Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[Checkmite]

I've come to see no fundamental difference between Geller and Brown as well. And yes, I was initially fooled into thinking he was a skeptic - shame on me, I guess.

I'm sorry for feeling the way I do, but I feel there's a difference between a magician who refuses an explanation, or makes some curt and obviously tongue-in-cheek quip about unspecified skills learned from mental masters of the Orient, or surrounds his magic with vague mystery. and a person who blatantly declares that his magic is the result of a specific set of woo. Brown and Geller both do that. I don't care if he "only does it on stage"; the fact is, that's where everyone sees him. And he's clearly filled his earlier shows - while "on stage" - with enough skeptical lip-service to lead people to believe that he is honest and trustworthy while on stage. It does not matter if he is "not an educator, but just an entertainer"; he has deliberately drawn around himself the veneer of the former, so he cannot escape down that little side-alley, and neither can his apologists.

And finally, I consider the attitude that "well, if some people just aren't clever enough to have figured out that his skeptic shtick is just shtick, that's their problem"[/i] to be reprehensible and counter to the mission of an organization such as the one whose message board we use. We ridicule the common woo plea that "I am/was a skeptic, but...". Darren Brown doesn't get off the hook simply because he dresses the phrase up with a few more words.

 

[Checkmite]

To follow in your slippery slope footsteps, here is my estimation of a possible bad outcome:

Someone sees a Derren Brown show, perhaps the one where he's controlling super models minds. They think "wow, that's pretty awesome, let me check this guy out on YouTube!" So then they click on some more videos and they see "NLP" plastered all over the place. They think, "Hmm, since magic isn't real, THIS must be how Derren's doing it!" Three easy payments of $39.95 later, and he's studying up on the wonderful world of NLP. Then more and more people start to buy in, and who knows what happens from there? Fifty years ago, Scientology was just one dork and his stupid books.

I'm not saying that Derren is leading the charge for the Global Brotherhood of NLP, but he is exposing a whole lot of people to bad information.

I agree with this also. Brown's "entertaining" is - whether intentionally or not - pandering and padding the pockets of woo. No "this is trickery (or IS it???)" disclaimer can change that.

 

[Moochie]

It was ignored because, quite frankly, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

You say we should stand back, let people make mistakes and hope for the best. But where do you draw the line? Do you think people should just stand back while someone squanders thousands of dollars on a psychic? How about if they decide they don't want to vaccinate their kids? Or what about non-woo things? You're not going to intervene if a loved one is a drug addict?

Usually, it isn't me who "draws a line."


M.

 

[StanBearclaw]

Huh? You let someone else decide for you what is ethical and what is not?

 

[Moochie]

Huh? You let someone else decide for you what is ethical and what is not?

That's not what I said.

My ethics are that it would be presumptuous of me to tell you what your, or anyone else's ethics should be.


M.

 

[psychictv]

To follow in your slippery slope footsteps, here is my estimation of a possible bad outcome:

Slippery slope!? Listen, teachers have actually been fired thanks to creationist activists. You asked where the harm was and I told you. The best you can come up with is that somebody might watch a youtube video where another person links Brown to NLP, and that person might go out and buy a book? Give me a freaking break.

 

[StanBearclaw]

That's not what I said.

My ethics are that it would be presumptuous of me to tell you what your, or anyone else's ethics should be.

Then what do you call this?

I think at some point, the children have to be allowed to go out on their own, make their mistakes, and hopefully learn from them.

You're saying you want your ethics to be other people's ethics.

Nothing wrong with that, that's what we're all doing, it's called debate

 

[StanBearclaw]

Slippery slope!? Listen, teachers have actually been fired thanks to creationist activists. You asked where the harm was and I told you. The best you can come up with is that somebody might watch a youtube video where another person links Brown to NLP, and that person might go out and buy a book? Give me a freaking break.

Not to be pedantic, but I asked you to tell me why evolution denial is, in and of itself, a negative thing. Instead, you told me about the religious right's theocratic ambitions. I was merely following your lead and talking about the potential snowball effect that belief in nonsense can have.

 

[Azrael 5]

It seems some poeple are stupid. Arguing about a magician! He may not be Paul Daniels style but he is still a magician. So what if people want to believe his pseudo explanations? As Ive have stated many magicians(mentalists)do it.Marc Salem,Max Maven,Keith Barry(bad example) Give me a break; go argue about something that means something.

 

[StanBearclaw]

It seems some poeple are stupid. Arguing about a magician! He may not be Paul Daniels style but he is still a magician. So what if people want to believe his pseudo explanations? As Ive have stated many magicians(mentalists)do it.Marc Salem,Max Maven,Keith Barry(bad example) Give me a break; go argue about something that means something.

I'm sorry your sacred cow is getting barbecued, I can tell it's really getting to you.

 

[Azrael 5]

I'm sorry your sacred cow is getting barbecued, I can tell it's really getting to you.

