Now, as I spend my day making videos, working on pitch materials for The Skeptologists and also making breakaway bottles for SMASHProps, I have a lot of time available to listen to many great podcasts. Most are skeptically themed and feature several of the authors that contribute regularly to this blog.

One podcast that I listen to regularly is the Tech Stuff Podcast, from the folks over at HowStuffWorks.com. Chris Pollette and Jonathan Strickland regularly take on topics related to technology from how fiber optics work to the best Easter eggs found in video games. When I scrolled through my menu of choices for my evening listening, last night, I saw that the latest offering from tech stuff was labeled “Ghost Hunting Technology.” I have to admit that I almost skipped it! My fear was that I’d listen to this podcast and have to stop listening to their future shows because of something that they said and I would have lost all “faith” in their ability to report on topics related to, well, anything!

This is a mainstream podcast. While tech-heavy, it’s aimed at a general audience and as such cannot be considered a skeptical podcast by any means. I generally tend towards programming from people who share at least a reasonable amount of similarities with my world-view. Luckily, I’ve found many.

So with some trepidation, I listened to the podcast and held my breath. Lucky for my oxygen-starved brain I didn’t have to wait long, because co-host Jonathan Strickland opened his part of the show by saying: “I’m going to preface this by saying, I am a Skeptic.” Whoa! I thought! he just came out! Ha ha! Not only that, he then very clearly and concisely explained what being a Skeptic was: “And when I say skeptic I don’t mean someone that automatically denies that something exists. When I’m saying Skeptic I’m talking about a person that requires there be some sort of empirical evidence that something exists before I just go ahead and accept it.”

Aw shucks Jonathan. What a swell guy. A great, clearly stated definition that many of us can really get behind. He further goes on to say that there is a an enormous lack of empirical evidence that ghosts exist. He is steadfast in his position and when Chris Pollette begins to give a little slack to the rope, Jonathan is quick to reign it in. They both continue through the podcast explaining the tools that are frequently seen on the popular ghost shows, and how it’s really all just props for entertainment value.

The reason that this podcast is important in my perspective is that these are people that produce a program in the mainstream media market, and Jonathan presented a great case for being a critical thinker and held his ground in an intelligent way, without being confrontational. He discussed skepticism in a way that anyone could understand and appreciate. Furthermore, he and his co-host took the time to go through many of the ghost hunters tools of the trade and in a simple fashion explained how there is no evidence that these tool can detect the presence of ghosts, or that there is any good evidence of ghosts themselves.

This type of rational, entertaining discourse is what we need to see more of. It’s not enough to simply cheer amongst those of us that know and understand the tenants of skepticism. It’s important to inject rationality and critical thinking skills –perhaps by using science and technology as a vehicle– to help people understand. The world that we live in is amazing and wonderful and although filled with many unexplored and misunderstood things, we should not work so hard to create industries that support unfounded claims of the paranormal and supernatural.

I highly recommend that you listen to TechStuff, and even drop them a line and let them know that there are a great many people out there that support this work.

While I remain hard at work to bring a mainstream TV series to viewers all over, I also stand and applaud those that are not afraid to wear their true colors and stand by their convictions.

To go directly to the rs feed for the Podcast Click here: feed://www.howstuffworks.com/podcasts/techstuff.rss

Tech Stuff can be found at www.HowStuffWorks.com

I’m not the skeptical storehouse of information and vast material that my cohorts of SkepticBlog seem to be. My area of expertise is mainly in the world of production and media, so I honestly had begun finding it very difficult to find subjects that I felt would be entertaining or relevant to our loyal readers. Once I finished up my reflective journey about how we created and shot the Skeptologists pilot, I felt like I had just ran out of material. Rather than vamping on subjects that I know far less about, I decided to take a break and re-evaluate. Kudos to the other bloggers who have continued without fail through the year, they have steadfastly committed their much more precious time to their weekly penning.

Which brings me to where I’m at now: Looking towards the beginning of the new year, and some exciting projects and prospects.
I will continue to fill you all in on the journey as we build and promote The Skeptologists program and others. Right now we are in a time where it’s a lot of uninteresting review, re-hash and evaluation of opportunities, connections and possibilities, too numerous, and frankly, boring to bother with here. However, we are working hard on making good skeptically-minded television to the small screen near you.

