• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Penn and Teller in Scientific American

Brown

Penultimate Amazing
Brown
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
12,984
It's true! Check out the December 2008 issue. The boys are on the cover.

Also mentioned: an upcoming article on a related topic in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, with one of the authors apparently being some guy named James Randi. Randi also gets the authors' thanks for the Scientific American story, and he gets sorta quoted.

Other contributors in the field include TAM veteran Mac King, TAM veteran Richard Wiseman and late TAM veteran Jerry Andrus.
 
Honestly ever since their show on HBO "BS" I've stopped liking them. Their shows that were supposed to expose falsehoods only ended up creating more. Some of there information was good, but other times it was inaccurate. How ironic is it that a show trying to proclaim others BS ends up being full of crap itself.
 
The_Animus said:
Honestly ever since their show on HBO "BS" I've stopped liking them. Their shows that were supposed to expose falsehoods only ended up creating more. Some of there information was good, but other times it was inaccurate. How ironic is it that a show trying to proclaim others BS ends up being full of crap itself.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the error of their show being on Showtime, not HBO.
 
I am a big fan of Penn and Teller, but agree BS is not their finest work. Some episodes I have enjoyed, but too often they seem to pander to the lowest common denominator and put in gratuitous nudity.

Conversely, I love Penn and Teller being involved in projects like this, with true scientific research. I was also glad of course to see Randi and friends of JREF as part of the study.

I can still respect P&T but disagree with some of their stances on certain issues.
 
In addition to the story "Magic and the Brain" which features TAM veterans Teller and (to a much lesser extent) Penn, there is also the lead cover story, "The Restless World of Enceladus."

This lead cover story is written by TAM veteran Carolyn Porco.

There is also a column called "Patternicity" by TAM veteran Michael Shermer.
 
Don't like 'em, don't trust 'em. They are not skeptics, they're contrarians - people who get a thrill out of bucking conventional wisdom. Yes, sometimes conventional wisdom is wrong. Sometimes, though, the underdog is an underdog because he showed up at the table with jack squat, and is drooling on his cards to boot. Recycling episode showed their true colors, IMHO. They ran with a study that was nearly two decades out of current. There were more current versions of the study, there were better studies. They went with the old one because it gave them the results they wanted (Recycling isn't that great - which it wasn't, in the early 80s).

When you're cherry picking your data, you instantly lose credibility when you go anywhere near science.
 
GreyICE said:
Don't like 'em, don't trust 'em. They are not skeptics, they're contrarians - people who get a thrill out of bucking conventional wisdom. Yes, sometimes conventional wisdom is wrong. Sometimes, though, the underdog is an underdog because he showed up at the table with jack squat, and is drooling on his cards to boot. Recycling episode showed their true colors, IMHO. They ran with a study that was nearly two decades out of current. There were more current versions of the study, there were better studies. They went with the old one because it gave them the results they wanted (Recycling isn't that great - which it wasn't, in the early 80s).

When you're cherry picking your data, you instantly lose credibility when you go anywhere near science.
Click to expand...

I used to like them, but more and more I agree they have thrown skepticism overboard in favor of being contrarians. I am also afraid they are becoming propagadists for the Libertarian Party.
It is their right to do that, of course, but I think it damages their claims to be spokesmen for skepticism.
 
dudalb said:
I used to like them, but more and more I agree they have thrown skepticism overboard in favor of being contrarians.
Click to expand...

I think their goal is not to be contrarian, but to simply show how people fail to routinely apply critical thinking to what is otherwise accepted day-to-day "facts". You can call that contrarian if you want, but I don't think that critical thinking is necessarily synonymous with skepticism. The former is simply a process that most people skip for simplicity and parsimony in their everyday lives. Skepticism is merely a sub-process of critical thinking.

~Dr. Imago
 
For what it's worth, the Scientific American story featuring Teller (and Penn) is not about skepticism. It is about how magicians' (and con artists') understanding of human perception allows them to fool intelligent people.

Penn appears in photos, but he is not listed as a contributor. The real magical talent, Teller, is listed and is featured.

The lead photo refers to the team as "Magicians Penn and Teller." As I have said before, I have a theory that whenever someone refers to Penn as a "magician," Teller gets an urge to slit his own throat.
 
Watching BS made me identify myself as a skeptic, seriously. I wouldn't have visited this forum, read a bunch of books (by Sagan, Shermer, etc.), or started reading skeptical blogs if it wasn't for that show.

I don't particularly mind the gratuitous nudity/swearing/dumb jokes. They openly say, it's an evangelical show pushing their personal agenda. I think they are reaching out to an audience that isn't already skeptical (or haven't identified themselves yet, like me) to try to get their attention and maybe even make them think twice about a few things. Even if they aren't perfect with what they present, I respect what they are trying to do.
 
ysabella said:
Watching BS made me identify myself as a skeptic, seriously. I wouldn't have visited this forum, read a bunch of books (by Sagan, Shermer, etc.), or started reading skeptical blogs if it wasn't for that show. {snip}
Click to expand...
It is gratifying to know it did some good.

The show ran out of steam after the first season. It really galls me today when they take a firm stand on an arguable assertion (is Mall-Wart a benefit to society?) or even a wrong assertion (there is no obesity epidemic, two lawyers have written books proving that). Then they say that, unlike others, they have the research backing up their position. In a later interview, they acknowledged being wrong on one of their shows, I don't recall which one.

It saddens me to say that the abundant nudity in the fifth season underscores the fact that they have run out of ideas.
 
ysabella said:
Watching BS made me identify myself as a skeptic, seriously. I wouldn't have visited this forum, read a bunch of books (by Sagan, Shermer, etc.), or started reading skeptical blogs if it wasn't for that show.

I don't particularly mind the gratuitous nudity/swearing/dumb jokes. They openly say, it's an evangelical show pushing their personal agenda. I think they are reaching out to an audience that isn't already skeptical (or haven't identified themselves yet, like me) to try to get their attention and maybe even make them think twice about a few things. Even if they aren't perfect with what they present, I respect what they are trying to do.
Click to expand...

I don't mind the juvenile humor either, although I think it is painfully unfunny on BS.
The problem a lot us have is they are often guilty of the same things ..bias, playing fast and loose with evidence, extremely selective use of data..that they accuse their targets of doing. It's called hypocrisy,and at times the exact opposite of what a skeptic should be doing.
 
I find that the show is entertaining, and offers a differing view from what the rest of the media is feeding us. True, some of what they espouse is wrong or slanted towards their own personal views, but it does serve to make me think more about certain subjects, and thus encourages me to not take things at face value, including what they are saying, and to dig deeper and learn more about the issue, and then make up my own mind about the topic. But they are definitely responsible for a few kicks in the pants to look into things more critically. And that's a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom