TAM8 -What did and didn't work

[Sc00ter]

I know you all filled out a survey right? You should have, but for a more public discussion of the TAM8 hits and misses lets have a thread here rather than fill the TAM9 Wishlist thread with comments on TAM8.

[Sc00ter]

So here's my list.

Hits:

- Tables in the back. I think this actually worked out well. I was worried for a while that there wasn't going to be any tables after Jeff posted a twitpic and you couldn't see any. My wife and I ended up sitting at the front row of the tables and it was great.

- SGU Dinner stuff being integrated into the TAM registration. I found this to make things easier and more organized. I didn't get to stay as long as I wanted but it was fun.

- Registration. I heard there was some problems but overall registration seemed to go well. At least for me it was much smoother than last year.

- All workshop pass. Seems like that was a huge hit.

- Speakers availability. Seemed like the speakers were much more accessible this year than they were last year. Even Dawkins was hanging out at the bar from time to time.

Misses:

- Vendor tables in lobby area. This was a problem for many reasons. I know it probably made it more quiet in the hall, but it also made for less room to hang out in the lobby area and removed the space for the chairs/couches in the lobby area to hang out in.

- Dawkins "interview". I know that this probably wasn't the JREF's choice (as has been noted in another thread) but it was still annoying.

- Reception should have been a meet and greet. Having the speakers there was annoying and quite a few people bailed because of that. I thought the point was to mingle and talk to other people one on one.

- Feminist panel. In the future I think that if this idea is brought up to the JREF they should consider telling them rather than do this panel, they should each do a talk. Stop talking about doing something and just start doing something.

Surprises:

- Sunday workshops. I actually presented at one of them and the turnout was MUCH better than I ever expected. Originally I thought the idea of a couple Sunday workshops would end up having a very low turn out, and they both seemed to do very well.

[kmortis]

Yeah, it's sounding more and more like the reception was a total fail. Any thing that turns a reception from a gathering point to a people repellant is not something that should be repeated. If you want to say a few word welcoming people, then go ahead. Then migle. If you want music, make sure it's not so loud that no one can talk over it.

I actually liked the feminist panel. That was one of the few panels I thought worked. It was an easy way to introduce a few of the panelists to us that we may not have known before (Dr. Tarvis for me, Dr. Cambell, Jennifer Michael Hecht & Dr. Gay for others). In general, though, I agree that panels are mostly useless.

I think that the vendors in the lobby was also because we were near capacity in the room. Let's face is, those extra 300 people take up lot of room.

[krelnik]

I didn't think the tables in the hallway was a huge problem, if anything it gave people a reason to linger there and encouraged hallway conversation. The tables weren't always inside the main hall, we've done a little of both over the years. (TAM7: all inside the room. TAM6: a few were inside the room, a few were out in the hallway. TAM 5.5: I think they were mostly out in the hallway. TAM 5: all inside the room).

I agree with everyone that the opening reception was an utter disaster. Completely missed the point of what an opening reception is supposed to be for. After Randi yelled at folks to be quiet, most of us who wanted to talk simply migrated out into the hallway and had the actual reception there.

[Sc00ter]

I didn't think the tables in the hallway was a huge problem, if anything it gave people a reason to linger there and encouraged hallway conversation. The tables weren't always inside the main hall, we've done a little of both over the years. (TAM7: all inside the room. TAM6: a few were inside the room, a few were out in the hallway. TAM 5.5: I think they were mostly out in the hallway. TAM 5: all inside the room).

Yes, I realize logistically it's hard. The only bad parts I can see were that due to security for the vendors, and that they didn't get to see the speakers as much as they probably would have liked.

[Wowbagger]

Ditto on the opening reception. "Shushing" everyone is not, exactly, what we come to receptions for.

The VIP Luncheon was very nice, though I think it would have been better as a dinner. (I spoke to Jeff about this, and he agreed, but it was out of his hands.)

[Phlebas]

Yes, I realize logistically it's hard. The only bad parts I can see were that due to security for the vendors, and that they didn't get to see the speakers as much as they probably would have liked.

Plus, some of them paid for the ability to see the speakers. At least, that's what I gathered from Surly Amy.

[Sc00ter]

Plus, some of them paid for the ability to see the speakers. At least, that's what I gathered from Surly Amy.

Yes, that is very true, and also what I gathered from the Aussies.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Copied from the thread in Community:

My 9th TAM (2-8, including 5.5 + London):

Like most TAMs, it was overwhelmingly good, with a few klinkers.

Good:

Seeing old friends - after 9 TAMs, you form some deep and lasting friendships. And crushes (you know who you are).

Most of the lectures. Didn't see the papers this year - after getting home from the Skepchick party a little before 5:00 am, I decided to sleep in. I did make it to the upstairs bar for the WC final with Patricio, Hutch, Kittynh, and Kitten (and a few of the St Louis guys).

Kittynh & Kitten: Even after all these TAMs, I had never really said more than a few words to Kittynh. I finally got to talk to her more at the football game and lunch after (thanks Patricio for picking up the tab). Talked even more with Kitten (Evelyn), her daughter. She is one impressive young lady. Smart and adventurous (and hot to boot). Her soon to be husband is a lucky guy. I'm sure mom is proud.

The Skepchick party.

Sean Faircloth: Great job rallying the troops. The guy should be a preacher! (I'll forgive him for being in creepy politician mode at the bar)

Rebecca's Chicks in Skepticism panel. Even though I hate her, I complimented her on it afterwards, but she deflected it, saying that she really didn't have to do anything, the panelist were all so good. I agree. I was glad to see more women speakers this year, and more in the audience (or at least it seemed that way to me). More women is always a good thing.

Roy Zimmerman: See him if he comes to your area.

The Talent(?) Show: Lots of fun. The judges were great, especially Mac King and Jonesy. "What the hell was that"?

David Javerbaum

Steve Novella: He's a great speaker.

Paul Provenza: Brought the house down. Described baptism as "having a pedophile dunk your head in a bucket of water".

Not so good:

The reception: The first time I've ever been to a cocktail party where I couldn't talk. And the band was not needed. Everyone was out in the hall socializing while they were playing. I guess this looked good on paper, but it flopped.

Adam Savage: He phoned it in. A retreaded acceptance speech from 3 months ago? Really? You couldn't come up with anything original? The Q&A was good, you should have just stuck with that.

James McGaha: Excruciating. He broke just about every Powerpoint rule. Bad color combinations. Mixing fonts. Too many words. The last 5 minutes about interstellar space travel was interesting. Should have made the whole talk about that.

[Sc00ter]

Good:

Kittynh & Kitten: Even after all these TAMs, I had never really said more than a few words to Kittynh. I finally got to talk to her more at the football game and lunch after (thanks Patricio for picking up the tab). Talked even more with Kitten (Evelyn), her daughter. She is one impressive young lady. Smart and adventurous (and hot to boot). Her soon to be husband is a lucky guy. I'm sure mom is proud.


Agreed, you don't know how lucky I am to have Kitty in NH. She's a huge resource for Granite State Skeptics


The Skepchick party.


I thought it was WAY to packed, I ended up hanging out outside with Dr. Rachie.


The Talent(?) Show: Lots of fun. The judges were great, especially Mac King and Jonesy. "What the hell was that"?


Yes, I just wish they had them on stage like last year.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I thought it was WAY to packed, I ended up hanging out outside with Dr. Rachie.

I agree. The Skepchicks agree. They are retooling it for next year.

[DocM]

I thought it was WAY to packed, I ended up hanging out outside with Dr. Rachie.

I liked it. But then again, I stayed outside until three in the morning, so when I came in, the house was pretty empty.

[Phlebas]

I agree. The Skepchicks agree. They are retooling it for next year.

Those who want to come next year will likely have an easier time getting in if they start participating on Skepchick, too.

[SkepticScott]

GOOD The Kings. Tracy, Rachel and Loretta staffed the merchandise table throughout the conference. They deserve a round of applause.
GOOD Deanna. We hired a cashier and got a supercashier instead.
BAD Having the tables outside. Yes, I knew the registration and JREF table wouldn't fit inside, but that meant Ed Baehr, the Kings, and I missed the conference. At TAM 5.5 they were outside, but close enough that I could watch from the doorway.
BAD Richard Dawkins' interview. I learned later that Richard Dawkins requested an interview, but at the time I was expecting to hear his keynote speech. That was the one thing I made sure to attend, and I left disappointed after about 15 minutes.
BAD Loud music during the reception. I wanted to talk with people, not attend a concert.

[Cuddles]

- Registration. I heard there was some problems but overall registration seemed to go well. At least for me it was much smoother than last year.

Definitely agree. Although my first time volunteering, and my first TAM for that matter, I've been involved organising things with far fewer people that have gone much worse than that. Very impressive getting it all to go so well.

- Dawkins "interview". I know that this probably wasn't the JREF's choice (as has been noted in another thread) but it was still annoying.

I thought this was very good, and DJ makes a great interviewer. I'm pretty sure it won't have given the impression Dawkins would have wanted it to, but I'd consider it one of the highlights of the weekend.

- Reception should have been a meet and greet. Having the speakers there was annoying and quite a few people bailed because of that. I thought the point was to mingle and talk to other people one on one.

Yeah. As pretty much everyone has said, being told to shut up during an event in which the whole point is to meet people seemed rather odd, to put it mildly.

- Feminist panel. In the future I think that if this idea is brought up to the JREF they should consider telling them rather than do this panel, they should each do a talk. Stop talking about doing something and just start doing something.

Most of them did. Not only that, but the talks they gave were about things that they were actually doing. I don't necessarily agree with everything they said on the panel, but they certainly can't be criticised for just sitting around and not going out and doing things.

[Sc00ter]

In reference to feminist skepticism panel.


Most of them did. Not only that, but the talks they gave were about things that they were actually doing. I don't necessarily agree with everything they said on the panel, but they certainly can't be criticised for just sitting around and not going out and doing things.

I'm not saying that they're not doing anything, but I think it would have been better to have another female speaker, rather than having this panel.

I didn't go, but I heard... we'll say... "interesting" things about the Feminist workshop.. I don't want to comment myself as I didn't go to it, but I'm very curious to hear what others thought. I actually know a few people that walked out due to various aspects (specifically "craft time")

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Those who want to come next year will likely have an easier time getting in if they start participating on Skepchick, too.

Rebecca loves me, so I'll have no problem getting in.

[Phlebas]

In reference to feminist skepticism panel.



I'm not saying that they're not doing anything, but I think it would have been better to have another female speaker, rather than having this panel.

I didn't go, but I heard... we'll say... "interesting" things about the Feminist workshop.. I don't want to comment myself as I didn't go to it, but I'm very curious to hear what others thought. I actually know a few people that walked out due to various aspects (specifically "craft time")

I think you're mixing two events. One is the main stage panel that Rebecca moderated, featuring Carol Tarvis, Ginny Campbell, etc. The other is the Thursday workshop led by Rebecca and the Skepchicks, featuring Angry Vagina Craft Time.

A couple of people did walk out at the beginning of AVCT, which was unfortunate (and also proved a point). It was really a gag meant to get people into groups for a different reason, but the participants took to it with a lot of gusto -- surprising pretty much everyone.

[Sc00ter]

I think you're mixing two events. One is the main stage panel that Rebecca moderated, featuring Carol Tarvis, Ginny Campbell, etc. The other is the Thursday workshop led by Rebecca and the Skepchicks, featuring Angry Vagina Craft Time.

A couple of people did walk out at the beginning of AVCT, which was unfortunate (and also proved a point). It was really a gag meant to get people into groups for a different reason, but the participants took to it with a lot of gusto -- surprising pretty much everyone.

I'm not mixing the two. I know they were two different events. I actually tweeted about the panel thinking I was going to get a lot of crap for my comments. The actual tweet was:

I'll probably get crap for this, but somebody should talk to the women in skepticism who don't see much of a problem, there are plenty #TAM8

I actually got WAY more support (mostly from women) than I ever expected. The other major problem with that panel was when Pamela Gay said that the cruise was all white guys. There were four woman speaking on the cruise, and a fairly good percentage that were actually there. I found that very insulting to those women that did do presentations on the cruise and made me feel that Pamela didn't do her research.

[saganite]

- Feminist panel. In the future I think that if this idea is brought up to the JREF they should consider telling them rather than do this panel, they should each do a talk. Stop talking about doing something and just start doing something.


I'm not clear on what you're advocating here. You think each of the participants on the panel should have been given their own platform to talk separately about the issue of feminism in skepticism, rather than having a dialogue? And how is hosting a podcast (Pamela Gay, Rebecca Watson), contributing prolifically to skeptical journalism (Harriet Hall) and giving their own talks at TAM (Carol Tavris, Jennifer Michael Hecht), allowing them each a broader platform beyond the panel to discuss issues of interest to them, not "doing something"?

Edited to add: I'm also confused about whether you're talking about the workshop or the main stage panel with your original comment. If you're talking about the Rebecca-led workshop, I can't speak to that, as I didn't attend.

[Sc00ter]

I'm not clear on what you're advocating here. You think each of the participants on the panel should have been given their own platform to talk separately about the issue of feminism in skepticism, rather than having a dialogue? And how is hosting a podcast (Pamela Gay, Rebecca Watson), contributing prolifically to skeptical journalism (Harriet Hall) and giving their own talks at TAM (Carol Tavris, Jennifer Michael Hecht), allowing them each a broader platform beyond the panel to discuss issues of interest to them, not "doing something"?

I think blabbering on about "women in skepticism" is a huge waste of time. They shouldn't talk about that at all, they should do a talk on something they're interested in. Yes, I realize that some of them did do this, but some of them didn't.

[Sc00ter]

Edited to add: I'm also confused about whether you're talking about the workshop or the main stage panel with your original comment. If you're talking about the Rebecca-led workshop, I can't speak to that, as I didn't attend.

I'm talking about the panel.. The workshop I didn't attend but I heard various things about it and I was curious on what people thought.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I actually got WAY more support (mostly from women) than I ever expected. The other major problem with that panel was when Pamela Gay said that the cruise was all white guys. There were four woman speaking on the cruise, and a fairly good percentage that were actually there. I found that very insulting to those women that did do presentations on the cruise and made me feel that Pamela didn't do her research.

She was referring to the upcoming cruise that was being advertised in the hallway by Reason Magazine(?).

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm not clear on what you're advocating here. You think each of the participants on the panel should have been given their own platform to talk separately about the issue of feminism in skepticism, rather than having a dialogue? And how is hosting a podcast (Pamela Gay, Rebecca Watson), contributing prolifically to skeptical journalism (Harriet Hall) and giving their own talks at TAM (Carol Tavris, Jennifer Michael Hecht), allowing them each a broader platform beyond the panel to discuss issues of interest to them, not "doing something"?

Edited to add: I'm also confused about whether you're talking about the workshop or the main stage panel with your original comment. If you're talking about the Rebecca-led workshop, I can't speak to that, as I didn't attend.

I thought the panel was great.

I didn't attend the workshop, but heard from plenty of folks who had a great time.

[Wowbagger]

Bad:
Reception "shushing" (as mentioned before)
James McGaha (every TAM needs to have one bad presenter. I think it's the law.)
The "entertainment" at BJ's divorce party (which most of you didn't go to, and was not really part of TAM)

Good:
Everything else, more or less!! :)

[Phlebas]

I thought the panel was great.

I didn't attend the workshop, but heard from plenty of folks who had a great time.

It's a shame you didn't come to the workshop. I am curious about what your Angry Vagina would have looked like.

My larger regret was that Sam didn't arrive in time to be with the other Skepchicks talking about feminism.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I am curious about what your Angry Vagina would have looked like.

Rebecca.

[zooterkin]

It being my first (US) TAM, I didn't know what was normal, but my random comments:

The reception just didn't work, as already noted. The interviews, if they had to be done, should have been somewhere and somewhen that everyone could see.

I think there were too many interviews; Dawkins was in two, and I'd rather he had presented something more substantial (I did hear it was his choice to be interviewed, rather than present; I hope he was paid less as a result). Interviews depend too much on the interviewer and what questions they ask, and you nearly always get too much time spent on asking the questions, and too little on the answers.

The panels seemed to depend a lot on the moderator, too, as well as the panelists. The origins of skepticism panel was an example of one that worked. My brain is still a bit fried, so I'm struggling to remember which ones didn't.

Pretty much all the presenters were approachable. I didn't approach them myself, but that's because I'm naturally reticent, and also a lot of the speakers were new to me although they are clearly important figures in skepticism so I didn't know what I might say to them. I did meet Joe Nickell on the way to breakfast one day, before I knew who he was, and recieved a wooden nickel and a demonstration of how to do tricks with it from this wonderful gentleman, and I sat next to Paul Kurtz at the Michael Weber show, and of course Randi was always easy to find (he even to spoke to me, in passing, rather than the other way round).

The Feminism Workshop was, shall we say, interesting. I still can't decide if the Angry Vagina Craft session was an inspired icebreaker or just cringe-worthy. I didn't notice many people walking out, but some did. It didn't bother me, but I think I would have found it excruciatingly embarrassing when I was younger. I found it harder to do the other part of the workshop; what feminist aspects are there for reflexology? Is everything that affects women a feminist issue per se?