We’ve come a very long ways with the show and we’ve learned a lot of interesting information about bringing a show like The Skeptologists into the mainstream market. It’s quite different than, say a reality-documentary series about NHRA Drag Racing (imagine that!) The show that we originally created simply won’t find a home on major network TV because the powers that control these networks are simply not willing to “take the risk” on a show like The Skeptologists right now. While I personally think that is a bit short-sighted, I’m also acutely aware that regardless of my or the audience “feeling” on the matter, we are dealing with a very large and complex business. I understand and also depend on that business for my livliehood. The Big TV business model simply doesn’t have a need for this service right now. As viewers begin to demand more reasonable or rational programming and support shows that are in some small way similar, the changes will slowly take effect.

Now this doesn’t mean that we’ve given up. Quite the contrary. It has provided us with valuable insight as to the types of shows that are in development, the direction that many networks are going, and also, how we can re-tool our program to have a better shot at landing a large network or off-air deal. I’m happy to see science and critical thinking becoming more and more a part of programming, though we have a long way to go.

In addition, we’ve begun in some new and exciting directions that may ultimately allow us the opportunity to produce a show that is less encumbered, shall we say, by the whims of TV execs that follow their wallet and not their brain. I’ll be able to share more details of all of that in the coming months as well.

I had been thinking about other ways I could connect with you, dear readers. It occurred to me that one of the ways I can provide expertise and connect it with skepticism is by using my understanding of the production of TV and film to help the average audience understand when they are being shown something that’s maybe not entirely there. Knowing the artifacts of computer animation, clever editing, compositing, wire-removals, etc. could be an interesting way to provide a sort of “production forensics.”

Put me on the case. What piece of video, what show, scene from a movie do you want to know about? I’ll venture my best, educated guess and we can jump in together to get to the bottom of the sweater of wool over our collective eyes.

Happy Holidays Skeptics! (and Believers too, …what the heck!)

The Skeptologists TV series is still a very active part of our work here but sometimes we go through a phase where there’s not much to report on. That’s the case at the moment. We’re reworking a few show details, and preparing some new pitch materials to adjust to the current TV climate. We’re also looking into self-financing the program to get us into production, so those are pretty exciting developments.

But this blog isn’t about that. I just wanted to offer a thank you to all of my colleagues who continue to provide countless hours of fresh and interesting material for SkepticBlog.org. The team hasn’t let me down, and judging by the comments and the very active group of regulars that we have online here, we’ve got a great community of people who all have some very exciting things to discuss.

I’ve just found out that Brian Dunning has just completed three episodes of his newest endeavour InFact. It’s a short video podcast easily found on iTunes. I commend him for his continual pushing of the skeptical edge! Please check it out and subscribe!

Each of the contributors to this site are all making great individual strides to further the cause of science, reason and critical thinking. I want to take a moment to say, “Great work guys, I’m honored to call you my friends and I appreciate all your hard work!”

I’m not one of the typical Skeptical Storehouses of Infinite Wisdom, like my cohorts here, so for me finding an engaging subject to write about is not an easy task. I hear people tell me all the time that my line of work is “so interesting” and “I wish I could shadow you for a day” etc. etc. The glamour of showbiz, albeit a giant smoke screen, seems to captivate people’s imagination. Maybe there’s something to this that I should talk about.

So, as we work forward on The Skeptologists, and our newer companion Web-Series “TruthHurts” I’m interested to hear from you. What topics interest you the most? What aspect of the process would you all like to learn more about. I try to be conscientious of your time, and so I want to find topics and subjects that are of interest of you.

I find that it’s easy to write about what you know, and in this forum, I know less about the current Skeptical community, and more about trying to tie that community into a larger media machine. It’s kind of sad really, the thing that I’m trying to promote, Skepticism, I now have almost no time these days to devote to researching and learning more about because I’m trying to make it happen. The mechanic’s car is never fixed.

I’d love to hear from you.

In our fast-paced lives, surrounded by ever-speedier means to send and receive information, entertainment and knowledge, one question that I, as a content producer must grapple with is how much is this information worth to others?

