TAM 8 and my prescient post

I have returned from TAM 8, and if you read my last post, you already have the main theme of the conference. I just seem to be ahead of the game, I guess.

Let me explain. I think the key moment of the conference was the talk by Phil Plait. He did not present his usual science/astronomy talk. I could tell right away he was actually somewhat nervous, which is very unusual for Plait. He told us he is concerned about the tone of discussions in skepticism. He made his point by asking two questions: Have you ever changed your mind about something? Did you change your mind because someone called you an idiot? Many people raised their hands for the first question. Nobody did for the second. His point was the same as the point I made in my last post--that some blogs and commenters have resorted to a harsh tone, and that tone will not succeed if our goal is to change anyone's mind about anything.

The talk was well received, getting one of the two biggest ovations of the conference. The fact that Plait was nervous is telling. Plait is usually very confident, and is a leader of the skeptical movement. But the tone has become such that just saying we should be nice can be answered by strings of harsh invective.

Plait was immediately followed by Carol Tavris, who wrote the excellent book Misktakes were made (but not by me). It explores the topic of cognitive dissonance. Tavris provided the science to support Plait, showing that if you call someone an idiot or are confrontational, they will hold onto their beliefs more strongly rather than admit to being a fool. If you have two choices--you are right or you are an idiot, you will always decide you are right. If you can let them change their minds while maintaining face it will be much more effective.

Other speakers referred to Plait's talk throughout, often reinforcing his point, so it is fair to say it was the main theme of the conference (and of my last post). The speaker who most strongly added to the case was Massimo Pigliucci (I am currently reading his book, Nonsense on Stilts). He brought up another point of my last post--that intelligent people can be wrong. He used prominent skeptics, such as James Randi and Micheal Shermer, as examples. He also made the point that if there is a strong consensus on a scientific topic, that the lay person is not qualified to dispute it, and we usually have to accept the consensus, which of course is the same point I made in my last post. There is a degree of hubris in claiming that a casual reading of a topic makes you qualified to disagree with thousands of experts. He used global warming as an example, as I did in my last post.

So you could have just read my last post rather than attend TAM 8 and you have the main theme. It is interesting how these themes all came together, without planning, and right when I had been thinking of the same topics. I am glad the topic was discussed, and enjoyed Plait's excellent speech to set the tone. I am especially pleased because Plait will be speaking at Jamestown College in two months.

The other talk of note was by Pamela Gay, one of the speakers I was less familiar with. She gave an excellent and inspiring talk on science education, which also got a strong ovation (just before Plait). I mention it mostly because one of the points she brought up is why she does what she does. She teaches at a small midwestern college (having gone there from Harvard). She explains that she is there because she is needed there--she was not needed at Harvard. Obviously, I could relate to that (although I can't claim I left Harvard to come here).

There were more talks, but that is all I will comment on. I guess the disadvantage of having read works by most of the speakers is you really don't learn much new in a half hour talk from them. There was one other theme about what skepticism is and what we should be doing that I would have something to add to the speakers, but I won't be able to get to that.