Do you guys want interviews?

I have just sent an e-mail to Titus Rivas (sorry, couldn't do it earler due to some technical problems). He once wanted to have a written, distant interview with Alex, but Alex refused.

So... if the interview would take a form of a written exchange, with questions formulated by us and Titus providing answers - possibly, with our further replies and Titus' responses to them - will it be acceptable?

And, for the future - I may try the same thing with Henry Bauer, with whom I also had a repeated and rich mail exchange.

[Laird]

I have just sent an e-mail to Titus Rivas (sorry, couldn't do it earler due to some technical problems). He once wanted to have a written, distant interview with Alex, but Alex refused.

So... if the interview would take a form of a written exchange, with questions formulated by us and Titus providing answers - possibly, with our further replies and Titus' responses to them - will it be acceptable?

Sounds good to me. I don't know much about Titus Rivas so might not be able to contribute questions myself though, unless I brush up in the meantime.

It might also be worthwhile to try and set up podcasts with more than one guest; the host could just be a moderator/source of questions, and the guests can discuss/debate them with each other. If you can get people like Sheldrake or Radin, and more skeptical or critical people (J.E. Kennedy, or other psychical researchers who draw different conclusions), that could be really interesting, and wouldn't be a predictable proponent/skeptic back-and-forth.

Should have thought of this year's ago.

I am definitely in favour of us doing some interviews if possible. I mean, let's be honest, Alex often didn't get the most out of the people he interviewed, because he always seemed to be trying to get them to agree with him - which isn't the ideal way to do things!

I mean, ideally we should be trying to take over the SKEPTIKO mantel without the politics, and probably the Climate Change (and probably a few other things). I say that even though I more or less agree with Alex's views on such subjects - the problem is that it those topics create too much friction, and aren't very closely related to what we are really about.

David

If anthropogenic climate change / global warming is not about to be discussed, then why do we have Alternative Views on Science subsection? If we are about to explore "fringe" scientific topics - and parapsychology is one of them - we cannot avoid examination of scientific controversies in general. And limiting non-consciousness-related "fringe" science topics to the single specific subsection will help avoid undsirable mixture.

There are plenty of alternative topics that can be discussed there: cold fusion, EM Drive, Woodward-Mach Effect, virtual reality, etc. 

I don't think that we should shy away from the fringe, but climate change invariably ends with one side trying to convince the other that it is right.

It might also be worthwhile to try and set up podcasts with more than one guest; the host could just be a moderator/source of questions, and the guests can discuss/debate them with each other. If you can get people like Sheldrake or Radin, and more skeptical or critical people (J.E. Kennedy, or other psychical researchers who draw different conclusions), that could be really interesting, and wouldn't be a predictable proponent/skeptic back-and-forth.

I think a debate format might be very interesting. I agree it would be better to have shades of grey rather than black versus white. Sceptics who are willing to engage with the evidence rather than dismissing it, and proponents who can see the other point of view rather than ridiculing it.

I think a debate format might be very interesting. I agree it would be better to have shades of grey rather than black versus white. Sceptics who are willing to engage with the evidence rather than dismissing it, and proponents who can see the other point of view rather than ridiculing it.

But what if the other point of view really is ridiculous?

I think a debate format might be very interesting. I agree it would be better to have shades of grey rather than black versus white. Sceptics who are willing to engage with the evidence rather than dismissing it, and proponents who can see the other point of view rather than ridiculing it.

But what if the other point of view really is ridiculous?

Can you give us an example?  I'm fond of the debate format concept.

But what if the other point of view really is ridiculous?

Can you give us an example?  I'm fond of the debate format concept.

Not off the top of my head. But real-world debates often include examples.