The internet has no doubt revolutionized the way modern societies access and consume information. Right behind information is entertainment. With this paradigm shift is an important issue that people in the entertainment industry are facing, some gladly, others kicking and screaming. A few still have just buried their head in the sand (I submit that’s a start, they might as well keep digging into that sand)

Ryan Johnson and Brian Dunning. Shooting the Exhaust Note Scene with a Ferrari Mondial

How much content do you personally consume on the internet? How much of it if completely free to you, the end user? (Beside the cost for your bandwidth) I would guess that 90% or more is about right for most people. Everyone says they still pay for music too! ..That’s funny.

The issue that drives this home for me is the simple fact that I produce content. I work hard on ideas, assemble groups of talented people and create videos, projects, movies, shows. I do this with the intention of #1 Entertaining, #2 Educating, #3 Making a Living.

L to R Shira Lazar, Ryan Johnson & Brian Dunning in a creepy Meat Locker for Truth Hurts Web Series.

When you sit down at your computer, put on your iPod or turn on the radio, you’re presented with an almost unlimited number of options to entertain you and educate you. So my question is this: What would you pay to get a program that is educational, and entertaining if it was centered around subjects related to Skepticism and critical thinking?

My production team, Brian Dunning, Shira Lazar and I have recently completed the first episode of another skepticism-oriented project called Truth Hurts. We are developing this program as a web series that is accessible and viewed online. These shorter (around 10 minute) entertaining, funny and educational shows will provide a great way to interject thinking with ideas, products and claims that are found in our daily lives. We screened a “director’s cut” during TAM7 in Las Vegas and got some great feedback for it. We are currently completing the edit and tightening it up.

As we plan the distribution and release of this series, we find ourselves engaged in the discussion that so many are grappling with right now: How do you monetize content on the Internet when you are surrounded by content that is free for the taking? Advertising seems to be the way to go, and will most likely be the case for our program as well, (We are looking for sponsors currently) But there are other options, such as pay-per download and subscription based content. The way we stand out and offer a value is by placing a high importance on production quality, uniqueness of the content, and a fun show that is also educational.

My goal is to make the content accessible to the widest audience available, and that means it’s got to be 100% free to view. So we need to have three things: 1. Advertisers that wish to align their brand with the types of people that would watch our show which, right now would mostly be our skeptical community, but would eventually shift to mainstream audiences and even to “believers” in the hocus that we slay. 2: People that are able to donate money directly to the project to support the type of content that we are creating. And 3: A energetic audience that tells their friends about the show and help it hopefully go “viral” so that it’s quickly consumed by the mainstream media audience.

Truth Hurts Web Series Co-Hosts Shira Lazar and Brian Dunning

So I ask you, wonderful blog-reader bulldogs of critical thinking and punctuation, here’s a little questionnaire for you, would you help us with an impromptu marketing research?

1.What would YOU pay to watch an episode of a skeptical show on the Internet?
2. Would you go to a specific website (IE: www.TruthHurts.tv) at least once a month to watch a new episode.
3. Would you want to be able to download it?
4. Would you sign up for a subscription service that electronically delivered the content to you for a monthly fee?
5. Would you donate money directly to the production entity producing the content? (If so, look below!)

We have plans in place and operations in motion to bring both The Skeptologists and TruthHurts to audiences soon, but having this information will help us to see how our little slice of web visitors to this site feel about these subjects. Your information and comments are very valuable to us!

As my dedicated team and I strive to create new and entertaining way of getting the concepts of Skepticism into the mainstream media, we’re working all the angles possible to bring these ideas to life! Your help and support is going a long way towards making that happen!

Thank you!

TAM7 as we affectionately call it is the largest yearly meet-up and conference of skeptics in the world. Brought to us by The James Randi Educational Foundation, and headed up by none other than fellow Skeptologist and SkepticBlog contributor Phil Plait. He’ll be the M.C. at the event which will bring together I’m betting easily over a thousand skeptics from all over the US and the world.

Last year at TAM6, in Las Vegas, I was proud to be able to screen an early cut of The Skeptologists to a good part of the group during on one the lunch breaks. We’ve made a few changes since then and my only regret is that I’m not going to TAM7 with a big announcement that we’ve signed a network deal for the show. We have a great show, and an incredible cast, and the content is terrific. The one critical thing that is missing: A network rep that is willing to stick his neck out on a science based show that is a bit left of center. — So far…

TAM7 will not be without it’s share of announcements and presentations. I know that the Skeptics Guide to the Universe folks will be debuting a project that they are working on and Brian Dunning and I just might be bringing a rough-cut of a little project that we cobbled together last week. In addition we’ll be bringing what we affectionately call our Network Promo” of The Skeptologists which is a 3 minute promo reel that shows the highlights of the show.

