, believe it or not, a direct offshoot of my love for space and astronomy. And I was drawn to stories of abductions and ghostly hauntings, etc. etc. And I can honestly say there was a time when I thought perhaps there was some merit to this stuff. But my scientific background taught be to be skeptical of such things, regardless of their appeal or “cool factor”. I was a fence sitter. If shows like “Mythbusters” and, with any luck, this show, were around then, I would have been all over them like ugly on an ape! And it would have taken me far less time to have come around to learn the truth about things than it did then.
And frankly, most of the people I knew were fence-sitters like me… somewhere between intrigued and skeptical. These are the people that this show will speak to, and will help us foster a world with more informed, un-stupid people… at least IMHO.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Exactly, BA! Where else on TV are we ever going to get gems like “Cheeses of Nazereth”. I still snort out loud every time I think of that post.
In fact, I think one whole segment each show should be dedicated to a silly pareidolia… and have someone ask people on the street what they think the object looks like to them. I’d better get credit for that idea, darn it!
March 27th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Mythbusters has Kari. You need a Kari.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Try to recruit Kari Byron or someone equally smokin’ in her hotness. Of course she seems very smart and is obviously qualified to be on Mythbusters, but to be honest I didn’t know that show existed until I flipped the channel to Discovery one day and exclaimed, “Whoooa…who is she???”
My apologies if that makes me a dirty rotten male but I have eyes and they like candy. It’s the same reason I have a telescope. Beauty is beauty.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Good thing we’re all skeptics here or it would be verrrry wierd that I and another Nate had the same thought at the same time. If I weren’t so long-winded we’d have posted at the same time. Coincidences are cool. Natefoo, you da man!
March 27th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Nates have good taste. It’s a fact ‘o life.
Now, back to Kari.
http://images.main.uab.edu/mediarelations/siteadmin/releaseimages/limited/big/lecture_mythbusters_kari_1.jpg
March 27th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Dudes, if you’re going to post pictures of Kari, at least use this one or this one.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Skeptics are much like fly larvae…..disgusting when in action, but necessary. They make people strive to discover what was thought impossible.
Some Physics guy, full of himself as skeptics are, said the it was impossible to cover the standing quarter mile at over 150 mph. I don’t ever think he said “sorry, I guess I was wrong”, he probably just disappeared looking like the fool.
It would be easier to listen to you guys like Shermer and that “Blinky Eyed Guy” from NASA who’s name fails me at this time, if you weren’t so damn smug, and have this know it all attitude that you exhibit. On top of that some of the remarks and explaintions for some things that I’ve heard from these types are ignorant.
No one knows everything
Just because you can’t explain it doesn’t make it impossible
Just because Man can’t do it doesn’t make it impossible
Sometimes you have to say I just don’t know, because you DON’T
When trapped you raise your voices, cutting others off with nonsense
You’re not real Scientists, real ones aren’t bound by rules, they seek ways around them or seek ways to break them
The show may not even be picked up with a Pooper Scooper with the track record you guys have thus far.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
BA said:
“Dudes, if you’re going to post pictures of Kari, at least use this one or this one.”
Dude, if you’re going to be in the same room as Kari, and have your picture taken with her, DON’T WEAR A PURPLE SHIRT!!!!
March 27th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Heh… Langlee, oh you… guy?
No, it only sounds like that when the skeptics don’t agree with you. A skeptic insists that you prove it. A naysayer says it can’t be done.
So, you’ve given examples of naysayers, but not skeptics. Skeptics are folks who, when asked questions to which they don’t know the answer, insist we go look instead of making up answers. You can make a hypothesis, but the next onus is evidence.
Insisting man can fly is different from doing it. A skeptic would insist that all the blustering and claims don’t mean anything until you build it. A naysayer would say you’ll never build it.
Just because others can wander into a dark room with nary a shiver doesn’t make them smug. Because they can listen to stories of ghosts and utter “pshaw” when the presenter insists with histrionic vehemence that “ghosts are real!! I saw one!” are they naysayers, or inured to being frightened of bogeymen?
Does that make you angry somehow? It seems to make you angry.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Oh, and absolutes like “impossible” aren’t really the standard speaking terms of “Physics guys,” or even scientists.
