Feb 18 2013
6 Comments
By Skeptical Abyss TAM

I’m Back (And A TAM Preview) [Updated With New Info]

“I been a long time leaving but I’m going to be a long time gone”

–Willie Nelson

I have been gone from blogging since July, and I had planned on being gone forever (at least on this blog). Today I decided to change that, and, well . . . I am back. I can’t say for how long, and I can’t say why I was gone for such a long while. IRL can be a real bitch sometimes.

I have not logged into the SA admin page since July, and today when I got back, what did I see but 60,626 comments pending moderation! I bet that all but about 10 are spam, and I am not going to take the time to moderate and de-spamify 60k+ comments! I guess I will have to figure out a new comment system other than the WordPress native application.

[Edit]  I have now changed the commenting system to Disqus.  I hope that it reduces spam.  We’ll see.  [End Edit]

 

At any rate, like I said, I am back. You may be asking yourself what event brought me out of my deep slumber, but if you know me (and a few of you do), you probably have a general idea. It was the fact that the TAM 11 website went live today, with an announcement as to identity of the speakers. Having been to the last six TAMs, I think that I have enough expertise to give some comments and previews.

Let’s start with who is not coming to TAM 2013, as I think that this may be more interesting than who is coming:

Phil Plait (not coming).

Until last year, Phil was a mainstay of TAM. His “Don’t Be A Dick” talk may have been one of the greatest talks in the History of TAM. From what I heard, last year he could not make it due to a conflict with San Diego Comic Con, but this year Comic Con is the week after TAM, so that can’t be the reason. One wonders whether there has been a falling out between The Bad Astronomer and the JREF.

Adam Savage (not coming) Another strange one. Adam was a regular, a stalwart, of TAM. His talk on failure is right up there with “Don’t Be A Dick” on the excellence scale. It could be that he had a scheduling conflict, but I have a sneaking suspicion that his friendship with Rebecca Watson, who is apparently in the midst of a perpetual boycott of all things JREF and TAM-related, has something to do with it.

Pamela Gay (not coming). Another stalwart. While I thought her talk last year was a big disappointment, she has come through in the past with great presentations, and her appearance on a panel with Neil DeGrasse Tyson at TAM 9 was one of my all-time TAM highlights.

[Edit] After I posted this, I came across a Tweet by Pamela Gay addressing this situation:

Screen Shot 2013-02-18 at 4.55.32 PM

 

So, for some reason, Pamela got the cold shoulder by the JREF this year, and it seems that she is taking it personally.  Here is the “pict in the ads” that she is talking about, which is part of a photo banner rotation at the very top of the webpage for TAM 2013:

 

Screen Shot 2013-02-18 at 4.59.10 PM

 

I guess I can understand her annoyance on this point, but it seems a little petty.  After all, the JREF flew her to Vegas and put her up in a hotel year after year.  It’s not like she was a salaryman in Tokyo in 1972 expecting employment for life.

Then there is this bitter-ish exchange:

Screen Shot 2013-02-18 at 5.02.45 PM

 

 

And then Pamela gets into the bitterness a little deeper, and a TAM speaker, Barbara Drescher responds:

Screen Shot 2013-02-18 at 5.08.01 PM

 

The answer to Barbara’s question was not to her satisfaction:

Screen Shot 2013-02-18 at 5.11.02 PM

 

At this poing, all I can say is this:  If the JREF did not invite Pamela, perhaps they also chose not to invite Phil Plait and Adam Savage.  That would be interesting, and frankly not something that I object to.  One of the biggest issues I have had with the TAM lineup has been the repetition of speakers year after year, and the lack of new blood.  Based on my (admittedly superficial) knowledge of the situation, I do not think that Pamela has a legitimate reason to feel insulted or slighted, or to lash out at Barbara on Twitter.

[End Edit]

Eugenie Scott (not coming). Eugenie’s talks have always been enjoyable and interesting. Too bad she is not here, especially considering some of the other “talent” that the JREF has decided to book.

So, let’s look at some, but by no means all, of the people who have been invited to speak (in no particular order).

Sara Mayhew. (sigh)

I saw her name on the TAM roster and just about vomited. Her talk last year was one of the worst examples of public speaking since Carrie Prejean appeared on Larry King. Her talk at TAM 9 was almost as bad, although I will admit that she was somewhat coherent at TAM 9. I cannot fathom why the illustrious luminaries who book the TAM speakers would even think of inviting her back–she has nothing to add to the discourse, and as far as I have been able do determine, she has never contributed anything of substance to skepticism, science, or anything other than producing a few manga comic books. Seriously, WTF were you thinking, JREF? My only hope is that they schedule her at 2:00 in the afternoon so that I can skip out and get a little nap in. Only time will tell.

Karen Stollznow (Excellent).

I am really happy about this booking. Karen is one of the best writers and thinkers in the skeptical movement today. Unlike Sara Mayhew, she has contributed a lot to skepticism, from her columns in Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer to her work on Point of Inquiry, to Monster Talk. TAM needs more speakers like Karen, and less like Sara, in this blogger’s humble opinion.

George Hrab (Good)

George is back as MC. Good choice. George has wit. He has charm. He can play guitar. He can keep things moving as an MC. I just hope he does not repeat the practice of doing singing introductions for he speaker again. That was okay as a one-off, but I would hate to see it become the norm.

Susan Jacoby (Very Good)

A good choice as keynote. Unlike Sara Mayhew (yeah, I know that I keep harping on the JREF booking her, but it is such an awful choice that it bears repeating, over and over again), Susan is a talented author and journalist who has actually contributed to skeptical thought (The Age Of American Unreason is a masterpiece, in this blogger’s opinion).

Susan Blackmore (never heard of her before).

From her bio on the TAM website, she looks qualified to give a good TAM talk (unlike someone else who I could name, but will not, in the interest of not appearing obsessive). Her Book “The Meme Machine” looks pretty interesting.

Reginald Finley (Who knows)

Talk about a blast from the past. Reginald Finley, aka the Infidel Guy, who was a pioneer in atheist podcasting, will be speaking at TAM 2013. I had not heard of him for years, since his podcast disappeared, but he always had a good gift of gab behind the microphone, so I am hopeful that this will be interesting.

Harriet Hall and Sharon Hill (hey, blogging is hard business, and I am getting fatigued, so I am combining the two).

Good, strong choices, two people who have contributed a lot to the skeptical movement, have a lot to say, and know how to say it (at this point a lesser blogger might have gone back to that old chestnut of comparing the two of them to You Know Who, but even I am getting tired of that schtick).

Massimo Polidoro and Massimo Pigliucci (Seriously, two guys named Massimo at the same skeptical conference? What are the odds of that? Considering the high level of intellect of TAM attendees, I bet some of you could calculate it for me).

And all the rest (Good)

The rest of the speakers look like a solid and stalwart bunch.

That’s it for now.

SA

Tagged , , , , ,
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=660922420 Kitty Mervine

    ummm, you dont know WHY someone was not invited, but hey let’s just guess. I’m guessing Adam was invited. He spoke at MIT and said he thought the number one benefit of his “fame” was meeting people like his hero “James Randi”. This was not a skeptic event. But he has a busy schedule. I think the theme of the TAM has a lot to do with who was invited. TAM9, was SPACE! There was a TAM about the media, this TAM has a different theme. Phil, while a wonderful speaker and one of my favorites, has very deservedly found more fame and is a presence on TV and in the media more than ever. He would be great, but he’s probably busy. To guess he’s having a feud with Randi and JREF is a big leap. We’re skeptics, we fact check. We don’t “guess”! Even “educated guesses”! I feel sad Pamela Gay feels this way, indeed her attack on the career of choice of someone else is rather surprising. I have a daughter that has her PhD from MIT in geology, I know many scientists not familiar with the real work of a geologist do not believe she is a “real scientist”. However, some scientists have to live with not having the full respect of other scientists. TAM seems like a good mix, and I know my own brother is coming simply because there is a new mix, he got tired of the same speakers over and over. I think Pamela will surely be asked back. Her talks are insightful and we do need women scientists speaking. I know when my daughter blogged on Skepchick, there was a real commitment to have a woman with a science background (even a non science as some might say such as geology) writing. This carries on with Noisy Astronomer now blogging with them (a science Pamela might more approve of!). . We were both mentioned in his “Don’t be a Dick” article, and I feel an obligation to stand up for what he wrote, and live up to his inspiration. I truly look forward to her next talk, at TAM or any other skeptic conference.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Barbara-A-Drescher/1307296112 Barbara A. Drescher

    For the record, I don’t believe that Pamela “lashed out” at me on Twitter. She is a friend and she expressed a view of my field that surprised and upset me. That’s it. It really has nothing to do with TAM.

