Who pissod off Penn?

skeptigirl said:
What about my comment, WM, that bringing up Gore while ignoring Exxon is evidence that this is more than simply not knowing, it is selectively ignoring the inconvenient facts, and I don't mean the science part, I mean the attack on the science part.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence that Penn is aware of the Exxon information? To tell the truth, while I consider global warming to be a serious and real threat, I've never before heard the whole Exxon thing. Its rather hard to raise a point of which you are unaware; and unless you have evidence that Penn was actually aware of this, and deliberately avoided mentioning it, I don't see what the relevance of your remark is.

Besides which, I very much doubt that Penn's intent was to engage in a lengthy discussion.

He personally is skeptical of global warming. There are lots of things that I am personally skeptical of, also. Because he is skeptical of it, he does not invest huge amounts of time in researching it -- just as I tend not to put a whole lot of time into researching things that I am skeptical of. It is human nature to focus our time/energy on those things we see as important and relevant to us as individuals.

All the man said was that he cannot offer any real opinion or decision one way or the other -- that he does not understand it well enough to offer an opinion. And I can respect that a whole hell of a lot more than people who go about spouting off opinions and conclusions about issues of which they actually understand little or nothing.

Criticize him for lack of interest, or lack of willingness to try to understand the situation better, if you want. But don't criticize the man for simply being honest that he can't offer an opinion on a subject he doesn't understand. And don't criticize him for not bringing up issues that you can't even demonstrate he's aware of.
 
CFLarsen said:
Yes, let's keep this OT.

What the heck does Exxon have to do with what Penn thinks of global warming and Al Gore?



It sounds more like you want to talk about why you are pissed off at Exxon and the Republicans.
Click to expand...
You seem to be the one trying to fit what I've said into your biased mold, Claus, instead of thinking what it is I am getting at. You are already convinced you know what it is I am saying, but you are wrong.

So let me spell it out.

Exxon attacked science. Gore did not attack science. Penn and Teller, and they are not the only skeptics in this case, are overlooking the attack on science that does not fit their political preferences. That is hypocritical IMO. And the claim that Penn, "just doesn't know" would have been more credible if he hadn't thrown in the Gore attack. Lots of people including skeptics legitimately are going to refrain from opinions outside their area of expertise. As well they should.

But in this case, while I believe Penn's claim he doesn't know the science, I find it hypocritical he has chosen to pay no attention to the attacks on the credibility of GW science. Because regardless of one's knowledge about the science, it is not required to assess the attacks on the credibility of reputable scientists.

Tell me how any skeptic ignores the censorship of science when the story was this big and this important?

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him

Climate Findings Were Distorted, Probe Finds Appointees in NASA Press Office Blamed

Lawmaker Condemns NASA Over Scientist's Accusations of Censorship

James Hansen and Mark Bowen on Censored Science

Censorship Is Alleged at NOAA Scientists Afraid to Speak Out, NASA Climate Expert Reports

Top Nasa climate scientist 'censored'

Rewriting The Science - Scientist Says Politicians Edit Global Warming Research

NASA watchdog: Agency censored on warming - Inspector general report cites public affairs officials in incidents
 
Last edited:
Wolfman said:
....Criticize him for lack of interest, or lack of willingness to try to understand the situation better, if you want. But don't criticize the man for simply being honest that he can't offer an opinion on a subject he doesn't understand. And don't criticize him for not bringing up issues that you can't even demonstrate he's aware of.
Click to expand...
OK, let me criticize all skeptics who ignore politically motivated public attacks on the credibility of science. What are we about here if it isn't attacks on the integrity of legitimate science? How are we supposed to effectively encourage critical thinking if we don't address this kind of underlying attack on critical thinking? Are people only interested if the attack on science suits their needs?
 
skeptigirl said:
OK, let me criticize all skeptics who ignore politically motivated public attacks on the credibility of science. What are we about here if it isn't attacks on the integrity of legitimate science? How are we supposed to effectively encourage critical thinking if we don't address this kind of underlying attack on critical thinking? Are people only interested if the attack on science suits their needs?
Click to expand...
Curious...you picked perhaps the least relevant part of my post (in regards to your original question), while ignoring the more relevant part.

You stated quite unequivocally that Penn demonstrated bias in not mentioning the Exxon stuff; yet I don't believe you can in any manner, shape, or form demonstrate that he was even aware of the issue! I myself (and apparently several other people here who are also global warming "believers") was unaware of that. Is that not the ultimate strawman? You've condemned the man, and made rather damning comments about his credibility, based on a claim that has, so far as I can see, no merit to it whatsoever.

As to the rest -- "Are people only interested if the attack on science suits their needs?" I would feel fairly comfortable that if I were to make a list of all the relevant and important issues in science today, there would be a number of topics on that list that you personally would find uninteresting, or on which you would not know enough to be able to offer a strong opinion one way or the other.

