Talk:Penn & Teller

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Talk:Penn and Teller)
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: <1>

P & T are some of the greatest skeptics around, this page doesn't do them credit IMO! JAStewart 20:39, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Wanna write one then. Be our guest.SusanThe Earth Moved 20:45, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Wait, we had someting slightly better than my rant about the ampersand! Probably at a page using the ampersand in the title that can't be accessed. As far as being the greatest skeptics, er, no. Pretty good debunkers, "mak show" and all that, but their politics also interferes here and there. humanUser talk:Human 21:09, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Do we need to have two articles on them, which are the same? Wouldn't it be better if we merged them together? D-Notice 06:49, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

What is the other article? I thought the "&" one got deleted because it was impossible to access, or something. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 08:59, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
It's a re-direct page, but is listed separately in [[Category:Skeptics]]. D-Notice 12:16, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
And it's really hard to edit it, I don't even know how someone managed to make the redirect (by moving it, maybe? but that wouldn't have left a category behind...). ħumanUser talk:Human 15:44, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
*Ahem!* You can still access the history to the ampersand version here. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 02:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Good point, so I edited that version to remove the cat. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Contents

[edit] Penn and Climate Change

In your article say that he allegedly rethought is position on climate change in 2008, without citing any source. I also would like to know, when did Penn & Teller ever say they were global warming denialists in the first place? I presume the guy who wrote this got it from here:http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/lab-notes/2008/06/27/penn-amp-teller-and-believing-in-dumb-things.html This blogger claimed that Penn denies Global Warming, just bacause he hates Al Gore and he reinforced this statement at TAM6 in Las Vegas in June 2008.Well, here the clip of what he really said at that q&a: http://youtu.be/xE0UkL4tjpg So,he clearly says he doesn't know, that practically there are lot of scientists on both sides, but by not being a scientist himself, he cannot make his mind.

Also if you watch the Season 6,ep.6 of Bullshit! aired in July '08, towards the end of the show, he also says practically the same thing: that there is some sort temperature change andhe doesn't know if is man-made, but he doesn't believe giving money to Al Gore and other wackos won't solve the problem. Sportsbetting (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I know they changed track on the passive smoking thing, which I mentioned briefly in Project Bullshit (I thought it was in the main article, but evidently not) but haven't actually seen any climatology from them that I remember. Need to rewatch "Environmental Hysteria", but IIRC it didn't touch on global warming much. ADK...I'll mystify your thumbtack! 11:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, irrational nuts who run this site - there is a whole episode of the show dedicated to the Global Warming Hoax. Yup, it's on Youtube.— Unsigned, by: 68.183.167.4 / talk / contribs 16:57, 16 July 2013‎ (UTC)

So?--ZooGuard (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
What is there about calling global warming a hoax that's rational? EVDebs (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this article so biased?

"A good rule of thumb to use may be that their episodes and discussions on religion, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories are great, but that your mileage may vary on episodes dealing with politics and economics."

You only like them when they debunk stuff that you disagree with?

You only criticize them on Gun control, Anti-environmentalism, Global warming, Second-hand smoke and Recycling.

You even call all the stuff you agree with "The good stuff"

Penn and Teller are great skeptics and you don't give them the credit they deserve. — Unsigned, by: 24.189.254.24 / talk / contribs

of course - that's why this is a BS site - it defines "rational" as "my opinion - everyone else is nuts"Template:Usnig 16:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
So you're saying the article is biased because it doesn't agree with you? Scarlet A.pngpathetic 11:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No. I just don't think they are getting the credit they deserve. They advocate atheism and scientific skepticism. if you want to criticize them, do it on all points, not just a select few. — Unsigned, by: 24.189.254.24 / talk / contribs 2011-12-09T20:40:35

I don't quite follow. Are you saying we should say that we disagree with them on points even if we actually agree with them on those points? --DamoHi 04:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
So have you ever watched thier shows? yes, they do have some skepticism, but they sell their point of view as well. Take a look at their show on Walmart, and just how much they leave out. The show on sleep disorders effectively said "it's cause you drink and party that you can't sleep". Their show on dieting said "losing weight isn't worth all this money (ok), and if you want to loose weight it's really easy, you just do it -- (Not so ok). They did a show on martial arts that was a total hack job, choosing only to look at crackpot martial artists, and not talk to anyone in japan or china who actually know what they are talking about. Their show on "food" saying micky d's was as good as quality meat just made no sense. is it true that if you are told something you will like it more, YES. but is it also true that people who enjoy food can tell the difference between a stew made with hamburger from micky d's and one made with ground sirloin? of course. They sell - they have views and in the 2nd season on, really did a shitty job about being in any way shape or form "rational".Pink mowse.pngGodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 05:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Walmart and Macdonalds employ millions of people. If you do not like their products or services, don't buy them. Simple. Evil greedy corporations. Making a profit. GASP! Moonshot926 (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody objected to businesses making profits. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 05:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Then what are you objecting to? Moonshot926 (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Apparently, P&T must be horribly biased against themselves, because if you actually read the article (hint: it really helps to do that), you'll see they've retracted their positions on second-hand smoke and AGW. Also, re: Wal-Mart, no they're not the root of all evil, but it's incredibly ironic to hold them up a bootsrappin' success story when they've received assloads of subsidies and land grants. So much for the magic of the market. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
And see all this. Read up. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

USA does not have capitalism. Government gets to pick winners and losers. If a big business fails. Government will bail them out. And those OWS people want MORE regulations. So that the gov can do a better job of picking winners and losers. Real capitalism is Laissez-faire. that will bring prosperity for all. Moonshot926 (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Laissez-faire does not have a good track record of bringing prosperity to all. Greater prosperity on average perhaps, but even a died in the wool conservative or libertarian could not argue that it brings greater prosperity to all. DamoHi 06:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Lemme guess, global warming is a commie conspiracy, Lincoln was a racist bloodthirsty warmonger, and child labor built character, right? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
False dichotomy. No true Scotsman. You claim that non-libertarians always like more regulation. This is simply false. Plenty of people know of plenty of regulations that ought to be done away with. Example: drug laws, esp. for mere possession. Please try not to be dishonest while discussing. Also, you claim that "real" capitalism is Laissez-faire - Adam Smith would like a word with you. He was for progressive taxation. Purely anecdotal, of course. Arguments over definition are usually worthless, but every once in a while I try. There is a term which means what you want. It's "laissez-faire". Please use it. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Who knows about global warming. Most scientists say it is real. But they also said other things that were not true before. Like peak oil in 2000. I am not so sure. But i can tell you one thing. Cap & Trade is a scam. Lincoln was a good man. He will be remembered. Moonshot926 (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, science was wrong before. But I will agree that cap and trade was a scam. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that science is wrong. I am saying many of the predictions are wrong. How many times was peak oil predicted? How many times was it wrong? Oil will never run out. The price will just get higher and higher. It will just become harder and harder to extract, which will give incentives for entrepreneurs to look into other energies. Anyway. We should be drilling here. There are enormous deposits of oil that we know about off the California coast and in Alaska that we refuse to tap. And then there are the yet-to-be-discovered deposits. Moonshot926 (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Who knows about global warming. Most scientists say it is real. But they also said other things that were not true before. -- The is the most stupid argument that any human being has ever come up with. Notably, it is used heavily by the religious. -- 74.111.235.97 (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


[edit] No, but really, isn't this a problem?

Penn and Teller are controversial figures in the skeptic community because of their libertarian political views. A good rule of thumb to use may be that their episodes and discussions on religion, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories are great, but that your mileage may vary on episodes dealing with politics and economics.

I'm no libertarian, nor a regular reader of this site. I don't even like Ron Paul. My personal sense of ethics leans liberal. But from the viewpoint of a skeptic, your political opinions are founded upon the information you receive. There is nothing inherently objectionable in terms of skepticism in having those political beliefs. I am not ready to say that there are few or no libertarian views that are more correct (useful, applicable, appropriate) than my own. I don't necessarily object to disparaging the views, but the point is, this paragraph in the lede doesn't show why I should agree, unless I already hate libertarians or libertarianism.

