 But the intro he emailed me was long. So I'm gonna have to just play a drone and read what he sent me off my phone. Magician, author, speaker and skeptic. Co-founder of the National Capital Area Skeptics. Co-founder of the New York City Skeptics. For the JRF he serves as chairman of the advisory committee to the president and on the million dollar challenge subcommittee. He was on stage to host the opening night proceedings at the very first TAM and has been a presenter, moderator and performer at every TAM except for one but who's counting. So Jamie said he wanted a song. That's it ladies and gentlemen, the one and only Jamie is with. And a skeptic. What's that mean? Well here's a book. The definition of skepticism. It's been a lot of heated discussion about this subject lately. That's it, that's all the magic crap you get for me this morning. Maybe you get a card trick later at the bar, try me out, no promises. That's it for now. As a skeptical activist for more than 25 years, one of the discussions I've engaged in countless times, probably from my time helping to write the first bylaws for the National Capital Area Skeptics in 1987, is the meaning of skepticism. In terms of what it means to individuals but also to organizations and indeed from the vantage of being part of a social movement because skepticism is all those things. It's a personal worldview, it's an organizational mission and it's a social movement. So what does it mean to be a skeptic? And what is the skeptic mission? The original skeptic organization created in 1976, PSICOP, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, now known as CSI. I guess those folks don't watch TV. Offer these words as part of their mission statement. Quote, the mission of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation in the use of reason and examining controversial and extraordinary claims. Michael Sherman's Skeptic Society, in addition to its online mission statement, defines skepticism nicely as follows. 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. Many such precedent-setting mission statements, including from groups I've personally been involved with, National Capital Area Skeptics, New York City Skeptics, JREF itself, and you can read the JREF mission statement right in the TAM program. Many such skeptical mission statements will be useful and informative in defining the meaning and scope of skeptical activism. You can find mission statements of countless skeptic organizations online. You'll see many such ideas similarly expressed. But if I had to summarize or abbreviate all of that, I would say this, that scientific skepticism is a way of thinking. It is about how to think and not about what to think. And the question of what it means to be a skeptic or what the mission of a skeptic's organization comprises has always been interesting to me and to us. But today, as the movement continues to expand in many directions and indeed succeed in many ways, the question has become as or more important than ever. Because I believe that in some ways we have become victims of a kind of success, a success that has led at times to confusion within and among ourselves. I might be hard to think of the skeptic movement as a success when you look at the numbers and percentages of Americans who believe in psychics and conspiracy theories, anti-vax paranoia, so much more toxic nonsense. But everything's relative and surveys show that fewer Americans, for example, today believe in psychic phenomena than they did 20 years ago. The 2009 CBS poll identified a decline of about 7% over a 20-year period. That is one kind of success. And I think skeptical activists can likely claim a hand part of that progress. That's good news. Also, the movement has grown wildly in numbers, of individuals, numbers of organizations and activities and gatherings. That too is very much a measure of success. I mentioned last night there are some 200 skeptic-related groups when you include meet-ups, skeptics in the pub and such. And that's not including atheists or humanist groups. That's just skeptic activities and that's great. That's a very different thing than 36 years ago when there was only one organization trying to define itself and a fledgling movement. When it's just one group, it's easy to keep everybody under the same umbrella, everybody on the party line. But it's a movement grows in size. Activists and organizations spend more time refining and often arguing about the more finely tuned differences in focus and opinion and perspective within the movement. And this is where we find ourselves now, often to our detriment. It's not a bad thing to be having these conversations. We will always need and continue to have them, but it can be unfortunate to be battling over those conversations and allowing those battles to distract us and to spill over and in view of the larger public to whom we are trying to communicate a message. And I think that to use a magician's term, we've been misdirected in a way by our successes. We've all been so happy and excited to welcome everyone into the club for a while we didn't realize there were significant differences between various kinds of folks in the clubs, all of whom self-identify as skeptics. Specifically, for one example, I think we've been misdirected and misdirected our own selves by the visible growth and success of the so-called new atheist movement. Now, don't get your undies in a bunch. At least not yet. I'm an atheist. As I've said on countless