This promo did a better job of showing something about the content, and the motivations and interests of the people involved.

However, I still don’t like the name. Why not call yourselves, the Skeptonomists? Skepterologists? Skeptinators? Skepticists?

I think any of the following would be better names:
The Skeptic Squad
De-mystifiers
Rational Review

And I’m pretty bad at creative names.

Actually, 3 names I like but are already taken:
Exploring the Unknown
Is It Real?
The Real World

The thing that got me off on the wrong foot from the very beginning was the woman scientist’s big clunky jewelry and loose hair hanging around just waiting to get caught in something. BOGUUUUUUS! It reminded me of the couple of years I spent as a teaching assistant for an undergrad lab course. I was constantly getting after my long-haired students to GET THAT HAIR OUT OF THE WAY! ARE YOU NUTS? DO YOU WANT IT TO CATCH FIRE? DO YOU WANT A BUNCH OF IT, NOT TO MENTION A PIECE OF YOUR SCALP, RIPPED OUT? Immediate turnoff.

I think I watched a total of 3 episodes after that. Between the ongoing hair problem, the questionable design and execution of the tests, and the noncohesiveness of the show itself….. well…..

Love the trailer. Absolutely love it.

fos

I’m sorry, but I for one would like ONE show that doesn’t talk to me like I’m 12 years old, and doesn’t make every stupid thing “LIFE OR DEATH!” or say “Could milk actually be KILLING your CHILDREN!!? Tune in at 10 for the story that MIGHT SAVE YOUR LIFE !! 1 !”

Phil, I love that you’re doing this show, and PLEASE don’t cave to pressure to ‘dumb it down’ for what we Americans supposedly “want” in a TV show.

(Although I also find the title and font/logo cheesy, I would watch every episode with the attentiveness I reserve only for Penn&Teller’s [TV show] and Ingmar Bergman movies)

Good work and good luck!

Look at Smash Lab. They blow lots of stuff up, but the show itself is terrible.

But…

It will never work if you don’t blow stuff up!

As a writer, you should know better than to use apostrophes to pluralize (“idea’s”).

BTW, Zero’s comments weren’t there when I posted my last comment, which was a response to David’s.

I certainly don’t believe in psychic powers, think the Space Brotherhood will come to save us, or worry about 2012. Nor have I ever watched an episode of Ghost Hunters.

Just wonderign if I’ll be able to watch without feeling like a moron.

BTW: I am tired of “investigative” programs that drag you on for an hour only to arrive at no conclusion and say that more investigation is needed.

Good luck Phil & Co.

PS: I still don’t like the title, but don’t have a better suggestion right now.

The trouble is there’s a difference between discrediting and debunking. Psychic phenomena is probably the hardest, because while it’s possible to debunk an individual psychic, it’s nigh impossible to rule out that such phenomena doesn’t exist. Homeopathic remedies are easier in that they have advanced a theory which can be evaluated. Chiropractors aren’t as clear cut as some think in that spinal manipulation does work for back pain in some cases. Some schools for chiropractors put forth strange theories, which again give something to evaluate.

However, we should not make the mistake of dismissing something because we show to theory to be invalid. The use of antiseptics started because a doctor had a theory that disease was transmitted by odor, a the solution he chose happened to be an antiseptic. The two important things is does it work, and if, so, why?

Let’s take a certain homeopathic product with an annoying commercial as an example. Whether or not the theory behind it is bunk doesn’t mean that it might not work. If it does, then why? Is it some ingredient added as an “inert” filler? Some physical action? The placebo effect?

There’s more to honest inquiry than simply dismissing a theory. Sometimes the entire thing turns out to be bunk. But sometimes it can lead to very interesting places.

THANK YOU for the Idiocracy reference. I’m glad someone (else) sees at least a little bit of humor in a vision of our society that has lost all its reasoning faculties. The show looks awe-some, and I wish it success, I just felt it necessary to comment since no one else above me seemed to have wrangled that esoteric gem of satire from your post.

Again, Thanks a million

Nick

Remember when MythBusters did “pyramid power?” Adam specifically asked that they never do any “oogie-boogie” myths again.

Skeptologists specifically addresses the oogie-boogie – the paranormal, the supernatural, the “woo”; the territory MythBusters has now chosen to leave untouched.

(And I hope you guys are ready with the lawyers. Debunk psychics, and the psychics sue; Debunk hopeopathy, and the homeopaths sue; debunk chiropractors, etc… These people will try to protect their livelihood. Too bad, I say; do something honest instead.)

Oh. My.

This trailer is better *but* it stresses some old problems. One, the focus on the show is clearly on the cast more than the phenomena. Second, it exudes an arrogance that strongly confirms that this is a show about discrediting, not debunking or honest inquiry. Of the members of the cast, only Yau-Man Chan and Dr. Stephen Novella came across as open and watchable. I didn’t recognize the one near the end, but while he came across as OK, for some reason (maybe body language?) he came across as more of a lightweight that Yau-Man or Novella. Yes, I know that’s terribly unfair, and he might be one of the brightest persons on the team. Yet that’s the impression from the trailer.

The worst is Brian Dunning’s bit at the very last. It almost sounds like he’s been through umpteen takes and now he’s spoofing his own spot – such things do happen.

Body language, as well as what’s said, has a big role. What Dr. Michael Shermer said is OK. Something about his body language – but there might be prejudice on my part as well: His column in SA never impressed me that much and was one reason I dropped the magazine.

BA, I have to say it, and I can’t think of any delicate way to put this, but I wasn’t impressed by either you or Dr. Kristen Stanford. With Dr. Stanford it was her body language and attitude. With you, well, I’m afraid you came off as having a zeal that leans strongly toward discrediting rather than honest inquiry. And I have to strongly disagree with something you said. Your job is not to convince people your way of thinking is right, it’s honest inquiry. It will save a lot of disappointment as well. Remember the old adage about leading a horse to water.

Invest some money in an advertising team. If you already have, asked for a refund and get another. From this last trailer, I’m afraid that I wouldn’t watch this show at all.

Indeed, at Yahoo News, I saw something that shows a good reason for the Skeptologists.

There was an article for Stephen Hawking, talking about how likely primitive life would rise elsewhere.

Below the link to the story, was one that offered to look for photos of UFOs.

Ugh. People never learn, do they?

Nice location shot with the QM, by the way.

YES YES YES

MORE YES