Today I was invited to host an episode of a new series for a major cable network in which I was to interview and administer a test to three professional psychics. This was the first episode they’d shot, and the producers and director were really nice and cool and it had all the makings of a fun and productive day. They had located three psychics who were all game, and were fully willing to undergo the tests under controlled conditions. Moreover, the show had even secured a $50,000 prize that any psychics who passed today’s tests would be qualified to try for. I arrived fully prepared, with some detailed protocols, and a raft of properly controlled materials.

Here’s the rub. The entire day was a setup. It was a gag, with Michael Shermer and myself as the unwitting victims.

The psychics and I began each interview with a discussion of each psychic’s personal history, what they knew about their abilities, and what they were able to tell us about them. Two of them, a pair of very friendly and positive ladies named Sylvie and Austyn, gave very fair descriptions of what they believed they could do, and sportingly undertook the tests. You can probably guess the results. But those tests were certainly not what the day ended up being about…

The third psychic was, unfortunately, not a psychic at all, but a young comedian who used to have a show on the BBC, and now appears to be trying to make a name for himself with a new character who is a wannabe nemesis of skeptics. He’s going to find this an uphill battle, as he’s neither clever, funny, particularly talented in any apparent way, nor does he seem to know much about psychics or criticism of psychics.

He goes by the moniker “Shirley”, and looks like a televangelist in a gaudy white suit with colored piping, and either the world’s worst hair or a gauche orange wig, I couldn’t quite tell which. When it was his turn to come out, Shirley came up to me, took his seat, refused to return my friendly greeting, and launched into what he seemed to think was a clever attempt to “get into my head” – insulting my parents, my wife, and “revealing” to all my terrible guilt at how I’ve treated people. Essentially, his routine was to ignore the reason [that I believed] he was supposed to be there, and try to establish himself as – well, I can’t even think what. He refused to participate in the arranged tests, instead throwing tantrums about each, constantly demanding that he be paid his $50,000.

At one point, Shirley inexplicably stopped the production, and fiddled with his iPhone for a few minutes. He then announced that his spirit guide, Sheba, informed him that my background was as an Irish flute player (perhaps not so coincidentally, this is just what a quick Google search of my name reveals. There’s also a third Brian Dunning who is an Elvis impersonator, and doubtless many more.) He then demanded his $50,000 again for “correctly” reading my background. When I then informed him that he was duped by careless Googling, he begged for that segment to be edited out. It was just one more thing that was weird: Was this part of his gag? Shirley, hire a new writer.

For one test, I’d drawn something and sealed it in an envelope. Each psychic was supposed to duplicate my drawing. When I finally persuaded Shirley to open his envelope to reveal what he’d drawn, he pulled out a poster sized sheet with at least 100 small doodles — anything and everything he could think of that I might possibly had drawn (he still missed it). He demanded his $50,000 again.

And then he went into his channeling act. A mysterious power overwhelmed him, and he began channeling Lee Majors, of The Six Million Dollar Man fame. Lee Majors began telling us what heaven is like. By now I’d given up, as we were clearly wasting everyone’s time, and wasn’t even standing on the set any more. Some of the crew informed Shirley that Lee Majors is not dead, and something in his brain seemed to snap. He became belligerent, had to be restrained by some of the crew, and strangely the director asked me to play along for three minutes — why, I have no idea. Shirley then set his phone down on speakerphone, ran to the opposite side of the room, and took out a second cell phone and called his first one, saying “This is Lee Majors’ agent, and he died today.”

If this was a comedy routine, it left something to be desired.

Eventually Shirley was muscled out of the studio, and we proceeded with a test of one of the other psychics, which brought back some semblance of normalcy. For the final segment, Michael Shermer came on and he and I discussed the results of what had happened with my tests. But we didn’t get very far.

For that was when the real weirdness happened.

Michael Twittered a description of this afterwards, which included a very apt reference to Andy Kaufman (except Kaufman truly was a comic genius), and promised to write it up on his own upcoming blog. So I will allow him to pick up the story from that point. You won’t want to miss it. It includes bodybags, and made me wish to hell I’d brought my camera.