first dates of my life, I'm not just an atheist, I'm an atheist with an attitude. But, but, but, but, I'm not an atheist activist. I'm a skeptical activist. I have nothing against atheist activism. I'm in favor of it. I support it. I'm a strong supporter of the Richard Dawkins Foundation and their approach to atheist activism. I got a red A on my badge. But neither am I a skeptical humanist activist for that matter. I don't particularly identify as a secular humanist capitalist capital each kind of way, even though I certainly am a humanist philosophically and I've attended and presented at and performed at humanist gatherings on behalf of CFI and Human Association. But I say it again. I'm not an atheist activist. I'm not a humanist activist. I'm a skeptical activist. And by very deliberate choice. And I think that I can explain why for myself in pretty simple terms. If skepticism is a broad-based way of thinking about claims and trying to figure out what is and is not true, then atheism is simply skepticism applied to a single extraordinary claim. But I care about all of them. We've all heard the statement give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Here's my version for skeptics. Tell a man what to think, feed his head with one idea. Teach him how to think, feed his head with a lifetime of ideas. That's why I'm a skeptical activist. I am not arguing against atheist activism. I'm talking about why I'm a skeptical activist and how that's different. And as skeptics, we should not be committed to what to think, but to how to think. And we don't need to tell other people what to think in order to be accepted as students of critical thinking, which is what we all are. And that's what we should be modeling. I have a little interest in devoting myself to advocating simply for an outcome. I have great interest in advocating for a particular process of thinking. And I have zero interest in any implication that there should be any sort of litmus test of conclusions reached that should serve as requirements for entering the skeptic tent. If you're interested in the scientific method and rational means of inquiry, if you're interested in empiricism, what it tells us about the world and the methods of critical thinking as a way to discover more about that world every day, then you're welcome in my skeptical tent. And I don't really care if you simply haven't gotten quite all the way down the path yet to atheism. I don't in any way believe in or support that kind of political correctness in skepticism. Thanks. My reasoning is this. If someone embraces the basic tenets of critical thinking, of reason and rational inquiry, of the scientific method as a way of determining truths about the natural world and the universe, then I believe that person is going to make the world a better place. And if they embrace that way of thinking just a little more today than they did yesterday, they're going to make the world a better place today. Because they're going to make better decisions and help others to make better decisions. And that's the only way the human race is going to solve the problems we're faced with in our world, and that's the way I want my fellow human beings to contribute to making decisions that affect me and affect us all, every one of us on the planet. So I want to welcome people who are willing to apply a process of using scientific and critical thinking to reach a conclusion regardless of what they believe today. I don't have to agree with their conclusions as long as they are willing to apply that process and are open to revising those conclusions. So while I personally might like to think that embracing scientific skepticism is likely to lead to an eventual embrace of atheism, I'm willing to bide my time and accept the best of what people have to offer along that path even if they never get there. As Steve Novella has written, quote, I prefer to give people critical thinking skills and a love of science and not worry about their faith. But there's another reason why as skeptics we need to think clearly about these distinctions. And that's because the world is full of atheists who are not skeptics. When we were starting up the New York City skeptics, one of my co-founders was involved with some atheist meet-ups. When we were calling our first public gatherings I cautioned my skeptic colleagues that while the atheist meet-up lists were very good places to start to get the word out and attract people to our new skeptic organization, nevertheless those meet-up folks were not necessarily going to comprise a lot of our eventual target demographic. Sure enough, at our first skeptics in the pub I end up arguing with a woman about the book The Secret. Right? You know, Oprah Winfrey favorite. Now, that book is a toxic pseudoscience cover to cover filled with ancient recycled ideas that are both wrong and very, very bad. But this woman was an atheist who didn't have the first clue about what I was saying and could see nothing wrong with the book no matter what I said. Several years ago my wife Candace set out to form a rational parenting meet-up group and she decided to call it atheist parenting. So I cautioned it might not attract the demographic she was looking for, which was we were looking for like-minded skeptical parents but at the same time our boys were just entering school and hearing the word God for the first time in their lives thanks to the Pledge of Allegiance and we were suitably freaked out by all that and so it