One of my favourite moments was Richard Dawkins heckling during the Sexuality workshop. :) (It was just over having questions from the audience repeated, so those at the back could hear, something this occasionally grumpy Brit has also been known to complain about.)

I signed up for all workshops, but the first two I went to were a bit basic for me, but that's not a criticism, just a comment. The other two were more interesting. Most, with the exception of the Feminism one, were panel discussions rather than workshops.

Overall, the organisation was excellent. Kudos (in no particular order) to Scott, Hal, Jeff, the Kings and Hugo, plus the others I've missed. I heard some comments about the food, but I had no complaints about the breakfasts or lunches. I was very happy I had volunteered to help, as I got to meet a lot of people quickly, and also got time in a small group with Randi when he dropped in to see how things were going; I was also the (joint) recipient of a standing ovation. :D

Paul Provenza was great. I heard comments complaining that he was just reading from his book, but I thought the selections he made were well chosen, and he single-handedly lifted the profanity level to close to that of TAMLondon. ;)

Interesting to see three 'woos' in the flesh; Anita, the Moon hoax believer and the new MDC challenger claiming to cure numbness (is there a thread about him somewhere?), and how sensitively they were handled.

Some of the papers were interesting, others needed a bit more work. I'm told one was a repeat from TAM7, as, apparently, was Michael Shermer's talk, which is a bit of a concern, but I think most speakers had new material.

Overall, a great time, and I think I've made some new friends. Don't know if I'll be going next year, but that's going to depend on when, where and how much. I thought the venue worked pretty well, but I can see if the size increases (especially if it doubles, as Randi said he wanted) then somewhere different would be needed (though the feel of the event will change substantially).

[Cleon]

I am curious about what your Angry Vagina would have looked like.

Rebecca.

Set, spike. :D

My $.02:

The reception - others have said pretty much what I would. Bad idea to have a presentation during the schmoozing reception, worse idea to do a Q&A, and the "shushing" didn't help.

The speakers - EXCELLENT crop this year, with the usual exception. (More on that tonight--stay tuned for an exciting new game you can play at home!)

Skepchick party - kickass, as usual. The location is pretty much ideal, but without a competing party to go to, the attendance is just going to keep going up. Want to help the 'chicks? Organize another party!

Table space - I actually like the tables being out in the hall. Yeah, it sucks that the people staffing them can't watch the talks, but it also means we can browse and talk to people while someone is speaking and not worry about being too loud or rude.

The hotel - We're starting to max out the space in the South Point, but I hope we stay there for a while (even if it means limiting registration numbers). It's a great hotel, it's cheap, and we pretty much get the run of the place.

I hope Hal reconsiders this being his last TAM. He's been there from the start, and his jokes notwithstanding, he will be really, really missed.

[Phlebas]

I think blabbering on about "women in skepticism" is a huge waste of time. They shouldn't talk about that at all, they should do a talk on something they're interested in. Yes, I realize that some of them did do this, but some of them didn't.

Which of the panelists weren't interested in feminism?

I have had questions about the ubiquity of this topic myself, to be honest. I've concluded that I'm incapable of seeing sexist behavior, at least during TAM or pretty much any other skeptical event I've been to. It would be nice to have the women better represented, but this year was pretty good -- I count 17 on the speakers list.

(Certainly better than last year, with only Jennifer Ouellette and no women presenting papers... or TAM 6 with only Sharon Begley... hmmmm....)

Anyway, both the panel and the workshop were interesting. More interesting than some of the other sessions, in fact.

[Sc00ter]

Most, with the exception of the Feminism one, were panel discussions rather than workshops.

I can speak to that a bit being somebody that helped organize the Grassroots Skepticism workshop (not to be confused with the panel).

The original pitch was for a panel, but it kind of got rolled into a workshop. Because of all the planning already done and who was involved it was hard to change it drastically into a workable workshop. In the end I think it came out okay and we got very positive feedback. I just wish there was more time for Q&A because for that it's more experienced based than anything else.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Paul Provenza was great. I heard comments complaining that he was just reading from his book, but I thought the selections he made were well chosen, and he single-handedly lifted the profanity level to close to that of TAMLondon. ;)

For emphasis. He didn't just read random passages. It was obvious he took the time to match them to the audience.

I heard some comments about the food, but I had no complaints about the breakfasts or lunches.

The lunches were the best they have been in years, if not ever.

[Sc00ter]

It would be nice to have the women better represented, but this year was pretty good -- I count 17 on the speakers list.

(Certainly better than last year, with only Jennifer Ouellette and no women presenting papers... or TAM 6 with only Sharon Begley... hmmmm....)

I have heard multiple times, from different people, organizing different events that they have tried to get more women speakers but that some of them just don't want to present. I think the JREF (and other organizations) get badmouthed for something that's not their fault.

[Phlebas]

Skepchick party - kickass, as usual. The location is pretty much ideal, but without a competing party to go to, the attendance is just going to keep going up.

I am pretty sure this won't happen. Demand for invites may go up, but the number of actual invites may have hit its peak.

The house was great, though. A few more lights and a couple of fans outside and a lot of the problems would have gone away. If we get the same house next year, the shuttle service might not happen -- those rental vans are fargin expensive, and not worth it to offset such a cheap cab fare.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Skepchick party - kickass, as usual. The location is pretty much ideal, but without a competing party to go to, the attendance is just going to keep going up. Want to help the 'chicks? Organize another party!

This. Some brilliant person (OK, it was me) opined that wouldn't it be cool if it was like the Oscars, where there are several after parties to choose from? You could spend the evening hoping back and forth between them, spending some time at each one.

[Phlebas]

I have heard multiple times, from different people, organizing different events that they have tried to get more women speakers but that some of them just don't want to present. I think the JREF (and other organizations) get badmouthed for something that's not their fault.

Yeah, I've heard that too. Heard some pretty awesome conspiracy theories surrounding it as well :)

But whatever the case, the made up for a lot this year. Maybe the trend can continue. I am certainly open to retiring some of the regulars if it'll make more room for some new meat. (I know, I am daydreaming here. Thank god for Ingo-Shmay to keep me awake.)

[zooterkin]

It would be nice to have the women better represented, but this year was pretty good -- I count 17 on the speakers list.


As someone mentioned, it would be good to address the race balance, next. Both the attendees and speakers were overwhelmingly white. I can recall only three non-white speakers, and two of them were British (but my memory is not to be trusted right now, so I may have missed someone).

[Phlebas]

This. Some brilliant person (OK, it was me) opined that wouldn't it be cool if it was like the Oscars, where there are several after parties to choose from? You could spend the evening hoping back and forth between them, spending some time at each one.

This suggestion was sponsored by the Taxi Drivers Union, Las Vegas chapter.

[Sc00ter]

As someone mentioned, it would be good to address the race balance, next. Both the attendees and speakers were overwhelmingly white. I can recall only three non-white speakers, and two of them were British (but my memory is not to be trusted right now, so I may have missed someone).

I think it would be better to pick people based on the content of what they're speaking on, their knowledge of the subject, and ability to interact with people rather than any physical attribute.

[saganite]

The hotel - We're starting to max out the space in the South Point, but I hope we stay there for a while (even if it means limiting registration numbers). It's a great hotel, it's cheap, and we pretty much get the run of the place.


Seconded! I would be really bummed if we left the South Point, though it's clear we're coming close to running out of room. I felt bad for a few of the volunteers staffing the tables who expressed frustration that they weren't able to see many of the talks, yet still had to pay full registration fees.

One hotel employee suggested to me that next year we move into the arena -- you know, where they do the equestrian stuff. Can't you just see Phil Plait stopping mid-speech to shake horse droppings off his shoe?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yeah, I've heard that too. Heard some pretty awesome conspiracy theories surrounding it as well :)

But whatever the case, the made up for a lot this year. Maybe the trend can continue. I am certainly open to retiring some of the regulars if it'll make more room for some new meat. (I know, I am daydreaming here. Thank god for Ingo-Shmay to keep me awake.)

Isn't referring to women as "meat" sexist?

:duck:

[Phlebas]

As someone mentioned, it would be good to address the race balance, next. Both the attendees and speakers were overwhelmingly white. I can recall only three non-white speakers, and two of them were British (but my memory is not to be trusted right now, so I may have missed someone).

I count three as well, but only one Brit.

I don't have any idea how to change the race numbers. Ottle and I have talked before about getting some of the Indian Skeptics over, since they do a great job dealing with nonsense that a lot of westerners can barely wrap their minds around. But they are far away and it would be expensive to fly them over for a long weekend. Maybe a video chat?

The problem may go deeper than what the JREF can fix. How well are the black folks represented in skepticism? Or in the sciences?

[zooterkin]

The lunches were the best they have been in years, if not ever.

However, the fund raising appeals at lunch time just didn't work. I tuned them out, because when I'm eating, that's what I concentrate on, and next comes talking to people at the table, but from what I heard they weren't all that well presented. I guess it seemed like too good an opportunity to miss, with a captive audience, but like the reception, it's another chance for people to meet and socialise.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I am pretty sure this won't happen. Demand for invites may go up, but the number of actual invites may have hit its peak.

The house was great, though. A few more lights and a couple of fans outside and a lot of the problems would have gone away. If we get the same house next year, the shuttle service might not happen -- those rental vans are fargin expensive, and not worth it to offset such a cheap cab fare.

Ditch the shuttle. Save the money and enjoy yourself at the party.

[zooterkin]

I count three as well, but only one Brit.
I was thinking Sid Rodrigues and Simon Singh; the non-Brit was on the Sexuality panel, but I'm afraid I missed her name.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I can recall only three non-white speakers, and two of them were British (but my memory is not to be trusted right now, so I may have missed someone).

Wow, I'm drawing a blank. Simon Singh and.....???

ETA: Never mind. Sid and I didn't attend the sexuality panel.

[Phlebas]

Can't you just see Phil Plait stopping mid-speech to shake horse droppings off his shoe?

I would pre-buy the DVD.

My unsubstantiated hunch as to why we weren't given next year's dates and location is that the JREF is looking at other hotels. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with -- there are bigger hotels, but how much would it cost to have TAM at the Bellagio?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

However, the fund raising appeals at lunch time just didn't work. I tuned them out, because when I'm eating, that's what I concentrate on, and next comes talking to people at the table, but from what I heard they weren't all that well presented. I guess it seemed like too good an opportunity to miss, with a captive audience, but like the reception, it's another chance for people to meet and socialise.

I agree. They sucked the life out of the room.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

How well are the black folks represented in skepticism? Or in the sciences?

Not very well. I thing the former may be a result of the latter.

[Phlebas]

I was thinking Sid Rodrigues and Simon Singh; the non-Brit was on the Sexuality panel, but I'm afraid I missed her name.

Oh, right, I forgot Sid was on a panel. I don't think they put him on the speakers list, but perhaps I am going blind.

The one on the sexuality panel was Debbie Goddard. Also, I am obliged to point out that Maria was on the Grassroots Skepticism panel and the Angry Vagina panel. So the Indians outnumbered the black speakers three to one.

[RSLancastr]

Bad:

Reception shushing

Women in Skepticism panel - Ithink the usefulness of the whole "we really welcome women here!" thing is winding way down, and can even come across as patronizing at this point. But perhaps I overestimate how welcome women already are in skepticism.

Global warming panel - the panel all ignored the moderator. and I really never want to hear another discussion on the topic. yes, it is vitally important, but I have yet to see a discussion of it that was helpful in any way - and i watched a whole weekend of it at the skeptic society convention at cal tech a few years back.

Sunday paper presenters. - this is usually a highpoint of tam for me, but not this year. the presenters generally lacked the passion that makes the sunday papers a highlight.

I enjoyed the IIG vs. the nurses one, and Ryan Shaffer's one, but that was about it.

Ming ling - there seemed to be less of it this year, and I am not sure why. Me being stuck in a wheelchair may have been a big part of it for me.

religion bashing - is it really necessary? Susan was VERY put off by it.

Good:

Phil's talk - sad that it even needed to be said, but it was needed.

Dawkins interview - I had no expectations and was pleasantly surprised both by dawkins and groethe.

Randi - he seemed very much in good spirits

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I would pre-buy the DVD.

My unsubstantiated hunch as to why we weren't given next year's dates and location is that the JREF is looking at other hotels. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with -- there are bigger hotels, but how much would it cost to have TAM at the Bellagio?

I would not be surprised if we ended up back on the strip. I spoke to a high level JREFer and he said that the JREF has never been good at negotiating these rates. Now that they have 1300 attendees, and the casinos are fighting for every customer, we could probably go back to the strip for not much more than we are paying at the SP.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So the Indians outnumbered the black speakers three to one.

With that many Indians running around, we need more cowboys.

[Patricio Elicer]

Rebecca loves me, so I'll have no problem getting in.


I saw her hitting on you at the bar. Or, is the "on" misplaced? ;)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Ming ling - there seemed to be less of it this year, and I am not sure why.

Is this a Chinese person I missed?

[Sc00ter]

Bad:
religion bashing - is it really necessary? Susan was VERY put off by it.


Good point, as was I, and so were a lot of others, and I'm an atheist.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I saw her hitting on you at the bar. Or, is the "on" misplaced? ;)

Yes! I have witnesses. Rebecca was hitting on me at the bar.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

religion bashing - is it really necessary? Susan was VERY put off by it.

Which is the (a?) reason, from what I understand, why Hal isn't coming back.

I'm not really sure what you can do about it? I suppose the JREF could encourage speakers not to do it.

[Patricio Elicer]

Ditch the shuttle. Save the money and enjoy yourself at the party.

Agreed!. We all have to thank Mr Ottle for the nice effort, but it's time for him to just enjoy.

[zooterkin]

Oh, right, I forgot Sid was on a panel. I don't think they put him on the speakers list, but perhaps I am going blind.

He was on the Grassroots panel; he wasn't listed as a speaker in the glossy brochure, but he was in the iPhone/Android TAM8 app.

The one on the sexuality panel was Debbie Goddard.

Right, I just checked and found that out too.

[Sc00ter]

Which is the (a?) reason, from what I understand, why Hal isn't coming back.

I'm not really sure what you can do about it? I suppose the JREF could encourage speakers not to do it.

There did seem to be a bit of an overtone of skepticism = atheism this year.

[zooterkin]

I think it would be better to pick people based on the content of what they're speaking on, their knowledge of the subject, and ability to interact with people rather than any physical attribute.

I'm certainly not advocating choosing speakers who are not up to the mark; however, the speakers very visibly come from a subset of the population. At the very least, we should try to understand why this is, and perhaps look at the pool of speakers being selected from and see if we are excluding some who would make a useful contribution because the net is not being cast wide enough.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm certainly not advocating choosing speakers who are not up to the mark; however, the speakers very visibly come from a subset of the population. At the very least, we should try to understand why this is, and perhaps look at the pool of speakers being selected from and see if we are excluding some who would make a useful contribution because the net is not being cast wide enough.

With DJ being a minority himself, I suspect he will be more sensitive about this and we may see more diversity in speakers going forward. We already saw lots more women this year.

[Sc00ter]

I'm certainly not advocating choosing speakers who are not up to the mark; however, the speakers very visibly come from a subset of the population. At the very least, we should try to understand why this is, and perhaps look at the pool of speakers being selected from and see if we are excluding some who would make a useful contribution because the net is not being cast wide enough.

I don't think that's the case at all. As I said previously, they have requested female and minority speakers before and they have declined the offer to speak.

I think it's a much more useful allocation of resources to find out why these people are declining rather than trying to just get more of minority X to speak.

[kmortis]

There did seem to be a bit of an overtone of skepticism = atheism this year.
Actually, I heard both. Phil, Carol Tarvis & Steve Curo all spoke against that idea (skepticism = atheism), Dawkins didn't exactly endorse or condoner the idea with his "atheism is a natural outgrowth of skepticism" and Provenza gave it a ringing *********** endorsement.

The rest of Paul's presentation I liked, but that was a rough couple of minutes to get through.

It has gotten me to think as to why there's the idea that you necessarily have to be an atheist if you're going to be a good skeptic. I know that there have been a few threads about it in the past, so I'm not going to rehash it here. It was just...disappointing.

[Cleon]

Can't you just see Phil Plait stopping mid-speech to shake horse droppings off his shoe?

You obviously didn't see the Twitter feed after his talk. :p

[HawaiiBigSis]

The house was great, though. A few more lights and a couple of fans outside and a lot of the problems would have gone away. If we get the same house next year, the shuttle service might not happen -- those rental vans are fargin expensive, and not worth it to offset such a cheap cab fare.
You obviously didn't try to catch a cab, and have the driver insist that he had no idea how to get there, and even if a passenger was willing to direct him, he'd still have no idea how to get there.

I was grateful for the ride back in the van, because otherwise I might still be there waiting for a cab...

[Phil]

I thought all the parties were great. Are you telling me there was conference going on there, too?

[xinit]

Good point, as was I, and so were a lot of others, and I'm an atheist.

There was less religion-bashing from the stage than I expected, never having been to TAM before.

I'm atheist as well, and if the believers aren't using their religion as part of their argument, then leave it alone.