So, I’m sorry to report that there is no new TV show on critical thinking. From a deeper study of Shirley Ghostman’s web site, it looks like he hasn’t had a BBC show for some years, but maybe we’ll get to see some of this action on YouTube. Kudos to the set crew who played along for so many hours, let’s hope it was worth someone’s while.

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!

Troupe of Proboscis monkeys

The purpose of the trip was to attend my high-school class of 1969 40th reunion. In addition to meeting up with classmates who stayed and made their lives in Malaysia, I met up with classmates from Canada, Australia, Singapore and the U.S.  A few of us made our way (45 min. flight, 5 hr. drive and 45 min. up river by boat) to the interior of Borneo and spend a few nights in the Kinabatangan valley to see for ourselves what was left of the virgin primary forest – and communed with orangutans, horn bills, proboscis monkeys and even a pygmy Borneo elephant.
This is the area where Alfred Russell Wallace spent two years (1854-56) collecting specimens, many of which were sent to Charles Darwin. His book “The Malay Archipelago” (dedicated to Charles Darwin) was prominently on display and for sale in many local craft shops and book stores. I had to get a copy and ended up reading it on the plane on the way home. (Ok, he was a collector of specimens not a conservationist so he shot 17 orangutans within a month of getting there and sent skin samples and skeletons to England! Yikes!)

The Malay Archipelago by Alfred Russel Wallace

One of our classmates Robert Chong owns and operates the Kinabatangan Jungle Camp which has been written up in many eco-travel guides as the place to go for a taste of the real jungle.  In addition to a generous classmate discount, he threw in all the beer and wine we can drink in the 3 days and 2 nights.  I hope we didn’t scare away too many orangutans with our giggling and howling all night!  Robert has served as the expert guide for many naturalists and birdwatchers who came from all over the world to this forest still teaming with wild life, so to be reintroduced to the wilds of our old Borneo by one of our own was an especially moving experience.

Kota Kinabalu (KK) has changed a lot since I left in 1970. Its claim to fame of course was from the TV Reality Show “Survivor.” The first season in 2000 was filmed on Pulau Tiga, just off the coast of KK. Except for Season 1, Survivor Borneo, the show has not been shown on local TV since then – but local tourism officials still recall fondly the time when the American TV crews bought up all the rooms in the only 5-star resorts in town! When I left KK (1970 pop. – 30,000), there was not even television broadcast yet! Today, this city of half a million is a striving modern metropolis with direct flight from Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong, Melbourne, Manila, and Taipei, four 5-star resorts, wall-to-wall malls and with Starbucks, KFC’s, Pizza Huts and McDonalds in every other block!

While all the malls are very modern and quite similar to any malls you will find in Anytown, U.S., there is one significant difference – the ubiquitous “health centres” on every level.  Woo is alive and well in KK shopping malls.  Every floor of every mall has their share of “health centres” which are actually facial and reflexology businesses.

“Facial” is not just for the face – it’s “skin care” woos of every description. Name any skin care and “youth restoration” product you ever saw on late night infomercial in the U.S. and they have it – and more. Other than the usual hype of different concoctions for different types of skin, they have specialties for different blood types, skin and facial treatments for different “time of the month” and time of the year (even though KK has no seasons and has average temp of 81 deg. and 90% humidity all year round.) For many of my female classmates, anecdotal evidence that their weekly visits to these parlors for their herbal/placenta wrap and botox/collagen cream treatment works was unfortunately reinforce by comparison with a few returnees’ foreign (read “white”) wives with their prematurely wrinkled and sun blotched skin (from over-enthusiastic sun tanning in their youth before SP30 sunscreen was deemed necessary!) True believers that they are, my suggestion that their good complexion may not be all due to their treatments at these facial salons devoid of any dermatological expertise was heresy. I suggested that they have such good complexion in their late 50′s should probably be credited to their Asiatic ancestor who endowed them with good genes and cultural taboo against being darken by the sun when they were young (every school girl walked under an umbrella when we were growing up.)

Reflexology centers are all adorned with anatomy posters on the wall with well-annotated “chi” lines and acupressure points.  But in reality, what is offered in these mall stores is nothing more than just hard pressure massage, and is offered for every combination and permutation of body parts. All my classmates, male and female, local to KK swear by them – a quick stop at one of these mall heath centers

Ear Candles - Made in Germany is the selling point!

on the way home after a hard days work is a must to be “rejuvenated” for the evening! Many of the health and facial centers like to attach the word “homeopathy” to their names. Upon questioning the “health professionals” in these centers, it became quite obvious that they have absolutely no idea what the term

What the heck is Homeopathy Reflexology?

