In our meetings so far, we've discussed once or twice where we want to go as a group. We came to a consensus that we'd all like to move in a direction towards making our conversations more useful, towards using our skeptical talents to analyze issues that aren't so easy. We don't want to be shooting fish in a barrel forever. What's the point in putting up articles that just tear down articles written by other people? Is anything accomplished?
Well, I was reading a post on denialism blog about how science defenders can empower the anti-science people by writing about them and their activities. The final paragraph of that article seemed to address some of the problem we at the SLSS have been having with the direction of the group and the blog.
While debunking silly nonsense is fun, and I've certainly indulged, it's not as helpful as demonstrating the fundamental dishonesty of organized anti-science. Ultimately our goal is educating people what real science is and, importantly, what real science is not and how to tell the difference. Merely showing how a given argument is silly or incorrect doesn't help a great deal. However, showing people how to tell the difference between these lies and the real deal is a far more valuable skill to impart, and I think that's what a majority of us are doing when we confront nonsense from denialists everywhere.
I've nothing to add to that.