On another topic, I didn't care for the panels (that I attended) for the most part - they suffered from a lack of moderation for the most part, and their points had no focus. Someone else mentioned it with one panel specifically, but I think that many of the panels would have benefited from being presentations or lectures. The workshop panels that I attended (SBM I & II and Grassroots) were more like a selection of solo presentations tied together into a theme, and I enjoyed those.

[xinit]

It has gotten me to think as to why there's the idea that you necessarily have to be an atheist if you're going to be a good skeptic. I know that there have been a few threads about it in the past, so I'm not going to rehash it here. It was just...disappointing.

I don't care if someone sincerely believes in leprechauns. So long as they don't let the leprechauns colour their logic and skepticism on non-leprechaun topics.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You obviously didn't try to catch a cab, and have the driver insist that he had no idea how to get there, and even if a passenger was willing to direct him, he'd still have no idea how to get there.

I was grateful for the ride back in the van, because otherwise I might still be there waiting for a cab...

You must have gotten the 1 cab driver who didn't know where it was. I took a cab both years, and as soon as I got the words "I'm going to this party..." they would interrupt and say "Yep, I know where it is".

For the return trip, most cabbies will give you their cell number. They want your fare. Especially if you tip well.

[Phil]

For the return trip, most cabbies will give you their cell number. They want your fare. Especially if you tip well.

Plus, it's within walking distance. And I really want someone to wander off into the desert after a night of drinking.

[HawaiiBigSis]

You must have gotten the 1 cab driver who didn't know where it was. I took a cab both years, and as soon as I got the words "I'm going to this party..." they would interrupt and say "Yep, I know where it is".

For the return trip, most cabbies will give you their cell number. They want your fare. Especially if you tip well.

Well, the cab in front of us, which we generously let other people (maybe you) use, knew exactly where the party was and said exactly that. The two behind him wouldn't even talk to us once they knew we were going to a private home. We finally convinced the third cab to use his GPS to find it.

[Phlebas]

We may be able to alleviate the cab hassles by warning a couple of cab companies ahead of time.

[SkepticScott]

I felt bad for a few of the volunteers staffing the tables who expressed frustration that they weren't able to see many of the talks, yet still had to pay full registration fees.I made sure that the volunteers for the JREF did not staff our tables during the talks. I even chased Ed Baehr inside a couple times. I don't know what the staff at the vendors tables paid or were able to see.

One hotel employee suggested to me that next year we move into the arena -- you know, where they do the equestrian stuff. Can't you just see Phil Plait stopping mid-speech to shake horse droppings off his shoe?That would be funny. The arena seats 4400 people, but it's an area layout (see http://www.southpointeventscenter.com/layout.html ). But even using only half of that area would still let us grow by over 50%. There's also the exhibit hall, but I don't know what having a meeting there would be like. I think the bottom line is that we can grow and stay at South Point.

Edited to add:
I'm an atheist who was put off by the over-emphasis on atheism this year too. Skepticism covers so much more than religion, so why focus on just a portion? We should make everyone feel welcome at a skepticism conference, not just atheists. Many people believe in an impersonal deity, "Spinoza's god", a deist god, or a very liberal interpretation of a traditional deity that is pretty much indistinguishable from the others. I see no harm in making them welcome, and great harm in making them unwelcome. I wrote this on my evaluation form and I suggest that everyone else who feels the same do similarly.

[HawaiiBigSis]

Plus, it's within walking distance. And I really want someone to wander off into the desert after a night of drinking.
hcmom wanted to walk back to the hotel, but there were no sidewalks along the portion of the road that crossed over the highway, and she was wearing black...

[Cleon]

religion bashing - is it really necessary? Susan was VERY put off by it.


With the possible exception of Dawkins, I think there was actually less religion-bashing this year than in years past.

[markb]

From past experience, I know some cab drivers do not like to take short trips. They have to go to the back of the line when they get back to the hotel, no matter how small their last fare was. If the line is not so long, or is moving fast, they might not mind so much.

The shuttles are expensive, but surely more economical than the cost of cab fare for everyone, right?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

From past experience, I know some cab drivers do not like to take short trips. They have to go to the back of the line when they get back to the hotel, no matter how small their last fare was. If the line is not so long, or is moving fast, they might not mind so much.

The shuttles are expensive, but surely more economical than the cost of cab fare for everyone, right?

One option:

Years ago, I used to play in an annual volleyball tournament in a smallish town about an hour south of St Louis. It drew quite a few teams that required every gym in town. Always a great time. One of the big draws was the great party Saturday night after the tournament was over. One problem - being a small town, the cops didn't have anything else to do. So they would park outside the party venue, and randomly pull people over. Every year, a few people would get DWI's. After a few years of this, some enterprising locals came up with a solution - be a van driver. The party was about 2 miles from the hotels where everyone stayed, about the same distance as the Southpoint to the party house.

So, perhaps someone(s) who wants to make some extra dough could rent a van for the evening and haul folks back and forth at $5/head, round trip. Doesn't even have to be someone associated with TAM. Could be a LV local.

[bookitty]

First TAM, nothing to compare it to.

Worked:
The other attendees.
The "don't be a dick" theme and it's many interesting variations
Bruce Hood, Massimo Pigliucci, Paul Provenza: Would love to have tapes for my nephew.
James McGaha: I might be alone in this, the guy next to me fell asleep.
Sunday presentations: More like what I expected TAM to be. Detailed, passionate, solution-oriented.
The booths: Buying books and then meeting the author in a casual setting. Heaven! Also, very little swag compared to other sorts of conventions. It was a nice change to have content that didn't need a hard sell.

Didn't work:
The panels. They were interesting but didn't go deep enough into the subject matter. I made many notes on things to research further at home, but would have preferred the lecture format.
The Dawkins interview: Wasn't that bad. Just having that voice emanating from an arm chair felt like a time warp to a salon during the Age of Enlightenment. But perhaps just accept that most fiction is entertainment and move on.

Not staying at the South Point. Expensive cab fares and missed social events. This mistake was all mine but I mention it so that others can avoid it in the future.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Not staying at the South Point. Expensive cab fares and missed social events. This mistake was all mine but I mention it so that others can avoid it in the future.

Were they sold out? Or did you decide to stay elsewhere for other reasons?

[bookitty]

Were they sold out? Or did you decide to stay elsewhere for other reasons?

It was a last minute thing. I didn't realize the South Point was so far off the strip and I got an amazing rate at the Tropicana. When I got to the Trop and tried to cancel (to move to SP), they offered to upgrade me to an AWESOME suite at no charge. Critical thinking skills not yet honed, I accepted the bribe.

Then spent 200 bucks in cab fares over 4 days and missed breakfast.

[HawaiiBigSis]

James McGaha: I might be alone in this, the guy next to me fell asleep.

You weren't alone. While most of his presentation was a bit dry, there were bits and pieces that I found very interesting. By the time he got towards the end -- and into the solid material -- I was really enjoying it. But I will admit that he did drone...

[Dicon]

Plus, it's within walking distance. And I really want someone to wander off into the desert after a night of drinking.


When we decided to head back to the hotel (1:00am-ish), there was a moderate-size group of people already waiting outside and it was obvious that we wouldn't get in the next few shuttles or taxis. So, I did the most logical thing I could think of: I ran back to the hotel.

The wife was wearing lovely shoes suitable for a party, but quite inappropriate for walking on a rocky shoulder, so I set out alone. It only took about 12 minutes to get back to South Point, another five to get upstairs and retrieve the key to our rental car and then I was on my way. Of course, I hit each of the five long red lights so the car ride seemed to take as long as the running. Once I made it to the house I picked up the wife plus two others who were waiting and circled back to SP.

There was, however, one drawback to my actions: Running in Vegas, even late at night, makes one rather warm. Especially when wearing anything more than proper running clothes. As soon as I stepped into the hyper-cooled elevators, my pores exploded with sweat and I would have scared the hell out of anyone who might have encountered me.

[bookitty]

You weren't alone. While most of his presentation was a bit dry, there were bits and pieces that I found very interesting. By the time he got towards the end -- and into the solid material -- I was really enjoying it. But I will admit that he did drone...

He was what I expected from TAM speakers. A slightly dry presentation of science, plus tasty factoids that could be used to discuss woo (in this case UFO's) in an intelligent fashion. Of course, I would need copious notes to get the same effect. ;)

[kevinfolta]

Good-

Brian Hart, Bruce Hood, Pamela Gay, Michael Shermer, Phil Plait were my favorites, but others excellent also. A nice mix of diverse topics.

Food at lunch and breakfasts was great; Southpoint had great prices on rooms and restaurants.

Skepchick party was great

Excellent time to develop networks- everyone was a lot of fun

Randi is the ultimate gentleman and he really goes out of his way to meet everyone. He is so sincere and inspiring.

DJ reminds us why he is one of the best interviewers in the business.

I really appreciate the opportunity to present the "papers". That was a good way to keep it fresh.

Bad-

Next time JREF should negotiate wireless internet services for attendees, even if just a router in the conference area.

I adore Dawkins, but the interview format left me wanting more.

I didn't get to appreciate McGaha's talk, and I think he came off a bit misinformed and heavy-handed in the panel.

I wish that some of the keynote people were more accessible.

[Sc00ter]

Next time JREF should negotiate wireless internet services for attendees, even if just a router in the conference area.

Yah, that's not going to happen. It's insanely expensive.

[RemieV]

Yes, I just wish they had them on stage like last year.

The reason the judges' table wasn't on the stage was that last year the risers were on the sides of the stage, allowing the judges to still have a view of the performances. This year, the stairs were on the front of the stage. Therefore, in order for the judges to see, their table had to be on the floor.

[RemieV]

I was thinking Sid Rodrigues and Simon Singh; the non-Brit was on the Sexuality panel, but I'm afraid I missed her name.

Debbie Goddard.

[HawaiiBigSis]

He was what I expected from TAM speakers. A slightly dry presentation of science, plus tasty factoids that could be used to discuss woo (in this case UFO's) in an intelligent fashion. Of course, I would need copious notes to get the same effect. ;)
Right before he got to some of his better factoids, I leaned over to a friend and said, "I hope he gets to some good stuff soon -- before I fall asleep."

Next time JREF should negotiate wireless internet services for attendees, even if just a router in the conference area.

Oh, great idea!

And I'll second the request for better -- healthier -- food choices, especially for the desserts and snacks -- although I had little trouble abandoning my dietary restrictions for a couple of meals! I was pleased to see fruit at the breakfasts and plenty greens at the lunches, though.

[Geek Goddess]

Cons:

Reception. Ditto. I left.

I didn't find the panels as interesting, so I left during most of them. That's OK, I needed a break!

Atheism. Ditto. I say that as an atheist.

Pros (longer list)

TAM, of course, rocked.

Great prices at South Point. I know by the end of TAM7, arealgirl had already negotiated (or started on it) for TAM8. My friggin' dog kenneling bill was more than my TAM hotel bill!

Skepchick party. And I didn't even go. I had a button, but gave it to a nice guy who really, really, wanted to go but didn't know about the tickets until after it sold out. My two sons went, and both of them had a great time. That being said, I would have contributed to the shuttle van costs.

Phil aka Badastronomer's talk. I have written up a blog post on this exact topic, that I was still working on. I can throw it away and just post a link to his transcript somewhere. I thanked him for speaking for me.

I would have liked to hear more Dawkins - even in an interview format. I think DJ is a great interviewer, and have told him that in person more than once, but I would have liked briefer questions and more answers, and less trying to put words in his mouth. HOWEVER, I freely admit that I couldn't have done half the job DJ did, and was glad Dawkins was there, and that he apparently didn't charge the JREF for his appearance.

The work by all the volunteers, and by the staff - Jeff, Hal, Bart, etc. Can you believe that entire production is put on with a handful of staffers and all those volunteers! Amaz!ing.

I think having most of the tables inside would have been better - those people paid to attend, but I don't think they could have fit as many seats into the room with tables. That room was very full. Awesome.

Just an observation: Compared to most of the conferences I attend, TAM is a chick-fest. Sometimes I am in conferences that have 1-2% women.

[SteveSauerwein]

At the SGU dinner the auction took up too much time. I never got a chance to meet and talk with most the SGU members.

[Sc00ter]

I don't know how politically incorrect this is, but judging from conversations I had in the bar, I'm not the only one..

You want more women at TAM, you need less Buzzo.

[saganite]

I don't know how politically incorrect this is, but judging from conversations I had in the bar, I'm not the only one..

You want more women at TAM, you need less Buzzo.

Where the former is concerned, we've been pretty successful. The latter...

Almost forgot this! Around 3am Friday night/Saturday morning, I went to close out my tab at the Del Mar and learned that the previous bartender had turned all credit cards over to security after leaving his shift, which I guess is standard (though weird). By the time I got to the lost and found, they had my credit card but had misplaced my bar tab. They kind of shrugged it off like, "Eh." Wound up with a night of drinking on the house.

That part worked just fine for me.

[Horatius]

You want more women at TAM, you need less Buzzo.



Or we need a team of dedicated, paid Buzzo-distractors. I've been doing that on a volunteer basis, but it is a drain....

[Wowbagger]

Or we need a team of dedicated, paid Buzzo-distractors. I've been doing that on a volunteer basis, but it is a drain....I wouldn't mind volunteering for that, for a little while. It wouldn't be any less of a hassle than the standard TAM volunteer work.

But, I suspect that the best distractors are going to be female.

[Davidlpf]

Aren't there woman you can hire to distract Buzz0, you start a fund now. I have a feeling there will a lot of people willing to donate.

[Dicon]

I think this TAM had the highest percentage of successful speakers, as judged by my own proprietary and exacting standards. There were only two that fell flat for me:

1) Joe Nickell, primarily because of the format he chose. He would tell just enough about each case to get me interested and want to hear more, then he'd switch to the next story. I really wish he would have just picked one or two and explained them beginning to end.

2) Jennifer Michael Hecht, because philosophy and poetry hold almost zero interest for me. Whenever I thought I was starting to follow her, she'd go in a different direction and leave me wondering where everyone else went. I think I just was not the target audience.

I was fine with James McGaha. Yes, his delivery can be a bit slow and his slides need to be brought out of 1992, but the content kept me listening.

[AdMan]

Bad:
...
religion bashing - is it really necessary?...

I only quote one comment, though it's one of several similar ones.

This is my first TAM, so keep that in mind. However, I have watched a few of the previous ones (maybe three or four) on DVD, so at the very least I have gotten a flavor of earlier meetings. I am also an atheist.

Having said that, I am a bit surprised at the number of people who have made similar comments to the above quote. People attending a skeptical conference are surprised and/or upset at hearing anti-religious or pro-atheist comments? I thought I would hear more than I did, actually. Even Richard Hawkins I think held back.

Of course the skeptical movement can accept both religious believers and non-believers. But a rejection of religious beliefs is for very many a natural destination from following a skeptical path. I don't agree that a skeptical meeting should artificially tone down an atheist "theme" that naturally comes to the surface. I hope that in the future speakers aren't asked to tone down any sincere atheistic/anti-religious comments or themes.

My two cents. :)

[HawaiiBigSis]

But a rejection of religious beliefs is for very many a natural destination from following a skeptical path.
True enough, but a lot of people aren't there yet, and having many somebodies shouting about it -- and making you feel stupid because you haven't come to that conclusion personally -- can be off-putting.

[Miss_Kitt]

Things that did not work:
Hate to smack the dead horse, but the "reception" was terrible. I was there to meet people and chat, not to be deafened by a not-that-great band...the content of the Randi/Dawkins stuff was interesting, but not fer chrissakes at the reception.

Buzz0. I spent half of my 'birthday' evening running semi-successful interference for Paperskater, who is way too nice and polite to tell him to Buzz Off!

Cigarette smoke by the pack being the price of socializing. I am actually thinking about renting a suite--ideally, with some help--in two years so we can have a non-smoking social gathering point. I am allergic to cigarette smoke, so not only did I have to limit my Del Mar time, I had to go shower as soon as I left to try to sleep without wheezing.

The wall-to-wall programming, which meant that as soon as people ran over (as they will do) we lost the chance to take any meaningful break. I think the day is coming soon that TAM should look at 'track' programming. Yes, that means that sometimes you have to miss one talk you want to see for another one you want to see; but it raises the odds that you'll always have something interesting to you being spoken about.

Global warning panel discussion -- I'm tired of this topic, frankly. One of the questions from the audience seemed to cover my perspective: "Where can we go to get solid information that is not being cherry-picked or exaggerated by either side?"


Things that worked:
Deanna the amazing cashier! How she stayed so upbeat and patient with the dying credit card machine and the limitless lines I'll never know.

Access to speakers was better this year than at previous TAMs, though this was only my 3rd. I got to meet almost everyone I wanted to of the presenters.

Hall conversations are always a highlight for me, but this year was even better. And I actually spent about 40 minutes with Bruce Hood in the Del Mar, not knowing that he was one of the speakers so I didn't get all shy! I hope they get him back next year or at least within two years.

I loved Carol Tavris, both as a presenter and as another Keen Person at TAM. Her book sold out before I could get one, sadly.

I have to say that Shermer's talk was more interesting this year than other times. Maybe just because he was awake and interested??

