Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

[RandFan]

Penn and Teller don't accept anything. They will lie in order to make poor examples of others, but by doing so they have become liars. They say their lies are justified.

What did they lie about?

 

[Huntster]

But to a Christian who believes in the trinity A is B is C. That is not the same as A.

It includes A.

 

[Pauliesonne]

It includes A.

You just don't get it.

 

[Huntster]

What did they lie about?

They created a lousy fake Bigfoot video with the goal of trying to show how gullible those who believe in the existence of Bigfoot are. The vast majority of people who believe in or research sasquatchery were unimpressed, or simply stated that the video offered nothing of any value. I refer you to here to see for yourself, and quote this post as an example:

What a bunch of horsecrap.... But sadder still....
It will probably end up on the BFRO's top ten best footage hit parade.

Then, sure enough, the phony video and some possible profiting did indeed attract BFRO (Bigfoot Field Research Organization) and it's contoversial leader. Later, Penn and Teller exposed the whole thing and acted like some skeptical version of Jesus Christ, bringing salvation to the Earth with lies and hoaxes that only caught the greedy Matt Moneymaker.

What a bunch of bull****.

Go here for the apologetic discussion among "skeptics."

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
It includes A.

You just don't get it.

From you and yours, I don't want it.

Get that?

 

[RandFan]

You just don't get it.

Nope.

 

[RandFan]

They created a lousy fake Bigfoot video with the goal of trying to show how gullible those who believe in the existence of Bigfoot are. The vast majority of people who believe in or research sasquatchery were unimpressed, or simply stated that the video offered nothing of any value. I refer you to here to see for yourself, and quote this post as an example:

It sounds like an appropriate use of deception to me.

Then, sure enough, the phony video and some possible profiting did indeed attract BFRO (Bigfoot Field Research Organization) and it's contoversial leader.

Cool. That is genius. I invite anyone to do the same to Penn & Teller. What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. We don't do enough of this kind of thing.

This is what James Rand did to legitimate scientists with his Project Alpha experiment.

Later, Penn and Teller exposed the whole thing and acted like some skeptical version of Jesus Christ, bringing salvation to the Earth with lies and hoaxes that only caught the greedy Matt Moneymaker.

Thanks, I honestly did not know about this. I owe you big time.

What a bunch of bull****.

Yup. It sure is.

Go here for the apologetic discussion among "skeptics."

Again, thanks.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
They created a lousy fake Bigfoot video with the goal of trying to show how gullible those who believe in the existence of Bigfoot are. The vast majority of people who believe in or research sasquatchery were unimpressed, or simply stated that the video offered nothing of any value. I refer you to here to see for yourself, and quote this post as an example:

It sounds like an appropriate use of deception to me.

I'm not surprised.

Quote:
Then, sure enough, the phony video and some possible profiting did indeed attract BFRO (Bigfoot Field Research Organization) and it's contoversial leader.

Cool. That is genius. I invite anyone to do the same to Penn & Teller. What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. We don't do enough of this kind of thing.

Why bother?

This is what James Rand did to legitimate scientists with his Project Alpha experiment.

So?

Again, thanks.

You're welcome.

 

[RandFan]

Why bother?

To expose them if they are not truly skeptics or critical thinkers. Con men and politicians rely on ignorance to manipulate people (see Jim Jones). Those who are skeptical and think critically are less likely to fall victims. I think this manipulation exploitation is extreme. I think it is a priority to educate and expose the overly credulous who foster this kind of environment and the outright scammers like Uri Geller and Sylvia Browne. If Penn and Teller truly don't care about people and they are cynically using people to make a buck or even if they are innocently doing it then I welcome anyone who would expose them. The best antiseptic is the light of day. Sometimes deception is required to get the dirty little secrets out in the open. So long as the deception is intended to be revealed then it is a good thing.

So?

Tremendously informative. It demonstrated conclusively that sincere and rigorous scientists can be fooled.

 

[jjramsey]

Excuse me, but I don't see how P&T did anything unethical here. The approach was about the same as that of Alan Sokal's hoax on Social Text.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Why bother?

To expose them if they are not truly skeptics or critical thinkers.

To whom? Who needs the likes of Penn and Teller to take them by the hand and teach them how to think?

Please. That reminds me of the old saying Daddy liked to tell me:

Be chary about giving advice. The wise don't need it, and fools won't heed it.

Con men and politicians rely on ignorance to manipulate people (see Jim Jones).

Frankly, with politicians, my experience is that they tend to get more mileage out of allegience to ideology than ignorance. People already believe certain things, and are extremely predictable as a result.

That includes people who like to think of themselves as "skeptics."

Those who are skeptical and think critically are less likely to fall victims.

That, too, is a bunch of bullspit, and is coming from one who would pompously claim to be such a person.

Sheesh..........

If Penn and Teller truly don't care about people and they are cynically using people to make a buck or even if they are innocently doing it then I welcome anyone who would expose them. The best antiseptic is the light of day.

I just ignore them. In fact, I've never stooped so low as to watch their "show."

Sometimes deception is required to get the dirty little secrets out in the open. So long as the deception is intended to be revealed then it is a good thing.

It's a lie, they didn't fool anyone, and they didn't admit to not fooling anyone.

And that was the worse part of their lie.......

Quote:
So?

Tremendously informative. It demonstrated conclusively that sincere and rigorous scientists can be fooled.

No ◊◊◊◊?

You needed some kind of scam to realize that?

 

[RandFan]

Excuse me, but I don't see how P&T did anything unethical here. The approach was about the same as that of Alan Sokal's hoax on Social Text.

I agree. Thanks.

 

[Huntster]

Excuse me, but I don't see how P&T did anything unethical here. The approach was about the same as that of Alan Sokal's hoax on Social Text.

Look, did you read some of the posts from the Bigfoot Forums that I linked to? Penn and Teller didn't fool anyone. It was a lousy hoax, and people were actually laughing about it. Here's my first post on the matter there at BFF:

Another video teaser?
Will this foolishness never end?

Penn & Teller's front man on the hoax negotiated an exclusive deal with the BFRO (run by a man well known within sasquatchery as a con man) regarding the video, then crowed about how they fooled sasquatchery with a phony video.

They didn't fool anyone but skeptics, which apparently isn't too difficult.

 

[RandFan]

To whom? Who needs the likes of Penn and Teller to take them by the hand and teach them how to think?

Since Penn and Teller tell people to think for themselves then the answer is no one. But if you think that they do this then it would be appropriate for you to do it for those who believe in them.

Please. That reminds me of the old saying Daddy liked to tell me:

Then you needn't come to this forum. You are just wasting your time.

Frankly, with politicians, my experience is that they tend to get more mileage out of allegiance to ideology than ignorance.

Well we sure disagree there.

That includes people who like to think of themselves as "skeptics."

Then pull one over on a skeptic. Oh, it can be done but it is unlikely.

That, too, is a bunch of bullspit, and is coming from one who would pompously claim to be such a person.

I don't give my money to the likes of Uri Geller, Sylvia Browne, or any religion. I'm on good ground to make that statement.

I just ignore them. In fact, I've never stooped so low as to watch their "show."

Freedom is a great thing.

It's a lie, they didn't fool anyone, and they didn't admit to not fooling anyone.

Actually, it looks like they did.

You needed some kind of scam to realize that?

Not me but apparently a bunch of scientists did.

 

[RandFan]

They didn't fool anyone but skeptics...

What is your basis for saying this?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
To whom? Who needs the likes of Penn and Teller to take them by the hand and teach them how to think?

Since Penn and Teller tell people to think for themselves then the answer is no one. But if you think that they do this then it would be appropriate for you to do it for those who believe in them.

Huh?

Quote:
Please. That reminds me of the old saying Daddy liked to tell me:

Then you needn't come to this forum. You are just wasting your time.

And I'm wasting my time in a manner pleasing to me.

Or, are you going to "decide" something for me? (Classic Californian)

Quote:
That includes people who like to think of themselves as "skeptics."

Then pull one over on a skeptic. Oh, it can be done but it is unlikely.

What a laugh! You skeptics are like superhuman or something?

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Quote:
It's a lie, they didn't fool anyone, and they didn't admit to not fooling anyone.

Actually, it looks like they did.

Who? Got some names?

Quote:
You needed some kind of scam to realize that?

Not me but apparently a bunch of scientists did.