“homeopath” really refers to. I think they confused “natural” or even “organic” with “homeopathy.” So, a “homeopathy reflexology centre” will use only organic oils and creams. Ear-Candling is big too – and European imported ear candles are all the rage.  Ear-Candling is included in most “package” deals you get from one of these health centers. My wife had to try the reflexology massage but definitely passed on the ear candling.

One of the Facial Rejuvenation centers advertise a “Breast Firming and Hot Mask” treatment which sounded very intriguing. In the interest of science and research, I tried to persuade my wife to find out what it was all about – I was going to pay for the RM$40 (about US$11.) But she was quite offended that the thought that her breasts needed firming would even crossed my mind. So, on that front, I have nothing to report!

Advise to husbands - do NOT suggest wife try last item!

You know, It continually amazes how much utter garbage is on TV. The work to getting something like The Skeptologists that is not only entertaining, but is thought provoking and dare I even say it aloud: “educational” on TV is stupendously difficult.

The problem that we (And I mean we as Skeptics) really have is that we’re not cool. Ah ah ah, don’t even start… Nope, we’re not. Granted, there’s a few that tip the scales towards coolness, and heck most of you all are some of my biggest heros! I am humbled by the intellect, provoking discourse and ability to wrangle science like a frontier cowboy. BUT! Compared to the stars of the entertainment world, sports, politics and just pure celebrity, we don’t got it. Well, not yet anyway.

I’m not worried though. That’s not what it’s all about. The issue however is convincing the TV execs that in this case, the star power is truth and science! They want celebrity-star-power and a sure fire hit. One reality that is very evident by the response that we get as we work through the process of selling the show, and other projects that I’m working on is that no exec will put his or her individual neck on the line and go to bat for a show anymore. They want consensus, unanimous opinion and a way to point both their fingers in opposite directions and say “it was their fault” when the ratings start to fall, as they eventually will, no matter how good a show you have. All the TV executives want a clear and unobstructed way out. If you watch a few hours of network prime-time, you’ll quickly understand why everything pretty much looks and feels the same within a few major genre’s… They all can point to another show and say “But American Idol was a hit! So America’s Got Talent has GOT to work!” Everyone around the big mahogany table nods appropriately, and bang-o you got a network deal.

A very wise TV man told me recently, “They are all looking for a reason to say no.”

It’s so true, and if you let it, that’ll tear you up into little pieces and make you want to go drive one of the little caged lawnmower things that pick up the driving range golf balls for a living, cause well, you feel about that small. But I can’t. I won’t. I refuse! (Bang!)

The Skeptologists is a risk. For all of us, creatively, financially, emotionally. A big one if your a TV exec. We’ve created a show that was calculated to be a marketable show, and we now have that. Our presentation is getting very high marks, thanks to our awesome team both in front of and behind the camera. And I’m happy to say that we’re still in the running for the opportunity to get the show on my #1 network pick. We’ve got a long way to go, and mostly we’re waiting for decisions to be made behind closed doors. And man, If you thought waiting for the toast to pop-up sucked, try waiting for the next big moment in your career to pop up!

How would you do it? How would you convince a 20-something exec that you just brought them the newest 7 stars of TV. To stick their neck out, to go to bat, to make that call?

I love this show, and I really want to watch this show. It’s what I would break out the popcorn and Pepsi and wrap up with a blanket for. Hell, I might even turn off my cell phone, well, OK no, I wouldn’t do that, I have TiVo. But the almost 3000 emails of support for the show, and the constant comments and support from everyone that I talk to about this show ought to count for something, because I think that not only are the Skeptics ready for a show like this, but a good portion of the nation is ready for this. I feel the Winds of Science and Reason beginning to howl and you’d better hold onto your hat! This one is gonna be Big Baby! We got Star Power! (Call me. Mean it.)

