Celebrity endorsement for skepticism?

[EternalUniverse]

Hi, given that many questionable actions are occurring in the world (like psychics purporting to talk with the dead), and the harm these actions have, perhaps getting popular celebrities to endorse skeptical views might "wake people up". This isn't to say that Mr. Randi isn't a celebrity heh just that we might need more of a celebrity backup. In one show of Larry King Live, Sylvia Browne was very sneaky by pointing out Mr. Randi's skepticism of God (i.e. getting popular opinion against him). Maybe we can use the same strategy - if we can get some well-liked celebs, many people who wouldn't be normally persuaded would think "oh, such and such is questioning these psychics", maybe I should think twice about this topic. We can maybe attempt to write certain celebrities in regard to this issue, or maybe Mr. Randi and his colleagues can do something. Larry King would come to mind (because of his reputation), but some of his actions in the past suggest that he half-believes the psychics.

[El Greco]

Yes, get Angelina Jolie and Jodie Foster in TAM3! They're both atheists and they would immensely help with my ...errr... our goals.

[pupdog]

sounds good, but do you think a Congressional committee would call in that kind of celebrity to testify about an important issue ("I'm not a skeptic, but I play one on TV...")?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by pupdog
sounds good, but do you think a Congressional committee would call in that kind of celebrity to testify about an important issue ("I'm not a skeptic, but I play one on TV...")?

Hopefully no. We have enough unqualified agenda driven individuals and groups giving so-called "expert" advice to congress.

Please don't take that to mean I'm on the other side of this issue, or think the idea is fundamentally bad. The truth is of course congresspersons can be just as swayed by celebrity as anyone else, and we've seen it before.

However I think it can be a case of hypocrisy if celebrity is presented over hard evidence for a skeptical movement.

And by the way if no one else has said it before, EU, welcome to the forum.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

CSICOP is doing the right thing by investing in the media! These media skeptics are helping our cause by giving a one sided (but correct) view against the supernatural through the media! This will get us closer to our goal of controlling the thinking of non-skeptics!

[Aussie Thinker]

XIDIOTX…

You really are the most persistent idiot I have ever seen.

You do realise that NO ONE (except people like me who get a laugh out of your idiocy) pays even the slightest attention to anything you say ?

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
XIDIOTX…

You really are the most persistent idiot I have ever seen.

You do realise that NO ONE (except people like me who get a laugh out of your idiocy) pays even the slightest attention to anything you say ?

Don't be such an f**king quacktard! I don't believe your anecdote about laughing! Logically we have no reason to believe that you are in fact laughing as you claim! Probably crying!!! We don't take kindly to anecdotes around here!

Even if you were to post a video of yourself laughing I could argue that!:

1. It’s not you!
2. It’s a fake!
3. The camera hallucinated!
4. It’s a fake laugh used to disguise your true pathetic self!

[Aussie Thinker]

XidiotX,

For you to go to such trouble to make such a pathetically lame point against sceptics makes me wonder about your sanity.

A normal person makes their point then F’s off.. you have been making the SAME INANE .. ONE POINT complaint for so long now you should be certified.

You life must be pathetically small and useless to be bothered continue with your ONE POINT rant that I mingle my humour for you with a tinge of sympathy…’

Na… not really you are such an idiot.. I enjoy laughing at your insanity !

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Aussie Retard
XidiotX,

For you to go to such trouble to make such a pathetically lame point against sceptics makes me wonder about your sanity.

A normal person makes their point then F’s off.. you have been making the SAME INANE .. ONE POINT complaint for so long now you should be certified.

You life must be pathetically small and useless to be bothered continue with your ONE POINT rant that I mingle my humour for you with a tinge of sympathy…’

Na… not really you are such an idiot.. I enjoy laughing at your insanity !

F*ck off kook! Still posting anecdotes about laughing! This is the last place in the world for anecdotes dumbass! Typical trait of a believer! You're just damn sad you deluded quackball!

I'm here to stand up for science and do away with weak material minds like yours! I'm ashamed that my mind is composed of the same type of material matter that makes up your delusional world possible! Materialism why must you create such idiocy in fools like this!? Now I truly know what CSICOP is getting at when they rightfully bitch about the rising tide of irrationality!

I will never go away because of stupid pests like you! If anything I must stay longer to go against fools like you! The more you go against me the more present my rational trolling will become here! It shall be apparent that I am really a skeptic because you will all see how I will be incapable of bringing this argument to any kind of conclusion!

[EternalUniverse]

Originally posted by pupdog
sounds good, but do you think a Congressional committee would call in that kind of celebrity to testify about an important issue ("I'm not a skeptic, but I play one on TV...")?

Not sure, but when a congressional committee starts examining psychics, that would be a tremendous start.

[EternalUniverse]

Originally posted by Andonyx


However I think it can be a case of hypocrisy if celebrity is presented over hard evidence for a skeptical movement.


The celebrity doesn't have do to anything, just influence popular opinion (which doesn't seem to favor the skeptical side of things). If we can get a "smart" celebrity, maybe that can do the trick...get out the message and intelligently present it at the same time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Hilary Clinton "the most trusted woman in the USA"?


Originally posted by Andonyx

And by the way if no one else has said it before, EU, welcome to the forum.

thanks!

[CurtC]

How about this: http://www.celebatheists.com/

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by EternalUniverse


The celebrity doesn't have do to anything, just influence popular opinion (which doesn't seem to favor the skeptical side of things). If we can get a "smart" celebrity, maybe that can do the trick...get out the message and intelligently present it at the same time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Hilary Clinton "the most trusted woman in the USA"?






I understand what you're saying, but one often seen logical fallacy is "argument from authority," which I'm sure you know is parroting an opinion offered by a perceived expert without benefit of the eveidence that led to that opinion.

A similar problem is people who use experts in one field to make determinations in another field that is beyond their scope. This is one of the chief tenants of illogical thinking, or un-critical thinking that can lead to bad conlcusions.

So even if our message was genuine, having say...I dunno...Amy Acker
http://www.allstarz.org/~amyacker/images2/season3angelpromo7.jpg

http://www.allstarz.org/amyacker/

stand up and talk about the joys of critical thinking seems...odd. She's not a scientist, orator, or educator. She hasn't made a career out of evidence hunting like James Randi...it seems superfluous.

Likewise if we picked one of the atheists from that list. Well, they're atheists, which is not necessarily synonomous with skeptics. And so that message carries all sorts of political bagagge with it now too.

I could be wrong and in a way I really hope I am, because all I'm saying ultimately is that if we ever do anything with celebrities at all, the first one I...I mean we... should do anything with is Amy Acker. In fact she should be the guest speaker at TAM 3 next year. And if anyone has any papers to present, I think the only logical thing to do would be to have Ms. Acker read them.

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by Andonyx
She hasn't made a career out of evidence hunting like James Randi...it seems superfluous.


Of course, if you follow that logic too far, nobody's allowed to talk about anything unless they've dedicated their lives to it. Would make for some dull dinner parties. :D

For what it's worth, Jay Leno makes fun of psychics and JE etc. pretty much every chance he gets. He might be fun to have on our side, as well as effective. Everybody knows him and he's about as non-threatening and accessible as they come (or that's the perception anyway).

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by VicDaring


Of course, if you follow that logic too far, nobody's allowed to talk about anything unless they've dedicated their lives to it. Would make for some dull dinner parties. :D



I'm not saying we can't talk about stuff. Hell, half of this forum is us shooting our mouths off on topics about which we know not.

But there is a difference between talking about stuff, and being a poster child for certain stuff.

For instance, I have never met Amy Acker

http://www.stardust-dream.com/~shanshu/photos/rareaa02a.jpg

But that's not going to stop me from talking about her quite a bit. More perhaps even than is prudent. I might be found to discuss what I imagine her likes and dis-likes are, her turn-ons and turn-offs, things she might be heard to whisper behind closed doors....etc....

But that would just be educated guessing. It would be wrong of me and counter productive for everyone involved if I was invited to speak at the Amy Acker fan club meetings...no matter how much I might enjoy that.

[EternalUniverse]

Originally posted by Andonyx
[B]

I understand what you're saying, but one often seen logical fallacy is "argument from authority," which I'm sure you know is parroting an opinion offered by a perceived expert without benefit of the eveidence that led to that opinion.

Yes, we have to be careful of that. However, it would only be a fallacy if we make the impression to the public (that's our audience, after all), that our message is correct because of the person saying it. The idea is to make the public pay attention in the first place, by having someone they can identify with and (ideally) respect. That's why I brought up the Hilary Clinton example. We can get the general idea across, and hopefully members of the public will decide pursue the topic (of critical thinking, etc.) further.

Originally posted by Andonyx [B]
A similar problem is people who use experts in one field to make determinations in another field that is beyond their scope. This is one of the chief tenants of illogical thinking, or un-critical thinking that can lead to bad conlcusions.

This is why choosing which celeb it will be is vitally important. Perhaps all we need is some charismatic guy/gal who knows his stuff. Carl Sagan seemed to do a good job in this regard.

[EternalUniverse]

Originally posted by VicDaring


For what it's worth, Jay Leno makes fun of psychics and JE etc. pretty much every chance he gets. He might be fun to have on our side, as well as effective. Everybody knows him and he's about as non-threatening and accessible as they come (or that's the perception anyway).

I like the Jay Leno idea. Humor can be a very effective tool. Maybe if he can demonstrate (ridicule?) how gullible people can be, that will make people start to think critically about their own beliefs. That's the point, to get people to start thinking about critical thinking.

[Grommitt]

Originally posted by EternalUniverse

This is why choosing which celeb it will be is vitally important. Perhaps all we need is some charismatic guy/gal who knows his stuff. Carl Sagan seemed to do a good job in this regard.Carl Sagan is the ideal person for this.

Wonder if JE would contact him for you.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
CSICOP is doing the right thing by investing in the media! These media skeptics are helping our cause by giving a one sided (but correct) view against the supernatural through the media! This will get us closer to our goal of controlling the thinking of non-skeptics!

Are you serious? Do you really think the media gives an anti-supernatural spin? I know about your avatar, but are you really smoking crack?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by EternalUniverse
[b]

This is why choosing which celeb it will be is vitally important. Perhaps all we need is some charismatic guy/gal who knows his stuff. Carl Sagan seemed to do a good job in this regard.

Okay I see what you're saying...

Which is why I think Amy Acker

http://www.forbiddenplanetstore.com/acatalog/B8401.jpg

Might actually be the best choice. I mean Carl Sagan is great and all but Ms. Acker has the added benefit of being alive.

In addition, her core fan base is most likely made up of people with a paranormal bent; so she would be able to attract the attention of a lot of non-skeptics as well. And then she could turn around and discuss how while it may be fun to imagine the fantastic worlds of the supernatural for creative purposes, in real life achievement and success comes form a practical understanding of the universe of around you.

Boom, it's a one two punch.

[EternalUniverse]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Okay I see what you're saying...

Which is why I think Amy Acker

Might actually be the best choice. I mean Carl Sagan is great and all but Ms. Acker has the added benefit of being alive.

Yeah, I know he's dead, otherwise I wouldn't use him as an example. I was just referring to him as someone who did good for the cause. Presumably, if he was alive, he's still be championing the cause.

Originally posted by Andonyx

In addition, her core fan base is most likely made up of people with a paranormal bent; so she would be able to attract the attention of a lot of non-skeptics as well. And then she could turn around and discuss how while it may be fun to imagine the fantastic worlds of the supernatural for creative purposes, in real life achievement and success comes form a practical understanding of the universe of around you.

Boom, it's a one two punch.

She seems like a good bet, then! Maybe Sarah Michelle Gellar would be another example, provided that she is not remotely like the character she played in Scooby Doo.

[tamiO]

bump

[Renfield]

Originally posted by VicDaring


Of course, if you follow that logic too far, nobody's allowed to talk about anything unless they've dedicated their lives to it. Would make for some dull dinner parties. :D



These boards would be mighty quiet as well.

[Aussie Thinker]

As a complete aside…

Is Eternal Universe just about the cutest little thing you ever saw (if that is her photo)..

If it aint I would love to know who it is !

[Sloe_Bohemian]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
As a complete aside…

Is Eternal Universe just about the cutest little thing you ever saw (if that is her photo)..

If it aint I would love to know who it is !


ah-h-h... Aussie?
You do know that EU's avatar is a cartoon, right?
It's not a picture, but appears to be a 3D drawn cartoon... I don't know if it's of a character from some entertainment media... but not a picture at all.

[Aussie Thinker]

No...

You are kidding...

That looks like a real photo to me..

Please provide more details..

[Loon]

The avatar looks like someone from Final Fantasy.

Maybe Yuna from FFX or FFX-2.

Also looks sort of like a Hume female character from FFXI.

[Irish Murdoch]

Originally posted by EternalUniverse
Hi, given that many questionable actions are occurring in the world (like psychics purporting to talk with the dead), and the harm these actions have, perhaps getting popular celebrities to endorse skeptical views might "wake people up".

Well, in the UK, I've heard Eric Idle (ex-Monty Python) speak oot against woo-wooism. And I have on more than one occasion seen the marvellous Stephen Fry giving a characteristically elegant and acerbic diatribe against New-Ageism. Then of course there's dear old Derren Brown ....

[gnome]

We need Bill Nye... even before he was the "science guy" he had a "Skeptic" bit on the Seattle comedy show "Almost Live"....


I like to think of the Lottery as a tax on people that are bad at math.



No, I didn't know that. In fact, I don't believe you.


Used to LOVE it.