became the atheist parenting meet-up and at the very first meeting a woman turned to Candace and asked so, what's your sign? We were at the dinner a couple of months ago with Elizabeth Cornwell-Schard Faircloth and Richard Dawkins and Candace told the five of us this story and when she finished Richard's eyes got literally wide and he goes that did not happen oh yes it did how do you say oh no you didn't in a British accent I don't know you know what you get when people come to skepticism when people come to skepticism do you know what you get when people come to atheism through routes other than scientific skepticism and a scientific world view you get Bill Maher a guy who is an outspoken atheist which some of us love and also an anti-science anti-vaxxer dangerous ignoramus promoting toxic anti-science nonsense that kills people this is a place that is a skeptic I have to disagree with Richard Dawkins he's dedicated on this stage in a conversation with DJ Grothi that he's okay with accepting Bill Maher as an ally because Richard's priority as an activist is to combat religion I'm not willing to accept that broken alliance it's not a minor footnote to me that Bill Maher is anti-vaxx it's not just something it's everything he's not an atheist and a kind of weak skeptic he's an atheist and he's my god damn enemy he's an enemy of my movement he's making the world a worse place a more dangerous place by promoting anti-science he's making bad thinking he's not even close to being my ally I don't give a damn he's an atheist screw Bill Maher so as a skeptical activist I welcome believers into the skeptic tent with the proviso they get no free pass and they must be prepared to argue with about those beliefs and occasionally mocked but I think it's quite possible that the genuine skeptic and critical thinker who happens to believe in god is probably making in my world a better place today than a faith-based atheist who is not really a skeptic what do I think all this means for the skeptic movement and for the discussion of the skeptic mission it means this that skepticism is not atheism is not secular humanism all these movements have things in common and share parts of the world views big parts for many of us but the distinctions between them are critically important not because they're distinctions quite the contrary in my view rather they are distinctions we should be clarifying for everyone's comfort and focus and mutual effectiveness not to draw battle lines between us but to allow allies to better focus their particular armies on their particular battlefields in the same war the army, navy, marines, air force all fighting on the same side but I said we got misdirected by success when the so-called new atheists came along skeptics were delighted and why wouldn't we be many of us are in fact atheists and much of the new atheism was science-based atheism if you will and you know that's atheism that grows from a scientific world view and certainly that's the message Dawkins brought to the table Daniel Dennett among others put forward and what's more all these folks self-identified as skeptics hell yeah we're skeptics they declared Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens both spoke at TAM and the two regulars Dan Dennett spoke in here as well and atheists particularly seemed to share priorities with secular humanists important priorities they're deeply committed to issues about church-state separation the encroachment of religion on education and freedom of speech, creationism versus evolution and so on what good skeptic doesn't agree with all that so there's a little question that in the Venn diagram portraying skepticism, atheism and secular humanism but I would say that these are to adapt the phrase from Steven J. Gould overlapping magisteria I think that for those whose atheism springs from a scientific world view that atheism, humanism and skepticism are overlapping, non-competing magisteria that should not be in conflict but they are also not the same things if anything if anything I'd suggest that the most unifying skeptic among the three is probably skepticism oddly enough in my personal experience skeptics often do possess the broadest vision among the three magisteria I've been at humanist gatherings I've had countless conversations with people there who had never heard of Randy, never heard of Psycop and yet many skeptics in my experience tend to be reasonably informed about the basics of both atheism and secular humanism now one way that skeptics and skeptic organizations set ourselves apart from other overlapping movements is to be more focused on religion is by saying that we are purely concerned with testable claims whereas we hold no position in so-called faith claims that is to say if you believe in God based purely on faith that's not a testable claim so we have no argument with you if you claim that prayer works that's a testable claim and now that's where the skeptic enters the argument this is a workable stance so far as it gets you philosophically it's a bit of a collage it's a practical if imperfect work around I mean after all it says they believe in ghosts purely on faith or in ESP or UFOs or Bigfoot or Loch Ness Monster based on faith and faith alone and they don't claim any of the claims of epistemological evidence would we as skeptics give such folks a completely free pass I don't think so similarly it's pretty much a fiction that people believe in God purely on faith alone it misunderstands the