Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[P.J. Denyer]

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.

The difference as I see it is that these people (the devotees) are being deliberately misled, there is a big difference between opposing people who consistantly make false claims and opposing someone because a proportion of their audience don't believe the disclaimer. What are you going to do, claim it's all tricks? He'll agree with you!

 

[StanBearclaw]

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.

It's funny that you chose that as an example, because it's exactly the same as my example of the disclaimer on the back of a HeadOn package. It has nothing to do with dissuading the audience's belief, it's there to cover the ass of the manufacturer.

Likewise, Derren's disclaimer, however well-intentioned it may be, doesn't end up affecting the audience in the least.

 

[StanBearclaw]

The difference as I see it is that these people (the devotees) are being deliberately misled, there is a big difference between opposing people who consistantly make false claims and opposing someone because a proportion of their audience don't believe the disclaimer. What are you going to do, claim it's all tricks? He'll agree with you!

Please try to comprehend the message before you respond to it.

The guy was claiming that the people who got misled were beyond saving. Why does it matter who they were misled by, don't they all deserve to be steered in the right way?

 

[andycal]

Please try to comprehend the message before you respond to it.

The guy was claiming that the people who got misled were beyond saving. Why does it matter who they were misled by, don't they all deserve to be steered in the right way?

And keep on steering? Even though they snatch the wheel and still go the wrong way? You'd spend an awful lot of time on very few people and lead an extremely disappointed life.

It's a noble and good cause you promote, but a futile one.

 

[Azrael 5]

From an interview with Jamy Ian swiss for Genii magazine:

DERREN: . I do think it is an issue, and that as I do this I'm going to get different waves of reaction, and possibly have an eventual wave now when I have to pay a lot more attention to the line that I take. But when people do take a line of saying that it's not hard science, my reaction is, I've always said that. And I've always said that it's born out of magic and that it is a form of magic, but hopefully a more interesting and thought-provoking one. And that's it. And I've always had my tongue in my cheek in interviews. So it's absolutely something that I have to think about, and I have to take responsibility for, but I've been fairly good with it. I don't want to be Uri Geller. I don't want to have to create and defend something to that extent, that's not what life's about. I do it because I find it fun and entertaining, and that's what I would like people to get out of it. And part of making it as fun and entertaining as possible is creating ambiguity, plausibility, and all the rest of it.
JAMY: So you think ambiguity is part of the point?
DERREN: If it wasn't ambiguous, it wouldn't be challenging

Bolding mine.

JAMY: But the fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, when you talk about people calling up the station and wanting to take a course in photo reading, that certainly seems unarguable evidence that they are drawing education and information about the world from your work.
DERREN: Exactly. And it think it's a question of fine tuning that and taking responsibility. But also allowing for the fact that people will do that anyway. People will watch soap operas and make life decisions based on that, and mistake the characters for being real.

http://www.jamyianswiss.com/fm/works/derren-brown.html

 

[Azrael 5]

I throw this quote in as it seems it's quite apt

JAMY: That's really very interesting. I can't remember when a magic special ever engendered a national debate of the nature of illusion. That's my impression of what happened, that there was this argument, that somewhere along the line, somebody raised this issue of was it real or not. Right?

 

[shuttlt]

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?

I agree it has it's faults. I'm not sure I quite agree with your analysis though. I think there are two things going on at the same time. Their is a debate about moral responsibility and there is a debate about in what sense firearms and mentalists are, on balance good things.In terms of the moral question, I think the analogy isn't so bad. In terms of the in what sense are they to the good question, I think they're quite different.

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?

OK. To the degree that they can reasonably expect a certain amount of bad things to happen as a result of them renting out cars, I would say they are responsible for those things.

One thing I haven't raised before is the issue of "if it wasn't me doing it, it would be somebody else". In some circumstances I could reasonably argue that if I didn't sell guns/rent out cars then somebody else would. This certainly dilutes the moral responsibility in my view. In the case of Derren Brown, it doesn't seem obvious to me that if he hadn't been born somebody else would be doing much the same thing.

We all accept that any action can have unintended consequences.

My destinction would be between consequences that one can reasonably be expected to forsee and ones that we can't.

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.

I respectfully disagree.

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.

But is there a big problem with people believing that what they see in movies is the literal truth? Most of the time, no. Having said that some movies knowingly blur the line. The Da Vinci Code traded off peoples confusion as to what was 'researched' and what wasn't.

Also... nobody really reads those disclaimers at the end of movies just as nobody, or at leasts lots of people, really listens to Derrens "it's all entertainment" thing.

Derren Brown is clear that he is an entertainer, the likes of Sylvia Brown claim the exact opposite and that is the defining difference.

It's A difference. But it's not the only thing of any importance. There are consequences to Derren doing his act that there aren't to Pen and Teller doing their's. Amongst those consequences may be an increased number of people believing in woo. This is something Derren shares with Sylvia Brown. I'm sure he feels differently about it than she does. I'm sure the degree of it is the same. I'm sure there are all sorts of other good things that Derren does that may act to balance it out.

 

[StanBearclaw]

From an interview with Jamy Ian swiss for Genii magazine:
http://www.jamyianswiss.com/fm/works/derren-brown.html

Does this have a point, or did you just feel like posting the same article for the fifth time in this thread?

