Skeptologists Usurped?
The Fact or Faked Team
The Syfy Channel now has their own paranormal fighters; “Fact or Faked” who look amazingly like a younger, hipper version of the Skeptoplogists – and this show has TWO women! Now that’s progress.
“Fact or Faked” looks to be a nice segue from fiction to fact, which is what has been needed in the midst of the paranormal glut we have all been suffering through. Such a breakthrough in critical programming is long overdue. The blurb I read says:
“So give Syfy credit for showing “Fact or Faked,” which takes a mildly skeptical approach to certain paranormal claims. The show even has a methodical and academic tone, in contrast to the exotic sexiness of the claims themselves.”
Investigating (Mildly)
Mildly skeptical? Well, that’s a start. And exotic sexiness of the claims? I won’t hazard a guess as to who or what sexiness they might be alluding to lest I be further tagged a sexist myself, but this hype sounds, eh, …mildly arousing. Intellectually of course.
“What they have in common is an openness to the idea that the paranormal could exist, coupled with the acknowledgment that many if not most apparent cases have real-world explanations.”
Hmmmm. Now that’s a refreshing approach isn’t it? This startling new “openness “angle tells me someone has been watching the skeptical world with a keen eye to Big Picture ratings. The producers have cottoned on to the fact that showing too much skepticism, coming down too hard on the little guy or too much hard science (read as: asking the audience to think too much) might not skew well with the Goth crowd who just tuned in after watching another episode of Gene Simmons Family Jewels.
We have all talked about this “milder” concept over the last year. Nothing has come of it for the Skeptologists despite many people’s best efforts. TAM8 featured a Phil Plait speech on “not being a dick.” He argued that skeptics will be most effective when they aren’t dicks. My efforts with Guerrilla Skepticism and a more in-your-face ambush style of proactive engagement has made some major dents in the woo. It’s all here in print for anyone to read in past blog posts. Apologies to anyone who has taken offense, but I must be one of those dick types. I’m sure there are many out there who would agree. But what can I do?
I still don’t understand how the “being nice” or the “more with honey than vinegar” approach applies to dealing a death blow to the actions of people like Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Lisa Williams, Chip Coffey, Robbie Thomas – and on and on and on down the line. These people and many other outright frauds that continue to operate unchallenged on a daily basis couldn’t care a fig about skeptical people being nice to them. Turning the other cheek to someone like Robbie Thomas is misguided woo of its own and to do so will only embolden him and his ilk even further. Medium Lisa Williams is busy mounting a new season of her talking to the dead series as I write this post. She’s very sweet and nice too.
Opening eyes with critical thinking may sting or soothe. We must agree that there’s room for all kinds of approaches as long as it ultimately gets the skeptical job done. Now it looks like the Skeptologists have been trumped by a “soft skeptic team” with a newer face of youthful doubt. This trending in rational thinking was bound to happen.
Well okay. If such things as wishing and luck can be momentarily tolerated, I for one wish them the best of it. One can’t argue with success. They are up and running. I’m here writing this blog.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
A former FBI special investigator named Bill Hansen leads the five person “Fact or Faked” team. I wonder how he got hired on to this project? Maybe he was doing paranormal investigations in his spare time? Everyone seems to have a flashlight in their hand these days.
“Hansen’s team includes Bill Murphy, a scientist; Larry Caughlan Jr., a special effects expert; Jael De Pardo, a journalist; Chi-Lan Lieu, a photography analyst, and Austin Porter, a stunt man whose skill proves valuable in a case the team does decide to examine.”
ere’s three more “skeptical” shows to look out for:
I smell the familiar odor of bullshit. I have a feeling it will morph into a ‘skeptic’ look at the paranormal activity, and determining (after a cursory ‘investigation’, of course) that there is no natural explanation, so it MUST be paranormal.
When I first read about this show on SciFi Wire, I suspected (knew) it was a ‘soft skeptic’ program right away, especially considering it follows a ‘reality’ show about a ‘psychic’ – “Mary Knows Best” (anyone else thinking of Father Knows Best?). The short description that SyFy had sounded like another Ghost Truth Hunters/Seekers Academy style program. I tend to think of it as the “Skepapologists”, with the same Blair Witch kind of POV camera work. (As I don’t have Cable, I have never seen it, but could probably write a script for it, based on the other ‘woo’ programs)
J/P=?