As skeptics we are concerned with the promotion of science to the public and so we pay attention to the portrayal of science and scientists in mass media. Television and movies, and now the internet, are our modern forms of storytelling and they reflect and help create the collective consciousness of our culture. Even pure fiction, like Jeyll and Hyde, can tell us a great deal about the assumptions and icons of our society.

The scientist as Hollywood icon has gone through a limited number of permutations, and I believe a new icon has emerged in the last few years. Dr. Jekyll reflects the classic vision of a scientist as a lone mad genius, playing god and uncaring about the consequences (only realizing them when it is too late). Dr. Frankenstein, Dr. Moreau, a few James Bond villains, and just about every comic book scientist fit that icon.

The latter half of the 20th century saw another scientist icon emerge – the nutty professor. This is the image of a scientist as a hopeless geek – brilliant, good-hearted, but profoundly nerdy, culturally clueless, uncomfortable around women, often naive, and with a humorous tendency to blow things up. In addition to the inventer of flubber, this icon includes the nerdy scientist from The Simpsons, Jimmy Neutron, the cast of The Big Bang Theory, and nearly every scientist portrayed in tv and movies for children. This icon is still dominant today.

Now I believe a new icon has emerged in the last few years – the scientist as an impossibly brilliant but deeply flawed cynical hero. I think the prototype for this new scientist icon is Dr. House, portrayed by Hugh Laurie. Dr. House is smarter than everyone else in the room, and always manages to solve even the most difficult of medical mysteries with a flash of insight that comes at the appropriately dramatic moment. He also flaunts his cynicism, in which he clearly takes great pride. It is as if his cynicism is the other side of the coin of his brilliance – you can’t have one without the other.

House is also a deeply flawed character. He is addicted to narcotics (which I think is an omage Sherlock Holmes, which of course makes Homes a strong influence and perhaps the true progenitor of this new scientist icon), he is unable to form healthy relationships, and there is a lonely sadness about him that derives partly from a past tragedy.

But the character works because Laurie is a great actor and he makes House a compelling and likable character. We want him to succeed, and his flaws are endearing.

We now have a new slew of tv programming seeking to replicate House’s successful formula. The Mentalist is about a former stage magician, Patrick Jane, who suffered a great tragedy – his wife and daughter we killed by a serial killer that he mentioned in one of his public readings. He is a likable but quirky character, but more of a Columbo than a Sherlock Holmes. He is always one step ahead of everyone around him, and uses his special mentalist talents to trick the guilty party into revealing themselves. He is relationship-impaired and has a deep cynical streak.

The Eleventh Hour, a series copied from a recent BBC show staring Patrick Stewart, features a scientist, Dr. Hood, who is a consultant to the FBI and helps them solve science-based crimes and mysteries. Hood is impossibly brilliant and far-reaching in his fund of knowledge, and like House seems to solve each case in a flash of insight. He too has recently lost his wife (to cancer) and this gives him his cynicism. In a recent episode he opined that he knows there are no miracles because of all those who asked for one and did not receive it. He retains some of the geekiness from the “nutty professor” icon, but toned down to give him a bit more sex appeal.

And now we have a brand new series, Lie To Me, featuring a consultant portrayed by Tim Roth who has mastered the science of body language and can infer a great deal about a person (including whether or not they are lieing) just from careful observation. Although only one episode has aired, it is clear that Roth’s character is brilliant and deeply cynical (everyone lies all the time). We know he is divorced, and he has that same rough-around-the-edges persona as House.

The positive aspects of this new scientist as cynical anti-hero is that these scientist characters are all meant to be likable and charismatic in their own way. I like that the scientist in these shows is the hero and not an evil menace. Science is also portrayed as a useful tool that is practical and can solve problems. I also like the fact that these scientist characters all appear to be very skeptical in their world-view, although this positive is offset by the fact that their skepticism is often portrayed as cynicism. I think The Mentalist’s Jane is the most purely skeptical character of the bunch – he’s practically Banachek.

The negatives include the fact that all of these characters are men. Their female “Watsons” all serve the role of being the person that has to have everything carefully explained to them (admittedly a necessary device for the audience). But also the women are their softer non-cynical counterparts. They are there to constantly point out the glaring flaws in their personality. Sometimes this gets to the insipid “you just need to have faith” type of admonition and I find myself thinking that all of these shows need a good skeptical consultant to tell them how their scientist characters would respond in such a situation. I know there are female scientists out there in tv land, but this new scientist icon is definitely male dominated.