realities of faith and the complexities of belief most people will claim that they have arrived at that position reasonably, rationally they have evidence to boot and they do have evidence whether it's the blind watchmaker or the working eyeball that might lead them to conclude it's all too complicated to be made at random right and we think that's not good evidence sure but that doesn't make it not evidence you have to realize that to someone else it is evidence it's just weak evidence by the standards of critical thinking and scientific method which are our guiding principles our challenge is to help explain to people the difference between that kind of evidence and better evidence but for practical purposes and perhaps even for strategic purposes testable claims and empiricism are very sound places to pitch your tent in the skeptic movement and atheism I would say is not the best ground for skeptics to pitch that tent now not because you might offend people or because religion should be given any sort of special pass it's not only a weak position I don't think it's a real position it's an imaginary one it's one I only seem to hear or see in the skeptics of promoting I've never seen an actual position presented these days by skeptics I can't find any skeptic organization or skeptic thought leader who thinks today that any area or subject should be given a free pass from fair and open inquiry and in fact skepticism is generally promoted within the movement as a thinking toolkit that must be broadly applied to all available subjects as a skeptic society says right no sacred cows but again testable claims is the skeptics home turf among the JREP's most visible and successful projects besides this remarkable and fabulous conference is our legendary million dollar challenge and quite simply the M.D.C. is literally about testable claims testable claims is a viable dynamic cause for skeptics because we address testable claims where no one else does we care in ways that no one else does and we are uniquely qualified to do it and talk about it quick story I was once sitting next to Carly Simon in a random celebrity encounter in a beautiful Manhattan movie theater the Ziegfeld I tried to conceal it when she sat down but she noticed this pack of cards I'd just been sitting there practicing with waiting for the movie and she asked if I would show her some magic so I did and then somehow that led into a brief conversation about mysticism and skepticism and psychic and so finally she asked me so you don't believe in anything and after trying to explain testable claims for a while with her biggest gun she could muster but what about the flowers what about the trees ok well that's why she's a songwriter and not a scientist but alright anyway interestingly enough thinking about testable claims though can also help us to think clearly about where skeptics can appropriately extend our reach to a wider range of social issues and the subject of diversity Barbara Drescher was written extensively and very articulately about the skeptic mission has said this quote skeptics promote scientific skepticism because they agree that it is the best way to evaluate claims they do not necessarily agree on political, economic and social issues and that was the point that dj growthy made in last year's panel discussion on diversity which unintentionally became a debate about the skeptic mission a debate engaged in it as it turned out by a rather non-diverse panel of all atheists dj said this quote where testable claims and science cross paths with social issues like gay rights that's where skeptics can and should take up the chart if you want to focus on gay rights as your issue beyond the realm of testable claims this is me talking now join a gay rights organization dj ref let as it is by two gay men is not a gay rights organization dj ref is a skeptics organization that will aggressively address issues of concern to the gay rights movement when those subjects cross into our particular areas of interest and expertise and activism and finally here's daniel loxton another important contributor to ideas and principles about the skeptic mission on this relationship between testable claims and diversity quote this empirical focus has allowed the skeptical community old and white and bearded as it may have been to enjoy other kinds to enjoy other kinds of diversity if political ideology is not a topic for our movement then anarchists, libertarians, liberals and conservatives can happily share the same big skeptic tent if science-based skepticism is neutral about non-scientific moral values then the community can embrace people who hold a wide range of perspectives on values issues on the environment, public schools, nuclear power same-sex marriage, taxation, gun control military, veganism and so on close quote so skeptics educate about science and about thinking we're also interested in particular importance in the dangers of paranormal and pseudo-scientific claims and finally we are consumer advocates as DJ Rosie put it to me in a recent email what the topics in the skeptical can and have in common are where consumer protection meets science education that's the skeptics unique work normal scientists don't have time to tackle all these issues normal consumer protection folks lack the expertise and Daniel Lockson has pointed out that working scientists don't only lack the time they often lack the expertise in the nonsense side of things he makes this interesting comparison