The food was, IMHO, the best ever for TAM. There were lots of salad, fruit and veggie options for lunch, and always fruit and yogurt for breakfast. As a not-vegetarian who nonetheless eats mostly non-meat, I was very happy with being able to stay on Weight Watchers without any major effort.

I like the Southpoint because it's off the Strip. I don't like the garish overdone overcrowded overheated Las Vegas casino zone, so being some place where the buildings are not uber huge was nice. My room was nice, too, and there weren't often lines waiting for elevators.

The "All Workshops" option. I did not take that, since I was on a shoestring budget this time--but I loved the concept. I would definitely have used it in a normal year.

But most of all: My people!! Thanks again, guys/gals, I was so happy hanging with you.

[SkepticScott]

People attending a skeptical conference are surprised and/or upset at hearing anti-religious or pro-atheist comments?It's the quantity of the comments that got to me. I'll go to an atheist conference to get my minimum yearly requirement of those. I don't think we should concentrate on one particular facet because harping on the same subject can get boring.

It's also good marketing, IMHO. A major religion has millions or billions of followers. If we could get them to think critically about something that they already think is screwy -- dowsing for bombs for instance -- without attacking their beliefs, they may decide to use the same skills on other facets of their lives, perhaps even their religion. I think that strategy would work better than immediately associating critical thinking with atheism. Theists can get defensive if their religion is attacked, and they may decide that since atheism is 'bad' and critical thinking is atheism, critical thinking is also something 'bad' to be avoided.

[habu]

As my first TAM I really have nothing to judge it by and without saying I agree with most of the posts my pros & cons were....


Pros:
how accessible the speakers/heroes were coupled with the friendliness of everyone I met (and about 80% of the names I forgot) made for a fantastic experience for me.
Live SGU taping
All of Friday
Most of Saturday
The Papers Sunday
the Parties (I need to prep for next year after bailing early on the Divorce party and the skepchick party)

Cons:
McGaha, it put me to sleep
Dawkins interview, I wanted something substantial after a stellar day up to that point
tight scheduling... they could have given us a little more time between some of the marathon runs
Those freaking chairs... yeah I'm complaining, but they were very uncomfortable after sitting for hours.
Atheism push. It seemed strong to me. If we want to be the big tent we might have to give a little in this area, IMO

ambivalent:
Panels & Reception mainly I didn't know what to expect, so I had no expectations
Vendor area. Sure the traffic worked for the vendors, but perhaps one of the unused rooms to have a sort of display area or showroom would have worked better ??
Tim-Tams... nice little treat but not knock yer socks off great.

I didn't get the all workshops pass and wish I had. They looked very interesting and would have loved to see them.

All things said, it fired up my passion for Skepticism, critical thinking and more importantly it was educational. I look forward to my next TAM and seeing all the friendly folks I met over the four days.

[CriticalThanking]

EclecticSkeptic and I were going to do a table this year, but decided against. First, this is her business and she tunes her jewelry production to the show. Her inventory investment is not cheap and at this time we choose not to have hundreds of "skeptic-themed" items pre-made. I accept that there are a MILLION things that JREF staff have to organize, but the table logistics and pricing were not decided until 6 weeks (less?) before TAM. We are not upset about it, but would like to see that changed.

Second, we both wanted to see the majority of the speakers and made the decision the TAM content was more important than the money (although in addition to table fees, we pay a percentage to JREF). If we had been in a separate room with video feeds, we probably would have done the table. We had also been hoping to be able to offer items from Kookbreaker's store since he was unable to attend, but felt that his inventory would deserve even more presence/security than our own.

I want to reiterate that DJ, Jeff, and company were always very nice and did their best to help. It was our choice to see the speakers instead of make sales (though I think EclecticSkeptic manged to force her portfolio on almost everyone within a 2 mile radius :) ).

CT

[Wowbagger]

I am actually thinking about renting a suite--ideally, with some help--in two years so we can have a non-smoking social gathering point.That is a good idea! I can probably help you with this!

It might be best to take one of the rooms that were on the ground level, if we can. (The VIP luncheons took place in one of them.) It won't be all that far from the Del Mar.

[saganite]

Things that worked:
Deanna the amazing cashier! How she stayed so upbeat and patient with the dying credit card machine and the limitless lines I'll never know.

Access to speakers was better this year than at previous TAMs, though this was only my 3rd. I got to meet almost everyone I wanted to of the presenters.

Hall conversations are always a highlight for me, but this year was even better. And I actually spent about 40 minutes with Bruce Hood in the Del Mar, not knowing that he was one of the speakers so I didn't get all shy! I hope they get him back next year or at least within two years.

I loved Carol Tavris, both as a presenter and as another Keen Person at TAM. Her book sold out before I could get one, sadly.

I have to say that Shermer's talk was more interesting this year than other times. Maybe just because he was awake and interested??

The food was, IMHO, the best ever for TAM. There were lots of salad, fruit and veggie options for lunch, and always fruit and yogurt for breakfast. As a not-vegetarian who nonetheless eats mostly non-meat, I was very happy with being able to stay on Weight Watchers without any major effort.

I like the Southpoint because it's off the Strip. I don't like the garish overdone overcrowded overheated Las Vegas casino zone, so being some place where the buildings are not uber huge was nice. My room was nice, too, and there weren't often lines waiting for elevators.

The "All Workshops" option. I did not take that, since I was on a shoestring budget this time--but I loved the concept. I would definitely have used it in a normal year.

But most of all: My people!! Thanks again, guys/gals, I was so happy hanging with you.

I cannot BELIEVE you didn't specifically mention spending a good hour with me, looking at baby pictures on my phone. Hmph.

[kevinfolta]

The chairs made farty noises when you wiggled in them. This can be a pro or a con. Pro because I could exaggerate them by the end of day two and make people laugh. Con because the eight year old inside of me would crack up when someone else did it.

[paperskater]

I wouldn't mind volunteering for that, for a little while. It wouldn't be any less of a hassle than the standard TAM volunteer work.

But, I suspect that the best distractors are going to be female.
Aren't there woman you can hire to distract Buzz0, you start a fund now. I have a feeling there will a lot of people willing to donate.


I can think of one woman who would be paired up perfectly with him. Their personalities just beg for each other.

[Geek Goddess]

It's the quantity of the comments that got to me. I'll go to an atheist conference to get my minimum yearly requirement of those. I don't think we should concentrate on one particular facet because harping on the same subject can get boring.

It's also good marketing, IMHO. A major religion has millions or billions of followers. If we could get them to think critically about something that they already think is screwy -- dowsing for bombs for instance -- without attacking their beliefs, they may decide to use the same skills on other facets of their lives, perhaps even their religion. I think that strategy would work better than immediately associating critical thinking with atheism. Theists can get defensive if their religion is attacked, and they may decide that since atheism is 'bad' and critical thinking is atheism, critical thinking is also something 'bad' to be avoided.

Within a couple days after TAM, Pamela Gay tweeted that she had lost a business opportunity specifically because of her association with 'a organization that appears to hate religion" - I'm paraphrasing because I can't find the tweet now. She followed up that she was not going to change herself, but would work towards less hate. She is a Christian, BTW

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I can think of one woman who would be paired up perfectly with him. Their personalities just beg for each other.

Who?

[rustypouch]

Who?

Rebeca.

[LibraryLady]

I know I'm late to the game here, but there is one thing that really bothered me at TAM. I had a great, great time, and loved the talks, meeting everyone, and socializing, but I didn't get to socialize as much as I wanted to.

I am asthmatic. Sitting in a place full of smoke hurt. I'd like to see a place set aside, perhaps in the conference area, where people can socialize late and drink, but without the smoke.

Best parts of TAM for me?

Awesome roomie
Phil Plait's talk
Carol Tavris (I'm reading her book, wow)
Meeting Miss Kitt, Paperskater, Loon, and a host of other wonderful forumites.

[AdMan]

Within a couple days after TAM, Pamela Gay tweeted that she had lost a business opportunity specifically because of her association with 'a organization that appears to hate religion" - I'm paraphrasing because I can't find the tweet now. She followed up that she was not going to change herself, but would work towards less hate. She is a Christian, BTW


I must be biased because of my atheism, because I still don't get why people are concluding that religion bashing was a major theme at this conference, instead of a natural outcome of (some) people talking about their skepticism. :confused:

[Geek Goddess]

As I said before, I wanted to talk to everyone, and ended up getting to talk to almost no one, in depth.

:(

[xinit]

I am asthmatic. Sitting in a place full of smoke hurt. I'd like to see a place set aside, perhaps in the conference area, where people can socialize late and drink, but without the smoke.

Well, they did set up a bar for the HAM party... maybe we could have the hotel staff a bar up there through the evening throughout the weekend?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I know I'm late to the game here, but there is one thing that really bothered me at TAM. I had a great, great time, and loved the talks, meeting everyone, and socializing, but I didn't get to socialize as much as I wanted to.

I am asthmatic. Sitting in a place full of smoke hurt. I'd like to see a place set aside, perhaps in the conference area, where people can socialize late and drink, but without the smoke.

Unfortunately, that "place" is probably your room. While the rest of the country is moving forward by banning smoking, I suspect someday that Vegas will be the last place on the planet that allows it.

And if you're talking about somehow getting a bar set up in a small conference room, forget it. Unless you want to spend hundreds of dollars, on top of what you pay for the alcohol.

[LibraryLady]

Well, they did set up a bar for the HAM party... maybe we could have the hotel staff a bar up there through the evening throughout the weekend?

That could work. I didn't know that indoor smoking was legal in LV. I saw the first cigarette machine I'd seen in decades! I'm betting I'm not the only one with respiratory problems. :(

[xinit]

Unfortunately, that "place" is probably your room.

Interesting idea... Maybe that's the way to go - rent a suite, everyone brings a couple bottles to stock the bar, and voila. Party suite.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Interesting idea... Maybe that's the way to go - rent a suite, everyone brings a couple bottles to stock the bar, and voila. Party suite.

Until hotel security tosses you out.

See: Forum/Skepchick Party, TAM 4, 5, 5.5, 6

[dasmiller]

As I said before, I wanted to talk to everyone, and ended up getting to talk to almost no one, in depth.

:(

Yeah . . for me, it felt like speed-dating without the dating part. There were a lot of people that I talked to for a few minutes, but . . .

[markb]

Aren't there woman you can hire to distract Buzz0, you start a fund now. I have a feeling there will a lot of people willing to donate.

We did take him to a certain.. uhm... club. That was interesting.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

We did take him to a certain.. uhm... club. That was interesting.

Do tell!!

[Horatius]

We did take him to a certain.. uhm... club. That was interesting.



Yes, do tell. The mind boggles at the notion....

[Cleon]

We did take him to a certain.. uhm... club. That was interesting.

Rhino is Latin for "nose."


(TAM8 buzz0 reference.)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

rhino is latin for "nose."


(tam8 buzz0 reference.)

tam7

[markb]

Plenty of people heard the story Sunday night and Monday morning. Not sure I should dish on a public forum. I'll at least wait for the other witnesses to show up. Or you can always ask me about it at TAM9! :)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Plenty of people heard the story Sunday night and Monday morning. Not sure I should dish on a public forum. I'll at least wait for the other witnesses to show up. Or you can always ask me about it at TAM9! :)

Buzz0 is banned from here. He'll never see it!

[Hokulele]

Banned people can read the public fora. Yes, I do know this from experience.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

He should post it anyhow.

[Hokulele]

Agreed.

[monoman]

It's the quantity of the comments that got to me. I'll go to an atheist conference to get my minimum yearly requirement of those. I don't think we should concentrate on one particular facet because harping on the same subject can get boring.

It's also good marketing, IMHO. A major religion has millions or billions of followers. If we could get them to think critically about something that they already think is screwy -- dowsing for bombs for instance -- without attacking their beliefs, they may decide to use the same skills on other facets of their lives, perhaps even their religion. I think that strategy would work better than immediately associating critical thinking with atheism. Theists can get defensive if their religion is attacked, and they may decide that since atheism is 'bad' and critical thinking is atheism, critical thinking is also something 'bad' to be avoided.

You could apply that logic to many beliefs. You've decided to draw the line at religion, whereas many others would choose to draw it elsewhere. For instance, should we skirt over the issue of psychics so that we can get the millions who believe in them on board with regards to homoeopathy/ vaccinations, or vice versa?

I suppose it comes down to an individuals perception of the harm.

----
But more importantly, can we have the Buzz0 story please?
----

[Sc00ter]

I must be biased because of my atheism, because I still don't get why people are concluding that religion bashing was a major theme at this conference, instead of a natural outcome of (some) people talking about their skepticism. :confused:

Well, I'll answer this in the reason that Granite State Skeptics was made to be a skeptics group and not an atheist group.

Basically what it came down to is this. Religious claims, specific ones, are fair game.. But when it comes to the "big question" that is of the existence of God, that's an untestable claim. Sure you can test prayer, but say there was something out there that created the universe then vanished in a poof of smoke, you can't test that. Also, the idea of God is very different to different people, as well as the idea of religion. That's why you have cultural Jews that don't believe in god, but still follow the rituals.. Then lets not even get into all the smaller beliefs and fragments of other religions.

With the tons and tons of really whacked out, testable claims that are out there, religious ones, and especially the "god question" are so minor, there's really no reason to talk about it from a skeptical viewpoint.

On twitter somebody brought up war for a reason religion is bad, but I don't really feel that's the reason we have wars now, it's much more about resources and politics. Also the people I want to reach are the people around me, and they're not fanatics about their religion. I'm much more worried about people delaying real medical treatment due to some alt-med nonsense.. I see people fall for that crap EVERY DAY, and I see people have real harm all the time from these things, so that's high on my radar and what I focus on.

[Sc00ter]

You could apply that logic to many beliefs. You've decided to draw the line at religion, whereas many others would choose to draw it elsewhere. For instance, should we skirt over the issue of psychics so that we can get the millions who believe in them on board with regards to homoeopathy/ vaccinations, or vice versa?

I suppose it comes down to an individuals perception of the harm.


Yah, but I also I think it comes down to potential harm to an individual as well. This is why I mention specific claims. I would gladly go attack a JW due to their refusal for blood transfusions, or Christian Scientists praying over a poor kid bleeding to death, but the average schmo who goes to church on Sunday.. what's the problem? If they started giving away their life savings to the church I'd say something, but in the end, to me, it's not a battle worth fighting.

Also, I think when it comes to religion it's so deeply personal and entrenched in a family structure it's harder to pull people out and they're more likely to hold back.

[Hokulele Mom]

Well, I'll answer this in the reason that Granite State Skeptics was made to be a skeptics group and not an atheist group.

Basically what it came down to is this. Religious claims, specific ones, are fair game.. But when it comes to the "big question" that is of the existence of God, that's an untestable claim. Sure you can test prayer, but say there was something out there that created the universe then vanished in a poof of smoke, you can't test that. Also, the idea of God is very different to different people, as well as the idea of religion. That's why you have cultural Jews that don't believe in god, but still follow the rituals.. Then lets not even get into all the smaller beliefs and fragments of other religions.

With the tons and tons of really whacked out, testable claims that are out there, religious ones, and especially the "god question" are so minor, there's really no reason to talk about it from a skeptical viewpoint.

On twitter somebody brought up war for a reason religion is bad, but I don't really feel that's the reason we have wars now, it's much more about resources and politics. Also the people I want to reach are the people around me, and they're not fanatics about their religion. I'm much more worried about people delaying real medical treatment due to some alt-med nonsense.. I see people fall for that crap EVERY DAY, and I see people have real harm all the time from these things, so that's high on my radar and what I focus on.

I agree. See you on Monday.

Hokulele Mom

[kmortis]

Yah, but I also I think it comes down to potential harm to an individual as well. This is why I mention specific claims. I would gladly go attack a JW due to their refusal for blood transfusions, or Christian Scientists praying over a poor kid bleeding to death, but the average schmo who goes to church on Sunday.. what's the problem? If they started giving away their life savings to the church I'd say something, but in the end, to me, it's not a battle worth fighting.

Also, I think when it comes to religion it's so deeply personal and entrenched in a family structure it's harder to pull people out and they're more likely to hold back.
This plus, there are plenty of good skeptics who hold to a religion. If we use our skepticism to denigrate religion then we'll end up driving those people away. I'd rather keep my own doubts about religion to testable claims than drive good people like Hal or Dr. Gay away.

[Sc00ter]

I agree. See you on Monday.

Hokulele Mom

Don't forget! New location. Watch the facebook/twitter feed. I'll be posting a map this weekend.

[notsure]

I know you all filled out a survey right? You should have, but for a more public discussion of the TAM8 hits and misses lets have a thread here rather than fill the TAM9 Wishlist thread with comments on TAM8.



They should publish a list of attendants. The electronic data is there when people registered, it is not hard to get that done. It would be a long list with over 1000 attendants, but it would be nice to see that.

[Hokulele Mom]

They should publish a list of attendants. The electronic data is there when people registered, it is not hard to get that done. It would be a long list with over 1000 attendants, but it would be nice to see that.

I went through this with Jeff a number of TAMs ago. I recall there is a privacy issue involved here.

Hokulele Mom

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I went through this with Jeff a number of TAMs ago. I recall there is a privacy issue involved here.

Hokulele Mom

Yep. Most people wouldn't want DrBuzz0 having their email address.

