The semantic content of that last post is a bit low.

Agreed. It was low by design. I am tired of saying, over and over again, what is in the post itself.

You have also misread my comment and my post. I stated, quite clearly, that there is much more convincing evidence that the track is successful than the “I was bored.” evidence presented by Watson and the other critic. One does not need to meet the “gold standard” of evidence to clearly see that one “theory” is far more plausible than another.

Regardless, this is a futile discussion and I won’t respond further.

There was no record to set straight. Watson’s piece was a lighthearted opinion piece, not a ‘record’. Implying a ‘reversal’ of Skeptrack’s course implies that at some time they embraced “ridiculousness” and have moved in a more “dry” direction, which isn’t true at all. In the analogy you have created, I would argue that steering a few points off a direct line might put you in a favorable current to get you to your goal faster.

In your piece, you (unfairly I think) summarize Watson’s. I don’t want to create a straw man by summarizing your piece in a way that creates an argument where there is none.

Everyone you site, including Watson, gives their OPINION that the big tent events were successful outreach (Adam Savage, James Randi, etc.) There is no controversy there, and there never was a dispute about this. Ms. Watson’s belief that we could do more to appeal to the younger, less serious crowd passing through the Hilton was not supported by a statistical analysis (nor need it be in a humorous opinion piece), but then your more serious rebuttal is not supported either.

As you admit above “we do not have a systematic analysis of the audience to measure the level of familiarity each attendee has with “the movement”.

Would you agree that the population of Skeptrack is overwhelmingly older white males? If not, would you agree to measuring this, and using it as a yardstick for success in outreach? If not, could you suggest other objective measurements to evaluate success at outreach?

There IS evidence of hugely successful outreach and no evidence that Rebecca’s suggestions would improve anything. Everything that I would write in response to the rest of your comment is clearly laid out in the initial post, so I will ask once again – if you see flaws in my argument, address those flaws. Otherwise, you’re just repeating the objections I have already addressed.

Skeptrack is the reason I started coming to DragonCon, and the source of the majority of panels I attend. Thank you for your part in creating that.

As to outreach, I am reminded of one panel I attended (Sunday at 10am) “Diversity and Freethought” which focused on the Skeptic movement being predominantly populated by old, white men. As a middle-aged, white man, I found the talk uncomfortable, but I had to agree with the concern.

Doing what we can to appeal to a younger, more diverse crowd would seem to me to be a positive development. As to whether Ms. Watson’s suggestions would be superior to the current offerings, I couldn’t say.

You make the point yourself that we have no reliable data on whether we are preaching to the choir, or making new converts.

Skeptically, scientifically, I wonder how we could measure the demographics of the attendees at each panel. Perhaps a snapshot of the room at the beginning of each panel to be later tallied as to race, sex, and approximate age? There are other methods (questionnaires, etc), but until we’re measuring such things in SOME fashion, I don’t think we can productively debate whose vision for the future of DragonCon Skeptrack is more useful.

You continue to discuss this as if there is a personal relationship and even suggest that I create one. I have no interest in that. I did not accuse Rebecca of malice or “mine” her piece for anything. I called attention to harmful criticisms she made that were baseless. It’s not about her; it’s about what she said.

If you disagree with my criticisms, state your case by showing the flaws in my argument. That can’t be done without discussing what I wrote here specifically because that, and only that, is my argument.

I hope that puts to rest any further discussions of personal relationships and MY intentions.

I’m glad you’ve enjoyed the blog and I hope you continue to enjoy it and contribute.

Once again, I (along with others in the SI Facebook thread) didn’t read the Watson piece as negative. After reading your response(s) I assumed I was missing the big picture. I am pleased to hear there was no missing context, and chagrined that I phrased things so as to suggest a “catfight”, which I assure you was not my intention.

You assert there is no misunderstanding. As a skeptic, may I suggest an experiment? Rather than mining the Watson piece for evidence as to its intentions, why not ask her if your interpretation was her intention?

At the very least, it would eliminate any doubt of malice, and at best might avoid conflict between philosophical allies.

This debate has introduced me to your blog, which I have found very pleasurable. I assure you I have no animosity towards you, despite how my previous post may have seemed. Watson may be in a similar situation.

Please do not ignore the issues or suggest that I am talking about something other than what I have discussed.

Cherry-picking positive statements and ignoring my points does not advance your argument. Whether her statements are compliments or criticisms is irrelevant in a discussion of how accurate they are.

Watson described “Skeptrack’s dedicated volunteers” and I saw no complaints regarding not applying on time in her piece. Perhaps there was some backstage drama of which those of us reading as attendees were unaware? Because that hardly seems like disrespect.

Watson concluded with “the SkepTrack room is a great place to meet fellow skeptics.” which is a compliment, and continued “I just hope that next year it’s an even better place to meet the people who previously walked past.” which I read as her hope that Skeptrack improves what she takes to be an already good program.

As Animefan noted, the fact that you enjoyed Skeptrack at Dragon*Con is testimony to its success. It clearly wasn’t boring to you, me, or hundreds of attendees.