Penn & Teller ignorant of Ben Stein's movie

[phyz]

That might be literally true, but in practice 'ad hominem' is applied when the argument is being discredited by pointing out an (irrelevant) attribute of the person you are arguing against. The opposite case is usually called an appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).

True enough. I was economizing and establishing symmetry, so the introduction of "appeal to authority" didn't appeal to me. If that threw anyone off the point I was making, apologies.

ETA: And thanks, Zooterkin, for living up to your title of "Nitpicking dilettante."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He's been a member almost a year longer than you have.

I looked at that and then noted he had not posted until now. If you join and don't post, how can we welcome you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Don't panic, until you are able to ask them this same question next year. Maybe by then they will have seen it, and will have changed their minds.

You know, if I knew nothing about Expelled, at all, I would have commented roughly the same way about how "smart Ben Stein is", myself.

Yes, I can see this scenario and I understand Claus and Darat interpreting the evidence this way.

Assuming dansam's account is correct, I have a different interpretation. The reaction by Penn of saying Stein is smart, especially coupled with telling dansam, a person Penn did not know, that Stein was smarter than dansam suggests defending Stein and it suggests an unskeptical knee jerk reaction.

The skeptical reply would be to ask what the movie was about and then reserve further comment until/unless Penn had a chance to investigate further.

I have a similarly different assessment of the evidence than Penn supporters in this discussion about the Gore comments. I suggest that is one's failure to separate one's political biases from the science. Also not a very skeptical position. It may be that everyone is not obligated to investigate the science, in which case Penn's comments were reasonable. But there has been media saturation on some aspects of global warming and one can also hypothesize that Penn has blocked some of the information rather than just not sought it out. That is how our brains deal with information that doesn't agree with our preconceived conclusions. But it is not a very skeptical position.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, I can see this scenario and I understand Claus and Darat interpreting the evidence this way.

Assuming dansam's account is correct, I have a different interpretation. The reaction by Penn of saying Stein is smart, especially coupled with telling dansam, a person Penn did not know, that Stein was smarter than dansam suggests defending Stein and it suggests an unskeptical knee jerk reaction.

The skeptical reply would be to ask what the movie was about and then reserve further comment until/unless Penn had a chance to investigate further.

I have a similarly different assessment of the evidence than Penn supporters in this discussion about the Gore comments. I suggest that is one's failure to separate one's political biases from the science. Also not a very skeptical position.

The skeptical would be for you not to jump to conclusions that cannot possibly be justified by the account we were given.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

I think some of Penn's political opinions (AGW for example) cross the line into Libertarian woo, but when it comes to Crevo/CID he would definately come down on the side of prevailing scientific option (IMO).

Exactly. A skeptical blind spot.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The skeptical would be for you not to jump to conclusions that cannot possibly be justified by the account we were given.

I supported my conclusion, Claus. Because it differs from your conclusion, you may just be unable to process that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

That said, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Penn cuts Stein slack due to overlap in their nutty libertopian beliefs.

That is an excellent point.

 

[Darat]

It's good to see that Penn has such an enthusiastic apologist working on his behalf. All I can tell you is that I was there and that's what I heard. But please, what do "other reports" say? Clearly, they must be more reliable because they more closely match a description you're hoping for.

There is a different account just above your post and others in another thread which do not match your recollection.

As for the "enthusiastic apologist" - well ...er.. .right.

Without breaking out the Color-by-Numbers, I'm saying that if you're willing to accept an ad hominem argument against global warming, you're likely to accept a similar ad hominem argument for intelligent design. Was I really being all that subtle?

So as I said you've no evidence that Penn believes in ID.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ad hominem is "argument to the man" which can be either pro or con, not just con.

I didn't know that. I'm impressed. It makes perfect sense. And here I thought it simply translated into an argument by denigrating the arguer.

 

[Darat]

I supported my conclusion, Claus. Because it differs from your conclusion, you may just be unable to process that.

No you didn't support your conclusions you explained them. Quite different things although often people act as if they aren't.

There is no evidence in this thread that supports the conclusion that Penn believes in ID and equally there is no evidence in this thread to support a conclusion that he doesn't. The only position to take that follows from the evidence is that we don't know if he believes in ID or not.

 

[joobz]

Hi Dansam,
Based upon the conversation, it seems that Penn was blowing you off. He probably gets lots of "did you hear about XYZ's craziness? Do you think they're idiots?" By simply stating what he knew of Ben(and ribbing you in the process), he avoided making a comment based on information he didn't know. Seems a reasonable approach to avoiding being missquoted or quotemined.

BTW, saying, "I'm smart" is like saying "I'm a good kisser." If you find yourself having to say it, it's not true.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No you didn't support your conclusions you explained them. Quite different things although often people act as if they aren't.

There is no evidence in this thread that supports the conclusion that Penn believes in ID and equally there is no evidence in this thread to support a conclusion that he doesn't. The only position to take that follows from the evidence is that we don't know if he believes in ID or not.

Where do you find a post of mine giving any opinion that Penn supports ID?

Or was only the first part of your post here directed at me?

Re the claim you and Claus are making that I didn't support my conclusion, the fact you have drawn a different one does not mean I did not support mine. In addition, explaining the basis of a conclusion is supporting the conclusion. I think you and maybe Claus as well are mistaking the range of certainty that the statement, 'support a conclusion' allows.