[zooterkin]

This plus, there are plenty of good skeptics who hold to a religion. If we use our skepticism to denigrate religion then we'll end up driving those people away. I'd rather keep my own doubts about religion to testable claims than drive good people like Hal or Dr. Gay away.

I had exactly this discussion with someone (who turned out to be the guitarist for the UK Subs) in the corridor, until we were interrupted by DrBuzz0. He thought there should be no concessions to religion, while I feel (quite possibly based on my upbringing) that you can be sceptical about most things; just because you have a blind spot (which may not be entirely your own fault, since childhood indoctrination can influence your worldview so much you may not be even aware of it) doesn't mean you should be excluded. Being welcomed in, and challenged in a friendly way is more likely to cause people to at least examine their underlying assumptions than being completely excluded when they're already applying critical thinking to, e.g. homoeopathy and psychics.

[Sc00ter]

They should publish a list of attendants. The electronic data is there when people registered, it is not hard to get that done. It would be a long list with over 1000 attendants, but it would be nice to see that.

Besides the privacy issue, there are people that don't want to be "out" as a skeptic due to work/family issues and having that published would be bad for them.

[ejk]

The arena seats 4400 people, but it's an area layout (see http://www.southpointeventscenter.com/layout.html ). But even using only half of that area would still let us grow by over 50%.

I want them to have TAM 9 in the arena so Randi can ride in on a horse. Or perhaps the MC can trot around horseback to bring the mike to the audience for questions.


Best parts of TAM for me?

Awesome roomie...

:blush:
Me too!


More seriously, I would appreciate a less jammed schedule. It was chock full of great content, but there was no flexibility for an extra question, a break that runs long, whatever.

Agreed with Miss Kitt that TAM may be getting big enough for programming tracks.

Also, I kept my evaluation form until after the Sunday workshops so I could include them on it, but by that time there seemed to be nowhere left to drop them off. That was somewhat disappointing. The major point I made was that the vegetarian options for lunch absolutely sucked. On Saturday they had a rice dish and a bean dish, which would have been a great opportunity to provide something that works for everyone, vegetarians included. But both were made with meat! It's nice to have salad, but lettuce alone is not a meal. If they can't provide a reasonable alternative, they should let people with special dietary needs opt out of lunch for a reduced fee and we can eat elsewhere.

But except that problem and the pervasive smoke, the South Point is great and I hope we go back.

They did have a new section of the casino opening up that appeared to have smoke-free poker tables; perhaps there's hope for Vegas yet?

[kmortis]

I had exactly this discussion with someone (who turned out to be the guitarist for the UK Subs) in the corridor, until we were interrupted by DrBuzz0. He thought there should be no concessions to religion, while I feel (quite possibly based on my upbringing) that you can be sceptical about most things; just because you have a blind spot (which may not be entirely your own fault, since childhood indoctrination can influence your worldview so much you may not be even aware of it) doesn't mean you should be excluded. Being welcomed in, and challenged in a friendly way is more likely to cause people to at least examine their underlying assumptions than being completely excluded when they're already applying critical thinking to, e.g. homoeopathy and psychics.
Prezactly!
I mean, to exclude someone like Hal because he's some form of religious is to exclude the man who testified before the Joint Chiefs to get dousing rods out of the military. If that isn't a good skeptic, I don't know what is.

[Dicon]

Also, I kept my evaluation form until after the Sunday workshops so I could include them on it, but by that time there seemed to be nowhere left to drop them off.


If you still have it you can just mail it to the JREF office. I've done that in past years when I didn't get around to filling it out before heading home.

[xinit]

If you still have it you can just mail it to the JREF office. I've done that in past years when I didn't get around to filling it out before heading home.

There's also this magic thing called "Electronic Mail" where you can tap in the letters one at a time into a futuristic device that will transmit your words right to the pocket communication device of magician James Randi... or DJ... or Jeff Wagg... http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/contact-the-jref.html

I also found the form late, but will be emailing my comments and feedback to Jeff, likely.

[notsure]

Besides the privacy issue, there are people that don't want to be "out" as a skeptic due to work/family issues and having that published would be bad for them.


I need more education here, I am new.

I am hearing from the comments here that people are afraid to be labled as "skepticism", and are not proud to let others know about attending the Amazing Meetings? This is quite unexpected to me.

This is my first TAM, I let my colleagues know about my attending before heading to Vegas. Of course none of them heard of this meeting. I wonder what what they think of me now.

I did run into one of my former students at the meeting, surprise but nice.

[dasmiller]

I am hearing from the comments here that people are afraid to be labled as "skepticism", and are not proud to let others know about attending the Amazing Meetings? This is quite unexpected to me.


I talked to several attendees who felt they had to hide their lack of religious convictions from friends, family, and/or coworkers; going to TAM was a relief because while they were there, they didn't have to pretend to believe anything.

FWIW, my life isn't anything like that. But I can certainly see how someone in that situation wouldn't want to have their TAM attendance show up the next time a neighbor googled them.

[CriticalThanking]

Email/name publication:

It takes work, but it is possible to permit opt-in for publication of name and/or email address for attendees on the registration page. The defaults must be NO. If you are an officer in a (large) company, you do have to be very careful about what public information is attached to your real name and/or company email address.

CT

[Patricio Elicer]

What didn't work?

Wi-Fi internet in my room didn't work. After I paid the $13 for the day connection, the damn thing did not work :mad:. Pages would load partially, and upon further clicking I got the infamous "Windows cannot open this page" message. I tried throughout the day, to no avail.

I called technical support and the guy had no clue of what the problem was.

Still a mystery, since I was the only one having that problem.

BTW, my laptop was OK, the internet worked perfectly at the airport and onboard the plane.

[RSLancastr]

I must be biased because of my atheism, because I still don't get why people are concluding that religion bashing was a major theme at this conference, instead of a natural outcome of (some) people talking about their skepticism. :confused:

Others have said "well, it was only a few of the speakers, so what's the big deal?"

If you were African-American and attended a conference where "only a few" of the speakers told "n-word" jokes, and the audience reacted well to them, would you think "it was just a few of them!" or would you feel - at best - unwelcome?

ETA: Even if the leader of the conference made a statement that "negroes are welcome here."

[AdMan]

If you were African-American and attended a conference where "only a few" of the speakers told "n-word" jokes, and the audience reacted well to them, would you think "it was just a few of them!" or would you feel - at best - unwelcome?


Either I missed that presentation or wasn't listening very carefully, because I don't recall hearing any jokes mocking religion or the religious that would be anywhere near as offensive as "n-word" jokes, in my opinion.

If in fact there were jokes told that were that offensive, I agree that shouldn't have happened.

[SheldonHelms]

As a feminist, and a member of the National Organization of Women for the past 20 years, I thought the "Feminist Panel" was more like an angry women rant. Harriet Hall and Ginger Campbell were notable exceptions to the whiny, over-the-top complainers that dominated the panel. But for the most part, it was just embarrassing.

I'm sure that there are still a few idiots who view women as outsiders in science, but any honest examination will show that the days of overt discrimination against women is ancient history.

It also confused me as to why some on the panel seem to assume that we need a 50/50 split (male/female) to determine when discrimination has ended. As a gay man, I'm not going to go out and DEMAND that every field have 10% gay men in it. Sometimes people self-select, and we need to realize that women might not be as interested in science as men. I know that will make some of your heads explode because you've been taught to think that women and men are exactly alike, but I can assure you that that's not true.

And I'm calling shenanigans on that story about some random professor giving that panelist a C and telling her that he was doing it to stop her from becoming an Anthropologist (or maybe it was an Astronomer?). Embarrassingly false, that story. I'm sure she got a C, and maybe he said that she wasn't very good at the subject...and he may have even encouraged her to go into something else...but her story had everything but the maniacal laugh and the twisting of a waxed mustache! Very hard to believe, considering her young age.

[Cleon]

And I'm calling shenanigans on that story about some random professor giving that panelist a C and telling her that he was doing it to stop her from becoming an Anthropologist (or maybe it was an Astronomer?). Embarrassingly false, that story. I'm sure she got a C, and maybe he said that she wasn't very good at the subject...and he may have even encouraged her to go into something else...but her story had everything but the maniacal laugh and the twisting of a waxed mustache! Very hard to believe, considering her young age.

That was Dr. Pamela Gay, who I believe may be older than you take her to be (she looks really young). She's also not one known for making up stories out of thin air.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

As a feminist, and a member of the National Organization of Women for the past 20 years, I thought the "Feminist Panel" was more like an angry women rant. Harriet Hall and Ginger Campbell were notable exceptions to the whiny, over-the-top complainers that dominated the panel. But for the most part, it was just embarrassing.

I too am a feminist, although not a member of NOW. I'm not sure how you define whining, but by my definition, I heard none. Only observations.

I'm sure that there are still a few idiots who view women as outsiders in science, but any honest examination will show that the days of overt discrimination against women is ancient history.

I suspect most of the women on that panel will agree. Now we just need to work on the more subtle forms of discrimination.

It also confused me as to why some on the panel seem to assume that we need a 50/50 split (male/female) to determine when discrimination has ended. As a gay man, I'm not going to go out and DEMAND that every field have 10% gay men in it. Sometimes people self-select, and we need to realize that women might not be as interested in science as men. I know that will make some of your heads explode because you've been taught to think that women and men are exactly alike, but I can assure you that that's not true.

I don't recall hearing anyone demanding an exact 50/50 split. But the past few TAMs have only had 2-3 females on stage. This year had 15 or something like that.

And I'm calling shenanigans on that story about some random professor giving that panelist a C and telling her that he was doing it to stop her from becoming an Anthropologist (or maybe it was an Astronomer?). Embarrassingly false, that story. I'm sure she got a C, and maybe he said that she wasn't very good at the subject...and he may have even encouraged her to go into something else...but her story had everything but the maniacal laugh and the twisting of a waxed mustache! Very hard to believe, considering her young age.

I have no way of validating her story. However, Geek Goddess tells a similar story, and I believe her.

[kevinfolta]

If you were African-American and attended a conference where "only a few" of the speakers told "n-word" jokes, and the audience reacted well to them, would you think "it was just a few of them!" or would you feel - at best - unwelcome?

ETA: Even if the leader of the conference made a statement that "negroes are welcome here."

While I get what you are grasping at, the difference is that the n-word comes from ignorance and hatred, not from skepticism due to lack of evidence. There is no doubt that many African-Americans are here via mistreatment of prior generations.

The critical treatment of religion comes from the fact that skepticism checks belief at the door. It is a forum of evidence. When unsupported claims are presented they are usually treated with criticism.

[kevinfolta]

Also not good...

Emcees need to keep the talks on time so that there is opportunity for questions and so breaks happen on time.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The critical treatment of religion comes from the fact that skepticism checks belief at the door. It is a forum of evidence. When unsupported claims are presented they are usually treated with criticism.

Personally, I'm tired of the question. Can't TAM just be about listening to lectures and drinking beer with friends? Must we debate this for the next 1000 years?

[Sc00ter]

That was Dr. Pamela Gay, who I believe may be older than you take her to be (she looks really young). She's also not one known for making up stories out of thin air.

You mean like saying that a cruise is all old white guys? She never specified what cruise she was talking about, but the last JREF cruise had 4 women speakers.

Also her "solution" seemed to be to wait for the old white guys to die. That's not really a solution.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You mean like saying that a cruise is all old white guys? She never specified what cruise she was talking about, but the last JREF cruise had 4 women speakers.

She was referring to the cruise being advertised in the hallway.

Also her "solution" seemed to be to wait for the old white guys to die. That's not really a solution.

It's one solution.

[Cleon]

You mean like saying that a cruise is all old white guys? She never specified what cruise she was talking about, but the last JREF cruise had 4 women speakers.

I'm aware, as I was there. :p

I thought it was obvious she was referring to the "Reason" cruise being advertised in the lobby (which was, indeed, all white middle-aged guys). Maybe she should've been more specific.


Also her "solution" seemed to be to wait for the old white guys to die. That's not really a solution.

No, it isn't, but it's entirely likely that they will retire or die long before another answer comes along.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Also her "solution" seemed to be to wait for the old white guys to die. That's not really a solution.

It's one solution.

No, it isn't, but it's entirely likely that they will retire or die long before another answer comes along.

I belong to an organization that has basically been going downhill for 30 years but I think could be turned around. Anytime anyone comes up with new ideas or new approaches they get get shot down, because "that's not the way we've done it in the past". When I complained about this to an older member (70) who was equally frustrated, she said "you'll just have to wait for all the old people to die".

Sadly, sometimes that's all you can do.

[SkepticScott]

More seriously, I would appreciate a less jammed schedule. It was chock full of great content, but there was no flexibility for an extra question, a break that runs long, whatever.

I think that might be because of the shorter blocks. 30 minutes isn't much time to speak and take questions.

Also, I kept my evaluation form until after the Sunday workshops so I could include them on it, but by that time there seemed to be nowhere left to drop them off. That was somewhat disappointing.
You can mail them to the JREF. If people want anonymity people can mail them to me and I'll consolidate them and mail them to the JREF.

The major point I made was that the vegetarian options for lunch absolutely sucked.I know Jeff had this on his list of things to discuss with the hotel staff before TAM. :( Please be sure you put this on your evaluation form!

Prezactly!
I mean, to exclude someone like Hal because he's some form of religious is to exclude the man who testified before the Joint Chiefs to get dousing rods out of the military. If that isn't a good skeptic, I don't know what is.Yes! You can be a good skeptic even if you don't attack religion.

[paperskater]

Just some quick notes off the top of my head... I may add more later. Just a note, I missed 90% of the actual presentations because I was running around the halls and stuff trying to get people to sign Nobby's book, so I don't have much input about the actual presentations themselves.

Liked

Chairs only in the front and tables in the back. I felt this was a little more "fair" in terms of seating comfort.
Silent auction instead of a live one, however I kind of miss the thrill of watching people make competing bids.
Merchandise tables being in the hallway, although there's got to be a way to figure out a system so the people manning the tables can get to watch the presentations that they want to watch. It looked like the tables got a lot more traffic this year by being in the hallway.
I really like the TAM whiteboard. Maybe we can have two next year? It gets a little crowded!
Deanna the cashier was AWESOME! She was so nice!


Disliked

The reception was an utter disaster, as everyone else has mentioned.
I wish that the forum table was placed a little more prominently as I think the forum is a fabulous means of reaching out to people and building the sense of community. If it wasn't for the forum, I probably wouldn't be attending TAM anymore.
More recognition for the people behind the scenes, please. I'm not sure how this could be done, but the most important people that made TAM happen were never to be seen and only mentioned once or twice.

[bookitty]

I'd also like to express my appreciation for Deanna the cashier. The poor kid had one of the most frustrating jobs at TAM and never lost her patience or good humor.

[Geek Goddess]

I have no way of validating her story. However, Geek Goddess tells a similar story, and I believe her.

Similar - sorry if I am repeating. My college advisor had some smart aleck comment for me each semester when I got my schedule approved. I would get hired merely because I was a woman, and take a job away from a man that might have a family to support. I was taking up space in a class when I would probably quit my job in a few years to have kids. Did I know I would have to quit my job when I became pregnant since I wouldn't be allowed in a refinery (which I never aspired to work in, BTW), or that I couldn't breastfeed if I worked around chemicals. When I made an "A" in my thermodynamics class, did my husband do all my homework and take-home tests for me (he flunk thermo). Did it bother my husband that I was in a 'smarter' degree program than he was in.

When I did on-campus interviews for summer intern jobs, which usually involved field jobs, one guy with Mobil asked if I realized that I might have to actually work outside and possible get dirty. (I aced that one, though, as my answer was "I do my own oil changes and tune-ups"). One guy asked if it was OK with my husband if I worked around men all day.

Sorry to be off topic -

You know what else I liked at TAM? The feeling of belonging.

[LibraryLady]

There was a great feeling of belonging!

I think people born after a certain date (1970?) might not have a real idea of what life used to be like for women. This might need a separate thread.

[paperskater]

This might be a ridiculously complex thing to organize, but is there any way we might be able to lower the cost of registration according to people who want their meals to be included in the fee? I heard that breakfast cost something like $20 per person and lunch was $35 per person. I only ate once a day and I would have gladly not paid for breakfast and lunch so I could save some money. Maybe someone checking meal tickets? I don't know. Like I said, probably too complex and probably something that someone has already suggested, but just a thought.

[Geek Goddess]

Paperskater, part of the problem is - how to you keep people that didn't pay for the meals, from eating anyway? You'd need extra personnel at the doors, you'd have to check tickets constantly as people come in and out. It's not that hard to people who didn't register to come into the meeting rooms, for that matter, and food is a large part of the expense.

Another option is to not have meals at all, but I'm not sure the restaurants in the place could handle 1200-1300 people for lunch, all at the same time. You can't leave for lunch without a vehicle.

[paperskater]

Paperskater, part of the problem is - how to you keep people that didn't pay for the meals, from eating anyway? You'd need extra personnel at the doors, you'd have to check tickets constantly as people come in and out. It's not that hard to people who didn't register to come into the meeting rooms, for that matter, and food is a large part of the expense.