quote, consider the examples the example of debating creationism in the past creationists typically ran rings around biologists this is not because scientists lack knowledge of science but because scientists lack specialized knowledge of nonsense that's where we come in this is still no this is Lockston talking this is a great boy and this is I'm still quoting from Daniel this is where we came in the history and rhetoric of nonsense is a specialized niche area for our arena skeptics perform an essential public service when we concentrate on that close quote now I'm talking about long standing straints and subjects of the skeptic movement these days eventually we run headlong into the notion of the dangerous and I would even say offensive idea, suggestion that the long standing skeptical canon somehow doesn't matter or no longer matters Daniel Lockston puts it well he writes this, in my view consumer protection is the most foundational function of the skeptics movement we investigate, report on and promote awareness about products which are generally ineffective sometimes dangerous and occasionally deadly and which no other watchdog group bothers to research that work is important it's hard we're underfunded, this is still Daniel we're underfunded, we're overwhelmed that it's often hard to see the stakes who cares about yet another distasteful little scam yet somebody has to do it I can't drive that point home hard enough the job isn't done it will never be done the need for this work has not diminished just because we grow sick of doing it people have no less need to hear the message just because we grew tired close quote and I agree I believe that skeptics should unapologetically reaffirm our commitment to these strengths and not be embarrassed about these concerns and not retreat on these concerns and not dilute our priorities in the name of subjects or problems that are somehow supposedly bigger or more important how can anyone claim that pseudoscience and the paranormal doesn't matter living in portions of the American population believe in all sorts of pseudoscientific and paranormal claims how can you say these core subjects and causes no longer a matter when Americans spend billions of dollars on bottles of nothing because they're advertised widely as homeapathy billions of dollars that could make the world a better place if spent in any number of countless ways as long as they were real how can you say pseudoscience and the paranormal isn't dangerous to the anti-vax movement or the fact that a dowsing machine was used to find bombs that were killing American soldiers how can you say psychic fraud doesn't matter when there is a steady stream of news stories about victims who give up life savings to psychic conars do you think it mattered to the victims identify if you self-identify as a skeptic but these issues somehow don't matter enough or particularly to you and you think the dangers and ills of religion then I thank you sincerely for your support of skepticism and please continue to attend our conferences maybe even send us a contribution and then also please go and devote yourself to the cause which you believe should be your personal priority that's fine all of that is good you are still welcome in my skeptic's tent but the one thing that is neither fine nor good is to come into my skeptic's tent and declaring that you are moving it the fact that an expanding movement is clarifying its different points of focus is a fine and logical and reasonable and inevitable phenomenon the fact that an expanding movement is fighting over those differences is not a good thing we waste our valuable time our limited resources not to mention damage our perception in the public eye when we treat fences between good neighbors as Daniel Oxton likes to call it as battle lines between combatants I don't get it and I'm here to tell you I don't like it magicians have been at the forefront of skepticism since before there was a skeptic's movement there's a reason it says magi and magisteria thank you Thomas and there are a number of reasons for that one is that a key subject of the skeptic's movement has been the paranormal and the job skills of magicians and in particular mentalists include creating the illusion of paranormal abilities combined with our particular expertise in deception recognizing and understanding how it works these knowledge bases are all critically pertinent the paranormal many years ago I heard Randy say and I've been saying it ever since my expertise is narrow and deep I know how to fool people and I know how to recognize when people are being fooled there's also the appropriate role of the magician in paracetology laboratory or anywhere that we can help scientists protect themselves specifically from deception Randy wrote about this very eloquently recently in an excellent opinion piece in Wired Magazine if you haven't read it go look it up magicians have to offer does not stop there magicians also deeply understand a profoundly important lesson that anyone can be fooled anyone that may be the greatest lesson that magicians have to teach anyone can be fooled including skeptics many years ago no less than Psycop and CFI founder Paul Kurtz was taken in by the double talking mentalist Amazing Kreskin who was then embraced as an ally on a Psycop conference stage incredible but true because in my book if you're a magician or a mentalist and you claim to be a skeptic and an ally and you want to be an ally but you want to be