Scientists assiduously avoid absolutes (even absolute zero isn’t absolute – maybe they even avoid the vodka, I don’t know) because their peers would roundly castigate them on claiming to know all possible permutations of a situation. You can say there is no evidence, the possibilities are vanishingly small, there is no positive evidence, and so on. But a scientist worth his or her stripes would be remiss in stating any absolutes, really.
The key seems to be in knowing when a vanishingly small possibility is no longer worth pursuit. Some just never give up, no matter how tiny their probability window becomes. They fall away from scientists, as do naysayers: each is a form of “crackpot” or “crank.”
March 28th, 2008 at 12:03 am
I used to think I was the only one who was completely enamored with Kari Byron of Mythbusters. I then started looking at MythBusters fan-pages on the internet and I now realize that every single male on the internet is in love with her. How can she cope?
March 28th, 2008 at 12:08 am
This is just what Sagan suggested in Demon-Haunted World. In fact, if I may suggest, that you lobby to see if the first episode can be dedicated to Sagan. Perhaps the show can also open with the very passage where he suggests the creation of a “Solved Mysteries” type of show printed on the screen.
This is a much needed step.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:35 am
This is indeed good news. But the BIG problem for me is that I live in Sweden where these show aren’t exactly popular at the moment. We’re experiencing a wave of woo on almost all of our channels and that my friends SUCKS!!!
March 28th, 2008 at 1:44 am
I think it might be useful to include occasional segments on wooish ideas that actually turn out to be true, so people can see what sorts of evidence are needed to prove something that initially seems very unlikely. This might necessarily be historical, because otherwise we wouldn’t know yet, but could include things that are currently unknown as well, and maybe scientific ideas that eventually failed due to lack of evidence or contrary evidence.
The 1st thing I thought of was the notion that tiny, invisible creatures live inside us and cause various unpleasant effects. Not Theodoric of York’s theory that a frog had taken up residence in someone’s stomach, but the germ theory of disease. (Technical advances in microscopes, Pasteur’s experiments with sterilized and unsterilized items, epidemiology, etc.) I’m sure there are more recent examples, such as that ulcers are caused by bacteria, which no one believed until quite recently.
Everyone must know about the deep sea ecosystems surrounding volcanic vents by now, but there must be other recent examples.
In non-biological contexts, there are subjects like continental drift and exoplanets, or the missing neutrino problem, or more historically, the problem of the source of the Sun’s energy.
For current unknowns, there are millions (what would it take to prove the existence of life on other planets, in other solar systems? Are we likely to have an answer soon? Does string theory or branes explain anything useful about the universe?)
For things that seemed possible but unlikely, and turned out to be wrong, cold fusion might be a good example.
I’m not saying these things should be the focus of the show, just the sorts of things to be looked at once in a while to show what sorts of evidence skeptics need. I think lots of woo believers just don’t understand what constitutes evidence.
P.S. Safari’s spell checker doesn’t think epidemiology and exoplanets are real words. 2 in one post! I rule!
March 28th, 2008 at 4:11 am
Ouh, that sounds fun! I hope it will work!!! But, well, lots of pilots are made all the time and so few make it to the screen…
March 28th, 2008 at 4:48 am
Awesome
March 28th, 2008 at 5:11 am
Has anyone mentioned having busty skeptic girls running around in creepy old particle accelerators in the dark, clothed only in skimpy underwear or transparent radiation suits (with Star Trek logos on), analysing and dismissing each strange noise and their psychological responses as they happen?… and blowing up bits of the building if it got a bit boring of course!
No?… Oh… Just me then.
The Universe is so spectacular and stunningly beautiful, why would anyone *ever* want to bury their head in the sand and miss all that glorious sense of belonging to the fantastic?
(Sigh)… It’s enough to make a deity spontaneously pop into existence.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:12 am
BA
I’m not familiar with the work of the co-presenters you listed (and haven’t the opportunity to research right now) but someone above mentioned Penn Jillette. If it were possible for a Jillette type persona to come in with a ‘We’re gonna take woo by the balls’ approach – well, that would be compulsive viewing for me.
Also, please get it on the air for August 2009 as we’ll be dropping by for a fortnight and I know TV will be pretty sparse otherwise.
BigBob
March 28th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Good luck. We need skeptics to calm the hysteria that money grubbing liars cause.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:23 am
BA: I love the irony of a skeptic asking for the benefit of the doubt. Now that’s humor that is self-satyrizing and not mean spirited.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:26 am
there is a deep need as well to see the world for what it is, and not how bamboozlers want us to see it.