You claimed to find it "tremendously informative", as if you learned something.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
They didn't fool anyone but skeptics...

What is your basis for saying this?

Because P&T claimed to fool sasquatch researchers, and they didn't. Again, here is the link where the largest bigfoot forum on the internet discusses the video long before Penn & Teller's hoax was revealed, and virtually nobody thinks it's the real thing.

Now, I shouldn't have to take you by the hand and read them for you, but I will:

As usual, pictures inconclusive at best....

why is it only 10 seconds long???
if this guy was filming it then why dont he release the whole tape of it???
unless it shows the guy getting out of the suit

What a bunch of horsecrap.... But sadder still....
It will probably end up on the BFRO's top ten best footage hit parade.

Upon further review, the ruling on the field stands--it's bullcrap.

Why not show the rest of the footage after the blurry?

Fake as can be. Unless I see more. Ian

There are 28 pages of that.

Then, here is the link where skeptics on this very forum pompously discuss the hoax as if Penn and Teller fooled anybody.

Wanna read what the skeptical supermen write?:

I don't have any problem at all with a skeptic who concocts UFO footage, a fake haunted house, a trap for a faith healer, or photos of Bigfoot, then puts them out in the public forum to catch the unwary, and prove the silliness of their beliefs.

And frankly, I think anyone who seriously claims it's unethical is a whiner.

I would add that anyone who thinks it is unethical probably was taken in by the footage and now feels stupid.

Not only do I think P&T's faking of the Sonoma Bigfoot video is ethical, I believe it performs an absolutely essential function by establishing a "baseline of credulity." As ImaginalDisc and UrsulaV point out, how else can you disprove the believers' contention that they can always tell the difference between real and faked BF footage?

Yeah. How about admitting that it didn't fool anybody.

The only one on that thread with any sense is blutoski:

I have a second concern, which is that the public will see skeptics as unconscionable liars. Some of the literature I read after the Snopes fiasco came across as: "Now we know that skeptics will say something, and later, if proven wrong beyond any credible defense, they'll just laugh and say it was only a test."

Face it; skeptics are human, they can be fooled, they're biased, they're opinionated, they enjoy stupid TV shows like Penn & Teller's, and they're no different than anybody else.

 

[RandFan]

Huh?

I'm not sure how to make it simpler.

1. Penn & Teller encourage people to think for themselves.
2. Penn & Teller encourage skepticism.
3. Penn & Teller encourage critical thinking.
4. Penn & Teller don't have a pre-packaged set of beliefs. They do note that religions do however.
5. No one needs Penn & Teller to tell them how to think.
6. If you or anyone else think your statement true then pull a scam on Penn & Teller.

And I'm wasting my time in a manner pleasing to me.

So, you didn't learn anything from your father.

What a laugh! You skeptics are like superhuman or something?

This is just rhetoric. It means nothing. Skeptics aren't credulous. Tell us those things that skeptics believe in that would demonstrate that you are correct?

You claimed to find it "tremendously informative", as if you learned something.

Yes, I learned that serious and rigorous scientists can be fooled by skilled magicians. I learned that I should be skeptical of claims by scammers who claim to talk to god, heal the sick, bend spoon or communicate with the dead and especially be skeptical of scientists who claim they have tested such people without the aid of a trained magician.

 

[RandFan]

Face it; skeptics are human, they can be fooled, they're biased, they're opinionated, they enjoy stupid TV shows like Penn & Teller's, and they're no different than anybody else.

Yes, skeptics are human, often biased and can be fooled. Far less so than non skeptics.

A number of your points about the video are fair. It will take me some time to look at them in depth.

ETA: It really was a great idea. Even assuming that it failed (I don't know that it did I only know that you have posted a link of a forum that after a number of posts indicate that a number of those individuals don't buy it.) I need more information. But I dig the idea big time.

 

[RandFan]

Looking closer at the posts there are a lot of skeptics who are questioning the ethics of the tape. I disagree with them but that's pretty damn cool. I'm hoping that you will acknowledge that fact.

ETA: This commentary was about the JREF thread.

I'm really impressed with that thread. I'm impressed that there was a rigorous debate about the ethics of what P&T did. I think that what they did was ethical but I'm impressed with a number of the arguments made. I didn't see much apologetics and I'm rather disapointed that was your take.