This is not exactly Skeptiko 3.0 but it is an idea. The idea is that you could start a Skeptiko "Channel B". The purpose of this new podcast would be to host much (possibly much, much) longer interviews with guests and, perhaps, to document some other activities. Let me explain.
-To me, reading the books of certain guests (Ian Rubenstein, Gary Schwartz, Andy Paquette and especially Nick Bunick) has greatly deepened and changed my understanding. So longer interviews would offer this to people in an easier way than buying books. Also, these interviews could be more aggressive. Really digging into critical points in an investigative journalism sort of way (while still remaining friendly - we don’t want to scare off the guests either).
-Other activities. For example, Nick Bunick (
http://www.skeptiko.com/122-reincarnation-of-apostle-paul-nick-bunick-scrutinized/). In his book he mentions multiple people who witnessed this and that. So, you could check Nick Bunick’s facts. You can get all of these people (or at least some) and ask them to tell the story again. In a similar vein you could get Rey Hernandez’s wife on. This is not to be rude and doubt his integrity but is rather to take this thing and "nail it to the floor” so that it is fully documented in a public forum. For guests who are telling the truth, this is in their interest (and I believe the vast majority of the guests are telling the truth).
Science advances on the edge cases. Stuff that doesn’t fit. In this paranormal field, the edge cases are often personal stories but many have witnesses. Call the witnesses to the stand. We can’t, of course, force them to the stand but I think many will come anyway.
I am happy to kick things off by doing this with Nick Bunick (assuming he agrees). This way it would no longer be Nick Bunick saying x and y happened to him but rather a group of people saying that x and y happened (which has far more credibility). I also have some awkward questions for Nick which I would like to ask him (for example, what is up with this -
http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/240995-108035-west-end-building-will-go-back-on-the-market).
I think the key thing is this. All the Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake stuff if great. Trying to be scientific is great. It builds credibility. But, to me, the most interesting stuff is this personal stuff. It is much harder to progress but it is not impossible.
The “scientific evidence” paradigm is the "gold standard" but it is not always practical for all this stuff. So, let’s move on to the “silver standard” of the “legal” paradigm. Call all the witnesses and “cross examine” them.
(and, of course, this is only part of “channel B” - "channel B" is also just more in depth conversations).
One more thing, “channel B” would be free of the constraints of channel A. So, for example, interviews can be 3 hours long or 10 minutes long. There can be one, two, three interviews with the same person. Interviews come out whenever they are ready (not to any schedule). There are different hosts depending on who is interested and available (so it is crowdsourced Skeptiko). Shows can also have a laser focus on very specific points. It would be nice if standards of production (audio quality and transscripts) can be maintained but if they slip then that is OK too.