Another negative is the cliche that these characters have to be deeply flawed in some way. Why can’t a scientist just be a regular person? I know this is good drama and storytelling, and that is why literary cliche’s emerge, because they work. But let’s show a little imagination. It would be nice to break the mold a bit.

And finally I dislike how every mystery must be solved with a flash of brilliance.  I know this is a good dramatic plot device – all of these elements are, that is why they are copied. I am just thinking about their impact on our culture’s view of science. What these shows often portray is that science is inaccessible. Often arcane and impenetrable knowledge is used by the scientists, and they always seems to have the necessary factual tidbits at their finger tips. The unintentional message this may be sending is to forget about a career in science, or even understanding science, unless you are already a brilliant nerd.

There is a lot of good in these shows also. They often portray a scientific process of evaluating various claims and testing them, eliminating variables one by one, and the logic involved is often sound. But I would like to bring these characters down to earth a bit. Don’t try to impress the audience with flashy jargon – make the concepts understandable. Don’t make them an expert in everything, show them consulting other experts or references.

On the whole I think these shows are a net positive for the public image of science. Science is the hero of these shows, and the scientists are the stars. I prefer this new icon to the mad science and the nutty professor – definitely a move in the right direction. But this new scientist as a brilliant, cynical, flawed hero is to real working scientists as the Hollywood image of a cowboy was to real working cowboys.

I ran across a comment on the blog that I wrote last week. It caught my interest.  

Ejdalise wrote:

Not to say you guys won’t get there, but . . . I don’t know; perhaps it’s where I live, but I don’t often meet people who would be considered your target audience. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I thought about it for a bit, and wondered, why would he make that type of comment?  It didn’t take that long to realize that what is happening at least in terms of Ejdalise, is that many people don’t really understand our goals and intentions for this program, and thus think that we are aiming to create a show that is aimed at our smallish, yet active skeptical community. This is just not so.  

In order for a TV series to be successful in a “real” way that’s judged in the scale that will even make a blip in the Nielsen ratings, one must create a program that is consumable on the national, dare I say, international, scale. Too bad really, because that means that we have to create a show that must be, hmm how to say this correctly well… just easily understood by the general TV viewing audience. 

If we went out and created a TV show “For the Skeptics by The Skeptics” We wouldn’t last a season, probably only two episodes.  Forget the major networks, it wouldn’t get off the ground. As big as the community is, we’re not nearly big enough…yet.

I find most TV pretty dull, and rarely educational.  I have my favorites, generally divided into two categories: Mainstream network sitcoms that I can watch while working away on my laptop without fear of missing an important plot point.. A handful of network weeknight prime-time shows. Then there’s a few shows that I truly anticipate and watch, Mythbusters is surely one of them, I love to learn how things are made, how processes work and I really enjoy learning about new science, though most science shows seem to be re-hashing of pretty out of date science “wow” bits.

This sounds like I’m bashing the very industry that employs me, I’m not.  We all understand that in order to be successful in business you need to provide your customer with goods or services that they want, and in this case, our product is televised entertainment, and our customer just happens to be the majority of the TV viewers.  Well, that’s the hope anyway.

The Skeptologists needs to be a show that non-skeptics can watch and really enjoy.  A show that teachers can comment on in their 5th grade class the next day to their students. That the assembly line worker can joke about to his buddy over the din of the machinery.   And.. I didn’t forget.. A show that skeptics can watch, be entertained and educated by.   That’s a tall order. I want to create more than a show, I want to create a culture, and carefully injected into that culture is hopefully a few small bits of a molecule that will grow within the public.  An idea that thinking things through with different ideas and opinions is good.  Questioning things that are taken for granted, and sometimes just stopping to wonder why.

We all used to do it so much as a young child?  Why this? Why that? At some point along our growth, we stopped asking why, and got concerned with how much? What’s in it for me?

I know what your thinking, “Oh no, the show is going to be boring and dumbed down.” Not so.  My aim is to assemble a program that’s got great, new, relevant science, fun and interesting tests and experiments to determine and come to conclusions right before our eyes.  The show is about a cast of characters who all come from different but amazing backgrounds and a way to watch as they all bring their own perspectives to bear on the subjects.