That's exactly the main problem I was thinking of. I just can't think of an easy way around that, but that'd be super cool if a no-meal registration fee was offered.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This might be a ridiculously complex thing to organize, but is there any way we might be able to lower the cost of registration according to people who want their meals to be included in the fee? I heard that breakfast cost something like $20 per person and lunch was $35 per person. I only ate once a day and I would have gladly not paid for breakfast and lunch so I could save some money. Maybe someone checking meal tickets? I don't know. Like I said, probably too complex and probably something that someone has already suggested, but just a thought.

Too complex. Now you have to post guards at all the food lines to make sure those that didn't pay for food don't get any. And you have to hand out tickets.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Paperskater, part of the problem is - how to you keep people that didn't pay for the meals, from eating anyway? You'd need extra personnel at the doors, you'd have to check tickets constantly as people come in and out. It's not that hard to people who didn't register to come into the meeting rooms, for that matter, and food is a large part of the expense.

Another option is to not have meals at all, but I'm not sure the restaurants in the place could handle 1200-1300 people for lunch, all at the same time. You can't leave for lunch without a vehicle.

Plus the cost of the room probably goes up if you don't get food.

[Bloodtoes]

I wish that the forum table was placed a little more prominently as I think the forum is a fabulous means of reaching out to people and building the sense of community. If it wasn't for the forum, I probably wouldn't be attending TAM anymore.


Totally. I'm just glad I managed to find it and nab a First TAMmer button before they disappeared! Also I'm glad I finally found you in the del mar on I think Sunday night, to sign that book. No one else approached me for the forumite scavanger hunt so that will be the closest thing to a complete list. :)

What I loved was how the big names (at least, among us -- though Dawkins and Savage transcend our bubble of celebs) were around, though I'd debate the "accessible"ness of them. I mean, yeah, you could walk up to any of them and say "hi, I like your (book|podcast|blog)", etc.. and maybe it's just me, but I noticed most were looking for an out almost immediately. I got a bit of that cool kids club vibe from some (most?) of them. Which is fine, they're entitled I suppose. I don't really count that as accessible. Others were much more friendly, i.e. Randi -- who doesn't love talking to Randi? That's more what I was looking for.

It reminded me a lot of meeting Penn & Teller actually.. Penn is the guy who says "yeah, that's great, glad you like the show" as his eyes dart around for the next person who wants his autograph. Teller is more like Randi, the guy who looks you in the eye, listens to what you have to say, and engages in conversation. So, after a day or so of that I found the more enjoyable part was simply saying hello to people I didn't recognise at all and getting into conversations with them about anything and everything, be it skepticism or not.

One thing that irked me was on the climate change panel, James McGaha. Not the fact that he had a dissenting opinion... that's great to have at least someone up there who will argue the point. I mean, that's what we're about right? Scientific skepticism. But by the end I had to ask, "Why was he on this panel?" Was he the only person they could find who would argue from the anti-AGW side? Did nobody try to find out what he might be like on such a panel, what his points might be? I guess that says something about the issue. He really took his time while hinting at conspiracy and threats. "I have friends who are in a related fields who have been threatened..." This is supposed to be a panelist at a skeptics conference? Whatever side of the issue you're on, you should know that such a claim is worthless and a waste of time.

*ahem*

Anyway, I think for me it was a success. I learned some things, changed at least one of my previously-firmly-held opinions, made some new friends, and had a good time doing it.

[SkepticScott]

If you want a "First TAMmer" button, I got them from www.nancybuttons.com . They're custom buttons, so they'll be expensive. I got a great deal because I ordered 100 and gave her three months to do them.

[xinit]

I mean, yeah, you could walk up to any of them and say "hi, I like your (book|podcast|blog)", etc.. and maybe it's just me, but I noticed most were looking for an out almost immediately. I got a bit of that cool kids club vibe from some (most?) of them.

Imagine that you have a (book|podcast|blog) and all day long people come up to you all day and say "I LOVE YOUR (book|podcast|blog)!" and you say "Thank you" and shake their hand... then they just stare at you, waiting for you to be amazing. Yeah, I'd look for an out as well. Hell, I've helped PROVIDE an out on more than one occasion for someone who needed to escape from awkward fan(boy|girl)...

Why did I do nothing more than say "Hi" to Adam Savage or Prof Dawkins? I didn't have any questions / comments that weren't already expressed by hundreds of others. When I DID have a question for Phil Plait or Pamela Gay or Swoopy or whoever, I sought them out and asked them, and had a bit of a chat.

Nothing compared, however, to the hour or so when Randi showed up of his own accord at the Del Mar Lounge to sit around and chat with a small group of after-TAM hold-outs.

[LibraryLady]

I am willing to send my First Tammer button to anyone who wants it. I feel like I cheated.

[AdMan]

I am willing to send my First Tammer button to anyone who wants it. I feel like I cheated.


Aha! Having missed out on a button, I knew there had to be cheaters. ;)

[Bloodtoes]

Imagine that you have a (book|podcast|blog) and all day long people come up to you all day and say "I LOVE YOUR (book|podcast|blog)!" and you say "Thank you" and shake their hand... then they just stare at you, waiting for you to be amazing.


Yep, I get that... of course. It's not exactly what I'm talking about. :) I mean in the course of making normal conversation. Maybe some people just prefer that sort of gushing praise. But whatever, it's not that important.

Nothing compared, however, to the hour or so when Randi showed up of his own accord at the Del Mar Lounge to sit around and chat with a small group of after-TAM hold-outs.


That's pretty great. Next time I'll have to stay the extra day.

I thought it was pretty cool that both Phil Plait and Richard Dawkins came out to the drinking skeptically on Friday (Thursday? it's all a blur) and hob-nobbed to whatever degree they could manage between the myriad handshakes and requests to Phil to see his tattoo. ;)

[xinit]

requests to Phil to see his tattoo. ;)

Damn it. I TOTALLY forgot about the tattoo.

[Chris H]

Merchandise tables being in the hallway, although there's got to be a way to figure out a system so the people manning the tables can get to watch the presentations that they want to watch. It looked like the tables got a lot more traffic this year by being in the hallway.




I did write a post with my thoughts in it a couple of days ago, but my hotel Interwebs got cut off and I lost it. I will try to re post it when I get a minute, but just briefly on this one point. It wouldn't be difficult to get an audio feed and a couple of screens hung in the hallway for the table crew. This way they can man their tables, and watch the conference.

[Chris H]

...requests to Phil to see his tattoo. ;)


You should have come to Skeptics In The Tub. He had it all out! ;)

[Kil]

Pros

Overall, I thought the talks were good. Better than the last couple of years. No one was pushing a political or economic agenda (cough… Shermer…cough.)

Breakfast that even a diabetic could eat.

Randi looking and acting almost like his old self again.

5 TAM’s and I’m still meeting people. (I socialized a lot more this year.)

The South Point. (All anyone has to do to know how good a venue and hotel the South Point is, is to have been at TAM’s 5 and 6.)

Volunteering. (Even though I don’t feel like I did much, I recommend it. It’s also a good way to meet people.)

There were many other pros, most of which have already been mentioned.

Cons

The reception. (The good news for me was that the very first person I ran into was Swoopy. It’s always nice to get a Swoopy hug. From then on, it was all-downhill from there.) (Well, the hall wasn’t so bad I guess.)

I really wanted to see Dawkins present a keynote address. That was a major let down for me. (What the hell is a keynote event?)

Why must the coffee go away after breakfast?



Hey! Look at that. I don’t really have many complaints!

[xinit]

Why must the coffee go away after breakfast?

I wondered that, too.

[HawaiiBigSis]

The major point I made was that the vegetarian options for lunch absolutely sucked.
I know Jeff had this on his list of things to discuss with the hotel staff before TAM. :( Please be sure you put this on your evaluation form!

One person I ate with got a special lunch. But you're right, a mechanism for ordering vegetarian for the meal ought to be right there on the order form.

[Sc00ter]

Why must the coffee go away after breakfast?

Because it's $45/gallon (or so was said on twitter)

[Geek Goddess]

I did write a post with my thoughts in it a couple of days ago, but my hotel Interwebs got cut off and I lost it. I will try to re post it when I get a minute, but just briefly on this one point. It wouldn't be difficult to get an audio feed and a couple of screens hung in the hallway for the table crew. This way they can man their tables, and watch the conference.


Cost. The hotel charges for every single electrical outlet provided. More screens, more cost.


Why must the coffee go away after breakfast?

Hey! Look at that. I don’t really have many complaints!

Cost. $45 per gallon, which adds up fast.

One of the previous hotels (Riviera? Flamingo?) charged $5 per person per day for coffee service, which is why there was none. That would have added $15-20 per person to the ticket price.

I seem to recall that some people brought coffee makers and accepted donations of coffee or cash, and you could go to their room to get a cup. IIRC, we didn't have soft drinks at previous hotels, either.

Some of the professional conferences I attend have coffee/cookie breaks, and sometimes they have an afternoon ice-cream Sundae break. However, all of the coffee services and other snacks are covered by corporate sponsors, not as part of the conference ticket price. Having a few corporate sponsors can really cut down on costs for the attendees.

[RSLancastr]

Either I missed that presentation or wasn't listening very carefully, because I don't recall hearing any jokes mocking religion or the religious that would be anywhere near as offensive as "n-word" jokes, in my opinion.

If in fact there were jokes told that were that offensive, I agree that shouldn't have happened.

When I said "told n-word jokes" it was shorthand, and, I admit, an exaggeration to make a point. Perhaps more accurate (though wordier) would have been "made jokes/remarks stating or implying that blacks are mentally inferior to whites"

It was more pronounced at TAM8 than in the last few TAMs, but back at (I think it was) TAM5, it was far worse.

I was embarrassed by it, and felt badly for my wife - a Christian, who was there with me.

[Chris H]

Cost. The hotel charges for every single electrical outlet provided. More screens, more cost.



Appreciated, but the people in the hall (that I spoke to) did buy tickets. Even my four Aussie buddies alone would have spent $1200+, and got to see very little of the gig. Perhaps putting screens in the hall would encourage others to run tables, which hopefully would mean more of larger cut that the JREF gets from their sales. Just thinking out loud. ;)

[Tressa]

Other than the music being loud I didn't have a problem with the 1 1/2 hr Reception & 1/2 Q&A.

Not having a table was a discomfort but something I can live with if it means more people at TAM.

The Dawkins interview: I was thinking of not attending TAM this year so I could buy a new computer. The only reason I changed my mind was because Dawkins was the keynote speaker. I was discouraged to learn, when I arrived at TAM, that it would be an interview instead of a lecture, but as I had heard DJ Grothe interview Dawkins before (most notable the December 2007 interview) I was hopeful.

Except for the last few minutes, when Dawkins talked about the book he was working on, the interview didn't cover anything that hadn't been heard in other interviews/podcasts/articles over and over. Dawkins also had to correct Grothe twice when he (Grothe) synopsised what Dawkins had just said incorrectly. Very, very disappointing.

The emphasis on skeptics who happen to be female or not white. Welcome to equality where no one cares about things you can't control (like your gender & skin color). Put the emphasis where it belongs: on people who walk the talk and do the work (and ignore the things they don't have control over, like age, etc).

Loved Phil's talk! Of course, I've loved Phil since he was kind enough to let me hug him at my first TAM (6) so I may be a tiny bit biased.

All the speakers were quite good (excluding my interest or lack their of in topics).

Biggest Con, equaling the Dawkins interview, was finding out Hal will not be back.

[Chris H]

The emphasis on skeptics who happen to be female or not white. Welcome to equality where no one cares about things you can't control (like your gender & skin color). Put the emphasis where it belongs: on people who walk the talk and do the work (and ignore the things they don't have control over, like age, etc).



Amen. I mean, woo hoo! Yeah!

[SkepticScott]

Double woo hoo! You rock, Tressa!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Other than the music being loud...

OK, seriously - Am I the only one who goes out and listens to music? Trust me, that was nowhere close to loud.

[xinit]

OK, seriously - Am I the only one who goes out and listens to music? Trust me, that was nowhere close to loud.

You're not alone... the primary reason I'm going to be in London in October when TAMLondon is on is to attend an anniversary gig for Einsteurzende Neubauten - one of the 5 loudest bands I've ever seen live.

That said, I wouldn't want them jack-hammering away during a TAM reception. Time and a place.

[rikzilla]

As for me, I have now been to 3 TAMs. I was lucky enough to have been at the first TAM where I (very unexpectedly) met Alexander Hamilton. Also Phil Plait and Jack Horkheimer together for a night of stargazing @ BCC was both hilarious and very, very cool. Meeting Randi for the first time was so easy. I saw him in the lobby, plopped down on a chair next to him and we chatted like old friends. Randi has a knack for that I guess.

TAM4 was next for me. (I'm poor) First trip to Vegas, loved the StarDust...still can't figure why they tore the thing down...there's still nothing there but an abandoned skeleton of a replacement structure. When Hutch and I drove by (thursday afternoon) there were no workers, cranes, or supplies in evidence. I guess even the Vegas economy has been hurt eh? But back to TAM4...wow...it was hard to believe how it had grown. The only beef I had back then was why the pool was always closed. Other than Shermer hitting on my wife I had a great time. (But since Shermer is one of my favorite authors and heros I gotta cut the man some slack)

TAM8...ok so the reception sucked. Hell I never even thought about it till now since I was just so jazzed to finally be back!! Besides, the coconut shrimp!! Mmmmm! And I was hanging with Library Lady so I had a good time anyway! The South Point is such a cool hotel!! When I first saw how far off the strip it was I was dismayed...but SP does everything so incredibly well!! (yeah I don't get out much...but still coconut shrimp!! )
The Skepchick party was overcrowded but wonderful too. (I had no idea about the party, I thought it'd be like the forum party @ TAM4 so I never bought a ticket)...Kochansky gave me her button at the Del Mar (she said she just wasn't feeling in the loud party mood) and I was in! Thanks Kochansky!! you're the best! I owe you big!! :)

The biggest con I could think of was the absence of Penn and Teller. I had so looked forward to seeing them both. (@ TAM4 only Penn showed)

Anyway, I guess the best way to end this rambling screed is to give thanks to Hutch, LL, Kochansky, Cleon, Mumchup, Patricio and all the folks who made me feel like I was back at a family reunion and that the last 4 years didn't much matter.

-z

PS: With my divorce final Dr. Shermer...you can have her now! ;)

[zooterkin]

OK, seriously - Am I the only one who goes out and listens to music? Trust me, that was nowhere close to loud.

I think it's a matter of context. I go to see bands that are much louder than the one playing at the reception, but I don't expect to be having a conversation while they are performing. When there is a certain amount of background noise, I find it very difficult to make out what other people are saying, and also to make myself heard; this happens with music at a volume that I wouldn't otherwise call 'loud'. When you're meeting people for the first time, and perhaps having to deal with unfamiliar accents or ways of speaking, you need as few things getting in the way as possible.

[paperskater]

Oh, I just thought of something else.

For the T-shirts, is there any way we can order more small sized shirts? I was lucky as a volunteer and got a small shirt for the first time in three TAMS, but I hung out at the registration table a lot and overheard many people asking for small shirts and all they had left were large and extra-large. I noticed that a few people had posted on the whiteboard that they were looking to trade shirts for a small size as well. My TAM8 volunteer shirt is the first TAM shirt I'll actually get to wear because it fits me.

[DocM]

Damn it. I TOTALLY forgot about the tattoo.

I actually took a pic of it by accident. He was standing in the way when I was aiming for Richard Dawkins...

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Oh, I just thought of something else.

For the T-shirts, is there any way we can order more small sized shirts? I was lucky as a volunteer and got a small shirt for the first time in three TAMS, but I hung out at the registration table a lot and overheard many people asking for small shirts and all they had left were large and extra-large. I noticed that a few people had posted on the whiteboard that they were looking to trade shirts for a small size as well. My TAM8 volunteer shirt is the first TAM shirt I'll actually get to wear because it fits me.

Don't they ask shirt size on the registration form? It shouldn't be that hard.

[paperskater]

Don't they ask shirt size on the registration form? It shouldn't be that hard.


I can't remember. I do remember Scott asking all the volunteers via email about which size shirt they wanted.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I can't remember. I do remember Scott asking all the volunteers via email about which size shirt they wanted.

I don't recall either. But if they don't ask, they should. Then you know exactly how many to order.

[Horatius]

I don't recall either. But if they don't ask, they should. Then you know exactly how many to order.



The problem then is, the sizes aren't all that consistent. A Large from one manufacturer that fits you might be different from another manufacturer. So you'd probably still have people wanting different sizes.

[paperskater]

There are also those people who register on-site as well.

[AdMan]

Don't they ask shirt size on the registration form?

Nope.

ETA: Nope = Yes

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The problem then is, the sizes aren't all that consistent. A Large from one manufacturer that fits you might be different from another manufacturer. So you'd probably still have people wanting different sizes.

You tell them no.

[xinit]

Nope.

I would swear that I entered my shirt size when I registered, but that was ages ago.

[Sc00ter]

I would swear that I entered my shirt size when I registered, but that was ages ago.

Yes, it was on the registration form.

[AdMan]

I would swear that I entered my shirt size when I registered, but that was ages ago.

