You know, I'll never get any blog to the point where people consistently read it; and that's okay with me. Why? Because it's really too much work. Unless you're already a notable person or someone with no life, most people don't have the time to put into blogging, or the pimping of it on other related sites. I dislike reading skeptical forums, for example, because I get very little out of them and I can usually contribute even less. Read other blogs is okay but I often don't comment so who is gonna know about this? Not enough that it will matter, but here I can express myself in an open way and not care too much because not enough people know about it to make a difference; and I'm fine with that...
So, with school out there's nothing really to talk about on that end and honestly, there's not been much on the religious end either. I've listen to the latest "Reasonable Doubts" but haven't heard much to blog about. So what about skepticism? Well, what is there to say? For all that it is a marked improvement from Christianity, of which I partook my reality for most of my life, sometimes I wanna bang my head against a wall. When I listen to the skeptical angle, most of the time I agree with it, and when I listen to the believe end, I usually end up scratching my head. Still, there are times where I think the believe makes a good point while I wanna slap the crap outta the skeptic. I know nothing is perfect or always puts its best foot forward but sometimes I wonder where one draws the line.
For example: Sasquatch. While I am a "Bigfoot Hopeful", as Brian Dunning put it, the likelihood of its existence thus was is slim to none in my book. When you listen to enough of the believer's side, you begin to question things; which is good. Still, I have yet to be persuaded to believe anything more than whatever people are experiencing or think they are experiencing is something worth investigating, even if it is all in the mind. It's not that Sasquatch does not exist per say, it is that when one starts with a null hypothesis, the end conclusion for the creature is dubious at best with an inconclusive or negative. Yet, ask a random skeptic and their likely answer will be laughter or a very confident no. Granted, I, too, am confident in my stance but the stance refereed to above is one of total confidence, like the type you give to gravity. They don't even give it a second thought; and perhaps not without understandable reasons.
Is this proper skepticism? No, and I'm not the first skeptic to discuss this. My angle on the topic is this: the arrogance I get from how certain topics are handled by certain skeptics, skeptics in general, or groups of skeptics, reeks of the same B.S. that got me to despise church and Christianity in general. Yep, I went there. Now, I fully understand the human limitations in play here and I don't expect perfection from no one, but it bugs me when I try for something different and it's seems less than a 180 and more like a mirror: reversed views, same stank subject. While I enjoy listening to the skeptical and believer podcasts, sometimes I just wanna slap 'em both. While I try to be interactive in the MABRC forum, the discussions I've come across on the JREF forums and others lead me to the conclusion that I will just get upset if I interact with those sites and likely cannot contribute anything worthwhile to them. Pessimistic? Maybe, be I think more realistic.
I'm not that well verses in any particular subject, I just know enough to keep pace in most conversations. I'm opinionated and can speak my mind but little that will do with people who are very superior debaters. That is another factors that tweaks me. It seems most things in life have NOTHING to no with right & wrong, truth & fiction, etc. but rather how one present an argument. Thus, you can be completely wrong yet win an argument and thus be "right". Facts appearently mean little in this world of believers and skeptics. Even if Sasquatch is real, for example, because of the lack of evidence and such one can successfully argue against a unknown truth. Conversely, those who peddle woo and other BS can win over their case with sly wording or better debate skills. What is the point then of someone like me in all this? I can mark the odd comment about what works and what doesn't or cast doubt or insight onto a random topic but sowing seeds is not my cup of tea. Most of my seeds die anyway...
So I liken to shows like "No Agenda" and see a lot of what I learned in my communication classes about the bs that appears to dictate and govern this planet. Monsanto might be evil, but it's certainly not unique. I listened to the "Skeptoid" episode about Monsanto and all the type around it, as I have the one about Wal-Mart, and while Dunning brings up good points every conspiracy theorist should take heed, he does seem to miss out on the real negative impacts these places are having. While I agree mostly with his arguments presented during the episodes, he seems to miss the point about black listed farmers and government manipulation of health standards. Unique? No, but just as dangerous as ever. Is the danger over-hyped by these people who see Monsanto as the "Great Satan"? Perhaps, but these same conspiracy theorists often bring up great points that are all too often overshadowed by more ludicrous claims.
Even if they feel it true, it might behoove them to keep out the more fringe elements of their beliefs to focus on topics of concern that they can get the most people to back, thereby bolstering their desires to overturn the evil empires of the planet by getting more people to be proactive in their governments. "No Agenda", for example, time and again does a lot of good informing the podcasting public about a lot of bs in North America, Europe, and other places that needs to be addressed. However, its host Adam Curry likes to go off the deep end with some extreme world government fears. While I agree with John C. Dvorak more often than not, he does not seem to provide a larger balance to Curry's agenda. While I have no problem with what Curry thinks, I fear his holistic world view scares off too many listeners. He needs to focus more on what can be done rather than lamenting most episodes how he and his listeners will only live longer but cannot escape our impending doom.
While most skeptics might balk about supporting such a show as "No Agenda", again it proves as a good example of good information being present along with a lot of bs anti-vaccination rhetoric and NWO scare-tactics. Yet, when one looks into things like the Lisbon Treaty, the current rushed trials for Swine Flu/Mexican Flu vaccines, the proposed US health care reform bill, etc. and how all of these are being handled and their contents, it should give anyone cause for pause. I would write Adam and John about these concerns but I'd likely be labeled a government shill and at best just ignored. It was a remains a good show with good information but as of now and for a while now "No Agenda" has been a lacking in a lot of way towards content, objective analysis, and believability. This said, it has a record of observations that cannot be ignored.
What is a skeptic to do? What is a communication student to do? "Skepticality" and "Skeptics' Guide to the Universe" are great escapes back to sanity and science yet sometimes I wonder whether all this critical thinking, skepticism, and the like is really being put to good use. Fuck the conspiracy nutters, there is a shit-ton of negative stuff going on that anyone with half a brain and realize and understand. While I support the school focus and anti-woo and pro-science focus that skepticism had currently I think it needs to refocus its efforts on reforming government. Why? Because just like with humanity destroying this planet in various ways, we need to clean up things locally and then move up to larger projects, as such will make the bigger things no so challenging. Corruption needs to be addressed, as does a lot of political overburden and bs. Adding to these efforts will help expose the lack of evil empire plus do something even the believers can get behind. The same efforts to get homeopathy loopholes fix also helps towards cleaning up the government in general (this statement and some others are more US-centric but they can also apply internationally).
Skeptics need to listen to "Rage Against the Machine" more and realize that there are things that need to be addressed that have multiple positive outcomes, including the often more narrow focuses taken by a majority of skeptics. Skeptics should be going over government documents, like the Lisbon Treaty, Patriot Act, etc. and helping to expose the bs and helping their fellow countrymen/women understand what is going on. It is not enough just to go after 9-11 truthers. In fact, I would go as far as to say most skeptics should ignore them, for there are enough who will address them, and focus instead on holding the government to account over the inconsistencies and sidestepping that the US government has done about the topic and help expose the real truth that is being hidden by political double-speak and legislative wording. Such can be applied to other areas that skeptics love or loath to tread. How do you make skepticism sexy, marketable, and truly successful? You make its output practical, progressive, and productive to the wider world.
