TAM London Gets BBC Coverage!
October 7th, 2009
|
| Share |
For those who don’t know, I just got back from The Amazing Meeting London. I would blog about the meeting, post some photos, describe my thoughts and observations and thank the organizers and guests. However, I’m tired and still have a bunch of things to do. Thus I’ll just point out that the event was covered in the BBC News Magazine/Website.
Overall, the coverage looks pretty descent. I could nitpick a few portions of the news story, for example, where it called James Randi “high priest James Randi” of the skeptic movement. This one gets under my skin a little bit, because while I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Randi for all that he has done, it makes the movement sound a lot like a cult. Randi is great because he really helped found the modern movement of skepticism, getting attention way back in the 1970’s, when being a skeptic was decidedly not in vogue. The JREF is very unique in its ability to bring together everyone from students to entertainers to research scientists, all working toward a common good and exchanging their ideas.
That said, empirical skepticism is not monolithic. Plenty of skeptics disagree with each other and generally are very prone to be turned off by the idea of signing onto a group that demands universal agreement. While I think Randi is great, I’ve disagreed with him quite a few times – although in the grand scheme of things, I tend to agree much more often than I disagree.
It’s also interesting that the article focuses so much on conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists. This is an interesting area that often leads to disagreement even amongst skeptics. Conspiracy theories are not always false, of course. Conspiracies do happen, and therefore it’s impossible to dismiss accusations that a politician may have accepted bribes or that a corporation conspired to obstruct a criminal investigation. There are also completely nutty conspiracy theories, but it can be very hard to know exactly where to draw the line when it comes to what is reasonable.
Like many others, I’m also not crazy about the title “skeptic.” If anyone can think of a better one, please let me know! The article mentions the word “rationalist,” which I suppose is okay, although it would appear to invoke Rand and her philosophy and the word “bright” which I’ve never heard before in this context.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 7th, 2009 at 8:29 pm and is filed under Amazing Meeting, Announcements, Good Science, Misc, Paranormal, media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
October 7th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
“Bright” is also a term that English atheists sometimes describe themselves with. “Rationalist” seems OK, after all Rand’s term was “Objectivist” and in the end there is nothing wrong with “skeptic,” although it is a bit negative I’ll admit.
Quote Comment
October 7th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
I wouldn’t complain. The article seems pretty descent. Sure, we can always nitpick.
It sounds like it was a good event. Hope it was fun. Anyway, getting people involved in opposing bad science and superstition is always a good thing. A meeting in person like this can help get everyone charged and motivated and is encouraging.
Quote Comment
October 8th, 2009 at 5:53 am
Origin of the term “bright”: http://the-brights.net/. It’s meant as a positive sounding umbrella term for people with a naturalistic worldview (free of supernatural and mystical elements).
Quote Comment
October 8th, 2009 at 6:33 am
I like “skeptic”. It’s one of the very few labels I use to descibe myself. Normally I detest labels… but this one I’ve taken to heart.
I think it’s up to skeptics to take back the word and change it from being synonymous with “doubter”. We should use it as often as we can and describe its meaning.
/Michael
Quote Comment
October 9th, 2009 at 8:17 am
“Critical Thinker” is a good alternative to “Skeptic”.
Quote Comment