I also object to the quote "we don't know" (Penn talking about global warming) linking to bullshit. It implies that what he said was bullshit (from that article: "the art of deceit through obfuscation."). It implies that he was trying to deceive. There's no logical reason for this silliness. To accuse him of deception is to say that he's not just ignorant of the research, or not skeptical enough. If you want to say that there was strong evidence at the time he was quoted. This kind of behavior only serves to encourage the intellectual circlejerk that, well, is anti-logical.

Minor complaints on a minor article, but hey, I'm more of a mathematician than a politician (i.e. I don't look into things just because they're useful or popular). --24.90.19.79 (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This wiki is almost as firm in its viewpoints as Conservapedia is. This is not Wikipedia, and, with that knowledge, you should understand the stance that RationalWiki is trying to take, and, having to take actual sides unlike Wikiped's ambiguity, it is not simply for "everyone who does not like Conservapedia's irrationality". 11even (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Recycling copy adjustment

This edit was made to more factually represent Penn's statements on the issue. The previous edit seems to mix Penn's response on the recycling episode with a completely different question, and doesn't reflect his actual response. Penn doesn't specifically claim regretting the recycling episode 'most of all', nor does he claim that they've 'changed their opinion on the subject entirely'.

For confirmation please review the video linked in the ref, starting at 11:29. The question asked is "What was the most drastic shift in personal belief while researching a topic for Bullshit?"

Penn's answer (at 12:11), verbatim: "Recycling, uhh, I also didn't expect, but that's all in the direction, you wouldn't think. I mean recycling, we started out with 'recycling is bullshit', but that came out of that New York Times article I read, and a lot of the stuff that was heavy in there I had already read when we came to it, so… I think it's the same kind of answer, it's not that we're not open minded, it's just that we're working on it, so our opinions don't change when we do the show, they change when we're working on the show."

[edit] Penn and Teller - Organic Food

Pan we please respond to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ET7Xv2m9k — Unsigned, by: Betrix5068 / talk / contribs

yes we can:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019 — Unsigned, by: 134.134.139.74 / talk / contribs

[edit] pseudoscience tag

I patrolled an edit that removed "Category:Pseudoscience promoters". I think it's fair to say that they are outspoken critical thinking and science promoters, in spite of being libertarians and occasionally getting material facts wrong (and they do admit when they are wrong). Why the hell would someone add that category to this page? Lol. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to not have them be labelled as that. Though, as a counter-point, I think they also have used their show, which is ostensibly about using skepticism to show why pseudoscience is bullshit, to then go ahead and assert libertarian policies as if they were somehow more "scientific". They apply skepticism to take down pseudoscience, but then appear to be using some weird pseudologic to show "QED Libertarianism". --ShadowofLords (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I just rolled back a similar edit, which assigned the page to Category: Enablers. I don't think that's apt, but I could be convinced - in any case, before assigning them to that category I'd need to see a case made. TallMan (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


[edit] More Bias

In the sentence " the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank funded and founded by the Koch family, who have opposed every form of regulation of business, " Why is the word "every" in italics, in the section which calls Penn and Teller out using appeals to emotion this is a blatant appeal to emotion: OH NO! NOT EVERY FORM OF REGULATION, THEY MUST BE BAD AND RIDICULOUS I thought this site is meant to be impartial

it disregards the fact that libertarians believe that there are forms of free-market regulations - I'm not here to debate that point but can the leftists/mainstream-liberal bias will you?— Unsigned, by: 37.152.209.63 / talk / contribs 00:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

By that loose criteria, "I thought this site is meant to be impartial" is also an appeal to emotion and you become a hypocrite for using it. The emphasis on every is the least problem of that sentence, to the point of not being a problem. If I were you, I would take issue with the reflexive Koch-dropping.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, the Kooh thing is largely irrelevant (I've trimmed that), but the core of the conflict-of-interest there is factual. As is the somewhat disconcerting reliance on a libertarian think-tank to produce declarations about hard climate science. Would we ask their opinion on the existence of the Higgs Boson? Also, no, RW has no obligation to be impartial. Just as Penn said in one episode of Bullshit! - we're biased as all fuck, but we at least try to be honest. Scarlet A.pngDon't click here 09:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support