Heck...Penn & Teller are far, far, far more competent and knowledgeable at exposing psychic frauds and superstitious woo than you are. There would, absolutely, be situations in which they would be able to offer a professional and knowledgeable opinion on issues about which you know little or nothing.

Should I therefore criticize you because you haven't spent huge amounts of your time researching everything to do with psychic fraud, and debunking supernatural claims? Should I condemn you because, despite the fact that such things are very important, and harm millions of people every year, you have not put much time at all into taking action on these things?

There's far far far too much information out there for any one person to be able to take it all in. Inevitably, there will be certain issues that will attract us, and certain issues that will not. The fact that I as an individual am not interested in certain topics or issues doesn't mean that I'm somehow less of a skeptic than you; the fact that you may know lots about issues on which I am clueless (or vice versa) does not render you in any way a better 'skeptic' than me.

Quite the opposite. I know far, far, far too many self-proclaimed skeptics who, based on little real understanding or research of a particular issue, will nevertheless make absolute declarations of fact, and dismiss any suggestion that they could be wrong.

So I say kudos to those who, when asked about an issue they personally don't understand, or don't know enough to reach any conclusion, simply state that as an honest fact.

"I don't know"

It is a valid statement for any skeptic. In fact, it is a statement that I'd suggest far more skeptics should be using.

For example, skeptigirl should be saying, "I don't know whether Penn was aware of the Exxon issue, and therefore cannot criticize him for not mentioning it when he responded to the question", rather than, "Penn showed his bias by refusing to mention the Exxon issue." The first is honest; the second is an entirely unfounded attack that is entirely unworthy of anyone claiming to be a skeptic.

Tell ya' what, skeptigirl. The day that you can honestly state that you have studied every scientific subject that is relevant to humanity, and understand every one of those subjects well enough to comment with authority on them, that is the day that you will at least have some foundation for criticizing others for not being knowledgeable on particular subjects. I'll bet there are numerous subjects on which Penn could make you look completely ignorant -- but I doubt that he'd have the arrogance to suggest that, because you were not interested in or knowledgeable on those subjects, that you therefore were not deserving of being called a skeptic.
 
Of those subjects you mention, WM, psychic and supernatural fraud, and anything else, which of them do you think I find credible because I lack awareness of the specifics?

I have said repeatably it isn't the specifics about GW science that I am referring to here. And Penn didn't say he knew nothing. He said he didn't know enough which at that point I have no issue.

But then he added his dislike of Gore and his bias against Gore. Did he bother to judge the science? No. Did he say he had no interest and the topic of GW just wasn't his cup of tea? No.

The fact that you were unaware of the Exxon anti-GW science campaign does not surprise me. It wouldn't surprise me if Penn were also unaware. But it bothers me and I have no qualms about saying the politics are creating a blind spot for many skeptics here.

And I find that disturbing and wish to point out the issue of political blind spots. People have god belief blind spots for skeptical thinking and I point those out as well. And it bothers some skeptics that I point out god belief blind spots. Some skeptics say we should not chase god believers away by challenging their beliefs.

Well I am challenging people's beliefs here and make no apologies for it. If political views are creating skeptical blind spots, then I choose to point that out. I think it matters. I think critical thinking blind spots are just as problematic for skeptics as lack of critical thinking is for non-skeptics.

You don't have to agree. This is my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Wolfman said:
He personally is skeptical of global warming. There are lots of things that I am personally skeptical of, also. Because he is skeptical of it, he does not invest huge amounts of time in researching it -- just as I tend not to put a whole lot of time into researching things that I am skeptical of. It is human nature to focus our time/energy on those things we see as important and relevant to us as individuals.
Click to expand...

Really? I spend more time researching things I'm sceptical of than I do those I have little/no reason to be sceptical about. Because I don't want to be ill-informed or ignorant, nor hold an unsupported opinion about something. Not saying that's what Penn is doing mind, just reacting here to your wording.
 
skeptigirl said:
You seem to be the one trying to fit what I've said into your biased mold, Claus, instead of thinking what it is I am getting at. You are already convinced you know what it is I am saying, but you are wrong.

So let me spell it out.

Exxon attacked science. Gore did not attack science. Penn and Teller, and they are not the only skeptics in this case, are overlooking the attack on science that does not fit their political preferences. That is hypocritical IMO.
Click to expand...

Are you serious??

How can you call someone "hypocritical", just because they don't address a small part of a very complex issue - the part that you find particularly important?

You are merely attacking Penn for what he didn't say at TAM6. Especially about your pet peeves, Exxon and the Republicans.
 
I am reading this thread, trying to understand what people are so upset about.

My take of what Penn said at TAM is different from what is being stated here. Penn was asked a question and said he didn't know the answer. He said part of his problem in making a sober assessment of this issue is his emotional reaction he has to Al Gore.

