Penn & Teller's "BS" -- Yay or Nay?

[Sherman Bay]

And this is an example of why we need Penn & Teller. Frontline did a thoughtful, insightful, calm, researched piece on this topic that was excellent.

But Penn & Teller did a !@#$%^*& piece with much more impact.

Uh, no. You posted this only four days after it aired; I'd like to see where you saw evidence of this "impact". I haven't heard of whisper of the episode outside of this thread.

4 days? Frontline's show is so old that I saw it on DVD and the only way I can see P&T's shows is on DVD, too.

Perhaps you don't like "impact"? Would you accept "hard-hitting"?

 

[Sherman Bay]

Maybe future studies will point out that Chi is related to blood, oxygenation, chemicals, adrenaline, or something else. Maybe they will find different types of Chi, for health, for energy, for maintaining life. Maybe they'll find there's no such thing as Chi.

So far, the best bet is on the last choice, as there is no evidence for anything else except in the fantasy world.

 

[tomamitai]

I think these two quote sufficiently explain my opinion of the show.

I find Penn and Teller to be somewhat entertaining as presenters, and some of their shows are pitch perfect if not wonderfully thorough, such as the swearing episode, or the one on psychics, and I'd LOVE to see their magic show, but I find their crass playing to certain political positions no matte rwhat the evidence actually says to be distasteful.

The second hand smoking issue is particularly upsetting to me, as I have a heart condition that means I am even more susceptible to smoke as an issue, and while I admit that I have indeed stayed in smoky areas and not been too bothered before it is something I try to avoid if I can because it's highly dangerous. I find their dismissal of it as an issue to be at best, ignorant politicking and at worst outright dishonest covering up of the facts. That they practically worship the CATO institute makes it even worse.

Whether or not second hand smoke is harmful is completely irrelevant, as a smoker's right to smoke ends where my nose begins! I used to smoke, and I took great care to make sure my filthy habit didn't offend others. I would never light up indoors without first making sure that no one present would find it objectionable, and when smoking outdoors, I would stand down wind of others so that my smoke would blow away from them. If all smokers were as conscientious, there would be less impetus for passing laws to restrict their freedom to commit slow motion suicide.

 

[Dinwar]

Whether or not second hand smoke is harmful is completely irrelevant, as a smoker's right to smoke ends where my nose begins!

Not quite. It ends at his property line, or the property line of others. In other words, if a bar wants to allow smoking it's their choice. You can go there or not (and if enough people don't the owner will change his mind), but you can't force the owner to enact policies you want. If you know the area is going to have an environment that annoys you, don't go.

But I should probably stop before we get too off topic. This issue annoys me more than it probably should (considering I've only ever smoked a handful of times, usually to celebrate a wedding, birth, or a friend's return from combat).

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Whether or not second hand smoke is harmful is completely irrelevant, as a smoker's right to smoke ends where my nose begins! I used to smoke, and I took great care to make sure my filthy habit didn't offend others. I would never light up indoors without first making sure that no one present would find it objectionable, and when smoking outdoors, I would stand down wind of others so that my smoke would blow away from them. If all smokers were as conscientious, there would be less impetus for passing laws to restrict their freedom to commit slow motion suicide.

I wasn't arguing about not allowing smoking, I was simply commenting that P&T took a very dangerous stance on a clear cut scientific fact because of their political leanings. I consider them to be pretty poor sceptics.

 

[Dinwar]

They also later issued a correction. They screwed up, but they acknowledged it.

Not exactly a bad habbit for a skeptic to be in.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

They also later issued a correction. They screwed up, but they acknowledged it.

Not exactly a bad habbit for a skeptic to be in.

Does once constitute a habit?
Have they later acknowleged being wrong about anything else?

-

 

[caniswalensis]

I absolutely love these guys! They are so funny, but I always learn something from their show too.

Although they are entertainers, I also think of them as being good skeptics, although perhaps their skepticism suffers due to their showmanship sometimes.

Any way, they are two smart and funny guys, especially the redhead. Although I like the dry wit of the guy in the beret too.

I love it when they build crazy stuff like the frozen chicken cannon, or when they destroy their poor crash test dummy!

I never get tired of this show.

 

[Emet]

I absolutely love these guys! They are so funny, but I always learn something from their show too.

