tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35675147.post6479864960469150796..comments2024-01-14T02:32:38.226-05:00Comments on Public Parapsychology: Skeptiko ReviewAnnalisa Ventolahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10604572323799521346noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35675147.post-69239838095922167092007-03-26T15:34:00.000-04:002007-03-26T15:34:00.000-04:00I don't think that you have to be neutral to provi...I don't think that you have to be neutral to provide a balanced view. The biases of the host and the guests are clear, as you said. Rather, I think the show is good for presenting differing points of view. The interviews with Blackmore and Shermer are obvious evidence of this, but if you contrast the positions of Radin, Schwarz, or Tart, you might recognize that there is much to debate even within the field itself...especially in regards to issues of survival, or the future of the field.Annalisa Ventolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10604572323799521346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35675147.post-71743750857723022012007-03-26T15:15:00.000-04:002007-03-26T15:15:00.000-04:00I really enjoy Skeptiko too, but I don't know if I...I really enjoy Skeptiko too, but I don't know if I'd call it "balanced." The biases of the people producing it are clear. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing - and it certainly happens with other "skeptical" sources - but it's not like they are completely neutral on the issues being discussed.<BR/><BR/>The interview with Sue Blackmore was very well done though, and I felt like there was a good discussion going on even though there was some disagreement.Phronkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13130514499521837002noreply@blogger.com