I was saying that subscriber count was not really credible(sufficient?) evidence for judging a site as successful -p opularity is not necessarily an indicator of effectiveness (unless of course one of you goals is to be popular) it might indicate that you are reaching more people, but it is incredibly hard without some measurable outcomes, to determine whether you are successful. That being said I don't know what Skepchicks goals are. A cursory examination of the blog does not state any aims or outcomes. Indeed what are the goals of the skeptical movement and how do we measure success at achieving these goals. As such I think its hard to judge Skepchicks success because their goals for skepticism may differ from mine, yours, the movements.

You'd have to judge it purely subjectively, by looking at the intellectual traits of the people involved in those groups and deciding for yourself if you find those traits desirable in the skeptical movement. Obviously there are some that everyone would agree on, but we need to have discussions to figure out the tighter details of what is or not acceptable for each other.

Sure we can look at Skepchick and the image they portray and make a decision as to whether or not we feel comfortable with their direction. We all do this anyway. What would be good is if we had solid measurable goals and some objective evidence on which to base an opinion. To say well okay they are raising the profile of skepticism but is their brand good for women in skepticism.

I don't know that the Skeptcal Movement has yet defined really what its goals are and how we might measure success. I do note that DJ Grote seems to have made some adjustments at JREF towards better non profit management (mentioned in FRG).

Thanks for the reading my blog. Just because I think we should be intellectually critical of our skeptical celebrities, it doesn't mean we can't think they're awesome.

Just finished listening. Michael made some really good points. I also can't fault him really on what he had to say. I must say that I was viewing this skeptical of skepticism from a narrower angle.

It seems that it comes down to a bias that we think we are are good communicators/educators and those fields of expertise somehow don't require the same level of due diligence that we demand of others.

I do think though that presenter like yourself are making headway in that area.

I also got the impression that Jack was angling for the cult of personality as opposed to methods of outreach/communication.

Agree with you here. What's a way we can instill a basic level of wariness without a) becoming paranoid to the point of inaction (ie second guessing yourself) b) turning our writing or podcasts into preaching?

This post is really just an intellectual exercise in seeing how the skeptical movement could change, splinter and come to represent something that it never used to stand for. Of course, I'm not saying that the entire movement would ever become disillusioned with the ideas of skepticism, but that individual people or groups would pull away from the whole with a large following.

I suppose there is a danger that if certain members within the movement obtain real celebrity ( by which I mean TV shows etc) that we might have an issue self regulating. At the moment I still see the movement as somewhat of a subculture. I also see our opposition to the fanciful as a limiting feature in popularity.

People usually don't realise how hard it is to be a skeptic intellectually – many would just rather say "Yes, I accept that" or "No, I don't accept that" without putting too much thought into the whole exercise, and the podcasting and blogging worlds really implicitly emphasises this attitude.

Off to put a disclaimer on my blog now

Though on that point something TRS said on think tank two episodes ago got my skeptical hackles up.

And I think it was a good post. I also think that if young skeptics such as yourself are thinking this way that "the movement" will be in good hands and that somewhere along the line some of your skeptical idols/mentors/influnces must have been doing the right thing.

Of course, with groups like the Skepchicks (about whom I am still trying to form a balanced and rational opinion) you do have the issue of branding and kind of (potential) uncritical loyalty, but I don't see the Skepchicks has having so much sway in the movement that they could cause serious problems.

I don't read the skepchicks and I only come across Rebecca Watson on SGU.

The problems with gender in skepticism are, in a way, irrelevant to the point I was trying to make with this post (not to say that they aren't important to the movement in general – they most certainly are). I feel that the masses of the movement are just as likely to form a clique around a male skeptic as a female skeptic.

I got that. Yes I think there is always the danger of us as humans falling prey to a personality /celebrity worship. But as a counterpoint to guests link to the Skepchick fiasco look at what happened to Randi when he was a little loose with his opinion on climate change? If that wasn't evidence of the Skeptical community being critical of an idol, I don't know what is.

You'd have to judge it purely subjectively, by looking at the intellectual traits of the people involved in those groups and deciding for yourself if you find those traits desirable in the skeptical movement. Obviously there are some that everyone would agree on, but we need to have discussions to figure out the tighter details of what is or not acceptable for each other.

What examination of the evidence? Is there data to support/not support the Skepchick way of doing things? I wasn't aware of this. :/

This post is really just an intellectual exercise in seeing how the skeptical movement could change, splinter and come to represent something that it never used to stand for. Of course, I'm not saying that the entire movement would ever become disillusioned with the ideas of skepticism, but that individual people or groups would pull away from the whole with a large following.

I suppose the ideal state of the movement is to become a loose whole – cohesive enough to share ideas, thoughts and arguments, but not so close as to create large amounts of tension. This may come naturally from the nature of skeptics (freethinking people who have a problem with intellectual authority which isn't backed by science), but the pressure from new media to get all of your ideas from a couple of people with microphones and an Internet connection is something that can't be ignored.

People usually don't realise how hard it is to be a skeptic intellectually – many would just rather say "Yes, I accept that" or "No, I don't accept that" without putting too much thought into the whole exercise, and the podcasting and blogging worlds really implicitly emphasises this attitude.

I am pretty sure that I have read posts from Podblack criticising the Sex sells approach for nigh on two years?

Of course, with groups like the Skepchicks (about whom I am still trying to form a balanced and rational opinion) you do have the issue of branding and kind of (potential) uncritical loyalty, but I don't see the Skepchicks has having so much sway in the movement that they could cause serious problems.

The problems with gender in skepticism are, in a way, irrelevant to the point I was trying to make with this post (not to say that they aren't important to the movement in general – they most certainly are). I feel that the masses of the movement are just as likely to form a clique around a male skeptic as a female skeptic.

Of course, I think this is why my parents wanted me to become a doctor (which I'm not doing) – they thought I would be the kind who would understand these issues more than what they perceive as the "arrogant, know-it-all physician". Not that I'm saying that are doctors are like that, but you know what I mean.