Although they are entertainers, I also think of them as being good skeptics, although perhaps their skepticism suffers due to their showmanship sometimes.

Any way, they are two smart and funny guys, especially the redhead. Although I like the dry wit of the guy in the beret too.

I love it when they build crazy stuff like the frozen chicken cannon, or when they destroy their poor crash test dummy!

I never get tired of this show.

(bolding mine)

Er, MythBusters?

 

[caniswalensis]

(bolding mine)

Er, MythBusters?

Nope, I meant Penn & Teller. Each episode they show how some popular misconceptions are not true, or are "BS", as the title says. They run experiments & demonstrations that illustrate how things really are. One does most of the talking on the show.


I like their helpers, too. There's the guy that builds all their robots, The guy that always hurts himself, and the girl that's an artist. Great show!

 

[Sogtul]

Actually, isn't it almost the case that a shorter distance is probably even more effective?

F = ma

which means it depends on the acceleration. If the effectiveness of the punch relies more on the force behind it, as opposed to the energy or momentum of the hand, then you would want to catch the punch at full acceleration, not at full velocity. In that respect, I can imagine the maximum acceleration is early on.

But this is just me speculating...

My own speculation would be that there's no room to gain sufficient acceleration in just one inch or a couple of inches.

BTW, I totally agree with the mechanical aspects of a punch, proper technique, Newton's laws, etc. This is just a good example of the possibility of "something else" being at work (e.g., Chi).

I'm not talking about people using Chi to leap over buildings and fly through the air, which is part of the old martial arts legends and myths

 

[ponderingturtle]

The second hand smoking issue is particularly upsetting to me, as I have a heart condition that means I am even more susceptible to smoke as an issue, and while I admit that I have indeed stayed in smoky areas and not been too bothered before it is something I try to avoid if I can because it's highly dangerous. I find their dismissal of it as an issue to be at best, ignorant politicking and at worst outright dishonest covering up of the facts. That they practically worship the CATO institute makes it even worse.

I think the CATO institute might be a bit liberal for them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not quite. It ends at his property line, or the property line of others. In other words, if a bar wants to allow smoking it's their choice. You can go there or not (and if enough people don't the owner will change his mind), but you can't force the owner to enact policies you want. If you know the area is going to have an environment that annoys you, don't go.

So I take it you are against anti-discrimination laws, at least as they apply to those with medical conditions. Why should public places be accessible to all after all?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nope, I meant Penn & Teller. Each episode they show how some popular misconceptions are not true, or are "BS", as the title says. They run experiments & demonstrations that illustrate how things really are. One does most of the talking on the show.


I like their helpers, too. There's the guy that builds all their robots, The guy that always hurts himself, and the girl that's an artist. Great show!

The show you are describing is Mythbusters, Penn and Teller is the large man in a suit who does all the talking and a small man in a suit who says nothing. They don't build anything and show lots of breasts.

 

[†= Crap!]

I think the CATO institute might be a bit liberal for them.

Penn is a H.L. Mencken research fellow of the CATO Institute

Edit to add: Whatever the hell that means.

 

[caniswalensis]

The show you are describing is Mythbusters, Penn and Teller is the large man in a suit who does all the talking and a small man in a suit who says nothing. They don't build anything and show lots of breasts.

No, that can't be right. Can it? You mean like wild animals? I have never seen any beasts on that show.

One guy is bigger than the other, like you say, so I am sure we are talking about the same show. I do remember they had fainting goats once. Is that what you mean by beasts?

 

[pgwenthold]

Not quite. It ends at his property line, or the property line of others. In other words, if a bar wants to allow smoking it's their choice. You can go there or not (and if enough people don't the owner will change his mind), but you can't force the owner to enact policies you want. If you know the area is going to have an environment that annoys you, don't go.

Can we force employers to provide their employees with a safe working environment? Can we prevent construction companies, for example, from allowing their workers to work without a helmet?

OSHA requires that employers take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of their employees. The only question remaining is whether prohibiting smoking is an unreasonable measure for an employer. Bar owners always complain that it is, and that it will have a significant impact on their revenue (ultimately making it very costly). However, as far as I have ever seen, their concerns have never been born out by reality - business doesn't go down when no-smoking laws are enacted.