The show is about The Skeptologists and without giving away the format, it’s about how they interact to come up with solutions to problems and challenges.  It’s not about the things, it’s about the emotions, the wonder and the creativity that’s required to be a good thinker, scientist and skeptic.  It doesn’t matter if they are performing high level equations or simple arithmetic, that’s not the story.  The story is why we do things this way and why some people choose not to take the time to consider why, or how.  

The world is full of people taking advantage of other people in many different ways.  The Skeptologists have the power to show people how to think better, deduce, use logic and critical thinking.  Maybe we’ll start to find that people just need a common ground in which to discuss tricky topics.  It could be that they never gave it much thought, or perhaps, they didn’t dare bring it up for fear that their own doubts would be looked upon by others as negative. By creating The Skeptologists culture within our show, our viewers can talk about the show… but hey, look at that, what they are really talking about is how they’re suddenly skeptical about something. 

So who is our Target Market? I’ll be bold and greedy and say: Almost everyone. That’s a really tough demographic, but I intend to give a bit to everyone, and my amazing cast and crew will deliver the goods… I’m sure of it.

That is a simple, if inconvenient, truth.

Therefore, while I feel very positively about the crew that Brian and Ryan have assembled, and I believe we can create top-notch skeptical content – none of that matters if we cannot compete to keep viewers glued to their TV screens (or convince no-nonsense executives that we can).

Science and skepticism have been fairing a bit better on commercial television of late, giving me some hope that the timing might be right. Everyone thinks immediately of Mythbusters and Bullshit – both highly successful shows built around a format of debunking. Recently, though, there has been a growing lineup of science-based entertainment programming. Some of it good, some of it not so much.

I was initially very enthusiastic about The Mentalist. The lead character, Patrick Jane, is a stage mentalist who used to pretend to be a medium, but now plays for the good side. He proclaims without apology that there is no such thing as psychics. He shows off his mentalism skill in every episode. I still retain some hope that the show will be a home-run for skeptics, but the last few episodes have been a bit stale.

The problem as I see it is that the mentalism is being reduced to window dressing. Jane is playing the part of Columbo – figuring out quickly who done it by keen observation and social instincts. He then spends the rest of the show contriving a situation in which the guilty party will be exposed or confess. Mentalism and skepticism are not driving the plot. The audience does not sharpen their critical thinking skills as they follow Jane through the process of solving the crime. Rather, he just shows off his talent.

Before you argue that what I was hoping for cannot be done (or at least not in an entertaining way) you should check out the BBC series Jonathan Creek. Creek is a inventor of stage illusions. Too dorky to perform himself, he was the real genius behind the tricks. Each week he used his knowledge of illusions to actually solve crimes, and the audience could not help but become a bit more skeptical while being entertained.

I had hoped that The Mentalist would become an American version of Jonathan Creek – so far, it has not.

Then there is another new show, The Eleventh Hour. On this series Jacob Hood is a science adviser to the FBI – using his preternatural knowledge of science to solve the most difficult and dangerous cases. The show definitely portrays science in a positive light, and Hood is a very likable character.

Two quibbles so far – first, the science is a bit inaccessible.  Brilliant scientists are often portrayed as magicians, dispensing their arcane knowledge to the normals. This could have the negative effect of pushing people away from science because it seems so unreachable. Hood is almost too smart – the show would work better if he had to struggle a bit more, and he were more vulnerable. Bring him down to earth, and show the audience that anyone can do science. There is nothing magical about it.

Second – the science gets a bit wonky in places. It’s too early to tell how grounded they are going to keep the show. It is all too easy for bad or sloppy writers, however, to fudge the science whenever they need a quick plot device.

This show was lifted directly from a BBC show of the same name, starring Patrick Stewart. I much prefer the Stewart character. He was more realistic, less ethereal, and came off as more dedicated to the process and integrity of science.

I hate to say this, but I get the distinct impression that high quality science-themed British shows are dumbed down for US television. This does not bode well.

