• 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.

Kevin Trudeau on 20/20

phildonnia

Master Poster
phildonnia
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
2,439
Heads up; John Stossel rips apart Kevin Trudeau tonight:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/

Stossel was interviewed on our local radio this morning, and based on that, I don't expect any great demonstrations of critical thinking beyond expressing his own incredulity with Trudeau.

But we'll be thankful for these small blessings, I suppose.
 
phildonnia said:
Heads up; John Stossel rips apart Kevin Trudeau tonight:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/

Stossel was interviewed on our local radio this morning, and based on that, I don't expect any great demonstrations of critical thinking beyond expressing his own incredulity with Trudeau.

But we'll be thankful for these small blessings, I suppose.
Click to expand...
I hope he goes a little farther than Paula Zahn did. She asked him a lot of good questions, but he eventually retreated into the "look it's just my opinion" mode. I hope Stossel demands proof of Trudeau's conspiracy-laden claims about the medical industry or proof of the miracle cures that he simply gleaned from woo-woo internet sources and bound into a book without even bothering the check into any of them.
 
I saw it. Not too bad. Stossel called him a liar and a criminal.
 
Stossell didn't rip him apart. He couldn't even get KT to talk to him. But there were a few nice scenes from another reporter interviewing KT. Now that guy ripped him apart! KT talked about a study at Calgary University, and the reporter said something along the lines of, "Well, we contacted Calgary University, and they have no record of such study." To which KT responded, "Well, I have the study on my desk, and I could send it to you." Needless to say, he never did.

I really dislike that guy...
 
phildonnia said:
Stossel was interviewed on our local radio this morning, and based on that, I don't expect any great demonstrations of critical thinking beyond expressing his own incredulity with Trudeau.
Click to expand...
?

I've never known Stossel to lack critical thinking. The show was actually quite good and exposed the lies of Trudeau and his criminal past.

What a difference between Stosse'ls look at Trudeau and John Quiñones' treatment of JOHN OF GOD. See Randi's commentary February 18, 2005.

FWIW, Stossel gets a mention from Randi in that very same commentary.

I dare to say that if ABC-TV's John Stossel had been involved in the production of this program, the results would certainly have been far different. John would have researched the subject, might have called on me or another experienced observer for consultation in advance of the obtaining of the raw material, and would have used more reason and common sense.
Click to expand...
With so little critical thinking on TV these days I think Stossel deserves credit for his show.
 
I saw it and thought it was a fair and accurate representation. If anyone came away from that show thinking anything other than "Trudeau is a crook" then they are pretty lost to reason.
 
delphi_ote said:
The guy can't open his mouth anymore without spouting libertarianism. I think JREF has enough of those around.
Click to expand...

No, what we have are the ones who spout Libertarianism. There is a difference. You can rationally debate with a libertarian. Libertarians are hopeless.
 
Who cares if he's a libertarian? What do you mean that the JREF has enough of those? What difference does his political affiliation make if he can rip KT a new one?
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
No, what we have are the ones who spout Libertarianism. There is a difference. You can rationally debate with a libertarian. Libertarians are hopeless.
Click to expand...

I dunno. The guy seems to think everything can be solved with lasse faire capitalism these days. Did you hear his recent bit on education?

I just think Libertarianism and skepticism aren't necessarily the same thing, and I'm getting tired of people using skepticsm as a place to grind whatever political axe they have at the moment. It undermines everything we try to do.
 
delphi_ote said:
I dunno. The guy seems to think everything can be solved with lasse faire capitalism these days. Did you hear his recent bit on education?

I just think Libertarianism and skepticism aren't necessarily the same thing, and I'm getting tired of people using skepticism as a place to grind whatever political axe they have at the moment. It undermines everything we try to do.
Click to expand...
I don't think any ideology and skepticism are necessarily the same thing. I don't see that stopping liberals, conservatives, democrats or republicans or whatever who fancy themselves skeptics from grinding their political axe. I'm really not certain I understand your concern.
 
I got kicked out of my local Barnes & Noble for talking to the manager about their sale of the book. I think it went wrong when I also brought up all of the intelligent design books in the Mathematics section. That cross around her neck was probably a decent warning sign in retrospect.
 
RandFan said:
I don't think any ideology and skepticism are necessarily the same thing. I don't see that stopping liberals, conservatives, democrats or republicans or whatever who fancy themselves skeptics from grinding their political axe. I'm really not certain I understand your concern.
Click to expand...

Pen and Teller spent their early episodes of BS debunking blatant frauds. Then they shifted to political concerns. For a sophsticated audience, no problem. I actually really enjoy those shows. Ditto with Stossel. I disagree with both, but they're throwing out things to think about.

But those trying to discredit skeptics, it's ammunition. It also confuses the bottom line as to what we're all about. There needs to be a little bit more self criticism of their own political ideas, or at least an acknowledgement that they're moving away from the science and solid facts which are central to skepticism and off into their own political opinions.

Also, I can't help but feel there's an underlying hint that "a true skeptic would be a libertarian. This is the evidence based political philosophy." That's a pretty toxic message for skepticsm. It's something we need to be cautious about if our goal is to promote critical thinking.
 
I have two posts, which I'll separate because only one's on-thread with the original subject.

This looks like Kevin Trudeau's personals listing in match.com:
dubya-dubya-dubya.match.com/profile/showprofile.aspx?lid=1000005&TP=U&UID=29P%2fjtTFO00%3d&Handle=memoryguy

In case it's down, Lauren Pomeranz has preserved a screenshot:
dubya-dubya-dubya.teachspace.org/lauren/images/memoryguy.pdf

(sorry it's not an active link: I'm new)
 
OK, now regarding politics in the world of skepticism: at the risk of precipitating an actual political discussion, I think a meta-analysis is merited.

One of the challenges for skeptical groups is to recruit skeptics, while screening out cranks and OCPDs. I refer to them as 'an element'.

Every white supremacist I know refers to himself as a True Skeptic. Every antisemite. Every altmed quack I have dealt with portrays herself as a pioneer, railing against an overwhelminly hostile system (and then turns around and says one reason she knows that it works is that 95% of the public believe in it)

I have seen good skeptics drift into political la-la land, and the result is estrangement. Two examples are Kalle Lasn and his Media Foundation (which went to "fight against corporations"), and Stossel and Cato (who went to "fight for corporations").

For example, Lake Superior State University publishes a gag list of "banished phrases" at:
dubya-dubya-dubya.lssu.edu/banished/current.php

Which this year includes:
[blockquote]JUNK SCIENCE - Banished from the Marketplace of Ideas. It's not scientists who are using this phrase so much as the people who practice
junk politics.[blockquote]


While Stossel started out open-minded, he and Cato have degenerated to making frequent outrageous claims, are exposed in skeptical publications such as Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer, and are now indistinguishable from other industry shills. It makes it *so* difficult to combat health fraud when 'one of our own' argues that smoking in a baby's face is safe, cholesterol is irrelevant, and we all need more DDT in our coffee.
 
Well said, blutoski. You expressed my opinion even better than I did.

And welcome to the board!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom