The Next Great Skeptic?

During my morning drive into work, my brain goes through a creative process that is fun, exciting, and often very bizarre. Ideas pop in and out of my head and by the time I get to work, I usually have a new plan for eradicating poverty, claiming world domination or bedding Salma Hayek. Needless to say, most of these ideas never go anywhere for lack of funding, practicality, and certain middling legal issues. This morning I had an interesting one that may or may not be one of the rare few that I follow up on. At the risk of exposing the dark recesses of my mind, here goes...

We form a loose cooperative agreement with leaders and opinion makers within the skeptical community to perform a search for the Next Great Skeptic. The eventual winner should be intelligent, charismatic, and able to handle his/herself under a media spotlight. We find a new face to publically expouse the benefits of scientific analysis and critical thinking.

I think there are probably many unfound diamonds in the rough. I believe there are businessmen, lawyers, professors, magicians, and plumbers who all have the potential to coherently and clearly express the views that many of us hold in such a way as to make people think twice about unfounded superstitions. Some of these folks might even have that extra something that makes them stand out from the crowd.

As I look around the skeptical community I see many brilliant thinkers and great speakers. I often ask myself though, what makes someone like James Randi or Carl Sagan special? There are many people expressing the same ideas, so why them? In the end, it largely boils down to what entertainment folks call "The X Factor." Randi has it. It's rare, but when you find someone who has that inexplicable ability to earn the rapt attention of their audience, you want to see that person do their thing.

While we have many charismatic folks already in the public eye (Penn Jillette, Richard Wiseman, George Hrab, etc, etc), I'm interested in looking beneath the radar to find the untapped potential. Here's the basic concept.

Stage 1) Get as many current known Skeptics on board including bloggers, podcast hosts, YouTube denizens, etc.

Stage 2) Collectively announce the contest and issue a challenge to any interested participants. A question will be posted somewhere at a certain date and time (ie: why shouldn't we "teach the controversy" about Evolution?).

Stage 3) Participants have 24 hours to upload a personal response to the question to YouTube and submit the link for consideration.

Stage 4) A panel of judges watches the videos and collectively picks the top 10.

Stage 5) A series of challenges are proposed. Interviews on Skeptical podcasts are done with each contestant. They must post blogs with interesting writing. They must secure a speaking gig at some formal event, etc.

Stage 6) The field is whittled down to the top 3 after contestants have been judged on their ability to coherently and charismatically expouse their views under various conditions.

Stage 7) The final 3 get to speak at TAM (?), where the final voting will be done and the winner will be chosen and announced.

Stage 8) Winner gets lots of publicity for his/her writing, podcast, etc. Maybe even a cool T-Shirt?

Well, that's the big pile of creativity that my brain shoveled out onto my lap over my morning coffee on the drive to work. What do you think?

The Carnival Barkers

   vs.

Vince McMahon Jr. (Son of Vince Sr.): Incredibly wealthy show promoter that took over his father's business of providing fictional entertainment to unknowing masses, who largely believed it was real.

Richard Roberts (Son of Oral): Ditto

VM: People mostly caught on to the ruse and the continued claim of legitimacy became embarrassing and unsustainable.

RR: Some people caught onto the ruse. Continued claims of legitimacy were critical, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

VM: Legal authorities started clamping down on loopholes claimed by the company. Steroid abuse allegations are investigated. WWE institutes strict testing procedures when they begin to face legal responsibility.

RR: Legal authorities ignore the frauds and refuse to clamp down on the "ministry" due to fear of voter reprisal and first amendment protections. The ministry continues to rake in tax free dollars, largely based on unsubstantiated miracle healing claims.

VM: WWE now acknowledges the scripted nature of the business. Fans continue to pay for the entertainment.

RR: The ministry continues to claim that miracle healings are real. Fans continue to pay for.... what exactly?

Way too cool.