Watched an episode. Forgettable and credulous. They are barely ‘skeptical’ and usually only on a case-by-case basis. It’s clear that they have a preconception that this stuff already exists…just not that every claim is real. That Stephen Baldwin look-a-like, Austin Porter, even goes so far to decline investigating a so-called ghost photo because he actually states that he prefers to believe that it’s an image of a woman’s guardian angel without requiring any further investigation on his part.
Also, Bill Murphy is NO scientist. His Syfy.com bio reads like your classic woo peddler’s checklist of BS credentials: “Bill is very experienced in field investigating. He is considered a leader in the field of paranormal phenomena. He has a substantial following in the paranormal community through terrestrial radio, webcasts, television productions, independently released DVDs, and live presentations. With over twenty years of experience investigating everything from UFOs to ghosts and Cryptids, he provides the team with an encyclopedic knowledge of the unexplained. While looking for answers to some of the mysteries the team encounters, Bill works to bring in new technology to enhance their efforts. He balances a day job as a video engineering consultant with his job as part of the team.”
I seem to recall a similar show on SyFy several years ago, about which I was particularly excited because the token female scientist went to the same college that I did, and on which I promptly gave up as soon as they looked at the Patterson-Gimlin film as “best evidence” without bothering to mention that it’s an admitted hoax…
Hopefully, this show will be as short-lived as that one apparently was.
What’s wrong with taking BOTH approaches to changing people minds? I think intellectual appeals along with brutal in your face attacks is a viable envelopment strategy.
Ghost Lab anyone? Ghost Lab? And that steaming pile of pile of yak vomit is on Discovery for Pete’s sake! I can only imagine what this one is going to be.
Must. Resist. Ad. Hom. About. Sexy. Agressive. Promo. Picture. Designed. To. Appeal. To.Teenage.Braincells.
Whoops.
So you find the female stars attractive too? :P~
Sex sells, woo-woo sells – put ‘em together and the money’ll come rolling in!
Do you want your audience to be:
1. People who are already aware of their skepticism
2. People who are Skeptics but dont know it
3. The average TV viewer.
Because if you want #3, then yes, asking your non-scientific leaning audience to think to hard will loose you viewers. Most People probably watch TV to be entertained. If it start sounding like a textbook, you loose people. Perhaps that is why so many science shows are filled with flashy graphics? It keeps the mind entertained while at the same time informing.
There’s no need for flashy graphics – if anything that’s an unwelcome distraction. There is no need to sound like a textbook either; I think you imagine too much and too little all at once. Pretending to investigate and then saying “hey we can’t be sure, maybe there *are* ghosts” or the more suggestive “something happened that we can’t explain” is the worst sort of pandering. Such things just stroke the egos of the deluded and appear to lend them credibility and help them sucker in others.
Somehow I doubt they’ll ask you onto the show Mark; you’re obviously not mild enough or “open minded” enough. I’m also betting the show will be soft on the bullshit. When I look up people who investigate the paranormal, Joe Nickell is way up there – but he’s not contributing to that show, is he? I can’t think of anyone who’s spent so much time investigating claims as Joe (well, some of the True Believers may have spent more time than Joe but they’re not doing a proper job of investigating).
There’s a free episode on iTunes. I personally didn’t make it very far before turning it off.
http://ax.search.itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZSearch.woa/wa/search?entity=tvEpisode&media=all&page=1&restrict=false&startIndex=0&term=fact+or+faked
Looks like a ‘bait and switch’ ploy on the free episode.They start out more or less trying to sound skeptical in “The Ghost Car” segment (some of the editing choices are questionable), but in the second half in the “Arizona Lights” segment, they uncover, guess what: “a hotbed of paranormal activity!” Give me a break!!!
I had hopes for the show, and they do have some good points to make – like one of them commented about a video clip of an “alien” darting across the road in from of a car – “Why were they filming the road from the car at night?”
However, that latest episode with the Polaroid “ghost writing” completely lost me – they did not even mention that Polaroid film can be hacked by heating the developing photo to get different “ghostly” images.
And on it goes…
So I haven’t missed much not having cable have I? I can barely turn the TV on with all those remotes and buttons with print I can’t see. My kids and I fumbled for 5 minutes trying to find out what channel the Discovery Channel was on my TV when I wanted to watch Mark on “Weird or What?”.
