It isn’t exactly what I’ve been wishing for – I would love to see a fictional series with a Joe-Nickell-type researcher (played by Tim Daly or, maybe, Scott Bakula) travelling around the country, investigating pseudo-science and romancing ladies. Frequently with his shirt off.
But I digress.
This looks promising, anyway – although it’s all far too speculative to get too excited about. But there’s an open casting call out, so I thought I’d throw it up here in case any Wet Coast Dopers want to consider applying.
Promising, yes. I just hope it isn’t done like the X-Files, where equal weight is given to nonsense and the existance of the paranormal is strongly hinted.
It should be safe enough in the concept stage, anyway. I should have mentioned that the pilot will be produced by Brian Dunning who does an excellent podcast called Skeptoid. He is a reputable skeptic. That’s how I first heard about this – on the podcast. Dunning was interviewed this week on another podcast (The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe). I haven’t listened to it yet, but I’d be surprised if they don’t mention the pilot during the interview. If I get anymore information, I’ll report back after listening.
I’d be very surprised if this show succeeded. People don’t want the exciting supernatural to be explained away by mundane reality. They might at as well make a show where every week they tell a young child there is no Santa Claus.
Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.Skeptic Magazine
They quote Spinoza:
“I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.”
To be fair, a large fraction of self-described skeptics (maybe even the majority) are really cynics. A cynic is a closed-minded skeptic, someone who has already made up their mind to disbelieve, and doesn’t really want to hear any evidence to the contrary.
I think most skeptics would be fine hearing evidence, but tend to hold that word to a strict(er) definition - much like Liberal did with the word ‘skeptic’ - than many proponents of paranormal or psychic ideas tend to use.
Brian Dunning is a classic skeptic. To quote the definition he uses on his website: “The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It’s the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.”
Take a look at his website and listen to a few of his podcasts – they are all quite short (less than 15 minutes) but well researched and entertaining.
I have every confidence that the pilot will be as respectably skeptical as Dunning can make it. Whether or not it ever makes it to the screen is another story. I listened to the interview I mentioned before and he did mention the show. The pilot is being produced on spec. Once it’s completed they’ll shop it around and try to find a network interested in buying it. So it’s a long, long way from my TV screen, darn it.
It sounds like Brian Dunning is indeed a true open-minded skeptic. Unfortunately, common usage seems to be increasingly making “skeptic” synonymous with “cynic.”
There is an agenda behind this. The suggestion that sceptics are untrustworty because they belong to a religion of denial is in my experience in about the top five of tactics employed by paranormalists.
