Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[Darat]

This may be the issue. I would say the increase of woo is a secondary and undesired consequence of his act. If you can suggest another word than promote to indicate this, then I'd be glad to use it.

I think you use a good phrase above: "undesired consequence".

 

[shuttlt]

I think you use a good phrase above: "undesired consequence".

Is there a good verb for what one is doing when one is knowingly causing something to happen even though it is undesired?

 

[shuttlt]

I don't particularly believe in quoting dictionary definitions in debates, and I'm happy to use an alternative word, but:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/promote
"To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance."

Seems to me to be the sense I had in mind.

 

[andycal]

I think you use a good phrase above: "undesired consequence".

Badda bing.

I was going to quote and reply to a lot of this, but Darat has waded in and spoke wisely.

We can't know for sure whether he's happy that people think he's promoting woo or not. All we can go on is his books and what he's said in the media and although there's one or two lines from the past where it looks like he's saying stuff is 'nlp' or 'hypnotism', remember that it's an intereview and he might be off-guard or couching things in certain ways.

His books and his shows all state it's entertainment. He very often says "NLP and all that stuff is nonsense". So, we have to take the view that if people think his stuff is woo then those people are a bit soft.

He doesn't promote woo, he is against woo. He has said that he doesn't want to become a bitter old man fighting the skeptical view (in a Radio 2 interview I think, might have been Radio 4), so maybe he's just happy with things just the way they are.

Either way, there's nothing you or I can do about it and in the grand scheme of things, it's a bit of a petty argument. I don't watch Gellar because I think he's a lying arse, I do watch Derren Brown because I think he's a top entertainer.

Take yer pick, makes yer choice, have a laff at some scared up students in the process. Win win.

 

[shuttlt]

We can't know for sure whether he's happy that people think he's promoting woo or not. All we can go on is his books and what he's said in the media and although there's one or two lines from the past where it looks like he's saying stuff is 'nlp' or 'hypnotism', remember that it's an intereview and he might be off-guard or couching things in certain ways.

I'm happy for him if he's happy about this stuff. I don't see that it's important though in deciding whether his actions are moral. The issue is what he expects to be the consequences of his actions.

His books and his shows all state it's entertainment. He very often says "NLP and all that stuff is nonsense". So, we have to take the view that if people think his stuff is woo then those people are a bit soft.

Derren of all people knows that there are a lot of people in his audience who are a bit soft. This is a consequence that he must expect.

He doesn't promote woo, he is against woo. He has said that he doesn't want to become a bitter old man fighting the skeptical view (in a Radio 2 interview I think, might have been Radio 4), so maybe he's just happy with things just the way they are.

But does he cause woo to advance?

Either way, there's nothing you or I can do about it and in the grand scheme of things, it's a bit of a petty argument.

If things being petty and pointless stopped debates Darat would be alone on this forum and the JREF server would run as smooth as anything.

I don't watch Gellar because I think he's a lying arse, I do watch Derren Brown because I think he's a top entertainer.

Take yer pick, makes yer choice, have a laff at some scared up students in the process. Win win.

Except for any consequences we perceive as negative, such as a general increase in woo. Win, win, lose.

 

[JFrankA]

Now that would depend. Is the gunshop owner under the impression that the rules are perfect and no gun purchase according to the rules goes on to be used for anything unfortunate? If so, then I don't think he is morally responsible. If he knows that it is possible that somebody will buy a gun from him despite him following procedure and yet the gun will go on to be used in a shooting that wouldn't have occurred if he hadn't sold the gun, then he is to some degree responsible.

I disagree. There's no way for any procedure to be perfect. And that's because the person who bought the gun (saw the performance) is responsible for making their own mind whether to pull the trigger or not (whether to believe it's real or not).

You are taking responsibility away from the person pulling the trigger (deciding on the performance). Especially if the gun shop owner (performer) says "look, it's okay to sell you this gun, you seem like a nice guy, use it wisely and safely and please don't shoot up a school". ("I use misdirection, sleight of hand and showmanship").

 

[shuttlt]

I disagree. There's no way for any procedure to be perfect. And that's because the person who bought the gun (saw the performance) is responsible for making their own mind whether to pull the trigger or not (whether to believe it's real or not).

Why should only one person have any responsibility?

You are taking responsibility away from the person pulling the trigger (deciding on the performance).

Is responsibility a zero sum game? Why would the gunshop owner having some moral responsiblity detract from the moral responsibility of the gunman?

Especially if the gun shop owner (performer) says "look, it's okay to sell you this gun, you seem like a nice guy, use it wisely and safely and please don't shoot up a school". ("I use misdirection, sleight of hand and showmanship").