My apologies--I just checked and you are right!

But it didn't seem as if that made much of a difference--they still asked for my size when I went to pick up the shirt.

Maybe it helps with the original order.

[SkepticScott]

I do remember Scott asking all the volunteers via email about which size shirt they wanted.We have asked sizes on the registration form at some TAMs. It seems sporadic. Yes, I asked all the volunteers what size they wanted so we wouldn't waste any of them. I'm glad you got a small, paperskater.

We ran out of small shirts first, then medium shirts later. One thing I noticed with the volunteers this year is that the average size got smaller. It may be due to having more women attend, or maybe skeptics have just gotten in better shape since TAM7. :p

But it didn't seem as if that made much of a difference--they still asked for my size when I went to pick up the shirt.The sizes were not printed on the badges. While we could have looked you up on the master list, it was easier to simply ask people what size they wanted. I'm sure the entries on the registration form were used to decide what to order. At least I hope they were.

[Cuddles]

Until hotel security tosses you out.

See: Forum/Skepchick Party, TAM 4, 5, 5.5, 6

Then you move to the next room.

We did take him to a certain.. uhm... club. That was interesting.

I don't understand why we haven't been told this story yet.

Also her "solution" seemed to be to wait for the old white guys to die. That's not really a solution.

Not only is it a solution, it's pretty much the only possible solution. The problem is that you can't just throw out people who are already at the top of their field. If 90% of professors are male, you can't just fire half of them and replace them with women, you have to wait until they are no longer professors. Generally you only have to wait for people to retire rather than actually die, but the principle is the same.

In addition to that, you can't choose new professors based on gender, race, or whatever, because that would be doing exactly what you are supposedly trying to avoid. You can't solve discrimination by simply discriminating in the opposite direction. This makes things even slower, since even if things are now exactly equal, once half those professors have left, half of the new ones will be male and there still won't be equal numbers of men and women.

The problem is that many people don't seem to understand what a slow process change often has to be. They want equality now and think that means having equal proportions right now. But what it actually means is just that everyone has equal opportunities now. The actual proportions in jobs will only change over a long period of time as the people who currently hold those jobs leave.

And of course, that ignores all the issues about men and women actually being different, and the questions of how much of preferences for particular jobs is genetic as opposed to environmental. As well as how much we can, or even should, try to actively change things as opposed to merely removing the discrimination and letting things sort themselves out.

I wish that the forum table was placed a little more prominently as I think the forum is a fabulous means of reaching out to people and building the sense of community. If it wasn't for the forum, I probably wouldn't be attending TAM anymore.

This is a good point. Someone brought me my badges while I was working on registration, but I struggled to find the table later since it was hidden right at the end past all the other tables and the actual presentations. It was only by making a deliberate effort during a break and ignoring all the shiny things on the way that I was actually able to track it down. For people who are already members that may be enough, but we're unlikely to attract many more people with it hidden like that.

More recognition for the people behind the scenes, please. I'm not sure how this could be done, but the most important people that made TAM happen were never to be seen and only mentioned once or twice.

I tend to agree with this as well. While the volunteers got a clap, I don't remember people like Allison and Deanna being mentioned at all, as well as Jeff, DJ, Hal and so on who were far more than just famous people to be gazed at in awe, they were the ones running around like headless chickens the whole time making it actually work.

One thing that irked me was on the climate change panel, James McGaha. Not the fact that he had a dissenting opinion... that's great to have at least someone up there who will argue the point. I mean, that's what we're about right? Scientific skepticism. But by the end I had to ask, "Why was he on this panel?" Was he the only person they could find who would argue from the anti-AGW side? Did nobody try to find out what he might be like on such a panel, what his points might be? I guess that says something about the issue. He really took his time while hinting at conspiracy and threats. "I have friends who are in a related fields who have been threatened..." This is supposed to be a panelist at a skeptics conference? Whatever side of the issue you're on, you should know that such a claim is worthless and a waste of time.

While I missed this panel (stupid mornings), I think this actually sounds entirely representative. This is the whole problem with climate "skepticism" - there's rarely anything vaguely skeptical about it. The vast majority of it really does just consist of vague insinuations about conspiracies along with various other unfounded and unsupported claims. There's plenty of room for discussion about the actual science, but almost all the legitimate discussion is about exactly what will happen, how fast it will happen and what we might be able to do about it.

Perhaps he wasn't great in terms of providing good discussion in the panel, but if he got people to realise just how silly and unskeptical most of the climate change denial is then I'd say it could well have been worthwhile.

Except for the last few minutes, when Dawkins talked about the book he was working on, the interview didn't cover anything that hadn't been heard in other interviews/podcasts/articles over and over. Dawkins also had to correct Grothe twice when he (Grothe) synopsised what Dawkins had just said incorrectly. Very, very disappointing.

I saw that almost exactly the opposite way around. DJ pointed out the blatant hypocrisy Dawkins was saying and was desperately trying to get him out of, and Dawkins just insisted on making himself look like a complete ass. I've always been a fan of Dawkins based on his biological work, but I've never really paid much attention to his religion bashing. That interview really brought home just how much of a fanatical hypocrite he is when talking about religion. He should stick to the science. When he talks like that, he just gives skeptics and atheists a bad name.

We ran out of small shirts first, then medium shirts later.

Clearly the obesity epidemic is working properly. We need people to eat more so we can stop worrying about sizes and just order XL for everyone.

The sizes were not printed on the badges. While we could have looked you up on the master list, it was easier to simply ask people what size they wanted. I'm sure the entries on the registration form were used to decide what to order. At least I hope they were.

Of course, given the usual problems with registration with a crowd that big, even if we tried to have everyone assigned t-shirts in advance, we'd still somehow end up with people getting the wrong ones, or not having theirs listed, or whatever. It's one of the laws of physics, like hoses getting tangled no matter how carefully you store them - as soon as a list reaches a certain size, there will be errors on it no matter how carefully or how many times you check it.


Incidentally, I've found another thing that didn't work - the USB stick. It doesn't fit in a USB socket. It's not bent or anything, it's just the wrong size. Very odd.

[zooterkin]

I wish that the forum table was placed a little more prominently as I think the forum is a fabulous means of reaching out to people and building the sense of community. If it wasn't for the forum, I probably wouldn't be attending TAM anymore.

If it wasn't for the forum, I wouldn't have known about TAM, let alone attended.



Incidentally, I've found another thing that didn't work - the USB stick. It doesn't fit in a USB socket. It's not bent or anything, it's just the wrong size. Very odd.

Really? I had to wiggle mine a bit, but it went in. Possibly it's due to being a cut-down plug, I think. Have you got it the right way up?

[Sc00ter]

Not only is it a solution, it's pretty much the only possible solution. The problem is that you can't just throw out people who are already at the top of their field. If 90% of professors are male, you can't just fire half of them and replace them with women, you have to wait until they are no longer professors. Generally you only have to wait for people to retire rather than actually die, but the principle is the same.

That might be true in the professional field, but the panel was about women in skepticism not women in science in general. In skepticism they can totally step it and and do talks, there's a huge hole to fill for doing talks for local groups, and it's easy to get talks on the big stage if you know what you're doing.

As has been pointed out before, TAM7 would have had more women, but the ones that the JREF reached out to said they didn't want to speak, or backed out later. They have a platform in this community, but they're just not using it for some reason.

[Dicon]

Incidentally, I've found another thing that didn't work - the USB stick. It doesn't fit in a USB socket. It's not bent or anything, it's just the wrong size. Very odd.


I just tried mine is several differnet USB sockets and it fit fine in all of them. Apologies in advance for what is going to sound like a very silly question, but... did you first pivot it into the open position?

[SkepticScott]

I tend to agree with this as well. While the volunteers got a clap, I don't remember people like Allison and Deanna being mentioned at all, as well as Jeff, DJ, Hal and so on who were far more than just famous people to be gazed at in awe, they were the ones running around like headless chickens the whole time making it actually work.I agree. TAM will fail without the help of so many people: Allison, Jeff, Hal, Deanna (she was so much better than we paid for), the Kings, Austin (he donated his time to be the press coordinator -- if you weren't press or a speaker you probably never dealt with him), etc.

[Chris H]

Austin (he donated his time to be the press coordinator -- if you weren't press or a speaker you probably never dealt with him), etc.


I never "dealt" with Austin, but I chatted to him a fair bit and he was awesome!

[saganite]

The tee shirt conversation reminded me of something I forgot to mention: whoever designed this year's logo did a great job. Admittedly I usually save my TAM t-shirts to wear to bed, but not this one.

Somebody on Twitter posted a picture of their teenaged son wearing an "emo" version of the shirt (by pairing it with a wool cap, sneakers and a hangdog expression), which I think speaks to the coolness of this year's design.

[HawaiiBigSis]

Then you move to the next room.
Incidentally, I've found another thing that didn't work - the USB stick. It doesn't fit in a USB socket. It's not bent or anything, it's just the wrong size. Very odd.
I can't get mine in any of the three USB ports on my 'puter either. :(

Wiggling it, opening it, turning it this way and that...none of those work.

Oh wait. Pushing it REALLY hard (harder than I thought safe) seems to have done the trick.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The tee shirt conversation reminded me of something I forgot to mention: whoever designed this year's logo did a great job. Admittedly I usually save my TAM t-shirts to wear to bed, but not this one.

I can't think of any better use for a JREF shirt. I'm drunk, don't hate me. :)

[Allecher]

I have a mixed opinion of the workshops. From what I can tell they were well attended, so they were probably a money maker for the JREF. However, some of them were not much different than the main presentations so it is not clear to me why they required a separate cost.

The juggling workshop lived up to my definition of a workshop - concrete instruction and materials (JREF juggling balls) to take home with you. I was surprised the other workshops did not provide books, DVDs or some other take away to justify the cost.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Some people got to make Angry Vaginas. :)

[Chris H]

Some people got to make Angry Vaginas. :)


Others already had them... :)

[Sc00ter]

The juggling workshop lived up to my definition of a workshop - concrete instruction and materials (JREF juggling balls) to take home with you.

That you had to pay extra for to keep them ($10)

[xinit]

That you had to pay extra for to keep them ($10)

The $10 was pretty fair - Goudeau donated the balls to the JREF, so it was a $10 (optional) donation. I mean, you could always pick up hand-made shiny balls instead, for a bit more than $10... shiny chainmail ball set (http://www.etsy.com/listing/51585991/black-chainmaille-hacky-sack-trio)

[qarnos]

A few people have mentioned religion-bashing at TAM.

I am curious to know what this involved. Was it any different in tone or nature to the psychic-bashing and dowsing-bashing that I'm sure also takes place?

I'd appreciate it if someone can provide examples/quotes of where they feel the line was crossed. The whole "skeptic-schism" thing has me fascinated.

[Sc00ter]

A few people have mentioned religion-bashing at TAM.

I am curious to know what this involved. Was it any different in tone or nature to the psychic-bashing and dowsing-bashing that I'm sure also takes place?

I'd appreciate it if someone can provide examples/quotes of where they feel the line was crossed. The whole "skeptic-schism" thing has me fascinated.

I can tell you a protocol to properly test dowsing and psychics.

Please show your protocol to test the existence of "god", that is, if you can even define what "god" is.

[kittynh]

good answer

also when Dawkins said the "number one" threat to the UK now was Islam, even moderate Islam. There was a kind of shiver that went through some people. How about saying "religion" or "Intolerance" or "too much time spent in pubs" or "inbreeding within the royal family"... or the breakdown of the National Health plan?

Nope it's Islam. And he was very clear that tolerance of even any moderate version of any religion was as bad as tolerance of the most fundamental version of that religion. You an Episcopalian with a lesbian priest and a gay Bishop? Sorry... you are as guilty as the most violent fundamentalist snake handling faith healing nut jobs. Because just by attending ANY religious organization, be it Unitarian or Buddhist or Jedi...you are "supporting" the radical religions. But those ISLAMICS!

There was kind of a hush as people wondered if he was going to suggest a "solution" to the "Islamic" problem in the UK.

say an "Ultimate solution".

eeeekkkkk!!!

[AdMan]

... that is, if you can even define what "god" is.


I assume this was the part that was deemed by some to have gone over the line, and I agree it sounds presumptious and should have been phrased better.

But really, I can't agree that this kind of point or similar discussion (again, watching how it's put) should be frowned upon at all at a skeptics' conference.

[Sc00ter]

I assume this was the part that was deemed by some to have gone over the line, and I agree it sounds presumptious and should have been phrased better.

But really, I can't agree that this kind of point or similar discussion (again, watching how it's put) should be frowned upon at all at a skeptics' conference.

I never said that discussion should be frowned upon.. I didn't hear anybody complaining when people brought up testing specific claims from specific religions. Claims of miracles for example.

But what if my view of God is that it was something that created the universe, set things in motion, then vanished. What if praying for me is a cultural thing more than a super natural thing? Something that helps center me or clear my mind. There seemed to be an air that all of that is bad.

What was funny was when Dawkins said that he didn't see the point of science fiction and fantasy books there was a bit of a buzz on twitter about that..

But even Dawkins said that most concepts of God are untestable.

[AdMan]

There was kind of a hush as people wondered if he was going to suggest a "solution" to the "Islamic" problem in the UK.

say an "Ultimate solution".

eeeekkkkk!!!

"I might retort that such hostility as I or other atheists occasionally voice towards religion is limited to words. I am not going to bomb anybody, behead them, stone them, burn them at the stake, crucify them, or fly planes into their skyscrapers, just because of a theological disagreement."

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 282

ETA: I might add that if you absolutely don't want to hear strongly anti-religious comments, one suggestion is to not invite Richard Dawkins to your conference!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F

[kittynh]

yeah and I think a lot of people feel that things like the alternative medicine crisis, and the anti vaxxers... are a good focus of skeptic energy. Atheism is a very personal thing. Point is there is NO church of atheism. I know atheist anti vaxxers, and the town chiropractor is an atheist. So atheism as some sort of litmus test of critical thinking skills isn't perfect.

[AdMan]

So atheism as some sort of litmus test of critical thinking skills isn't perfect.

Absolutely agree!--case in point: Bill Maher.

[qarnos]

I can tell you a protocol to properly test dowsing and psychics.

Yeah, I suppose. After all, whenever a psychic fails a test, they immediately accept the result and stop claiming they have psychic powers.

Please show your protocol to test the existence of "god", that is, if you can even define what "god" is.

So you avoid answering a question by asking a question of your own. Well done. I never claimed I could devise a test of a gods existence. I asked if you could provide me with an example of what you (or anyone else) felt crossed the line.

[AdMan]

I asked if you could provide me with an example of what you (or anyone else) felt crossed the line.


Unless I misread it, that post was an example. Maybe it was missing the quotation marks.

[qarnos]

Unless I misread it, that post was an example. Maybe it was missing the quotation marks.

Hmmm... You may be right. I'll wait for Sc00ter to clarify.

And to clarify my own position, I'm not looking to get into a religious argument here. I legitimately want to know what theists are taking objection to. If it's along the lines of "Theists are stupid", then I would be on their side. If, OTOH, it is just general discussion of religion in the same way we might discuss homeopathy, then I think they are the ones who are out of line.

[Horatius]

If it's along the lines of "Theists are stupid", then I would be on their side. If, OTOH, it is just general discussion of religion in the same way we might discuss homeopathy, then I think they are the ones who are out of line.


The problem is, there seemed to be quite a bit of both.

[Sc00ter]

Yeah, I suppose. After all, whenever a psychic fails a test, they immediately accept the result and stop claiming they have psychic powers.

Did I say that they would? Why would that matter, it's about evidence. By doing the test we gather data and evidence. It's not always (I would say hardly ever) about convincing the person we're testing, it's about showing others.

So you avoid answering a question by asking a question of your own. Well done. I never claimed I could devise a test of a gods existence. I asked if you could provide me with an example of what you (or anyone else) felt crossed the line.

No, I'm showing you the difference between something that is tangible and testable, versus something that is untestable and unknowable. If you continued to read the thread you would have seen other examples. But it's hardly skeptical to claim you know that god doesn't exist when you can't even explain a test proving it so.

[qarnos]

No, I'm showing you the difference between something that is tangible and testable, versus something that is untestable and unknowable. If you continued to read the thread you would have seen other examples. But it's hardly skeptical to claim you know that god doesn't exist when you can't even explain a test proving it so.

Once again, another strawman. I have never claimed, and would never claim, to know, as a matter of absolute knowledge, that a god doesn't exist. I simply don't believe one does.

There is a big difference between a claim of belief and a claim of knowledge. For instance; I wouldn't claim as a matter of absolute knowledge, as it appears you do, that something is unknowable.

[Sc00ter]

Once again, another strawman. I have never claimed, and would never claim, to know, as a matter of absolute knowledge, that a god doesn't exist. I simply don't believe one does.

But that's what was coming off during TAM by quite a bit of the atheists at the conference, including some of the speakers. This has been a bit of a debate for TAMOz as well, that to be a true skeptic, to reach the pinnacle, you must become an atheist.

There is a big difference between a claim of belief and a claim of knowledge. For instance; I wouldn't claim as a matter of absolute knowledge, as it appears you do, that something is unknowable.