 

[andycal]

Does this have a point, or did you just feel like posting the same article for the fifth time in this thread?

You just have to keep going, some people deserve to be steered in the right direction, after all.

 

[shuttlt]

DERREN: Exactly. And it think it's a question of fine tuning that and taking responsibility. But also allowing for the fact that people will do that anyway.

I basically agree with Derren. A bunch of people in his audience will believe anything. If not his nonsense, then somebody elses. It only matters if his is worse hogwash, or if he's increasing the amount of people who believe hogwash.

People will watch soap operas and make life decisions based on that, and mistake the characters for being real.

I don't think this represents most of the people who get fooled by Derren. If it does, then no harm done, these people are clearly nonsense seeking missiles.

 

[StanBearclaw]

You just have to keep going, some people deserve to be steered in the right direction, after all.

Touche

 

[JFrankA]

It's funny that you chose that as an example, because it's exactly the same as my example of the disclaimer on the back of a HeadOn package. It has nothing to do with dissuading the audience's belief, it's there to cover the ass of the manufacturer.

Not all disclaimers are "cover your ass". Most of them are essentially another way of saying "Hey, you are responsible for your own decsions when you use the product/service."

Disclaimer
–noun 1. the act of disclaiming; the renouncing, repudiating, or denying of a claim; disavowal.
2. a person who disclaims.
3. a statement, document, or assertion that disclaims responsibility, affiliation, etc.; disavowal; denial.

If someone doesn't heed a disclaimer, whether it's cya or not, it's the user's choice.

Likewise, Derren's disclaimer, however well-intentioned it may be, doesn't end up affecting the audience in the least.

That sounds like an assumption to me.

From what I see, Derren performs, then someone else takes a copy of his performance, and then says "See? He's using this special NLP method in which you could buy from me for $49.99!"

 

[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.

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.

Seems like you completely missed both the point and the context

 

[Azrael 5]

Does this have a point, or did you just feel like posting the same article for the fifth time in this thread?

Because you took no notice the previous four times?

 

[StanBearclaw]

Seems like you completely missed both the point and the context

Because you took no notice the previous four times?

Well...? Don't leave me in the dark.

 

[microdot]

The context was in connection with the discussion on whether the seller of a gun, having fully discharged his legal obligations should still bear some responsibility should the gun be used for illegal purposes.

So should responsibility:-

a)Fall entirely on the person who used the gun to commit the crime?
b)Be shared between the criminal and the person who sold the gun to them (and if so in what ratio)?
c)Further up the line to the gun manufacturer?
d)The government for allowing the use of firearms?
e)All of the above
f)None of the above
g)Something else

Clear enough?

 

[StanBearclaw]

The context was in connection with the discussion on whether the seller of a gun, having fully discharged his legal obligations should still bear some responsibility should the gun be used for illegal purposes.

So should responsibility:-

a)Fall entirely on the person who used the gun to commit the crime?
b)Be shared between the criminal and the person who sold the gun to them (and if so in what ratio)?
c)Further up the line to the gun manufacturer?
d)The government for allowing the use of firearms?
e)All of the above
f)None of the above
g)Something else

Clear enough?

I was ignoring the context of the initial question because you seemed like you wanted to discuss the statement "Is responsibility a zero sum game?" by itself in an epistemological way.

I should have anticipated the confusion and instead of using killing, used theft or some other crime. I just used the first example that came to mind. But I think I proved my point that, "no, responsibility is not a zero sum game."

 

[shuttlt]

I was ignoring the context of the initial question because you seemed like you wanted to discuss the statement "Is responsibility a zero sum game?" by itself in an epistemological way.

I should have anticipated the confusion and instead of using killing, used theft or some other crime. I just used the first example that came to mind. But I think I proved my point that, "no, responsibility is not a zero sum game."

You demonstrated one of the reasons why I don't regard responsibility as zero sum. A lot of people clearly though regard it as if it is, at least some of the time.

 

[shuttlt]

The difference as I see it is that these people (the devotees) are being deliberately misled, there is a big difference between opposing people who consistantly make false claims and opposing someone because a proportion of their audience don't believe the disclaimer. What are you going to do, claim it's all tricks? He'll agree with you!

There is certainly a difference. I disagree if you are trying to say that making a disclaimer that you know some people won't believe removes all responsibility for those people from the person making the disclaimer.

In any case, I doubt this is really what is happening with Derren Brown. Are his audience really sitting their thinking "I recall Derren saying that he was an entertainer and that he will lie to me. He probably intended that to apply both to the trick itself and the explanation of the trick that he is now giving me in a clever nested structure of desception. Still, I choose to believe the explanation, even though he has clearly told me it's a lie."?

Personally I believe things are structured in such a way that a significant number of people do not make the connection between Derren's disclaimer and the point where they should actually be applying it.

 

[microdot]

I was ignoring the context of the initial question because you seemed like you wanted to discuss the statement "Is responsibility a zero sum game?" by itself in an epistemological way."

Now I am confused

I thought that Is responsibility a zero sum game? was a question rather than a statement.

The clue for me was the ? at the end.