Lets keep dumbing down our entertainment, it makes people easier to control. When people are worrying about bumps in the night they might not notice another death due to alt med. When these things are just “fun”, critical thinking is shut off. Tim Farley’s http://www.whatstheharm.net is the kind of thing that needs to be on-air. Make people wake up to what fun it is to have your money swindled, health ruined, families torn apart…I’m laughing aren’t you?
I love that site.
I’m a Big Pharma shill, so I think it’s hilarious. Excuse me while I go poison more babies.
Since I haven’t seen the show and speaking out of total ignorance, though I would venture to guess that this would not appeal to most who surf/comment on this site.
Perhaps at the least, it will enlighten the tween crowd who just graduated from the belief in santa claus, tooth fairy.
(and wizards, Oh My!)
Must be yet another resurgence of woo I guess. I was just in a book shop and in the science section there was a book about “investigating” the sasquatch, written by someone who claims to be a scientist and who will “stake his reputation” on his “investigation”. It’s funny but it’s the same recipe described by Martin Gardner almost 60 years ago now; cranks haven’t changed much in almost 3 generations. Skimming through (I wasn’t particularly interested in wasting time – I have better things to do) the book poo-poos some frauds and obvious hoaxes but goes on to present loads of unrefuted evidence. The author also makes up a long list of schemes which might finally help to catch the elusive BigFoot. It’s a bit like reading about ghost hunters and their list of paraphernalia like Frank’s Box. I wonder if the author of that will appear as an ‘expert’ on this show. Oh, and what’s with the ex-FBI dude with a flashlight thing? Everyone wants to be Scully these days – even the guys!
Rather than echoing many thoughts from the replies above, I will just reply to this:
‘I’m here writing this blog.’ – Don’t underestimate the use of that.
Am I alone in wanting a bullet put through any paranormal related TV show regardless of whether it’s skeptical or contrived woo bullshit?
What happened to the baseball bat?
Hmmmm. Now that would make an interesting TV show.
Extremely, extreme paranormal.
Full contact paranormal?
WWF style with all the bad acting and beefy dialogue.
Paranormal investigator 1: “That there’s our cemetery!”
Paranormal investigator 2: “If’n you aint the grandaddy of all liars! It’s ours!”
The crowd oohs and ahhs.
Mystery Paranormal investigator: “No…it’s MINE!”
Pyrotechnics explode
Crowd goes wild
I have lost faith in SyFy to put anything useful on the air. I’ll wager dollars to donuts that each week they fine a “rational explanation” but leave the door open to the possibility of the paranormal. This will end up hurting more than helping, because it will send the message that scientific empiricism is just one in a number of ways to look at these phenomenon. Post-modernism may be sufficiently expelled from academia, but the “all viewpoints are equal” concept is still beloved by most of the young people I know.
If having two women is progress what should we say about The View? Does anyone else get tired of people who evaluate something based on their own favorite bias? Why should you care if there are two women, no women or all women on a show? Were any of the women black or wise latinas? Were the gays and lesbians properly represented? Did any of them have blue eyes? What about diabetics? I didn’t see any obese people there???
Hey, not all of us diabetics are fat! I do object to not having a sexy female archaeologist on the show though.
Midgets. The show needs midgets. The little people need a voice.
Then it would have to be on TLC. I think they have a lock-down on all shows involving midgets. And cake.
Yet another reason to avoid the channel named like a disease. Piss-poor “paranormal” BS, psychics, cheap C-list movies…hell, the channel has everything!
See the episode on the arizona lights. They had some good ideas on different ways on how it could have been faked, but they either did not have the resources or the willingness to test them on a scale where they might actually look like the original footage. Also, I may have missed it, but, I did not hear the mention the official explaination of airforce flares. They did hang some lights from balloons, but they tethered them too low, and used underpowered lights, then said “the lights in the video are higher and brighter, so it’s impossible that it was done this way”.
The show to watch: Bad Universe (Phil Plait). Here’s the trailer:
http://www.universetoday.com/69525/trailer-for-phil-plaits-bad-universe/
Mark, I think you and Phil are defining two useful types of action. Phil’s method is for our family, friends and acquaintances who express woo-type belief; your method is for the people using woo to, as they would put it, separate the marks from their money.
I thinks it’s high time that someone tried to disprove the old saw of:
“No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public”.
Is anyone else sick to death of the media decision makers assuming that no one would be interested in a show with substance, maybe even, intellectual content? Oh, the horror…the horror! Are we that collectively that dumb? Or are we just passively accepting the pablum that they keep serving up,when we might actually be willing (maybe eager) to accept something more challenging?