I took this as the type of admission one might give when answering a question from a friend. I see it analogous to someone asking, "Who do you think will win MLB AL East" and you answer, "I think the Red Sox will win, but that might just be because I don't like the Yankees." You answer the question your friend asks, but then qualify it by stating your bias.

Frankly, I think we as skeptics should emulate this approach. We are all keenly aware the many ways others can so easily misinterpret data without realizing it. It is refreshing to see someone of our own look honestly into his own heart in explaining his answer to a question.

Of course, you might argue, this approach is only practical when we are among friends. But clearly, in this case, that is the situation Penn considered himself to be in.
 
Penn is a doctrinaire, market-fundamentalist who brags about "not knowing" the rational, justified extent of government, where he draws the poles somewhere between a libertarian minimal state and pure anarcho-capitalism.

He is being typically dishonest in the op-ed. It's OK to not know something, and it's usually even noble to admit not knowing, but what's even better is to try to figure it out. The unmistakable impression I get is that he does not want to know because the implications are unkind to his simple-minded, rigidly dogmatic political world-view.

His analogy to the Holocaust is not only distasteful, but undermines his case (for reasons mentioned above). How many people have looked at evidence supporting the charge that Germans were committed to a program of mass extermination? How many people have read the deniers? How many have read anything on the subject at all? For all of his bluster, reveling in being "politically incorrect" -- you're so freaking cool, Penn -- he's just another drone. There's nothing at stake for him in believing in German atrocities; indeed, it helps justify his country's greatest war. Global warming is another bag altogether.
 
I think people here are possibly not understanding my concerns because of the fact I am singling out Penn, and I agree to some degree with what Gregoire is saying which is that the context of Penn's comments matters and I wasn't at TAM so did not hear the original question or response.
Gregoire said:
Penn was asked a question and said he didn't know the answer. He said part of his problem in making a sober assessment of this issue is his emotional reaction he has to Al Gore.
Click to expand...

So I am going to start another thread with a little different angle on this. I'll post a link when I get it going.
 
skeptigirl said:
I think people here are possibly not understanding my concerns because of the fact I am singling out Penn, and I agree to some degree with what Gregoire is saying which is that the context of Penn's comments matters and I wasn't at TAM so did not hear the original question or response.

So I am going to start another thread with a little different angle on this. I'll post a link when I get it going.
Click to expand...

That is what you should have done from the start, instead of chiding people for not agreeing with you on what you think is important.
 
Cain said:
Penn is a doctrinaire, market-fundamentalist who brags about "not knowing" the rational, justified extent of government, where he draws the poles somewhere between a libertarian minimal state and pure anarcho-capitalism.

He is being typically dishonest in the op-ed. It's OK to not know something, and it's usually even noble to admit not knowing, but what's even better is to try to figure it out. The unmistakable impression I get is that he does not want to know because the implications are unkind to his simple-minded, rigidly dogmatic political world-view.
Click to expand...
He even cheerfully refers to his political and economic views as stupid and ignorant... which should preclude making public comments on those views, let alone going on television and making a display of his stupidity and ignorance for money. I mean, he's free to do so, by why would anyone have much in the way of respect for him after he does it?
 
Cain said:
Penn is a doctrinaire, market-fundamentalist who brags about "not knowing" the rational, justified extent of government, where he draws the poles somewhere between a libertarian minimal state and pure anarcho-capitalism.

He is being typically dishonest in the op-ed. It's OK to not know something, and it's usually even noble to admit not knowing, but what's even better is to try to figure it out. The unmistakable impression I get is that he does not want to know because the implications are unkind to his simple-minded, rigidly dogmatic political world-view.

His analogy to the Holocaust is not only distasteful, but undermines his case (for reasons mentioned above). How many people have looked at evidence supporting the charge that Germans were committed to a program of mass extermination? How many people have read the deniers? How many have read anything on the subject at all? For all of his bluster, reveling in being "politically incorrect" -- you're so freaking cool, Penn -- he's just another drone. There's nothing at stake for him in believing in German atrocities; indeed, it helps justify his country's greatest war. Global warming is another bag altogether.
Click to expand...


Penn reads like he's pissed off. But then, he always seems pissed off.

It must be a real downer for some to realize that there are limits to growth.


M.
 
Where in my post do you read the words, "other peoples' fault", Claus? You have quite the preconceived imagination.
 
CFLarsen said:
Right here:

And then again, maybe not.
Click to expand...
So to you, "missed my point" implies fault? I can see why you have such a hard time communicating.

If one misses a point it could be for any number of reasons. My starting another thread to address the missed point suggests I am taking responsibility for the deficiency. It doesn't suggest I am putting the responsibility on anyone else.
 
Though it does set up a great counterexample, could CFLarsen stop confounding threads with one to three word querious attacks on skeptigirl?

Yes, pithiness is great if you have a minimal word count containing substantial detail, unfortunately I think you may be lacking in the latter.

Give us something we can chew on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom