Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[StanBearclaw]

Good job, you really backed me into a corner there!

 

[microdot]

Good job, you really backed me into a corner there!

 

[StanBearclaw]

Why are you focusing on an improperly chosen word instead of actually arguing the topic at hand?

 

[microdot]

Why are you focusing on an improperly chosen word instead of actually arguing the topic at hand?

Am I supposed to be arguing a topic?

 

[JFrankA]

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.

Personally, I believe things are structured in such a way that a significant number of people don't CARE. The next thing on their minds is "What's next on the tv?"

Now I have seen people who will take advantage of a video of Derren and twist it so that they can sell their own products or ideas. I've seen it done with videos of Penn & Teller performances. (Which leads me to this question: if someone believes woo due to someone else using a Penn & Teller video as proof, is Penn & Teller responisble?)

But so far, all the "evidence" I've heard from the "Derren is responsible" crowd is hearsay. Do you actually have proof that a significant number of people now believe in woo solely on Derren Brown's performances?

....seems to me I've seen an increase of skeptism since his last show.... But again, that's not scientific......

 

[shuttlt]

Personally, I believe things are structured in such a way that a significant number of people don't CARE. The next thing on their minds is "What's next on the tv?"

That may well be true also.

Now I have seen people who will take advantage of a video of Derren and twist it so that they can sell their own products or ideas. I've seen it done with videos of Penn & Teller performances. (Which leads me to this question: if someone believes woo due to someone else using a Penn & Teller video as proof, is Penn & Teller responisble?)

If Pen & Teller could reasonably be expected to forsee that their material would be used in that way and chose to produce it regardless then I would say they have some responsibility for the fact that their material is used in that way.

But so far, all the "evidence" I've heard from the "Derren is responsible" crowd is hearsay. Do you actually have proof that a significant number of people now believe in woo solely on Derren Brown's performances?

I have no intention of providing evidence of how many people in Derrens audience believe in woo before and after the show. If you want to claim that there is no increase then, by definition Derren isn't responsible for an increase in woo. If this is your argument you might have said so earlier. What got me posting was my impression that people seemed to feel that even if their was an increase in woo in Derren's audience Derren had no responsibility for it since he had given his disclaimer.

....seems to me I've seen an increase of skeptism since his last show.... But again, that's not scientific......

Perhaps. If so, should Derren be commended for this?

 

[StanBearclaw]

Now I have seen people who will take advantage of a video of Derren and twist it so that they can sell their own products or ideas. I've seen it done with videos of Penn & Teller performances. (Which leads me to this question: if someone believes woo due to someone else using a Penn & Teller video as proof, is Penn & Teller responisble?).

They're not really responsible for it happening, but I think they'd feel a responsibility to undo any potential harm that came as a result of someone using their work out of context. Much like how when Ben Stein warps Darwinism into the holocaust, it is the duty of people like PZ Myers to fix the damage.

 

[shuttlt]

They're not really responsible for it happening, but I think they'd feel a responsibility to undo any potential harm that came as a result of someone using their work out of context. Much like how when Ben Stein warps Darwinism into the holocaust, it is the duty of people like PZ Myers to fix the damage.

If by "not really responsible" you mean they shouldn't feel terribly bad about it then I agree. The fraudsters who misrepresent their work would be doing misrepresent somebody elses, or work some other con if Pen & Teller weren't around. Little if any net harm is done due to them.

 

[dlorde]

Souds like the OP is wailing that they were totally fooled and taken in by DB's fakery (something which he openly admits), then discovered it was a trick. Oh no! wait... isn't that DB's job?

If DB really was no different than Uri Gellar, there would have been nothing to post... ironic, eh?

Dude, DB says he's going to mess with your head, and you get upset when he does?

 

[JFrankA]

If Pen & Teller could reasonably be expected to forsee that their material would be used in that way and chose to produce it regardless then I would say they have some responsibility for the fact that their material is used in that way.

How could they possibly forsee every contingency? How can one possibly see every way people can take what's being done?

...anyway, this was more a of a rhetorical question. Not really pertaining to the subject....

I have no intention of providing evidence of how many people in Derrens audience believe in woo before and after the show. If you want to claim that there is no increase then, by definition Derren isn't responsible for an increase in woo. If this is your argument you might have said so earlier. What got me posting was my impression that people seemed to feel that even if their was an increase in woo in Derren's audience Derren had no responsibility for it since he had given his disclaimer.