Smoking in businesses is not about people's right to choose, but about workers' rights to a safe working environment. A construction company cannot get away from helmet requirements by saying, "If you think you need a helmet, you can work somewhere else. If you are working here, you have to do it without a helmet. Work at your own risk."

 

[Sogtul]

So far, the best bet is on the last choice, as there is no evidence for anything else except in the fantasy world.

I have to disagree with you. While there may be no scientifically accepted measure of Chi in Western society, that does not mean there's no evidence of it. More importantly, serious scientific research on the topic is relatively recent. A quick Google search yielded:
"Scientific Qigong Exploration: The Wonders and Mysteries of Qi" from 1997.
Here's a review, including criticisms:
Search for BOOKREVIEW4SQE.pdf since I can't post links

The second link I clicked is research from 2007. After a quick look, it seems to focus more on the effects of Qigong and Tai Chi practice, looking at:
Physiological aspects:
-Effects on the Autonomic Nervous System
-Effects on Brain Function
-Effects on the Circulatory System
Bioenergetic Changes:
-Effects on Electrical Conductance at Acupoints
-Effects on Biophoton Emission
-Comparison Between Mind-Body and Physical Exercises
-Effect on Physical Strength
-Relationship between Blood Flow and Bioenergy

It was conducted by Shin Lin, Ph.D., from University of California, Irvine.
B.S. and M.S. in Chemistry, and Ph.D. in Biological Chemistry from University of California, Los Angeles (1971).
Professor (1974-1997) and Chairman (1983-1996) of Biophysics at Johns Hopkins University.
Dean of Biological Sciences and Associate Vice Chancellor of Biological Initiatives at University of California, Irvine (1997-2002).
Presently Professor of Cell Biology, Biomedical Engineering, and Integrative Medicine at University of California, Irvine.
Practitioner and teacher of Kung Fu, Qigong, and Tai Chi for over 4 decades.

(Can't post link, but let's see if this works) mindbodylab.bio.uci.edu

And this is just from the first 2 links I checked.
I'll read more about it over the weekend.

 

[Dinwar]

Does once constitute a habit?
Have they later acknowleged being wrong about anything else?

If I recall correctly, yes. They've made a few corrections (one that springs to mind was a correction on the dieting/obesity episode). Those corrections aren't the point that P&T are being blasted for, however, and would have been irrelevant to bring up.

So I take it you are against anti-discrimination laws, at least as they apply to those with medical conditions. Why should public places be accessible to all after all?

Nope. Not at all. However, what you define as "public" and what I define as "public" are probably two different things. As an example, a bar is not a public place--it is a private business. As for OSHA, I'm very familiar with OSHA regulations (I do a lot of work on construction sites). There is a difference between a common, legal substance used in the manner specified by the manufacturer and the presence of controled chemicals in the job site. First off, I seriously doubt that smoking in a bar raises the issue to the point where OSHA would care. If they did, it'd be a question of PPE, controls, etc, NOT an outright ban. No one bans vinyl chloride, after all, they simply restrict its use, storage, handling, etc. Why is smoking any different? Secondly, the volume of chemicals involved is lower than most OSHA regulations would regulate. Third, there is a difference between what the owner stores/utilizes on site and what others bring on site (ie, it's their responsability to properly handle any hazmats).

Fourth, this isn't the main argument. Many of the people who want to ban smoking in bars want to outlaw it all together (and it's more than just bars--I harp on bars because I was in Ohio when they railroaded the bars into banning smoking). It's disengenuous, to say the least. If you want to ban it everywhere SAY SO and let's have an honest conversation. Removing it from more and more places, gradually over time, is the Wedge Strategy, and whenever some group follows a strategy utilized by Creationists I think it's time to reconsider the group's motives. Don't get me wrong--while I don't like the idea of banning smoking I would gladly have an open and honest discussion about it. But if people are going to hide behind OSHA's skirts that's simply not possible.

 

[SOdhner]

The show you are describing is Mythbusters, Penn and Teller is the large man in a suit who does all the talking and a small man in a suit who says nothing. They don't build anything and show lots of breasts.

Okay, now you're getting me confused. I understand that you are saying that Penn and Teller are the hosts of Mythbusters, but I am fairly sure you are wrong about them not building things and having breasts. Both Penn and Teller are male and do not have breasts in the sense that is traditionally meant, and I know they build things on that show all the time like sword-swinging robots and stuff.