Who pissod off Penn?

[ponderingturtle]

Penn's distaste for the Al Gore method of politicizing science is very understandable, particularly since he's a skeptic. Like Al Gore, he too has a political slant, which comes off as libertarian.

I don't see that. Science is totaly apolitical, it is true that science simply doesn't care if millions die or anything like that.

But Penn goes so far as to say not that the conclusions on how to act drawn from the science are wrong, but that the science itself is wrong because he dissagrees with the conclusions drawn from the science.

This is very much like people who question historical events because they don't like how others use those historical events are used to justify their political intents.

So this is essentialy the same reaction as the jewish holocaust deniers who where at Iran's holocaust denial summit.

 

[Chaos]

I don't see that. Science is totaly apolitical, it is true that science simply doesn't care if millions die or anything like that.

*snip*

Science is apolitical, but scientists are not.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Science is apolitical, but scientists are not.

And your point is?

 

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Chaos View Post
Science is apolitical, but scientists are not.

And your point is?

.
It's the guy -holding- the gun that kills you.
Science is merely the instrument.

 

[ponderingturtle]

.
It's the guy -holding- the gun that kills you.
Science is merely the instrument.

SO what?

He decries similar denial of evidence and processes, so it seems that it is that this is popular. If he was around groups that denied the holocaust more then saying "I don't really know either way what happened" would also seem acceptable.

 

[Darth Rotor]

SO what?

He decries similar denial of evidence and processes, so it seems that it is that this is popular. If he was around groups that denied the holocaust more then saying "I don't really know either way what happened" would also seem acceptable.

I don't think reinforcing the Godwin element of this story helps much of anything.

Part of the wariness many people have with the GW issue is not that climate is changing, but in the assumption of virtue in proposed solution sets, all of which are, at best, estimates.

For a quick analogy, see how the use of asbestos went from being a good idea, fire prevention, to a bad idea, people dying from contamination by it.

Solution sets to the issues raised by climate change are as fraught with non linear, and unpalatable outcomes, if not moreso, than that modest example.

DR

 

[cafink]

But Penn goes so far as to say not that the conclusions on how to act drawn from the science are wrong, but that the science itself is wrong because he dissagrees with the conclusions drawn from the science.

I'm a pretty big fan of Penn & Teller. I've seen every episode of ********, I've listened to every episodes of Penn's radio show at least thrice, and I've never heard him say anything like this.

Please provide a quote in which Penn says "that the science itself is wrong because he disagrees with the conclusions drawn from the science."

 

[HarryKeogh]

... I've listened to every episodes of Penn's radio show at least thrice,...

Were you stuck on a deserted island with nothing but a solar-powered Walkman and a crate of Penn radio show tapes?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think reinforcing the Godwin element of this story helps much of anything.

Part of the wariness many people have with the GW issue is not that climate is changing, but in the assumption of virtue in proposed solution sets, all of which are, at best, estimates.

For a quick analogy, see how the use of asbestos went from being a good idea, fire prevention, to a bad idea, people dying from contamination by it.

Solution sets to the issues raised by climate change are as fraught with non linear, and unpalatable outcomes, if not moreso, than that modest example.

DR

What should be done if anything about GW is a seperate issue, there is almost as much scientific agreement about its existance as evolution, and I can well imagine Penn's responce to someone saying "Well I don't know" when asked about evolution.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm a pretty big fan of Penn & Teller. I've seen every episode of ********, I've listened to every episodes of Penn's radio show at least thrice, and I've never heard him say anything like this.

Please provide a quote in which Penn says "that the science itself is wrong because he disagrees with the conclusions drawn from the science."

So what do you think his response would have been that someone finds dawkins to be such an ass, that they don't know what to think of evolution?

Of course he wouldn't describe what he is doing, because that would require him to acknowledge scientific consensus that he is not agreeing with. And this goes against so many of his stated and likely deeply felt beliefs.

He might think Al Gore is an ass, but his movie is at least as accurate as Penn's show.

 

[CFLarsen]

Science is apolitical, but scientists are not.

That's a rather broad brush you're sweeping with there.

Don't you mean "the politicians who fund scientists are not apolitical"?

 

[cafink]

Of course he wouldn't describe what he is doing, because that would require him to acknowledge scientific consensus that he is not agreeing with. And this goes against so many of his stated and likely deeply felt beliefs.

But in your previous post, you said that "Penn goes so far as to say … that the science itself is wrong because he disagrees with the conclusions drawn from the science." Do you have a quote in which Penn says this, or do you concede that Penn has not, in fact, said anything of the sort?

 

[brodski]

That's a rather broad brush you're sweeping with there.

Don't you mean "the politicians who fund scientists are not apolitical"?

nope, scientists, being human, are by definition not apolitical.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's a rather broad brush you're sweeping with there.

Don't you mean "the politicians who fund scientists are not apolitical"?

You've got to be kidding! You think scientists are without political bias? What, are they cloistered in Monasteries with no personal life outside of their work?

 

[dudalb]

And your point is?

His point is that scientists are human, and sometimes allow their political opinions to color their conclusions.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I've gotta' say that I side with Penn on this one. As much as I don't really agree with some of his comments, what he said at TAM was misrepresented...and he did a good job of defending himself in his response.

Do you recall what Teller said in regard to indulgences?


From the LA Times link:

Teller chimed in with something about Gore's selling of "indulgences" being BS

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

He might think Al Gore is an ass, but his movie is at least as accurate as Penn's show.

Penn and Teller openly state that their show is a farce.

 

[CFLarsen]

nope, scientists, being human, are by definition not apolitical.

You've got to be kidding! You think scientists are without political bias? What, are they cloistered in Monasteries with no personal life outside of their work?

Oh, dearie me...

This about what you are saying here.

If scientists are political by definition, what makes their work scientific?

If all of their work is influenced by their own politics, then none of their results are valid.

Hm?

Scientists stop doing science when they become political. That's precisely why scientists must adhere to the scientific method.

 

[BPSCG]

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.

Fair enough, but don't you have to concede that GW is a terribly complex question, and that it may well be beyond the ability of laymen to know enough to have an intelligent opinion? Penn's stage persona is that of a loudmouth blowhard, but does anyone doubt that there's a keen mind behind that persona? And yet he admits he just doesn't know, because:

There's a lot of evidence, but global warming encompasses a lot of complicated points: Is it happening? Did we cause it? Is it bad? Can we fix it? Is government-forced conservation the only way to fix it?

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.

So you believe that the topic is easy enough for anyone to understand, as long as he keeps an open, (dare I say skeptical?) mind on the issue?

His analogy to the Holocaust is not only distasteful, but undermines his case

I disagree.

There's only one basic question about the Holocaust: Did the Nazis murder millions of Jews? The "yes" answer is supported by all the evidence. It's not nearly as complicated as the GW question. For the Holocaust question to be as complex as GW, you'd have to ask questions like:

• Did it actually happen in the first place?
• Even if it did happen, how do we know the Nazis did it?
• If it did happen, was it bad?
• Is genocide of Jews a natural occurrence that happens periodically because of forces over which we have no control?

The answers to those questions are easy; the proof is overwhelming, the case for alternative theories is scanty at best, and there has been no significant change in our conclusions over the past half-century.

Unfortunately, none of that is true about GW. Not every scientist who is skeptical about GW or its causes is a corrupt Exxon lackey, and not everyone with irrefutable proof of GW come to the table without biases or with his science straight (see the unfortunate "hockey stick" study). I think it's perfectly fair for a layman to say about GW, "I don't know, and I don't understand enough about the scientific discussion to have an intelligent opinion," while being satisfied with history's final judgment about the Holocaust.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Cars are blue. They are also red. It is merely a limited brain that only hears one thing in a sentence which can be interpreted more than one way. Common sense would say that since no group of any size would likely vote monolithically, the sentence implied either 'some' or 'a majority', not 'all'.

And implied or not, my supporting source clarified the claim.

Wrong again. Try to keep up. Logic 101. Learn.