The 2005 Pigasus Awards have been announced by The Amazing Randi himself. The categories:
Category #1, to the scientist who said or did the silliest thing related to the supernatural, paranormal or occult.
Category #2, to the funding organization that supported the most useless study of a supernatural, paranormal or occult claim.
Category #3, to the media outlet that reported as factual the most outrageous supernatural, paranormal or occult claims.
Category #4, to the "psychic" performer who fooled the greatest number of people with the least talent:.
Category #5, for the most persistent refusal to face reality.
Good to see Randi back in action. Go here to read who the "winners" were.
This finally gives me a peg to hang a question I've been meaning to ask. I'm a full-fledged skeptic, an atheist, etc. But I'll admit that I LOVE the tv show "Medium." I don't take it as factual, any more than I did "Dead Zone" or did "Buffy." (And I think this year they've dropped the ending note that claims that it is based on a 'real person.') But is simply a good, solid, well-written and acted show, the plots are solid, and the surprises and twists usually work.
The question is if I have to hide my 'Skeptic club' button when I watch it, and if many other skeptics admit to enjoying it as well.
(After all, time travel is equally absurd, but I'm glad to be hopping a ride on the TARDIS every week.)
And a personal question. What do you, as a doctor, think of HOUSE?
In my view these shows are fine as long as they don't claim to be factual. My favorite movies are Alien and Bladerunner, and I grew up watching Doctor Who on the TV, but I don't believe aliens have actually been here. I am a Buffy fan too. But I refuse to watch Medium since it is supposed to be based on Dubois' "real life", so I can't comment on whether it is good or not.
House is so bad I regard it as a comedy. And is it me or does Hugh Laurie have a really bad American accent? I wonder if that bad accent is part of the joke that this series secretly is.