Coming from someone who was involved in media, I can safely say, bullshit sells. People don;t want to turn on the TV and be educated. They want to come home from work and edge closer to a non existent, insignificant life of plastic entertainment.
There’s also no one willing to invest in decent projects with substance. I’m barely struggling to keep my own shit together with a feature film that the skeptics would rather enjoy at this very moment. High production value, RED camera, a huge, empty, fully equipped production studio and nothing but silence when it comes to project investment. The project is slowly crawling along. Very, very frustrating.
What we need today is a remake/update of Cosmos. Plait and Neil DeGrasse can take turns hosting it. With lots of other astronomers helping out. That would be exciting to watch. Do you think society wouldn’t enjoy that? I find it hard to believe that society has changed that much, I have heard time and again how Cosmos changed lives turning people on to science and giving them hope and a feeling of wonder. Why do we need more Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?
I spend a lot of time with children, first rule is to never talk down to them (unless you are standing a lot taller than they are LOL) and always assume that they can “do it” (you know what I mean, read a harder book, climb the tree, stand on your head whatever)
Why do we allow Hollywood to give us dumbed down TV? We watch it (you guys do not me) and we aren’t complaining.
Nonsense! I’m complaining. That’s why I wrote this blog. And I’ll continue to complain until we see real change in the Networks. You know that Susan, and you also know that the guys in the suits at those Networks know that as we inch further and further toward oblivion, some of the public are going to get impatient enough to turn them off. There is a middle ground somewhere between Green Acres and Cosmos. If this group can stick together long enough, we might just find it. As bad as this recent trend in programming is, is does show some tiny speck of light at the end of the tunnel. Again; we need an Andy Rooney of the paranormal.
One of the more sucessful comedy series on cable right now is a skeptical series which ironically has gone after exorcisms, ufos, psychics, and the paranormal. In the end the explanationto whatever is going on is logical and based in reality.
The saving grace of the old Scooby Doo cartoons. As a kid, I was always gratified that the supernatural threat turned out to be some greedhead in a mask.
In your face skepticism is the best format for a successful TV show. Lot’s of gritty drama! Have a mild-mannered skeptic, and his/her young wipper-snapper “I want to change the world, now!” side kick, who’s Hell bent for leather!
Yelling matches between skeptics and believesrs of all sorts, with the drama between the two skeptics increasing each episode, over the best approach. Mild-mannered character can have some real world kinda’ cameo, like “… I understand Daves passion, but he turns people off with his abrasive attitude.” sighs “What he was trying to get across, before he bitch slapped that UFOlogist was (insert rational explination here) but I think he failed to get his point across, once again, because he’s too close to this thing. It’s really frustrating.”
Like Reality TV meets NOVA. ;-)
They can play good skeptic/bad skeptic.
I agree with Chris. The thing is, the “woo” society has the idea of “changing things” and “seeing the TRUTH!” on their side…. which makes it appealing to so many people in a very superficial time. But, if they get that same feel from skepticism?
This goes to show that a scientific lean on skepticism (which, in some ways IS mild compared to just calling claims a bunch of crap and backing it up later) isn’t ready for prime time in the public’s eye… it does seem to be getting closer, but right now, folks don’t want to hear it.
When they do want to hear it, it’s usually from a show like Penn and Teller’s, which can be for legit reasons (they like to be informed of all angles and choose), or can be preaching to the choir, but it’s doing well. 8 seasons of “doing well” with the idea of inciting an in-your-face approach and actually entertaining while doing it. Mythbusters is doing great, but I bet doing certain topics wouldn’t go over so well, even if the method and format were the same. And I think since they don’t come off as scientists, folks don’t equate them to what seems to be a very, very negative standard of “Ivory Tower Nazis” that they see scientists as.
But, long run… what does one expect from a network like SyFy? They’ve been terrible ever since they killed Farscape… invoking the worst version of “reality” besides The History Channel.
Its funny that the only debunking show I really trust is the Mythbusters, and that is because they are particularly eager to conduct their tests as best as they can, even if they don’t always work, and will revisit things that fans suggest they try again. The only problem is that their format is only amendable to things that can be conduced in their lab.
