Talk:Penn & Teller

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)

Greatest skeptics

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.Susan^{The 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. 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...). ħuman 15:44, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

*Ahem!* You can still access the history to the ampersand version here. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Good point, so I edited that version to remove the cat. ħuman 02:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

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."

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}

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)

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. ^{Don't click here} 09:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Penn is moonbat crazy

If you want proof, look what he called his daughter - Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette. Case closed.

You need to include this info in the article. ^{— Unsigned, by: 31.82.141.243 / talk / contribs}