I disagree unless the gunshop owner is the kind of fool who would think a potential gunman would be influenced by this kind of warning. The usual purpose of such a warning is attempted ass covering.

 

[andycal]

If things being petty and pointless stopped debates Darat would be alone on this forum and the JREF server would run as smooth as anything.

That's a very good point and it came to mind the minute I hit 'submit'.

I think Ashles would still be about though, so it wouldn't be all bad.

I'm still not getting the point though. If you think that Derren is promoting woo then that's great and you're entitled to your opinion. I really don't think that there's anything more he can do to convince you or the soft crowd any different and you've admitted as much so we've kinda stalled.

I guessed someone's age once and she was convinced I used psychic ability and no amount of me saying "it's a guess" would convince her otherwise. I really don't think there's helping some people so why bother?

The only answer would be for him to stop altogether, and I think he does far more good than harm so that would be a Bad Thing. The fact he regularly takes the piss out of Uri Gellar, religion and psychics on stage is worth the admission price alone.

And he rubs glass in his face, that's quite entertaining too.

 

[shuttlt]

I'm still not getting the point though. If you think that Derren is promoting woo then that's great and you're entitled to your opinion. I really don't think that there's anything more he can do to convince you or the soft crowd any different and you've admitted as much so we've kinda stalled.

But this is beside the point. Let's say it is impossible for him to do any more than his is doing to counter the woo, and yet his act causes the general quantity of woo to increase. Assuming he recognizes that this is a possibility then, in my view, he has a moral responsibility for the expected consequences of actions that he freely takes.

I guessed someone's age once and she was convinced I used psychic ability and no amount of me saying "it's a guess" would convince her otherwise. I really don't think there's helping some people so why bother?

If you didn't expect and had no reason to suspect that she would react in this way then you have no responsibility. If there was nothing you could reasonably do to convince her of the truth, then you have no responsibility for her not getting it into her head. If it would have been reasonable for you to have expected her to beome convinced in this way then you are morally responsible.

The only answer would be for him to stop altogether, and I think he does far more good than harm so that would be a Bad Thing.

Which is fine. If he does more good than harm then the moral thing for him to do is to continue.

The fact he regularly takes the piss out of Uri Gellar, religion and psychics on stage is worth the admission price alone.

People coming out happy is clearly a good thing.

And he rubs glass in his face, that's quite entertaining too.

Does he let other people rub glass in his face a la Houdini and the punch in the stomach.

 

[StanBearclaw]

I really don't think there's helping some people so why bother?

If that applies in this case, then why doesn't apply to the devotees of Uri Gellar, Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Kevin Trudeau, Michael Behe, Kent Hovind, etc., etc., etc.? Aren't those battles are worth fighting? I thought that was the point of the skeptical movement. Perhaps I was mistaken.

Oh crap, did I mistakenly come to the James Randi Iconoclast Foundation?

 

[andycal]

... in my view, he has a moral responsibility for the expected consequences of actions that he freely takes.

I see your point, but I think he does this anyway by saying everything he says about not being psychic etc. I can see why you think he should do more though, he says everything with a wry grin. Some would say he says that to just enhance the mystery.

If you didn't expect and had no reason to suspect that she would react in this way then you have no responsibility. If there was nothing you could reasonably do to convince her of the truth, then you have no responsibility for her not getting it into her head. If it would have been reasonable for you to have expected her to beome convinced in this way then you are morally responsible.

wooof. Deep. I guess the next step is, at what point do you decide whether there is nothing or something to be done to convince someone. At what point do you give up and walk away? Some people will never be convinced no matter what, but others would say that even admitting some people can't be convinced is an admission of failure.

People coming out happy is clearly a good thing.


Does he let other people rub glass in his face a la Houdini and the punch in the stomach.

Not that I know to. He's very controlling which is part of the illusion. I'm sure he states in his book that he never leaves everything to chance. I'm quite convinced that all of his shows are absolutely and utterly coreographed to the second. Doesn't ruin the wonder of it though.

 

[andycal]

If that applies in this case, then why doesn't apply to the devotees of Uri Gellar, Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Kevin Trudeau, Michael Behe, Kent Hovind, etc., etc., etc.? Aren't those battles are worth fighting? I thought that was the point of the skeptical movement. Perhaps I was mistaken.

It's a matter of degree and who you're trying to convince. You can't ever make a glass hover by shouting at it, so you give up.

Some people will never be convinced that Uri Gellar isn't the real deal, so move on to somebody who can be convinced, no sense being a fool about it. A friend of mine is convinced Uri can bend spoons with his mind, I've said for decades that it's a ruse but he still insists it's his mind power. There is no point in trying to convince him otherwise and it would be pointless anyway, all I could gain from it is a sense of smug satisfaction.

It's OK being skeptical, but let's not be inhuman about it.

 

[shuttlt]

It's a matter of degree and who you're trying to convince. You can't ever make a glass hover by shouting at it, so you give up.

Some people will never be convinced that Uri Gellar isn't the real deal, so move on to somebody who can be convinced, no sense being a fool about it. A friend of mine is convinced Uri can bend spoons with his mind, I've said for decades that it's a ruse but he still insists it's his mind power. There is no point in trying to convince him otherwise and it would be pointless anyway, all I could gain from it is a sense of smug satisfaction.

It's OK being skeptical, but let's not be inhuman about it.

I totally agree.

In the words of W.C. fields:
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no use being a damn fool about it."

 

[StanBearclaw]

It's a matter of degree and who you're trying to convince. You can't ever make a glass hover by shouting at it, so you give up.

Some people will never be convinced that Uri Gellar isn't the real deal, so move on to somebody who can be convinced, no sense being a fool about it. A friend of mine is convinced Uri can bend spoons with his mind, I've said for decades that it's a ruse but he still insists it's his mind power. There is no point in trying to convince him otherwise and it would be pointless anyway, all I could gain from it is a sense of smug satisfaction.

It's OK being skeptical, but let's not be inhuman about it.

WWASD?

(What would Annie Sullivan do?)

 

[andycal]

I totally agree.

In the words of W.C. fields:
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no use being a damn fool about it."

Thanks for prodding my memory on that quote - I knew I'd heard it before!

 

[microdot]

There's certainly some lively debate here and in the midst of it was IMHO a very pertinent, insightful and interesting question which seemd to go largely unnoticed:-

Is responsibility a zero sum game?

I think that one question is worthy of a debate if it's own.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Now that would depend. Is the gunshop owner under the impression that the rules are perfect and no gun purchase according to the rules goes on to be used for anything unfortunate? If so, then I don't think he is morally responsible. If he knows that it is possible that somebody will buy a gun from him despite him following procedure and yet the gun will go on to be used in a shooting that wouldn't have occurred if he hadn't sold the gun, then he is to some degree responsible.

I think there are certain problems with this analogy as most people have an pretty definate view on the acceptability of privately owned fire arms and there are very good arguments on both sides which confuse the issue here. Since I don't think anyone here has a moral objection to magicians in general perhaps a less contentious employment should be chosen?

Perhaps a better analogy would be 'if a car rental company rents a car to someone who comes in and presents suitable evidence that they are a licensed driver of legal age with no endorsements to prevent them driving and displaying no signs of being impared by drugs and alcohol. Do they have a moral responsibility if that person drink drives the next day and plows through a queue of school children? After all there are a lot of car accidents every day, odds are that sooner or later a car they have rented will be involved in one?

We all accept that any action can have unintended consequences. Derren Brown's statements that he is an entertainer performing tricks are more than sufficient, IMHO, to absolve him of responsibility for anyone who can't understand that simple fact irrespective of his other external writings\interviews etc which themselves place him in the sceptic camp. Similarly I find that the disclaimer at the end of all movies (events and situations....fictional.....living or dead etc) is enough that I don't expect every actor, director or film writer to publicly announce their disbelief in flying saucers, xenomorphs, ghosts, werewolves or the Loch Ness monster depending on their chosen genre even though I don't bother to sit there and check if it's there, I know the difference between fantasy and reality. Derren Brown is clear that he is an entertainer, the likes of Sylvia Brown claim the exact opposite and that is the defining difference.

 

[StanBearclaw]

There's certainly some lively debate here and in the midst of it was IMHO a very pertinent, insightful and interesting question which seemd to go largely unnoticed:-



I think that one question is worthy of a debate if it's own.

Is it? Seems fairly self-evident.

If one guy kills one person and gets 40 years, what happens when two guys kill one person? Does each get 20? Of course not.

 

[andycal]

I think Shuttit is Derren brown. It's all part of the show I tells ya...

 

[andycal]

WWASD?

(What would Annie Sullivan do?)

Annie Sullivan's story wouldn't have been pertinent if in the last operation the knife had slipped and he lost both eyes.

There are many stories where people 'never give up' and make it through to the end. It's just that we get to hear about them and not the hundreds who didn't.

It makes for a good story, but we really shouldn't judge everything by it.

Editited that last sentence.