Bill Prady, the creator of The Big Bang Theory on CBS is the keynote speaker, and I think that this speaks highly to how the skeptical community has begun to embrace the importance of media and entertainment in getting the message out to a mass audience.

Although I look forward to meeting and talking with as many skeptics and critical thinkers as I can this coming weekend, my main goal is to make as many connections with people that may help us get The Skeptologists on the air as possible. We’ve already got some pretty high-power meetings set-up and I have high hopes for them.

The climate of network TV has changed drastically in the last year and our show, which would have been a slam dunk pitch a year ago, is now a tougher sell in an environment where nets want more conflict, violence and cheap thrills. There are a few notable exceptions to that rule, and we are carefully crafting our approaches to each of them as we work to get a good deal signed. I’m not content to just get any old deal and move forward, there’s a lot of critical pieces that I want in place so that I know this show will be able to be produced with integrity.

We’ve had a long and winding road to where we are now. We haven’t made it to our destination, but we have certainly come a long way. As we all head to the oasis in the desert, I hope that our trip from there will continue forward successfully and with renewed enthusiasm and some great direction.

If you plan on attending, please come introduce yourself! I’d love to meet you!

At what point does one need to intervene? When, in a business setting, does a persons decision to employ alternative treatments for possibly life-threatening illness become a liability for a company? What responsibility does a person have to insure that they are getting the best scientifically-based evaluations and treatment?

Apple CEO Steve Jobs at a Conference in 2008

I’m an Apple junky. (yes I like the ones that you can eat, but that’s NOT the one we’re talking about here) The electronics and computer monolith Apple, that has revolutionized portable computers, music distribution and personal communications. At one time I had 8 PC computers, I now own 4 Apple computers and one PC that gets turned on maybe once a month for a few minutes to print out a label, and a litany of other amazing Apple products. In my mind the forward-thinking design, integrated with high technology, and a user experience that simply cannot be beat, is what allows me to do most all aspects of my job in the production field better, faster and cheaper. These systems substantially affect my business bottom-line and also my experience conducting that business.
When I heard the news that Apple CEO Steve Jobs was sick, I immediately felt ill myself. A knot formed in the pit of my stomach when I learned that a “Hormone Imbalance” was keeping him from his regular appearances on the Cupertino campus. Then he was absent from the Macworld show and a Worldwide Developer Conference. Of course the tech press were abuzz with discussions about his health, what it really meant and what connections did that have with his earlier bout with pancreatic cancer.

I felt reassured in my mind however, surely a man with this amount of insane wealth and means is getting the best medicine, examinations, doctors and treatment that money can by. “He’ll be OK if it’s a survivable issue,” I old myself.

Then, the horror of horrors, there it was, while reading an article describing the computer guru’s rocky road with illness, one word that changed the game: Alternative.

Now I’m not some Steve Job’s fanboy. Most of what I now know about him I learned within the last few months. Usually I don’t care who’s running the show, but as history has shown, Jobs is truly the driving force behind the technological marvels that have put Apple out in front of the pack. I’ve now learned that he’s apparently a Buddhist, a vegetarian and not a strong believer in mainstream scientific medicine. He, for some time, apparently tried to cure his pancreatic cancer with alternative treatments for some time, though ultimately he opted to have a surgery, in 2004 at Stanford. He has said himself that he is cured of the pancreatic cancer. In late 2008, we learned that his medical issues are continuing. Because of Jobs’ zealous privacy, little is know about the types of illness, the treatments and practices that he is taking. Are they alternative?mainstream? Both?

So the big question is, at what point does one have the responsibility of discussing their personal health with their employees, stockholders and customers? Jobs’ is clearly the leader of Apple and if he was to suddenly no longer be in that position, as the past has shown, the stock price will tumble and possibly even the direction of the company and it’s new products could be greatly impacted.

My hope that within his circle of highly talented fiends and family are people with enough bravery to challenge Steve Jobs to re-examine his beliefs in alternative medicine. Hopefully they can show him that, as a person in the technology and science business he of all people should know: Garbage in=Garbage out.