I tried watching Penn and Teller’s Bullshit, but I got as far as the episode on second hand smoke and had to turn it off when they countered a 10 year EPA study with another study, conducted in Winston-Salem (home Phillip Morris). I just can’t abide a show that out and out lies to me about evidence because its a particular issue for them.
This new show? I can’t imagine it will be good, particularly since most of this stuff is shakey cam on youtube quality. Do we really need to debunk the drunk guy that saw Bigfoot and said ‘he had Beautiful Long hair!” It really makes me sad that the SyFy channel is so heavy on the fiction and so little on the science.
I agree with those saying the show needs to be tweaked to include a real skeptic who will speak directly to the evidence. I am thinking the style should be like that Simon guy from american idol- Everybody wants to be nice to the untalented waif onstage, but Simon tells it like it is.
I think the audience respects that.
Why is it that shows that feature psuedo science don’t have to worry about being abashed, but the only skeptical shows have to soft pedle their content? Myth busters comes to mind but they are a skeptic show that steers clear of that designation.
I think looking at the credentials of the people in the show might be a good start.
Bill “The Scientist” is the producer of shows about hauntings of Louisiana, the Queen Mary and the Stanley Hotel, as well as documenting the Ghost Hunters in their multiple tours of schools and “haunted” locations.
I can tell you that after working with him on “the Stanley Effect” that he is willing to look past the hard evidence for the production. One of the claims of the “documentary” is that the paranormal activity is caused by the “large deposits of quartz, magnetite and granite under the hotel”. We brought in several different branches of the U.S. Government to conduct a soil survey at the Hotel to see what was actually under it. We determined that while the minerals were there they were in the form of “schist” (dirt) and there is no more there than in any other location. The documentary stated that we had confirmend the presence of the minerals without mentioning the rest of the details.
He is also a proponent of the Telephone to the Dead/Franks Box and owns several.
So, I guess that you can tell what my take on the show is.
Does he do any real science, or just pseudoscience?
And you guys would know. That is really sad, he claims to be a scientist? Or he is a scientist?
He is also a proponent of the Telephone to the Dead/Franks Box and owns several.
epic “scientist” label fail for hip little bill.
Reading about Bill Murphy, It seems that anyone can be a scientist now days.
Watching the show, it would seem that Bill would probably think that the phoenix lights couldn’t be flares.
well, it is “sci-fi” after all (ie, fiction)
on my boob-tube provider’s lineup, there is a channel devoted to documentaries.
perhaps the “actual” skeptologists (and not their eye-candy, would-be dopplegangers) would consider doing a doc instead of a series, if not both?
is the “science” channel an option or are they owned by the same company that shills mindless paranormal crap to the masses?
If this show has “mild skepticism” it looks like they can clear it right up with some homeopathic lotion.
This show really needs a skeptic to publicly humiliate it. (Captain Disillusion, where are you?) Like Ghost Hunters, it purports skepticism while promoting mystery for the sake of ratings. Each week, something with an obvious explanation is made to seem occult.
This past episode, “Blazing Horizon/Rollover”(1.5), for example, featured the “Paulding Light,” a supposedly mysterious glow that can be seen in Michigan, but which locals know are merely headlights from a nearby highway:
pauldinglight.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=paulding&action=display&thread=4
The previous episode, “Predator/Red Sky at Night” (1.4), “investigated” the “Beast of Dartmoor,” which has long been identified as an area Newfoundland:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-472909/Thats-Beast-Dartmoor–pet-dog.html
A particularly inventive episode, “Unwanted Visitors/Strange Sightings” (1.2), featured two eerie figures that were most likely egrets caught on a grainy infrared camera.
In each case, the rational explanation would have made for good television. But instead, the crew often briefly considers it, makes of it a strawman, then dismisses it. To explain the purported footage of the “Beast of Dartmoor,” for example, they compared video of a clearly unsuitable breed of dog wandering amiably towards its trainer, rather than a large hairy dog running full-tilt.
If you are in the US, you can judge for yourself. The episodes are all on Hulu:
http://www.hulu.com/fact-or-faked-paranormal-files
I don’t have time or energy to appropriately campaign against this schlock, but I hope someone will.
-Disappointed
Sorry, you are all so bummed out!!! I love the show and hope it stays on for years to come. You all sound very bitter and jealous that you were not given the chance to be noticed. I suggest you get rid of the attitudes and try again.
Can’t tell if trolling…or just a naive, gullible fool with no critical thinking skills.