considered an ally of the skeptic movement you need to be willing to do one thing stand up and say clearly that you use deception and trickery in your work if you equivocate on this subject you may be many things but as far as I'm concerned you're not a part of my skeptical alliance it's not enough to know the truth to be a skeptic you have to have a strength of character to be willing to speak the truth and care enough to try to help other people understand what truth means and with that knowledge that anyone can be fooled comes another important perspective that magicians bring to the table and understand and insight and I hope empathy into how and why people are fooled and it's not because they're stupid when I post a story on Facebook about someone getting taken in by a psychic or some street scam I invariably get some comments people deserve but they get they're stupid they suck up on every minute and so on this is blaming the victim and it's another element about which skeptics in particular should be educating the public presuming they have educated themselves sufficiently first just two days ago I think it was DJ posted a psychic scam story on Facebook and somebody posted this quote psychics and their ignorant fans deserve one another and when skeptics make those kind of comments I don't know if that was from a skeptic but if it was shame on you I sometimes find that skeptics on the ground I sometimes find that skeptics on the ground if you will you know in the trenches club skeptics, skeptics in the pub skeptics on a blog can all too often that's real skeptics I mean that's the real skeptics movement and community but they've all too often can seem more concerned with being right than when explaining their thinking I see this with the subject of psychics and believers all the time the message should not be to blame the victim or the believer, the skeptic mission in my view is more compassionate than that and trust me, Randy's has always been more compassionate than that rather understand what the believer believes and why the believer believes and why a victim becomes a victim these are not easy phenomena to understand or explain when Banachek and I tested psychics on ABC Nightline a year ago we got to watch these people up close try to rationalize and explain away why they failed to pass a test about which when asked beforehand they were extremely confident in their ability to meet or exceed we knew this was happening we'd seen it before these people's greatest flaw is not that they are stupid but that they are human and they're stuck with a human brain and all its evolutionarily pre-programmed foibles what we get to see in these instances is a working demonstration of cognitive dissonance a cognitive psychology experiment in real time if all a skeptic can do in the face of that is feel superior you have missed the point and you have failed your mission as a skeptic if you're not sure why people fall for scams and cons that's fine bone up in your skeptical literature talk to magicians talk to psychologists but do not claim the victim stop being right help somebody to learn how to think better and help them to maybe not be wrong the next time magicians bring all these facets of their work expertise to the skeptic table and perhaps above all one more a moral stance magicians at least those of us who embrace the skeptical vision are professional honest liars we're clear with our audience about the role deception plays in our work and the social contract we maintain with our audience skeptics are not only passionate about what is true but also about what is morally right and magicians take offense from psychics and comment and cheats use the skills of our legitimate trade for illegitimate purpose to mislead and take advantage of the innocent the ill-informed victimizing people rather than uplifting them magicians bring our righteous indignation to the table that fuels Houdini, that fuels Randy and I hope in doing so we inspire everyone in the skeptical movement to share that sense of moral outrage as activists we're all trying to change the world that's right let's call it what it is my skeptic activist for me was a way to put my professional skills to use and service to a social movement I've been an activist to one sort of another all my life my teams I was involved in democratic elective politics and radical leftist politics my 20s I was a wildlife and environmental activist I believe in constructive social activism and my skills as a magician and expertise in multiple areas of deception are pertinent specifically to my work as a skeptic and my skills as an entertainer serve me in this role as well H.O. Makin said one horse laugh is worth 10,000 syllogisms I love syllogisms but my profession includes getting horse laughs I heard a story many years ago I've never forgotten Isaac Asimov was asked by a reporter a question many of us find ourselves constantly faced with what's the harm and someone believing in something as seemingly innocuous as say astrology and Asimov said this it is a loss of opportunity and humanity we all have limited finite resources in this life of time, energy, money every hour and every dollar that's wasted on something that does not exist will never be recovered not by any individual, not by society as a whole every dollar an hour that's invested in something that does not exist something false, something misleading is a dollar and an hour and a quantity of human energy and effort that could have been