Still in my "past show" work. Episode 81 was enlightening and I felt it necessary to just comment since there are no old threads on this episode anymore. I've found in the past 80 shows, that I have really enjoyed listening to some of the skeptical guests. I identify with many of them but time and time again some of the most intelligent skeptics just go off the rails when it comes to truly looking at research data without heavy prejudice or disregard due to a variety of reasons that are sometimes not even known. This is all found in this episode, and a lot of chickens come home to roost here.
Science is a METHOD and while the "organism of individual people" searching for data and sense of what it's all about are just people - it's still important to realize that no specific scientists are the "one face of Science".. And there is no way one group of people can be the gate keepers for science. It's been very interesting to see time and time again with JREF that they think they can say what is and what is not science. This brings us to JREF president Phil Plait, a guy with some scientific credibility and some smarts but he's putting a lot of his brain power into JREF now. Wow, It was somewhat disappointing to see the the moral ambiguity applied to his own responsibility as president of JREF and his inability to steer the organization with any direction when it comes to worldviews overriding science as a METHOD. Instead, he can't take responsibility for JREF personal attacks of "people" behind the data he can't even really address. Childish "Pegasus" awards, etc. He kept going on and on about the vaccination issues and would not touch anything regarding consciousness aside from saying "clearly the data is not consistent". Rupert Sheldrake, Gary Shwartz and Charles Tart have all been awarded Pegasus Awards by JREF. Phil just could not back up any of the reasons except replying with statements like "The Pegasus award is not designed to be an analytic study to see where some research has gone wrong.. it's not just coming out of the blue..." Well then, what is it then? When he was put on the spot about the heavily documented and peer reviewed science behind the work JREF was awarding Pegasus awards to the replies like "clearly this is not correct" and "you are trying to hammer a nail with a wrench" were all cheerfully offered as some sort of intellectual reassurance by Phil that we should all just realize smart guys at JREF will know best just because they are smart and "keep moving along, nothing to see here". This form of intellectual narcissism was hard to take at times.
Phil Plait is a showman in addition to surrounding himself by science, and I think that's why James Randy put him in the "public" seat of JREF. While Phil may be a Dr. and a smart guy, he is not in control of JREF as much as a scientist but rather a "showman gatekeeper" with a credential. James Randy is not a researcher or a scientist and is just a Richard Wiseman follower and court jester (self called clown) as long as it suits his worldview - and Richard Wiseman even waffles around a lot on the data, so who knows how long Wiseman will suit the amazing Randy. From about 25 minutes onward is where the show really is. It was revealing as to what's wrong with JREF aside from just the shenanigan's of the James Randy showman types. At :50 Phil says "if we are getting this wrong then we need to look at what we are doing" but then when it comes down to actually following the data he can't really go there - well perhaps he can himself, but he can't let a discussion go there as the JREF president. When a real set of data can be looked at, he's not aware of it or willing to get down to the act of doing any science analysis himself. Whatever "wonder at it all" he had, before getting involved with the "non-scientist James Randy" - it has been sold to someone else, and he just doesn't have "it" in him, in this interview. Phil said, "I'm not going to get cornered into a specific thing here..." That was his attitude, time and time again, before throwing in an anecdotal example of a crazy claim or garbage you may hear about on shows like Coast to Coast AM or the like. That's not science, that's anecdotal classification and defending beliefs, Phil. While science education (the target discussion of #81) is an interesting and really important topic, the subject paled in comparison to what's behind the curtain at JREF. I guess in my opinion, that is what the episode really brought forward.
I think Phil Plait is a really smart and likable guy. But it was disappointing to see his smarts and inspiration coerced into putting his mind toward JREF. His best efforts can be applied much more constructively elsewhere, even if his data may not agree with someone else's. At least THAT would be science.