Most of the respected paranormal investigators (Joe Nickell, Ben Radford) all that that to evaluate an eye witness account, you can never really know, since you weren't there and the ability to gather proper evidence is now impossible. You can come up with reasonable explanations based on what you know now and what you can do for testing now and draw conclusions based on that, but it's still not 100%.

But I still come to my example of what some people think of as god. Something that was around, generated the universe, and then was gone (vanished, died off, on the outside of viewable space, in a different universe, whatever). Please explain to me how you could possibly test that? I'm not saying that there isn't, and I'd like to know how, but I can't think of any way to test that.

To make it even more simplistic, my grandfather lost his arm in some type of accident before my father was born. I've heard the stories of how he lost his arm, but the only people that were there at the time was him, and the guy driving the car. They're both dead, all I have is 3rd hand accounts at best, but that doesn't necessarily tell me what actually happened, and there's no way for me to ever find out. I accept the story because it's plausible.

[Cuddles]

A few people have mentioned religion-bashing at TAM.

I am curious to know what this involved.

Have to say I have no idea. Other than Dawkins, I didn't notice any at all.

Something that was around, generated the universe, and then was gone (vanished, died off, on the outside of viewable space, in a different universe, whatever). Please explain to me how you could possibly test that?

You mean like the big bang, or inflation? Those were around, generated the universe, and are now gone. Yet they make plenty of falsifiable predictions and are constantly being tested in various ways. This is one of the big problems with the "god of the gaps" argument that is so popular these days. It's not just that constantly squashing god into smaller and smaller gaps where we can't yet conclusively prove he isn't hiding proves what a useless concept god is and is often in direct contradiction to most of the claims made by the people who do this, it's that the gaps they're trying to squash him into often don't actually exist at all.

In addition, the whole idea of testability misses an extremely important point. Skepticism isn't about testing explicit claims. The basic idea behind skepticism is simply to follow the evidence. When it comes to a god of the gaps, there is no evidence, and cannot be any by definition since as soon as any evidence turns up he just gets moved to a different gap. We don't need any testable claims to see that there is no evidence, and believing in something despite a complete lack of evidence is not skeptical, pretty much by definition.

Note that I am in no way saying we should exclude religious people. There is no such thing as a True Skeptictm, everyone is less skeptical in some areas than others, even if they may not realise it. What I am saying is that religion should not get any special treatment. The fact is that if you are religious, you are not skeptical when it comes to religion, or at least to certain aspects of at least one particular religion. That's not a personal attack, it's a simple logical conclusion based on what skepticism and religion actually are. It's no different from saying someone who thinks there might be something to astrology is not skeptical in that area, even if they're the greatest skeptic in the world when it comes to homeopathy and conspiracies. The only difference with religion is that some people seem to think that if anyone suggests that just maybe believing in something without any evidence to support it isn't entirely skeptical, this constitutes a terrible personal attack and amounts to them being excluded from everything.

In fact, I think part of the problem is the idea of being "a skeptic". Really, there is no such thing. Everyone is skeptical to a greater or lesser extent, and everyone applies skepticism in different amounts to different things. A religious person can still be skeptical about dowsing, just as an astrologer can still be skeptical about homeopathy. I think a large part of the disagreement here is that people seem to think that if they admit to not being skeptical about religion, that means they are no longer "a skeptic" and will have to hand in their badges and be excluded. That's just not the case. If someone admits to not being skeptical about religion, it means they've admitted to not being skeptical about religion. It says very little about their skepticism in any other area.

Skeptical organisations like the JREF do not exclude religious people any more than they exclude psychics, dowsers, homeopaths, and any other believers. But that does not mean that religious beliefs will be given a free pass and not be addressed at all. Sadly though, they do tend to be addressed less often and openly due to huge political power religion has, and the outrage that tends to be expressed when they are criticised.

[Sc00ter]

Skeptical organisations like the JREF do not exclude religious people any more than they exclude psychics, dowsers, homeopaths, and any other believers. But that does not mean that religious beliefs will be given a free pass and not be addressed at all. Sadly though, they do tend to be addressed less often and openly due to huge political power religion has, and the outrage that tends to be expressed when they are criticised.

I still think there is a difference.. I can say to a dowser "I don't believe in dowsing, because in every single, scientifically controlled, double blinded test, it fails"

I can say to a religious person "I don't believe that payer works because it also fails double blinded, scientifically controlled tests"

But when it comes to the basic idea of "god", I can't really draw on those things. All I can honestly say is "I don't know"

In fact, I prefer the description that Jeff gave during a Rational Alchemy episode of being a "Scientific Naturalist" over Atheist. I'm starting to feel that Atheism, especially in the skeptical movement is getting very heavy handed and downright annoying. I might just got the Scientific Naturalist route, or just say screw it and be agnostic again.

[Hokulele]

I still think there is a difference.. I can say to a dowser "I don't believe in dowsing, because in every single, scientifically controlled, double blinded test, it fails".


Do you believe in ghosts? If not, why not?

[Sc00ter]

Do you believe in ghosts? If not, why not?

Ahh! Very nice. I will say this. I don't believe in ghosts the way they are explained in popular culture. That is floating spirits or things that throw objects around. They have not been observed properly.

But if you explain ghosts as a spirit that is invisible to everything, have the ability to pass through matter and "walk" among us.. Then I really don't know, but would say it's unlikely.

If you noticed, I had to define what it is we're talking about first.

[Cuddles]

I still think there is a difference.. I can say to a dowser "I don't believe in dowsing, because in every single, scientifically controlled, double blinded test, it fails"

I can say to a religious person "I don't believe that payer works because it also fails double blinded, scientifically controlled tests"

But when it comes to the basic idea of "god", I can't really draw on those things. All I can honestly say is "I don't know"

But that's not just true. What you can honestly say is "There is absolutely no evidence to support the existence of a god.".

In fact, I prefer the description that Jeff gave during a Rational Alchemy episode of being a "Scientific Naturalist" over Atheist. I'm starting to feel that Atheism, especially in the skeptical movement is getting very heavy handed and downright annoying. I might just got the Scientific Naturalist route

I think this highlights the problem I noted above. It seems you are offended simply by people criticising religion and not giving it any special status. The simple fact is that religion is universally based on belief without evidence. In many religions that is actually one of the most important parts, and belief without evidence is held to be one of the highest virtues. Atheism isn't being heavy handed at all, it's simply no longer being forced to pretend religion is completely different from all other beliefs. It's still far from being treated equally due to the huge political and social pressures in favour of religion, but it's no longer entirely off limits. What you seem to see as heavy handed atheism, I see as simply reducing the height of the pedestal religion wants to be held up on.

or just say screw it and be agnostic again.

Another common misunderstanding. Atheism and agnosticism are in no way related. Theism addresses whether you believe in god/s or not. Gnosticism address whether you think it is possible to have prove of those beliefs. You can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist. From what you've said, it appears you are an agnostic theist. You believe in a god, but you don't think it is ever possible to prove if that belief is correct. You can't just say screw it and decide to be agnostic, because you already are.

In addition, I really don't understand the idea of saying "screw it" at all. Do you really think you can change your beliefs just like that? Surely if you can suddenly decide to believe in something different, you can't have actually believed in whatever it was to start with? Beliefs aren't a fashion accessory you can change on a whim.

[Sc00ter]

But that's not just true. What you can honestly say is "There is absolutely no evidence to support the existence of a god.".

And again, as I have pointed out many times, "god" means different things to different people, so you need to define that first and we still haven't done that. Even if we do for a specific case, that may not be the same for the next person.



I think this highlights the problem I noted above. It seems you are offended simply by people criticising religion and not giving it any special status. The simple fact is that religion is universally based on belief without evidence. In many religions that is actually one of the most important parts, and belief without evidence is held to be one of the highest virtues.

I'm not offended by it at all.. All I'm saying is that we need to define our terms and go after specific goals. "religion" and "god" are far to vague. "prayer" on the other hand isn't.

I'd almost go on to say that proving "religion" is incorrect is kind of like going after "science" as incorrect. I'm saying lets not go after "science", lets go after a specific part.

Another common misunderstanding. Atheism and agnosticism are in no way related. Theism addresses whether you believe in god/s or not. Gnosticism address whether you think it is possible to have prove of those beliefs. You can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist. From what you've said, it appears you are an agnostic theist. You believe in a god, but you don't think it is ever possible to prove if that belief is correct. You can't just say screw it and decide to be agnostic, because you already are.

I personally do not believe in a god, but I very much see that as a belief, and as such I don't really debate it or talk about it much (this conversation is an obvious exception). Just like I don't enjoy religious people pushing their beliefs on me, I don't like to push mine on other people. If I can't prove it, or have some method to prove it, I don't usually bring it up.. Unless of course we're talking about opinion (music for example) but that's something totally different.

But thank you for automatically assuming what my beliefs are based on a few posts in a forum thread.

In addition, I really don't understand the idea of saying "screw it" at all. Do you really think you can change your beliefs just like that? Surely if you can suddenly decide to believe in something different, you can't have actually believed in whatever it was to start with? Beliefs aren't a fashion accessory you can change on a whim.

I'm saying "screw it" as, I don't really care. On the grand scheme of what I care about, it's very, VERY low on the list.

[Kochanski]

I wish that the forum table was placed a little more prominently as I think the forum is a fabulous means of reaching out to people and building the sense of community. If it wasn't for the forum, I probably wouldn't be attending TAM anymore.
[/LIST]

If we had realized that the tables were not going to be assigned and that we just had to go grab our table and set it up to lay claim to it, I would have gone down to the conference area a lot earlier, grabbed a closer table and set up. I am accustomed to conventions were the tables are assigned ahead of time with no chance for people to choose their location. So we ended up all the way down the hallway. We were also suppose to be inside the room not by the merchandize but the audience size meant we were also outside.

For me the table location was not too bad, I could get in the room quickly to see the speakers and out as fast when breaks came. Being on the route that people took to and from the bathroom was not such a bad spot either. Since we do not have a large banner it is likely that anywhere we were placed in the hallway we would have been fairly invisible. I will see if I can do a banner for future TAMs, as long as I can keep it to a size that is packable I should be able to manage it.

[AdMan]

Since we do not have a large banner it is likely that anywhere we were placed in the hallway we would have been fairly invisible. I will see if I can do a banner for future TAMs, as long as I can keep it to a size that is packable I should be able to manage it.


I think a banner would make sense. As pointed out, everyone did pass the table, if only on their way to/from the bathroom, but without a banner or similar display it was easy to miss the table.

[Hokulele]

Ahh! Very nice. I will say this. I don't believe in ghosts the way they are explained in popular culture. That is floating spirits or things that throw objects around. They have not been observed properly.

But if you explain ghosts as a spirit that is invisible to everything, have the ability to pass through matter and "walk" among us.. Then I really don't know, but would say it's unlikely.

If you noticed, I had to define what it is we're talking about first.


Sure, and earlier God was defined as something that created the universe and walked away.

But to the larger point of whether or not religion should or shouldn't be discussed at events that promote skepticism is the focus on the process, not the end result. So for example, the process would involve agreeing on a definition, developing some kind of way of deciding whether or not the thing being defined is true or false, and testing that.

I am not saying that an unfalsifiable god is "true" or "false", just that the process breaks down and that needs to be recognized. This would be the same as testing whether "blue is a great color" is "true" or "false". Excluding an examination of how this process can apply to the existence of any type of god is, at least in my opinion, the equivalent of saying the process of skepticism should not be applied to the underlying pillars of religion, which to me is disturbing at best.

My perspective is that the existence of god does have a place in skepticism, mostly to highlight how the process works and how and where it can break down, so people understand the difference between objective and subjective conclusions. I agree, simply saying, "Atheism is the only skpetical conclusion." isn't a great example of critical thinking, because of the vagueness of what is meant by "god", but that isn't a good excuse to completely eliminate the discussion simply because it may offend people.

[Sc00ter]

But to the larger point of whether or not religion should or shouldn't be discussed at events that promote skepticism is the focus on the process, not the end result. So for example, the process would involve agreeing on a definition, developing some kind of way of deciding whether or not the thing being defined is true or false, and testing that.

I have no problem with this, the problem is when people seem to think that to be a good skeptic you must be an atheist, or that skepticism will, by definition lead to atheism. I think after reading this that we both agree.

I am not saying that an unfalsifiable god is "true" or "false", just that the process breaks down and that needs to be recognized. This would be the same as testing whether "blue is a great color" is "true" or "false". Excluding an examination of how this process can apply to the existence of any type of god is, at least in my opinion, the equivalent of saying the process of skepticism should not be applied to the underlying pillars of religion, which to me is disturbing at best.

Agree 100%

My perspective is that the existence of god does have a place in skepticism, mostly to highlight how the process works and how and where it can break down, so people understand the difference between objective and subjective conclusions.

My only comment on this part is that to break down god to something testable is extremely hard, boarding on impossible. It may be possible in specific cases with specific people's definition.

I agree, simply saying, "Atheism is the only skpetical conclusion." isn't a great example of critical thinking, because of the vagueness of what is meant by "god", but that isn't a good excuse to completely eliminate the discussion simply because it may offend people.

I'm totally not saying to eliminate the discussion because it may offend people, but I will say that we should handle the discussion appropriately as not to alienate people, and realize that people may not come to the same conclusion because the evidence is fuzzy or that the testing method is not well defined.

[Hokulele]

I'm totally not saying to eliminate the discussion because it may offend people, but I will say that we should handle the discussion appropriately as not to alienate people, and realize that people may not come to the same conclusion because the evidence is fuzzy or that the testing method is not well defined.


I agree, and I apologize if I came across as suggesting you were trying to shut down the discussion. My comment was triggered by kittynh's earlier statement that targeting anti-vaxxers is a good use of skeptical resources, but targeting religion is not. That to me sounded like an unreasonable restriction.

I also agree that broad-brush painting of any group, particular the religious as they are so diverse, is a bad idea, but sometimes shortcuts are taken when addressing a large topic.

And for what it's worth, I agree that if you (the general "you") do not want to come across as being anti-religious, as opposed to simply thinking critically about religion, you may not want to invite Dawkins to your conferences.

[qarnos]

But that's what was coming off during TAM by quite a bit of the atheists at the conference, including some of the speakers. This has been a bit of a debate for TAMOz as well, that to be a true skeptic, to reach the pinnacle, you must become an atheist.

Well, there's no such thing as a "true skeptic". I think we would agree that everyone has their skeptical blind spots.

However, I have no problem with someone making a statement such as "A theistic/deistic view is inconsistent with a skeptical view applied to the question of god". That doesn't mean you're a bad skeptic, it just means you're not extending your skepticism to your religious beliefs.

Once again, it comes down to whether atheists are going out of their way to give theistic skeptics a hard time, or whether there is some kind of persecution complex going on.

But I still come to my example of what some people think of as god. Something that was around, generated the universe, and then was gone (vanished, died off, on the outside of viewable space, in a different universe, whatever). Please explain to me how you could possibly test that? I'm not saying that there isn't, and I'd like to know how, but I can't think of any way to test that.

I reject the claim that this is how most people define god, given that Christianity and Islam account for about 50% of the world population. Religious groups usually make very specific claims about their God, which can be tested. This is why I drew the analogy with psychics and dowsers. Even if you perform such a test, the true believer will not accept the result if it goes against their beliefs.

Of course, there is no way to test a deistic claim like the example you provided. But there is also no reason to hypothesise its existence in the first place.

To make it even more simplistic, my grandfather lost his arm in some type of accident before my father was born. I've heard the stories of how he lost his arm, but the only people that were there at the time was him, and the guy driving the car. They're both dead, all I have is 3rd hand accounts at best, but that doesn't necessarily tell me what actually happened, and there's no way for me to ever find out. I accept the story because it's plausible.

Not just plausible. You probably also accept the story because it's being related to you by people you trust, who have no reason to lie about it, and no one has ever presented any evidence that it may not be true.

The big difference that I would not is that no-one bases their world view on your grandfather losing his arm, and no-one claims that I should, too.

[dasmiller]

Of course, there is no way to test a deistic claim like the example you provided. But there is also no reason to hypothesise its existence in the first place.

I should know better than to dive into this discussion, but . . .

Actually, I think the fine-tuning argument is a reason to hypothesize that kind of god.

I don't find the fine-tuning argument to be compelling, but I can't simply dismiss it out-of-hand.

[PaulK]

Someone accidentally scheduled a solar eclipse at the same time as TAM 8. Thus I missed TAM after being at all the previous Las Vegas TAMs. So could someone help me out on a few things:
1. Did Sarah T. do her standup in the talent contest and how did she do?
2. Why did Hal say this was his last TAM? Was it really the religion bashing?
3. Phil's talk. Sad? What did he say?
4. Michael Shermer often starts by taking a poll of the group. At TAM 4 it was how many believe is some kind of god. At TAM 7 who was libertarian (interesting that both polls got about 15%). Did he try to do a poll this year?

I like Paul Provenza but he makes my wife's skin crawl (she's a believer). But if Penn & Teller weren't there then that should have been a wash. Pamela Gay already feels attacked for being a Christian so she must have been freaked out at TAM.

I have often suggested Carol Tavris as a speaker for TAM and now I missed my chance. Sounds like she did well.