So where does The Skeptologists fit into all of this? Well, we would be more of a reality TV show, like Mythbusters, and not a drama. It would simply be impossible, given the cast, for us to compromise on the science. It seems as if we found a way to make it entertaining – and we have a great deal of experience collectively making science accessible to a general audience.

But making science fun for science afficionados is not the same as making it fun for the broad public. That will be our challenge. The Mythbusters get to blow stuff up every episode. Our formula is less violent, but has the same – let’s explore something really cool and see what we find. We all really love what we do, and that is going to be the best hook that we have.

The formula for the show is still evolving. We understand that no matter how good the science and critical thinking education is that we squeeze into each show, if it is not compelling and entertaining TV, the show will not survive or even happen in the first place.

That is the reality of TV.

Landing a network TV production deal to have the opportunity to show all that hard work to a nation, and even the world, is much like hitting the lottery.

Too bad I don’t play the lottery.

Convincing entrenched, and complacent programming TV executives that you have a program that will change the way people consider their TV entertainment seems to be next to impossible.

I set out on a journey to do just that, and with the help of an amazing production team and an all-star skeptical cast, we’re going to make it a reality!

In my last blog, I shared some of the process to get this idea off the ground.  In this second installment, I want to give you an idea about how we came to decide who should be on our esteemed panel of brilliant minds for the show.

As you no-doubt have gleaned by the official contributors of SkepticBlog, the Skeptologists are: Brian Dunning, Steven Novella, Phil Plait, Yau-Man Chan, Kirsten Sanford, Michael Shermer and Mark Edward.  One doesn’t just open a book and check the boxes next to: Awesome Skeptical Soon-to-be-TV-Celebrities.  Much thought went into who should be a cast member and the type of background each individual should have.

Covering the Bases

In our little baseball game, we’ve got 6 bases actually. They will all be used in our massive game of Skeptic investigating.  We also have our umpire, Brian Dunning, to call foul balls!

Brian Dunning, my good friend and writer David Vienna and I worked at figuring who would be the Skeptologists and what they would represent.  By thinking through the topics of the show and the types of experiments and examinations that we wanted to do, we came to some conclusions:  

We first agreed that all of the Skeptologists would need to be able to consider themselves skeptics. Seems kinda obvious, but you’d be surprised how many “believers” sent us resume’s. I guess it shows how some believers really don’t think that  the rules apply to them. So silly.

We needed a doctor.  Someone that could analyze the physical effects that can be manipulated by food, drugs, injury, or plain old hocus-pocus. This person needed to be skeptically minded and have a real understanding of the medical world, a practical understanding of medicine and its uses, as well as a deep understanding of the medical profession, issues of health, the study of medicine and the diagnosis of illness and injury.  Why all of that?  Well a lot of topics that we plan to cover, involve people’s perceptions of health, physical effects and treatment.  We need someone that can definitely say whether or not these things are actually happening and they need the credentials to show they are, in-fact, qualified to make those assessments.

Next, we wanted someone that could understand electronics, complex technical systems, and physics.  We may build devices to examine, test or measure certain events or objects and having someone that could build measuring and testing equipment that will stand up to scientific scrutiny would be key. Our world is full of technology, and we need someone that can decode some of the trickier aspects of it all. Plus, if my laptop breaks while I’m on the set, I want someone that can take care of it… Just kidding, Yau-Man.

We wanted to have representation from the world of physiology as well.  Understanding how certain body processes work and the way we control and influence those functions can be very important.  Many topics that we cover have real effects on the human body, that are many-times falsely interpreted.  Maybe it’s an ingredient in some home-brew remedy that’s wreaking havoc, or understanding how a dog can smell so well.

Of course, someone that could understand people’s behavior and how they interpret the world around them would also play a vital role.  Many of our topics would include the investigation into people’s understanding of the subject and how it emotionally affects them.  A psychologist with a great track record and experience in the area of skepticism was definitely on the list.

Because we planned to discuss issues of extra terrestrial origin, space, UFO’s etc., we needed someone that could make sense of the study of the universe, aliens, and the research that goes on in the field of astronomy and science. Though this area seemed very specific at first glance, we found that the amount of skill and education that a good astronomer needed to posses had enough crossover in other areas to warrant a full cast member in this discipline. Excellent.