It's kind of both points being argued here. Since that is not your claim, fair enough, you have nothing to prove.

As to responsiblity, I still disgree with you. If a person who puts out that they are lieing to an audience and the audience STILL falls for the lie, then that's the audience's fault.

Perhaps. If so, should Derren be commended for this?

Why not? He's being chastised for what people are percieving as an increase in woo.....

They're not really responsible for it happening, but I think they'd feel a responsibility to undo any potential harm that came as a result of someone using their work out of context. Much like how when Ben Stein warps Darwinism into the holocaust, it is the duty of people like PZ Myers to fix the damage.

Interesting that you chose to answer the more rhetorical question rather than the actual point I was trying to make.

Now is that my responsiblity?????????

 

[StanBearclaw]

Interesting that you chose to answer the more rhetorical question rather than the actual point I was trying to make.

Now is that my responsiblity?????????

I answered the only portion of your post that I haven't already covered. But to save you the trouble of combing through the pages, here is the relevant bit:

I'm not aware of any studies or polls about how the public perceives him specifically, but just from reading message boards and such, its clear that peoples' levels of belief in him runs the gamut.

 

[shuttlt]

How could they possibly forsee every contingency? How can one possibly see every way people can take what's being done?

Some things one can forsee some one can't. If a given contingency if reasonably forseable then it is reasonable to expect them to forsee it.

...anyway, this was more a of a rhetorical question. Not really pertaining to the subject....

I can never resist answering rhetorical questions.

As to responsiblity, I still disgree with you. If a person who puts out that they are lieing to an audience and the audience STILL falls for the lie, then that's the audience's fault.

Say I own a private carpark and put up a small sign that's not too obtrusive and is somewhat ambiguously worded, that if people employ critical thinking, will tip them off to the fact that I am going to tow their car... am I morally responsible for the fact that there are a lot of unhappy people with no cars?

Derren gives a warning, but as I've said either it's the case that people are not connecting his warning to the elements of the show that it refers to, or they think he is lying. I don't think it's reasonable to think that they understand Derren's warning and what it is telling them, but think it's a lie. I suspect they either don't absorb it, or connect it to the trick, rather than his explanation of the trick.

If you give a warning, but knowingly construct it in such a way that people will misunderstand it, you haven't given much of a warning in my view.

Why not? He's being chastised for what people are percieving as an increase in woo.....

But you say that chastisement is unreasonable. Is he just being commended for the sake of balance despite him not having done anything to deserve it?

 

[JFrankA]

I answered the only portion of your post that I haven't already covered. But to save you the trouble of combing through the pages, here is the relevant bit:

Originally Posted by StanUpshaw
I'm not aware of any studies or polls about how the public perceives him specifically, but just from reading message boards and such, its clear that peoples' levels of belief in him runs the gamut.

Sooooooooooo in other words, you are skeptic that is saying that one should always push science, saying that someone, who is a fellow skeptic, is unethical because he's pushing woo, using proof of your impression but no real scientific evidence.

 

[Lothario]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ryg0RRtdF0

Stop at 00:43. Look at the screen behind Derren.

"Anchoring" is a NLP technique. If he's not trying to fool people into believing he's using NLP, why does he mention it in his tricks?

 

[shuttlt]

Sooooooooooo in other words, you are skeptic that is saying that one should always push science, saying that someone, who is a fellow skeptic, is unethical because he's pushing woo, using proof of your impression but no real scientific evidence.

Do any scientific studies exist that demonstrate that more people believe in woo as a result of Geller, or Sylvia Brown? I suspect these are the kind of claims that there is almost never robust evidence on either way. Should that push out of bounds discussion of whether Derren, or Geller may be advancing the cause of woo?

 

[JFrankA]

Some things one can forsee some one can't. If a given contingency if reasonably forseable then it is reasonable to expect them to forsee it.

Who decides what be considered "reasonably forseable"? It seems to me, for example, that it's "reasonably forseable" that when you order coffee from resteraunt, it's going to be hot, yet it's been proven that that is not always the case to see it as "reasonably forseable". (Hence the disclaimers on store-bought coffee cups).

I can never resist answering rhetorical questions.

Say I own a private carpark and put up a small sign that's not too obtrusive and is somewhat ambiguously worded, that if people employ critical thinking, will tip them off to the fact that I am going to tow their car... am I morally responsible for the fact that there are a lot of unhappy people with no cars?

Did they read the sign or ignore it? Did they meet someone else who parks in your lot that says to them "Oh, he never tows"? The sign is posted. If there is a misunderstanding, then you ask the attendant to clear it up.

At any rate, it's still the customer's choice to say "Eh, I don't understand but I'll park here anyway" or "I don't understand, let me ask" or even "Damn, this place is a rip off. I ain't parking here" or even yelling at the car park owner about the ambiguity of the sign.

The sign is posted. That does NOT remove the customer's choices.

Derren gives a warning, but as I've said either it's the case that people are not connecting his warning to the elements of the show that it refers to, or they think he is lying. I don't think it's reasonable to think that they understand Derren's warning and what it is telling them, but think it's a lie. I suspect they either don't absorb it, or connect it to the trick, rather than his explanation of the trick.

And if they decide any of those choices, that's Derren's fault...how? He told them. If they aren't sure, then it's on them to do a little digging instead of assuming whatever they want.

If you give a warning, but knowingly construct it in such a way that people will misunderstand it, you haven't given much of a warning in my view.

Well, then why don't you ask for clarification? I do. And if the warning is very ambiguous it is my right, (and some people here think my duty as a skeptic) to actually ask my questions beyond the point of annoying people to get the clear right answer.

But you say that chastisement is unreasonable.

No, you're not chastising him, I'd agree with you there.

However, there are a couple of others here on this thread who are chastising him. One person in particular has changed his avatar to rub in his dislike for Derren Brown. I'm beginning to think he may be a troll. But, for now, I'll play along with him.

Is he just being commended for the sake of balance despite him not having done anything to deserve it?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.

 

[JFrankA]

Do any scientific studies exist that demonstrate that more people believe in woo as a result of Geller, or Sylvia Brown? I suspect these are the kind of claims that there is almost never robust evidence on either way. Should that push out of bounds discussion of whether Derren, or Geller may be advancing the cause of woo?

Here's the difference, which has been described over and over: Derren has no books promoting woo, Derren doesn't say he has powers that others do not have, Derren doesn't have "clients" come to his house so he can do a "reading", or "talk to the dead" or "find out when they are going to meet their love".

People like Uri and Sylvia and John are actively trying to recruit more people into believing that they have powers. Derren is doing nothing closely resembeling that.

 

[JFrankA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ryg0RRtdF0

Stop at 00:43. Look at the screen behind Derren.

"Anchoring" is a NLP technique. If he's not trying to fool people into believing he's using NLP, why does he mention it in his tricks?

Sorry, I see the word "choring".

 

[StanBearclaw]

No, you're not chastising him, I'd agree with you there.

However, there are a couple of others here on this thread who are chastising him. One person in particular has changed his avatar to rub in his dislike for Derren Brown. I'm beginning to think he may be a troll. But, for now, I'll play along with him.

I've maintained that it's not necessarily the unforeseen consequences that deserve scorn, but rather what action the person takes when he learns of those consequences. It's the same in this case: If the lame lottery trick, followed by over-the-top outlandish explanation indeed leads to increased skepticism, and in turn leads to his business decreasing...what is his next move?

If he decides to go further down the rabbit hole of woo in hopes of increasing his business, he should be scorned. If he accepts that he's pushed his shtick past the breaking point and decides to come clean and work purely above board, then he should be praised.

But all of that is working of your view that skepticism is on the rise. Conversely, I've read that the next Monday when people went back to work, they got offers to join the office prediction team. Again, obviously anecdotal, but I've never said otherwise.


ETA: And thank you so much for playing along, it's such a privilege to even be acknowledged by the likes of JFrankA, but for you to spend pages upon pages debating with me, it's almost like I got to shoot hoops with Jordan. Thank you!

 

[StanBearclaw]

Here's the difference, which has been described over and over: Derren has no books promoting woo, Derren doesn't say he has powers that others do not have, Derren doesn't have "clients" come to his house so he can do a "reading", or "talk to the dead" or "find out when they are going to meet their love".

People like Uri and Sylvia and John are actively trying to recruit more people into believing that they have powers. Derren is doing nothing closely resembeling that.

Hustling people is unethical in its own right, but it's a different issue than that of the "bodycount" of people who end up believing nonsense, regardless of the method. The Sunday school teacher isn't hustling the kids, but it still results in more "bodies."