invested in something real and which in turn stands a much better chance of contributing in the world a better place for all of us so before we even get to the victims who are robbed of dignity and joy and money and sometimes their lives by psychics and common of so many strikes the cost, the human cost begins with that loss of opportunity and once attended an event in Washington DC that was advertised as a week of healing by a rather famous and successful traveling creature it was in a very large hall hired for the purpose on the road probably more often it was a tent it was filled to the brim with thousands of people several thousand had been similarly filled no doubt each night of an entire week after some singing and some prayer and some preaching the healings began various people came to the stage and claimed to be healed claimed to see what they could not see before hear what they could not hear before walk where they could not stand before the crowd seemed to take quite a celebratory attitude and I remained open minded to many possibilities including the possibility of those witnesses were now testifying the wonders deeds might have been on the wonder workers payroll I saw a man with one leg shorter than the other have his leg visibly lengthen to match the other under the hands of the preacher one of the oldest tiny tricks in the business then the preacher extended his arms in benediction and announced that many many people in the crowd were also now healed of their ailments and concerns and he asked them to come forward and any of them felt the healing to come forward and testify to their personal miracles and several people began to come forward to explain they had felt the healing their descriptions didn't strike me as particularly wondrous or inexplicable seem more like these folks want to just step forward be part of the excitement sharing the joy and the attention okay why not but then a woman came to the microphone she was shy and awkward and spoke gently and with what was clearly great gratitude an overwhelming sense of relief she stepped up and began to speak and she explained that recently she had detected a lump in her breast and it had made her afraid and she had eventually seen her doctor who had wanted to run some tests but she was afraid of the tests and she had waited and she had not returned to the doctor because she was afraid but now she said trembling with the release from the weight of her fear she knew that on this very night she had felt she had come to be healed and she knew she had been healed and she knew this with such certainty praise be that she knew she did not now even after return to her doctor again and she was relieved and grateful and she thanked the preacher who embraced her and perhaps she contributed some money before the evening was out it would not surprise me at all few things do anymore but what is the harm probably the first skeptic talk in the 80s I think it was some scientific research association in the Q&A I heard a couple of questions I've consistently heard more talks than not ever since question, do you believe in God? answer, no but so what? question are you optimistic? answer, hell no I just see skepticism as a dirty job that somebody's got to do I'll add to that it may be a dirty job but it's not without its benefits there are worse ways to spend your time there are worse ways to spend your time than with the great minds of your generation with the Murray Gullmans or Adam Savage or Christopher Hitchens or Dan Dennard or Richard Dawkins or Carol Tavers or Lawrence Krause all the great many friends that I've made here and I make new ones every year at TAM but in fact as I've said on a panel here there's a lot of skepticism the first and foremost reason for skeptics to organize on the local level is not to create campaigns and battle pseudoscience in those lectures and write letters to the press even though all those things are of inestimable value but the first and foremost reason for skeptics to organize is to connect with like-minded individuals to help support one another to educate one another enlarge the circles of skepticism by connecting the dots and creating linkages and alliances and feel a little less like an isolated fringe these are perfectly good and legitimate reasons to join together and talk about these issues and ideas that we care about and that we care about to invoke the name of the JRF podcast that we care about for good reason I'm going to quote Dan Loxton one more time quote it is a false dichotomy to suggest that anything short of eradicating the paranormal is a waste of our time thankfully it is possible to make progress the assertion that pseudoscience will always exist is no doubt true but it is a trivial observation disease will always exist but that doesn't mean we close the medical schools the persistence of paranormal beliefs should not distract us from the truth that skeptics can make progress close quote so am I optimistic? am I glad to be here with 1200 friends and colleagues who has jacked up about the cost of pseudoscience and the paranormal and junk science and alternative medicine and and and you bet I am well I'd be glad to sit down with a few of you old friends and new ones at the bar later tonight to talk to perhaps argue loudly with and with whom even more fun sometimes I only agree you bet your ass I will because I'm a skeptic are you a skeptic? are you a skeptic? are you a skeptic? great B2 thanks for listening I'll see you at the bar