And finally, we needed someone skilled in the art of deception, illusion and manipulation. Not a politician running for President…  Someone that could use powers of observation… Not to fool us, but to be on the vigilant lookout for acts of fraud perpetrated on us by our research subjects.  We didn’t want to have anyone pulling the wool over our eyes. Like the software companies hired hackers to write their security protocol, we wanted a magician or illusionist to keep a keen eye out for those who were bent on deceiving us.

We were satisfied that this would be the perfect core team. If we needed additional experts, we could always enlist someone that had strengths in another area for a specific episode.  Brian, David and I were quite sure that this would make up a great team of people armed to be able to de-bunk any pseudoscience, paranormal or otherwise ridiculous claim that came our way.

Brian Dunning’s very important role is that of a moderator, host and skeptic of the skeptics.  His role is to understand and represent the general viewing audience’s position.  He’s there to not only help behind the scenes, but to make sure that our brainiacs aren’t going into upper-level scientific stratosphere.  He has to keep things grounded in a way that our audience can understand.  Brian’s gift for distilling detailed, lengthy and difficult concepts down the perfect liqueur of information is key. He’ll also pose questions to our Skeptologists throughout the show that we think the audience is asking (or yelling) at their television set.  It’s a one-sided, interactive show!  …did I just invent something there?  No.  I’m quite sure I didn’t.

The Dream Team

Brian and I started talking about our “Dream Team”  We both discussed a list of people that we thought would be perfect for the show. A list that was, “If we could choose anyone to be in the show, who would it be?”  

Among those on that secret list was Steven Novella from The Skeptics Guide to the Universe.  I had listened to his podcasts and quickly understood why his place in the skeptical community, along with his fellow rogues, has been cemented as Skeptical All-Stars.

Brian was invited to participate in the SGU podcast about his new book, Skeptoid: A Critical Analysis of Pop Phenomena …(Order now!) During that interview, Brian publicly announced our project as well as the casting call. After that episode aired, Steven talked with Brian about it and he said that he was interested. That was great news, but we still considered the physical distance a barrier. We assumed that because he was from back East, and a very busy and successful clinical neurologist at Yale, that he wouldn’t be able to make the time to commit to this project.  Little did he know that he was actually on our “Dream Team” list.  After that podcast aired, we were inundated with people anxious to either be a member of the cast or to help out in production.

Brian made announcement on the Skeptoid podcast, a few blogs were notified, and many emails went out to the community. Surprisingly, almost instantly, many resume’s and emails started coming in.

I was so pleasantly surprised by the level and quality of the applicants, and to those who took the time to reach out, I can’t thank you enough.

At one point we decided that we had the concept far enough along, and the response was so well received, that we decided to call the members of our Dream Team list.  To make a long story short.  We quickly filled our roles for Doctor, Physiologist, Psychiatrist,  and Astronomer.  We had several people that were in the running for Illusionist, or Magician, and that was a tough decision.

Our physicist, was undecided. Then, out of the blue, Yau-Man Chan reached out to us through an email to Brian.  He had just returned from production on CBS’s reality show, Survivor and was catching up on podcasts when he heard about the casting call.  He fit the bill perfectly, and after talking with him and reviewing his demo tape that we asked him to make, he rounded out the 5th member of the cast.  

The role of Magician was tough. However, on the advice of Michael Shermer, we decided to meet with Mark Edward and after a meeting in Long Beach, right before a location scout/ghost hunt at the Queen Mary, Brian, my producer, Shawna Young and I decided that we had our 6th and final Skeptologist.

A litany of phone calls, emails and deal memos whizzed across the country, and Michael Shermer, Phil Plait, Kirsten Sanford, Yau-Man Chan Steven Novella and Mark Edward transformed into “The Skeptologists!” Each understood what we were trying to accomplish and were very excited and positive about the project.  We made it through scheduling hurdles pretty easily, and suddenly, our “Dream Team” was a reality and was augmented by new individuals that made the team even better!

Hat’s off to the whole team and everyone that expressed an interest in the show.  We are limited to the number of people that we can have, but rest assured, skeptical readers, there’s a wealth of amazing talent and fine individuals that are certainly doing their part to be the Silent Skeptologists across the nation.

Next week, Pre-Production and the topics revealed for the Pilot Episode!