I await the return of Job’s to his post at the end of the month, and hopefully we’ll see a nourished-looking and healthy Jobs, taking his tyrannical, ranting and sometimes hostile reign at the helm.

And for those of you that may quietly influence a man of such power and wealth, that science-based medicine, proven treatments and real doctors are the keys to success in health, I give you kudos and much respect.

Hopefully such a brilliant man will understand that alternative and unproven treatments, even when you have the world at your fingertips, cannot replace good, real science.

Let this be a lesson to us all, we don’t need to stand in the shadow of a person of enormous wealth and power to lend a hand and extend the gift of good information. These people are all around us, and they ALL need our help.

He wanted to setup a web page to create a web presence there so he could get more customers. Simple enough.

That’s fine, he’s a friend and will be a good client. Little did I know that the internet and all it’s seedy folks had already got their greedy little hooks into him.

I laid out how a person could grow an internet presence into a brand, provide compelling content, demonstrate his experience in his field and even answer common questions that his customers might have and given the right amount of time and effort make a real mark in their area of expertise. His web presence can become a big part of his operation.

He is a very honest and trusting person. He wasn’t born in the US so language can be a bit tough for him sometimes. I can’t fault him for any of the things that he has done, but a bit of critical thinking would have saved him a lot of money and time.

When a person goes out into the big electronic frontier that is the interwebs, it’s easy to see that companies like Google and Yahoo and even the Yellow Pages have a commanding presence. They appear like the solid, trusted foundation upon which everything else is built. When you are a business owner, you get an endless parade of calls from companies, including the aforementioned, hocking their virtual wares.

For my friend these wonderful bastions of commerce and provision realized his internet naiveté and quickly put him on the hit list. After I told him all about how we would create his website, he leaves the room, then comes back in with a pile of papers and says: “So what do I do with all of this?” He produces signup forms, information and executed contracts for several search engine companies, listings, and advertising contracts. Several of which he had signed up for and was paying good money for. He DIDN”T HAVE A WEBSITE!!!!

What followed was a three hour explanation that even though companies like Google are what you use to search the internet, the salesperson selling a line-item listing for Google Maps to his home address (not even a phone number) is pointless! But because he equated Google with the internet, and they seem like a big, good, trustworthy company, he thinks: “My competition is on the web when I search for something right under that Google logo, so I need to do that too!” Add rinse and repeat for YellowPages.com, and Yahoo, etc. etc.. These sleazoids were selling him advertising for nothing. You couldn’t even argue that there was ANY value in it because there was no clear link to anything that a consumer could use to contact him at his business (Short of a customer driving to his home and knocking on the door)

Even the Better Business Bureau sent him a letter trying to convince him that he should pay to get listed on a satellite web directory that was to list his business as a “trusted” vendor. This company that has the word TRUST as parts of it’s own brand, uses nefarious tactics to convince people that they are getting the goods. I explained that when someone is looking for you or your service they are going to use search terms that resemble your service or name of your business, NOT the name of a “trusted” directory, that takes a minimum of 5 jumps to hit a page only to get a white pages style listing in some directory.

None of this is news to me of course. I’m in the production industry, Heck I MAKE TV commercials and promotional videos. I convince the consumer that my client’s products are the best, fastest, biggest, most efficient and highest quality all the time. So I’m hardly the one to call out a company for advertising and selling their products.

But when a company clearly sells a service to a customer who clearly doesn’t have a clue what they’re really getting, and couldn’t possibly take any kind of advantage of it, and could never benefit from it in anyway short of the tax expense write-off, this makes me livid!

How could a company in good conscience continue these practices? I guess we can look to Homeopathy and see that clearly, it just doesn’t matter.

I was upset when I saw these, and he was clearly embarrassed. What’s really sad is that it will make him that much more jaded, and my job a bit tougher to convince him that I really DO have his best interests in mind when I present him with options on how best to advertise his business. He will become more skeptical, which is a good thing, but also, I suspect, an equal measure more cynical and untrusting. This leads to one of the roots of the problem with being labeled a skeptic. When one is a skeptic by external factors, we can assume that there’s equal parts cynicism, and lack of trust born from the Big Bad World that’s taken our lunch money and stuck chewing gum in our hair.