Yeah, the advertisers are really going to go for that idea…
March 28th, 2008 at 7:27 am
I can just imagine the irony of having a Head-On commercial during an episode on homeopathy.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Kari. Yum.
Skeptologists. Me want.
Woo. Much poo.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Talking of homeopathy… Has it occurred to anyone that every single disease, microbe, element, substance etc (the list being as infinite as substances on the planet) that has ever been will have found its way, sooner or later, into the sea?
So, if one accepts homeopathic principles, isn’t sea water (or diluted sea water) going to be the universal panacea? Either that or so homeopathically toxic that one should explode on contact!
It could of course explain the disintegration of my flip-flops…
March 28th, 2008 at 10:12 am
[...] Michael Shermer, Phil Plait, Yau-Man Chan (yes, that guy from Survivor), Kirsten Sanford, and Mark Edward (here are more [...]
March 28th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Hmmm… I don’t see a problem with ‘mean-spirited’. There’s a certain level of entertainment attached to getting people upset at you.
Then again, this is coming from a guy known as the ‘Mad Bastard’.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:30 am
BA: “I’ll figure out some way to make jokes without kicking puppies or pushing orphans into traffic.”
It just won’t be the same.
March 28th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
[...] Plait writing in his Bad Astronomy Blog, “Skeptologists“: Next week, I am flying to Los Angeles to film the pilot for a new TV show called [...]
March 28th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
The problem with mean-spirited is that it turns off all but those who’ve already agree with the material. Part of the charm of “Mythbusters” is that they aren’t mean-spirited – and note that it’s a fun show.
The other fun part is that you – and they – never know for sure what they’re going to find out. That increases viewer interest. If they only showed the “Busted” myths, then it only takes long enough to see the episode’s topics before the average TV viewer will flip the channel. And “Mythbusters” conveys a sense of “being there” in that you see how they set up the tests and the mistakes along with the successes.
Personally, I’d like to see a show take a step beyond proving and disproving, and try to figure out what’s going on. Like dousing. The Amazing Randi has done an excellent job in showing that it doesn’t actually detect underground objects, but I don’t think he ever investigated exactly why it seems to work. Does the mind subconsciously cause microtremors in the hands to make the stick or wires swing over a spot? Say, a person sees a water main out of one corner of his eye, a house in the other, and subconsciously “connects the dots.” Or a certain popular topically applied product that shall remain nameless. The point isn’t if it works as they claim, it’s whether it works at all, and if so, how? Can it be replicated by a placebo or something that causes a similar sensation?
Just my two cents.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
@KC
In regards to dowsing, look up the “ideomotor effect.” James Randi mentions it a lot in his articles, and a number of other researchers have observed the same phenomenon.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Wow I can’t wait it watch ! Sure just as you leave l.a you get a job there doh! When I read “assembles a group of highly educated and skilled experts to research” I honestly thought they are getting the perfect person for that !!
How did you get doing that Phil ?
And congrats on the Asteroid name sake.
March 28th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Todd W.
Thanks. “ideomotor” was the word, not microtremors. But what about studying why it seems to work? Has the possibility of subconsciously twisting the wires or limb at a certain point been examined?
See, there’s a party trick based on that. Ask someone to hide an object while you’re stepped out of the room. Pick someone from the group and hold their hand. Give them whatever spiel you like, but make sure you tell them that they’re going to point out out the object. Take their hand and lead them around the room. Usually they’ll try to point *away* from the object. Which, of course, leads you right to it.
Behold the power of suggestion.
March 30th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
KC,
I’m not certain, and perhaps someone else may be able to point to this, but I think that there has been research on the ideomotor effect and video examination, showing very small movements of the muscles/limbs involved.
One aspect of dowsing that contributes to the effectiveness of minute muscle movements is the fact that the dowsing tools are in a state of tension and imbalance. So, even a tiny movement can cause significant changes in the position of the rod(s). That is what I have understood about the subject, anyway.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Love the idea. I would DEFINITELY watch the show, and hope it gets picked up. I’m a huge fan of the “Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe” podcast, and think that this type of show deserves a wider audience.
February 11th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
What happened with this program. Did it never happen. No money? What?