I did not say 'proved', 'overwhelmingly supports', or any other comment about the certitude of my conclusion. I merely said my interpretation of the little evidence we all have to draw conclusions from here led me to a different conclusion and while I see how you arrived at yours, I explained why I arrived at a different conclusion.

Yes, I can see this scenario and I understand Claus and Darat interpreting the evidence this way.

Assuming dansam's account is correct, I have a different interpretation. The reaction by Penn of saying Stein is smart, especially coupled with telling dansam, a person Penn did not know, that Stein was smarter than dansam suggests defending Stein and it suggests an unskeptical knee jerk reaction.The skeptical reply would be to ask what the movie was about and then reserve further comment until/unless Penn had a chance to investigate further.

That is the evidence I used and that evidence led me to my conclusion.

I have a similarly different assessment of the evidence than Penn supporters in this discussion about the Gore comments. I suggest that is one's failure to separate one's political biases from the science. Also not a very skeptical position. It may be that everyone is not obligated to investigate the science, in which case Penn's comments were reasonable. But there has been media saturation on some aspects of global warming and one can also hypothesize that Penn has blocked some of the information rather than just not sought it out. That is how our brains deal with information that doesn't agree with our preconceived conclusions. But it is not a very skeptical position.

Again, that is the evidence I used to reach the conclusion I reached. The fact other people looking at the same evidence can reach a different conclusion is not evidence I did not support my conclusion.

 

[joobz]

No you didn't support your conclusions you explained them. Quite different things although often people act as if they aren't.

There is no evidence in this thread that supports the conclusion that Penn believes in ID and equally there is no evidence in this thread to support a conclusion that he doesn't. The only position to take that follows from the evidence is that we don't know if he believes in ID or not.

I'm providing evidence that he doesn't beleive in ID.

 

[plumjam]

BTW, saying, "I'm smart" is like saying "I'm a good kisser." If you find yourself having to say it, it's not true.

Just to clear up any doubts, Joobz definitely is a good kisser.

 

[Darat]

Where do you find a post of mine giving any opinion that Penn supports ID?

I don't - you seem to be mixing me up with someone else.

Re the claim you and Claus are making that I didn't support my conclusion, the fact you have drawn a different one does not mean I did not support mine. In addition, explaining the basis of a conclusion is supporting the conclusion. I think you and maybe Claus as well are mistaking the range of certainty that the statement, 'support a conclusion' allows.

...snip..

Can you please deal with what I've posted and not try and lump me in with someone else? I have no idea what Claus is discussing with you, perhaps you are confusing my statements with his and that's why you've got confused over what I've posted?

 

[Darat]

I'm providing evidence that he doesn't beleive in ID.

Well that would seem to settle the matter. Always best to follow the evidence isn't it?

 

[dansam]

Wow!
I'm both pleased & a little freaked out to see how many people responded!

First of all, the information is accurate, I registered many moon ago but am a super-lurker! Perhaps I'm just shy? Further therapy may prove enlightening.

I agree with most people that P&T are great entertainers & just leave it at that. That's why I was so disappointed when they chose to just "take questions" in lieu of a performance at TAM!

As for why I didn't mention the name of the movie.... in all honesty... I was just "blanked on it" & thought that saying "Ben Stein's anti-evolution movie" would be enough. That's all.

I agree that my response to Penn's childish taunt "He's smarter than you" was equally infantile. All I can say in my defense is that I *am* pretty smart and (in response to Joobz) am a reasonable kisser. Yelling over the TAM din didn't seem the appropriate venue for getting into a discussion about accurate metrics for assessing acumen.

If there is any good news to come out of this, then it's perhaps "Expelled" (see! I know the name) may not have made as big a "splash" nationally as it seemed to from my perspective in NY.

Dan

 

[I Ratant]

It is kinda odd that someone in the skeptic field hadn't heard of that movie, but, P&T exist on among other things self-promotion.
This can take one's interests off the mainstream and "common knowledge", because the next job is more important than keeping up with the swings and misses of the culture.
As for dismissing GW because it's -also- promoted by Gore does show a lack of depth in one's ability to analyze popular culture, I must say, relative to another issue, another indication of a superficial grasp of what is current.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Penn Jillette was actually on Larry King's show with Ben Stein about two weeks before that movie came out. Along with Sean Austin, Kal Penn and Amy Irving? (Who's idea was that lineup?!)

Expelled wasn't brought up at any time (the topic was the 2008 election) and, reading the transcript (available at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/29/lkl.01.html), neither Larry King nor Ben Stein seemed to have plugged it or even mentioned it at any time during the show.

In fact, the only thing that seemed to have attracted any attention was Penn's support for Ron Paul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATt7dRu2ZqM


Still, I find it hard to believe he didn't know about it. My guess is that he either sincerely somehow didn't know or was joking with you.

I'd actually defend Ben Stein, too. He's a very accomplished and intelligent man and I'll always remember in his finest movie appearance, as the economics teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

 

[joobz]

I agree that my response to Penn's childish taunt "He's smarter than you" was equally infantile. All I can say in my defense is that I *am* pretty smart and (in response to Joobz) am a reasonable kisser. Yelling over the TAM din didn't seem the appropriate venue for getting into a discussion about accurate metrics for assessing acumen.

Hi Dansam,
I never meant anything negative in my comment. I've been in a similar situation before regarding someone insulting my intelligence. There is nothing you can say to claim smartness and sound smart. All you can do is brush off the comment or attack back.

I'm willing to bet that Penn is aware of the movie now, and you can thank yourself for that.