Talk:Penn & Teller/Archive1

Serious cleanup
Is anyone emotionally attached to the mess that the page is in at the moment? The two "versions" aren't really needed and the references to Human's dislike of the dynamic duo are really distracting. Plus, I reckon if the P&T article is going to concentrate on Bullsh!t it should be moved to Penn and Teller: Bullsh!t or similar (it's already linked to in the bullshit article. 17:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the two versions thing was just a cheap and easy way to save two sets of "efforts" when we fixed the ampersand problem. I'd say leave the title alone, even if our main interest in them is as debunkers.  Feel free to merge/rewrite.  I don't mind my "personal" comment being removed as long as some criticisms remain.  18:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Page rewrite
Hello, longtime reader and first-time contributor. I decided I would rewrite this page to better explain who Penn and Teller are and their relation to the skeptical community. I am not a libertarian and strongly disagree with that worldview and there is no doubt that many of their episodes are controversial. But they are also a regular feature at skeptics conventions like The Amazing Meeting and their role in debunking things we all hate, like creationism and Truthers, means that I think they at least deserve a fair shake on the wiki. I've left the previous version of the page in hidden-tags in case someone wants to re-incorporate it. ShadowUltra (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice, a much-needed rewrite. I disagree with their politics quite a bit, but I think a good deal of their libertarian-oriented shows are funny and well-done. The environmental stuff is really what grates me the most (especially when they credulously present some Cato "scholar" as an expert, you'd think they'd be a bit more, well, skeptical about the massive amounts of astroturf and denialism that comes out of Cato). They've done decent take-downs of things like the woo-peddlers at Greenpeace screeching about "Frankenfoods," but stuff like the AGW and smoking episodes really should have episodes dedicated to debunking them (Bullshit! is bullshit!). Fortunately for guys like Shermer and P&T, unlike many of their libertarian brethren, they finally did an about face on the AGW issue, so credit where credit is due. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Gun control
The amusing bit about that one seemed to be that their main argument was that it allowed you to have a revolution, practically calling for an uprising by the end of the episode. Which I think is a fairly valid reason for gun ownership. It's considerably less pretentious, and a lot more fitting with what the Cult of Gun in America was meant to be about. ADK ...I'll sniff your magnet! 00:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect name for Teller
Teller has not legally held the name "Raymond" since 1977, it should not be part os his name.. his full legal name is only Teller. Any source that tells you he used to have this name mentions this as well. -Cen
 * Wouldn't it be great if, when you spotted an error on a website, there was, oh I don't know, button you could click to fix it, at the top the page labelled with "edit" or something. Тy Bother me 19:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's my line! Scarlet A.pngmoral silverbrain.png 20:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * :P Тy Bother me 21:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I made the edit. Usually when I edit something myself an admin yells at me for vandalism even when its legit so I tend to avoid it anymore. -Cen
 * Create an account, you can be an admin in 20 edits. Scarlet A.pngbomination silverbrain.png 20:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Na, you need to stump up the dosh nowadays. Генгис silverbrain.png 08:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Recycling ammendum
I added in a note on recycling that P&T do in fact disagree with their own episode now after the fact and currently don't support that viewpoint anymore. -Cen
 * Interesting. Thanks! LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unsurprising, the recycling episode was on par with the obesity and second-hand smoke episodes in terms of how much BS got crammed into it. Scarlet A.pnggnostic silverbrain.png 07:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Libertarianism
"Penn and Teller are controversial figures in the skeptic community because of their libertarian political views. ... your mileage may vary on episodes dealing with politics and economics." It's unclear why their libertarianism is a supposedly legitimate reason to make them controversial or to give them less credibility. 50.132.101.24 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Because they often throw reason to the wind and merely assert that anything that has anything to do with government in any form must be bad. Recycling was one thing, Penn may have changed their official stance on it slightly, but the episode was entirely "guv'mnt can't tell me what to do!!" ditto with much of the episode on the Americans with Disabilities Act, which focused on some BS stunt with an iron lung to prove that... well, not sure what it was meant to prove, but the take home message was "you can't actually accommodate all these people, so why bother". That's poor, at best. And it was much the same with the obesity epsiode, where it was "guv'mnt can't tell me not to eat pie!!" ad nauseam for 25 minutes. Scarlet A.pngnarchist silverbrain.png 09:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

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. 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)

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.


 * of course - that's why this is a BS site - it defines "rational" as "my opinion - everyone else is nuts" 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.
 * 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".[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   I 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.  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)

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)