You havent put forward any sensible argument. Im a fan of all magic,and Derren Brown. It gets to me you seem to be as uneducated as those who believe what Derren tells them.
Sorry you got fooled ,you'll get over it

 

[psychictv]

Not to be pedantic,

I'll grant you that. Your complete lack of logic is anything but pedantic.

but I asked you to tell me why evolution denial is, in and of itself, a negative thing.

You did no such thing. You asked "How does denying evolution adversely affect anyone?" and I answered that creationism has a negative effect when it gets involved in political activism. But now you have moved the goalposts and added the "in and of itself" qualifier.

So to answer your newly modified question, a belief in creationism is not bad in and of itself. If I believe in the flying spaghetti monster but never tell anyone and keep that belief to myself, then it of course has no effect on the rest of the world. But if that belief starts to drive my actions in the real world then it can very easily have negative effects.

Likewise, an individual belief in NLP has no effect on the rest of the world. If you're going to claim that NLP has a negative effect, you're going to have to show some concrete real world examples. There's a reason why JREF fights against homeopathy or psychic readings and not the tooth fairy. You're arguing that all of these things are equivalent, regardless of their real world impact because it's the false beliefs themselves that are harmful. Good luck with that.

 

[StanBearclaw]

Now it's clear where we differ. Truth for truth's sake is one of my core ideals.

Certainly some untruths are of greater consequence than others. I feel taking a stand on this one is justified. It might not be pervasive now, but "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

 

[JFrankA]

To follow in your slippery slope footsteps, here is my estimation of a possible bad outcome:

Someone sees a Derren Brown show, perhaps the one where he's controlling super models minds. They think "wow, that's pretty awesome, let me check this guy out on YouTube!" So then they click on some more videos and they see "NLP" plastered all over the place. They think, "Hmm, since magic isn't real, THIS must be how Derren's doing it!" Three easy payments of $39.95 later, and he's studying up on the wonderful world of NLP. Then more and more people start to buy in, and who knows what happens from there? Fifty years ago, Scientology was just one dork and his stupid books.

I'm not saying that Derren is leading the charge for the Global Brotherhood of NLP, but he is exposing a whole lot of people to bad information.

You're stretching, Stan.

If someone sees Derren do the trick above, then see "this must be what Derren does!" what's going is this: there's someone frauduently claiming "this is what Derren does" (and is therefore false advertising not because of Derren, but the person misrepresenting him); the person makes an assumption (in which case, again, isn't Derren's fault. It's not Derren's fault if someone doesn't bother to do any looking up on the internet to see what he really does), or a mixture of both.

I've seen people look at Evolution and say "See, this is how god did it", and misrepresent Evolution to fit their misinformation. Is this Darwin's fault?

As to Scientology reference, that doesn't fly either. Hubbard himself pushed Scientology as a religion. Derren doesn't push a religion.

 

[power2012]

The guy is just as fake as David Blaine or Chris Angel

Let's get someone doing paranormal stuff for real for once

 

[JFrankA]

Now it's clear where we differ. Truth for truth's sake is one of my core ideals.

Good to see that you, Derren and I agree.

Certainly some untruths are of greater consequence than others. I feel taking a stand on this one is justified. It might not be pervasive now, but "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Seems to me that your kind of "prevention" is like an old man sitting in a clean room wearing a radiation suit saying "See? I'll never get sick!"

....you may never get sick but you'll never have any fun either.

 

[StanBearclaw]

Come on, surely by now you've realized that I get a good deal of enjoyment from being an argumentative curmudgeon?


ETA: I also like whittling.

 

[EGarrett]

Your argument is "Derren Brown is not like <these magicians I like>, therefore he is exactly like <this magician pretending to not be a magician>"

That is a clear False Dilemma logical fallacy. The fact that Derren Brown does not operate similarly to David Copperfield, Randi, Houdini, or Penn & Teller, does not in itself make him exactly like Uri Gellar.

Distinct differences between Uri Gellar and Derren Brown have been raised. You must answer those differences. The other magicians are only a red herring. Derren Brown does not have to be like them in order to not be like Uri Gellar. There are many other options.

No, this has nothing at all to do with my reasoning for why Brown is like Gellar.

Please do some more research on your logical fallacies.

 

[Meed]

Slippery slope!? Listen, teachers have actually been fired thanks to creationist activists. You asked where the harm was and I told you. The best you can come up with is that somebody might watch a youtube video where another person links Brown to NLP, and that person might go out and buy a book? Give me a freaking break.

As a cognitive scientist I'm sick of all the nonsense that gets associated with us. Just a pet peeve. There are some pretty expensive NLP seminars out there, BTW, mostly seduction related. Lots of pseudo-psychology business woo out there too. Call the whaambulence?

 

[psychictv]

Truth for truth's sake is one of my core ideals.

Certainly some untruths are of greater consequence than others.

I can't reconcile these two statements. I think the problem we're having lies somewhere in the enormous gap between the two.