In the meantime, we teach, we are patient, and we spend the better part of a Monday evening trying to illuminate the internet to our friend.

I’ll assume for a moment that many of you already know what The Skeptologists is all about. Since the start of the blog, many new readers are undoubtedly trying to figure it out. Today, rather than writing a long blog here, I’m going to invite you to take a look at the newly refreshed Skeptologists Website.

This past weekend, I spent a few hours giving our Official Show Site an overhaul, adding details about the theme of the show and giving some never released details about how the program will be presented.

You don’t get it for free however, It will cost you a minute or two. Once you’ve read through the website, please take a quick moment to make a comment on the “Your Turn” page so that those who come through afterwards (including TV execs and agents that we send there) will understand just how much support we have for a skeptically-minded TV program.

Visit the Official Show Website at www.Skeptologists.com

I hope you enjoy the site, and look forward to your comments.

If you see any typo’s or encounter technical problems, please feel free to email me directly.

Enjoy!

Acupuncture, real or fake, helps aching back: study
Mon, 11 May 21:28 PM BST

By Julie Steenhuysen

CHICAGO (Reuters) – Acupuncture brought more relief to people with back pain than standard treatments, whether it was done with a toothpick or a real needle, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that raises new questions about how acupuncture works.

For many patients, that benefit lasted for a year, the team reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

“Our study shows that you don’t need to stick needles into people to get the same effect,” said Dr. Daniel Cherkin of Group Health Center for Health Studies in Seattle, who led the study.

“Historically, some types of acupuncture have used non-penetrating needles. Such treatments may involve physiological effects that make a clinical difference,” Karen Sherman of Group Health, who worked on the study, said in a statement.

The team, wanted to study the effects of different types of acupuncture in a large, carefully controlled study of 638 patients with chronic low back pain.

They divided patients into several groups. One got seven weeks of standardized acupuncture treatment known to be effective in back pain. Another group got an individually prescribed acupuncture treatment.

A third group was treated using a toothpick in a needle guide tube that did not pierce the skin as regular acupuncture does, but targeting the correct acupuncture “points”.

A fourth group just got standard medical treatment, which included medication and physical therapy.

After eight weeks, 60 percent of the patients who got any type of acupuncture reported significant improvement in their ability to function compared with those who got standard medical care alone.

But there was no significant difference in the pain relief people got from the acupuncture using needles or from toothpicks.

The researchers said there is some evidence that even needles were used 2,000 years ago in acupuncture treatment, and some imaging studies have shown that “superficial and deep needling of an acupuncture point elicited similar blood oxygen level-dependent responses,” the team wrote.

Another study even found that lightly touching the skin can induce some emotional and hormonal reactions, which could explain the benefit, they wrote.

Or, it may simply be the experience of visiting an acupuncturist for treatments that helps.

Regardless of how it worked, they said acupuncture appears to be a relatively safe and painless way of easing an aching back, especially when traditional medicine alone fails.

(Reporting by Julie Steenhuysen; Editing by Maggie Fox and Cynthia Osterman)

So the question now becomes, if a layperson was to read this article, there would be virtually no reason to doubt any of the conclusions that it draws. So the thought experiment that I propose here is this: How do we as Skeptics analyze something like this and work to clarify and certify what these types of press statements make?

Is there any use in doing so? And if not, why not? I realize that it’s practically fruitless to attempt to correct everything that is out there in the media, and furthermore, it’s a no-win situation, because many things are a matter of opinion or are very subjective. However, when an article comes right out and makes bold claims like this, from what seems to be a scientific “carefully controlled study” how do we corroborate the findings?

I’m interested in hearing your thoughts.

And now for a chance to let your critical engine coast, your brain relax and your skeptical system simmer. It’s time you look at the pretty pictures.  Nope I’m not solving any of the worlds health problems, or unleashing the science against the latest pseudo scientific claim (yet), I’m here to give you some eye candy and give you you a hard-earned break. With all the craziness going on right now, who doesn’t need a few minutes to look at some cool behind-the-scenes photos of the production of “The Skeptologists” while we all dream of the day the network calls and says:  ”Let’s talk about making this show happen!”

Until then take a look at the latest installment of The Skeptologists Production Stills gallery, brought to you by photographers, Brandon Pinard and Julian Brummitt.