    Regarding all of the “not comings”, one of the biggest complaints that the JREF gets is that too many speakers seem to have a permanent spot. I am sure that Pamela expected to be invited again; she’s a very popular speaker (for good reason), as are many of the others you mentioned. But I do think that it was a wise choice to break that cycle a bit, even if it means not seeing people like Pamela and Genie and Phil (all of whom are regulars on Skeptrack at Dragon*Con, so I’m okay with it). We can’t have everything and everyone unless we want TAM to be a week-long event and this speaker list is top-notch.

    • Astro

      I completely agree with breaking the cycle somewhat. I completely understand the JREF wanting to keep a lot of “big names” that are well known simply to get people to come to hear/see them — that’s a big draw and it’s a fund-raising event. But, a problem with *any* field is that if you keep bringing out the well-known people, you never give a chance for the “could-be’s” to have a shot and perhaps drawn an even bigger crowd. I think a good mix (like 50/50, 60/40, or something like that) of big names and could-be’s is the right way to go.

      P.S. I understand some of Pamela’s view of psychology not being a “hard science,” but that’s about as far as I go (and I’ve had this conversation with my mom, who was a psychiatric nurse). It’s definitely a science, follows the scientific method, etc., but I think it’s much more difficult to prove/validate things to the kind of certainty that you could, for example, describe the motion of a ball dropped from a given height. That said, it make psychology almost harder in a way, and I definitely respect people who can do well in the field.

  • http://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz Bob Blaskiewicz

    Yeah, Pamela is not out of the fold by a long shot. I liked her talk last year, and she’s a relentless, utterly merciless science educator of high caliber. She’ll be back, fo shizzle.

  • Wendy Hughes

    Susan Blackmore is a pioneer of skepticism. She had been a believer, and studied Out of Body experiences. Her most famous experiment was putting a card with a word written on it up on a high shelf, but nobody who claimed to be having OBEs was ever able to say what was written on the card. She is going to be a suitable and popular speaker at TAM, the theme of which is Fighting the Fakers.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat/videos Astrokid NJ MRA

    Re: Sara Mayhew
    Young woman.. possibly attractive post-makeup.
    Could it have anything to do with whats known as the Pussy Pass, or to put it in scientific terms, Meritorius Mediocrus? (an indictment of society) Becky Watson anyone?

    Meritorious Mediocrus is perceived as a great Amazon bird of prey to many of those within men’s circles. Tales of her exploits become legendary and her name is revered wherever she goes. Even in far away lands, children are regaled with stories about the brave and mighty Meritorious Mediocrus.

    There is a natural problem built within the species Meritorious Mediocrus though, and this is why some experts wish to rename this bird as Annika Sorenstamus. You see, Meritorious Mediocrus gets an enormous amount of attention for placing 96th out of 111, simply for being a woman. No-one knows who was 97th, 95th or even 5th – but everyone knows when Meritorious Mediocrus places in the bottom 15% of the field, and she receives gratuitous adulation for her accomplishments.

    We see this same phenomenon all throughout society. A woman accomplishes something “great” simply by becoming, say, a firefighter. In fact, a newspaper story might appear on the front page because of this particular example of a Meritorious Mediocrus, and sumptuously entertain the readers with her heroism in becoming a firefighter. A man, however, who is stronger, faster and has fifteen years experience on her, will not receive any praise for his “accomplishments” unless he charges fearlessly into a blazing orphanage and single handedly rescues a dozen toddlers. Then of course, when he is done, he sees a little girl crying that her kitten is still trapped inside. So the male firefighter again gallantly dashes into the inferno, intending to rescue the kitten, only for the entire building to collapse upon him, killing him instantly. That story will make the eighth page in the same newspaper.

    The problem with Meritorious Mediocrus stems from her fame and influence far outstripping her insights and accomplishments. The effect of this is that the lower end of the spectrum tends to have a louder, more influential voice than the higher end of the spectrum. And somehow, there is just something not right about that. It’s like the natural hierarchy of the universe gets turned upside down.