• 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 & Teller's "BS" -- Yay or Nay?

I'll go with the Southpark analogy.
Instead of badly drawn kids talking dirty on tv, it's an over the top adult talking dirty on tv.
 
I agree with a lot of the points here. I find the few shows I've seen entertaining, but I will go further than the other critics and say that they are abject failures as skeptics.

Skepticism is about the approach, the method, not the conclusions. I find that I suffer from serious confirmation bias watching that show. I will ignore their poor methodology and laugh like a hyena when they're ripping on woo, but that same tactic is frustrating and annoying when applied to non-woo subjects, global warming being the most complete failure.

We, as skeptics, should apply the same rational, scientific approach to all subjects and accept the conclusions. They don't do this, ergo they're not really skeptics. They just rip on things they disagree with. How they came to disagree with these things seems to be more emotional than logical.
 
Yeah, I rarely disagree with the conclusions of "BS," but I find their method to be generally unsound.

Again, I know it's entertainment and I do laugh at it; but it's also personal attacks, subtle straw man, cherry picking, etc. passed off as skepticism (which is a general disservice).

Exposing an environmental college-kid hippie to be ignorant in the service of disproving the legitimacy of all environmentalism is like using a straw man.
 
As others have said, I get frustrated with the methods sometimes even if I agree with the conclusions. I do cut them some slack for trying to be entertaining, dealing with time constraints, etc. but that doesn't always add up to enough to get me past it.

What actually bothered me the most though was the completely random "women as props" thing they had going on. Had it not been for that I would still watch it.
 
openingmind said:
To be fair, it's entertainment, it's not a broadcast formal argument. Still, it's sort of unfortunate to me.
Click to expand...
Saying you are being fair then pointing out that what makes it entertainment is unfortunate is being fair?

To be fair, it's cheese, it's not guacamole dip. Still, it's sort of unfortunate to me. I want my cheese to be guacamole.
 
The show DOES make a difference. Many of you who know me know that I credit the first episode of season 1 (along with Randi and George Hrab) with my change from Woo Goddess to skeptical blogger and founder of The Great Experiment Scholarship.
Their methodology isn't always great but it DID make me think. Until I saw BS ep 1, I never realized what I was doing was hot reading and it changed my life.
I know I'm the exception rather than the rule but I have to think that if the show makes a difference in one life...if it changes one persons mind about Woo, then it has done its job.
 
They did a great show on cryptozoology, and another exposing the Boy Scouts for the hate mongerers they've turned into since being taken over by the Mormons.
 
While we are on the subject of P&T, does anyone know if there is an official reason why the took the episode of the vatican of the DVD list?

Was it due to factual errors as rumors had it?
Or simply unexplained pressure by you know who?
 
Dinwar said:
Actually, I found that one to be belivable. I mean, yeah, there are environmentalists out there that aren't like this--but if you go onto any college campus the environmentalists you find there are like P&T present them. I mean, I blew people's minds by asking 1) how much polution manufacturing wind turbines generates, and 2) what techniques were used to get parts per trillion analysis on certain chemicals. The leaders probably are better, but a disturbing number of people in many movements (not just environmentalism, and not just movements I disagree with) don't actually think about what their movement is about.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not saying this isn't believable, or that many people involved in environmentalism (or any other movement that has been politicized) simply don't know what they are talking about. And if there only point was, "Look how many people are so into this subject who have no idea what they're talking about," then yes, I would be right on board with them. But environmental science is quite different from the environmentalist movements you see on college campuses and other such places. Just because some idiot kid will sign a petition to ban water does not mean that wanting to protect coral reefs or endangered species is woo.

But I don't see this as a valid option for imporving the show--it'd make the show into something it's not.
Click to expand...

Hey, it's their show. They can run it however they want. I'm just saying what I personally dislike about it, that's all. And that I find their tactics to be contrary to skepitcal investigation. Now, they never (to my knowledge) CLAIMED that their show is supposed to be a skeptical investigation, I just personally would prefer the same kind of show with more honest tactics that showed a more skepitcal approach rather than a cynical/mocking approach.

But I certainly don't think P&T have some sort of obligation to cater to my personal tastes.
 
Last edited:
Hey, it's their show. They can run it however they want. I'm just saying what I personally dislike about it, that's all. And that I find their tactics to be contrary to skepitcal investigation. Now, they never (to my knowledge) CLAIMED that their show is supposed to be a skeptical investigation, I just personally would prefer the same kind of show with more honest tactics that were more true to skepticism. But I certainly don't think P&T have some sort of obligation to cater to my personal tastes.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. :) I watch their show to laugh at people, not to learn--if I want to learn I turn to the peer-reviewed literature.

Just because some idiot kid will sign a petition to ban water does not mean that wanting to protect coral reefs or endangered species is woo.
Click to expand...
I don't think that was their point. That episode also had a guy who helped found GreenPeace, who argued that the environment is best served through methods Green Peace and the like aren't considering, and that the environmental movement has been highjacked. As I recall the ex-Green Peace guy was even their example of a rational person, while he was arguing for rational environmentalism. They didn't argue that environmentalism was bad, just that the environmental movement is no longer about environmentalism. Similarly, in the episode dealing with the endangered species act they argued that the specific tactics used caused more harm than good, not that the concept (protecting species likely to become extinct) is necessarily bad.


I think in generall the best way to look at P&T's show is that it's a hook. They're loud, agressive, obnoxious, and overbearing, but they certainly grab people's attention. They aren't trying to provide a critical examination ("We're biased as ____", as they say), but merely to present a view that isn't commonly held. Once they grab you, you can begin to research in more critical venues to determine if they're right or not. For those who are already hooked, it's of little value. You don't cast your line onshore, after all. For those who aren't, it probably won't mean anything. But it may open someone's eyes. It won't show them the path, but it'll show them that a path exists.
 
Last edited:
Dinwar said:
I don't think that was their point. That episode also had a guy who helped found GreenPeace, who argued that the environment is best served through methods Green Peace and the like aren't considering, and that the environmental movement has been highjacked. As I recall the ex-Green Peace guy was even their example of a rational person, while he was arguing for rational environmentalism. They didn't argue that environmentalism was bad, just that the environmental movement is no longer about environmentalism. Similarly, in the episode dealing with the endangered species act they argued that the specific tactics used caused more harm than good, not that the concept (protecting species likely to become extinct) is necessarily bad.
Click to expand...

Hmm, you know I haven't seen that episode in awhile. If they were talking about a specific type of environmentalism rather than environmentalism is BS. So if that's the case, obviously I retract my argument on that particular episode, though I do still see this tactic (cherry picking individuals and making them seem representative of their entire ideology/movement/whatever) as being regularly employed on their show, which I dislike.

As others state, I typically agree with P&T's conclusions. Just not their methodology. But I still watch the show for it's entertainment value.
 
I'd say that they have their blind spots (like everyone), but for modern television it's the most skeptical show I've seen. Also the environment episodes can annoy me as they focus on the fringe environmentalists (who annoy me as well) but imply that all environmentalism is that way... of course I'm guilty of the same thing regards religion; and some topics that I agree with them on it bothers me when they spend most of the episode ad hom'ing the interviewees while leaving out the evidence I'm aware of that would clinch their argument much more.

Some of their episodes opened my eyes to things I had no idea about, like how boy scout's policies have changed, funeral home scams, lack of oversight for bottled water quality, others I can't think of at the moment..., and some episodes are just plain fun, like 2012, feng shui, alt med, and bigfoot. No one's perfect but they're at least a damn sight better than Bill Maher (or History channel's drivel "What did the Maya learn from Aliens?"). I'm also a fan of magic tricks and love the magic bits they do between segments or while summarizing points.

Plus a lot of BS! hate I've seen comes from people who love the show until it steps on their pet woo... Also, they aren't targeting intellectual/philosophical/skeptical types who recoil at the frequent appeals to emotion, they're targeting average Joes. Average Joes want emotion, boobs, and f-bombs :D.

Overall I'd say despite the problems, it's more good than harm and I'd have to say "Yay."
 
Dinwar said:
I don't think that was their point. That episode also had a guy who helped found GreenPeace, who argued that the environment is best served through methods Green Peace and the like aren't considering, and that the environmental movement has been highjacked. As I recall the ex-Green Peace guy was even their example of a rational person, while he was arguing for rational environmentalism. They didn't argue that environmentalism was bad, just that the environmental movement is no longer about environmentalism. Similarly, in the episode dealing with the endangered species act they argued that the specific tactics used caused more harm than good, not that the concept (protecting species likely to become extinct) is necessarily bad.
Click to expand...

This is a good point, in many ways "Environmentalists" are the environment's worst enemies, promoting organic food, corn ethanol, nuclear hysteria, and other nonsense that does much more harm than good to the environment.
 
fishbait said:
Saying you are being fair then pointing out that what makes it entertainment is unfortunate is being fair?

To be fair, it's cheese, it's not guacamole dip. Still, it's sort of unfortunate to me. I want my cheese to be guacamole.
Click to expand...

:)

I guess I do want my cheese to be guacamole! I want to be entertained, but I want my entertainment to be logical. I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive.

Of course, what makes comedy a lot of times it is illogic. In a cartoon, if a character was thrown into space and then just suffocated and imploded, it wouldn't be funny -- as opposed to the character falling back down to earth, its bum catching on fire, squashing into a pancake, and then blowing on its thumb to reinflate itself.

In a somewhat related way, it's funny to watch Penn and Teller debunk woo by using fallacious arguments.
 
I generally like & to a certain extent, admire Penn & Teller. That said, they are humans, and don't get everything correct.

Their show as entertainment? Yay.

Their show as gospel? Nay.

That's all I have to say. ;)

regards, Canis
 
I used to the like the show, but since almost every other episode is pushing their Libertarian agenda, I generally skip it unless it has a topic that really interest me.
 
I enjoy the topic very much, but Penn Jillete (sp?) annoys the livin' hell out of me. Yeah, I know it's his persona, but would it kill him to be a little less smug?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom