Penn & Teller's "BS" -- Yay or Nay?

[openingmind]

I recently began watching Penn and Teller's "Bulls**t" on the recommendation of a friend and I'm very on the fence about it.

For one, it mostly falls into a "Preaching to the Choir" category for me.

Secondly, though, as I watching tonight I began seeing that they use a lot of fallacious arguments. Namely, they make Ad Hominem attacks left and right.

To be fair, it's entertainment, it's not a broadcast formal argument. Still, it's sort of unfortunate to me.

Besides making personal attacks to debunk a claim, they rarely stay on topic -- they lump together different woo theories and treat them as one (which just seems sloppy).

I like the show overall, but this started bugging me tonight. Does anyone else feel the same way?

Their general modus operandi seems to be: (1) pick a woo subject, (2) find the biggest nut they can endorsing that woo, (3) make personal attacks on them.

But, of course, they do a service in showing that there's no evidence for whatever woo they're discussing. And a lot of the crackpots they interview are bilking and possibly hurting people and so they deserve the insults.

Still...something about it...

 

[CMacDady]

I watched season one episodes which seem to be on the more stereotypical topics. I see where you come from but you have to give credit to the fact that it is showtime. There are lots of people that believe, so to get the attention of those people who already are uneducated their harsh approach may work. I guess that is the real debatable part.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Well, they admit that they are biased. They do present facts, though. The cheerleading episode informed me of some very interesting facts that I did not know. I think they are doing a pretty decent job of exposing BS.

 

[Aufbruch]

Much like South Park....it's become, over time, less of a skeptically minded expose-of-BS-du-jour and more of a soapbox for their Libertard ideology, over time.

Their show on Global Warming was also, needless to say...an epic, epic fail that they should never be allowed to live down. That they could go from denouncing the 9/11 Troofer Conspiracy BS one minute and then be endorsing an equally ludicrous conspiracy theory like "Global Warming is teh hoax/TIME magazine sez global cooling is teh future make up ur mind silly scientists!"....has forever put their brain power into question for me.

Their little show on the ADA was no prize goose, either--but was more amusing; I laughed out loud when they interviewed the head honcho of the Objectivist Foundation about what should be done about the handicapped....

Honestly, that Ayn Rand is even a remembered name to anyone never ceases to astound me. Substandard, half-assed philosophical argumentation done via fictional prose that makes Danielle Steele look like James Joyce, and by a horse faced goblin of a woman who has a face that could _scatter a leper colony_....

I include that last bit out of pure ad homiem, and knowingly, and don't care that it is so. She was one fugly ho, though, and find it my duty to make the truth be known.

 

[Burning Beard]

I'm a fan of the show but don't necessarily agree with their approach all the time.

The martial arts one could have focused more in the "Qi" thing and I think they were a bit harsh on the use of martial arts as self defense. Plus picking the most oddball whackjob to represent T'ai Chi was a bit too leading and a very easy way to make it all look like bunk without even really needing to make a case about it.

The climate one missed the mark too.

Sometimes I feel they could cram a bit more detail and facts into also - instead of Penn going off on an expletive-filled rant (though he does crack me up, and often.) There's often points that are left uncovered, which is something that I notice on subjects I already know fairly well.

 

[Rage Virus]

For one, it mostly falls into a "Preaching to the Choir" category for me.

The choir also needs entertainment.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

- they lump together different woo theories and treat them as one (which just seems sloppy).

They only have 20 minutes per episode... What do you expect?

Their general modus operandi seems to be: (1) pick a woo subject, (2) find the biggest nut they can endorsing that woo, (3) make personal attacks on them.

Okay... For #2 you have got to be kidding me.
They had David Icke, Bill Donhue, Rosmeri Althea, Duane Gish and tons of others who are actually the heighest of their wooish fields. If you google some of those names up you'll be surprised to know most of them aren't just your local crack pots.

As for #3, depends on what you're talking about. If you're refering to the insane amount of swear words Penn keeps shouting, it's due to the fact that is explained in the first episode.
It's a legal issue, if he calls someone a lier or a fraud then he can be sued.
But MF-er and all that is allowed.

If you're refering to the fact that they often discredit the person by calling out the facts that they mention criminal history, malpractice etc
I don't consider that to be an attack on the person. It's a legitimate point to raise.

Perhaps you can be a bit more specific with examples?

But, of course, they do a service in showing that there's no evidence for whatever woo they're discussing. And a lot of the crackpots they interview are bilking and possibly hurting people and so they deserve the insults.

Still...something about it...

Generally speaking, I liked the show. Yes, there were many epsiodes which were done quite awfully in my opinion (like the bible or the death penalty) but most of them were preety good and quite funny.

The new season not so much. Most of it seems really rushed and quite poorly done.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

The martial arts one could have focused more in the "Qi" thing and I think they were a bit harsh on the use of martial arts as self defense. Plus picking the most oddball whackjob to represent T'ai Chi was a bit too leading and a very easy way to make it all look like bunk without even really needing to make a case about it.

As someone who did Tai Chi for 2 years, I would agree that their "master" seemed a bit of a whack job. We never did any of those "healing sounds" and in fact they barely showed the dance itself which was a bit odd I have to say.

But in my opinion they should have just cut it out entirely. The point of the episode that Penn said in the beginning is that the concept of martial arts is stupid regardless of the mystical bs and I highly agree.

Most of the people I know who are into the more serious stuff are *constantly* getting injured, feel terrible and were never even close to having to need to use it...

The advertisement is BS indeed.

 

[DC]

I watched season one episodes which seem to be on the more stereotypical topics. I see where you come from but you have to give credit to the fact that it is showtime. There are lots of people that believe, so to get the attention of those people who already are uneducated their harsh approach may work. I guess that is the real debatable part.

i doubt that. must be offensive for those that belive the debunked BS. And that harsh approach is counterproductive in convincing them.

it is made for people already being skeptical.

 

[SezMe]

They had ..., Rosmeri Althea, ... and tons of others who are actually the heighest of their wooish fields. If you google some of those names up...

I googled that name and only two hits came up and the first one is your post. Who are you referring to?

 

[Jono]

I generally liked the episodes, except for the one where they deal with the preservation act thingy. They didn't really make any convincing or coherent arguments, and somehow ended up stating that it's all useless in the sense that it's pointless to care about related efforts even.

Also, Penn's performance routine with his gesturing and speech annoys me sometimes. As seen on TAM here and there, some people get caught up in it and applaude him (without really knowing why they applaud) after each verbally loaded dismissal, like "No F* way" etc, no matter how corny it is. Must be an american thing.

 

[Sledge]

Much like South Park....it's become, over time, less of a skeptically minded expose-of-BS-du-jour and more of a soapbox for their Libertard ideology

And that's where I stopped reading.

 

[rkzenrage]

I love the show. Entertaining and well produced. I rarely learn anything, I think it is for "general consumption" and I often either disagree with them or they make points that are "meh" for me.
However, that this show puts these discussions out there in a popular format cannot be underestimated as a side of the tip of the spear along with Mythbusters.

 

[Belz...]

And that's where I stopped reading.

Well, it's not entirely false.

Although I enjoy Penn&Teller and their show, I find the format of BS somewhat unfortunate, sometimes. As the OP says, they are preaching to the choir, and I don't need convincing from them. Also, a few of their own ideas are borderline woo.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

I googled that name and only two hits came up and the first one is your post. Who are you referring to?

Pardon me, apperantly I can't really spell anything properly.
(English isn't my main language after all)

It's actually Rosmeri Altea, she's one of those phony psychics (redundant I know) that talks to dead people and was on their first episode.

She had tons of tv appearances, I even recall a joint interview with her and Randi on Larry King.

 

[Rage Virus]

(English isn't my main language after all)

There is always Google to help you spell:
http://www.rosemaryaltea.com/

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

It should be noted that even Penn himself is the first to tell people that you shouldn't take advice from him. People need to keep in mind that they are entertainers first and foremost, and everything else after that. I find the shows entertaining, and funny at times too. The T&A doesn't hurt either. However, they get people talking about the topics, and hopefully, get people, even those of us in the choir, to look deeper into the issues, in order to form our own opinions based on the actual facts.

In other words, enjoy the episodes, but always do your own fact checking and research into the topics.

 

[Cuddles]

For one, it mostly falls into a "Preaching to the Choir" category for me.

Not really. It's on TV. They're preaching to anyone who happens to listen. For obvious reasons, their viewers will mostly agree with them, since people don't tend to like being told their wrong even without the swearing. But that's hardly the fault of P&T.

Secondly, though, as I watching tonight I began seeing that they use a lot of fallacious arguments. Namely, they make Ad Hominem attacks left and right.

No they don't. You make the same mistake so many people fall into - insults are not ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem is a specific logical fallacy where an irrelevant characteristic is used to claim an argument is wrong. For example "You are wrong because you smell." would be an ad hominem. However, "You are wrong and you smell." is not, it is simply an insult. More common would be something like "You are wrong because of X, therefore you're an idiot.". In that case, the insult goes from being irrelevant to actually being a logical conclusion (as in, it follows logically from the premise, I don't mean it's necessarily sensible to call people idiots).

P&T do make some fallacious arguments, especially when talking about politics rather than science. But for the most part, the things that seem like bad arguments are actually arguments at all, simply insults.

(2) find the biggest nut they can endorsing that woo

They attack insane claims. It's hardly surprising that many of the people endorsing those claims are mostly nuts.

I like the show overall, but this started bugging me tonight.

Out of interest, which episode did you see, and were they saying something you disagreed with? I've known a few people who liked P&T, South Park, and similar things, who suddenly decided they hated them after one of their own beliefs was mocked. An obvious example would be Isaac Hayes quitting South Park over Scientology, despite apparently having no problems with plenty of far more offensive things said about other groups.

Maybe that's not the case with you, but it does seem that none of your criticisms really seem to be valid, despite there being plenty of perfectly valid ones available.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I generally like the show, I find it entertaining...but I don't find it to be that good from a skeptical point of view. They use a lot of logical fallacies in making their arguments, as you said, especially relying on ad hominum.

They often take the most extreme viewpoint of a position and use it to decide that the entire movement/position is bunk. For instance, in their episode about environmentalism. They focused some far left radicals, and then some hipster college student idiots who obviously don't actually know anything about the environment or what they were allegedly fighting for, they were just being trendy. Then they used these two groups to "prove" environmentalism is all woo. Why didn't they interview mainstream environmental scientists, rather than radical and uninformed hippies and hipsters?

Just in general the worst aspect of their show is that they act like one individual represents the entire point of view. It's just very common that for the side they're supporting, they'll find someone intelligent and reputable. Then, for the other side, they'll find the stupidest, craziest, whiniest person they can find. And they'll show the smart person say something smart, and the stupid person say something stupid, and act like that settles the matter. Now obviously, some issues they discuss ARE crazy, so pretty much, the only people you're going to find on the other side are radical woos. But they also do this for subjects like environmentalism, judicial and legislative issues, etc, where there are plenty of intelligent and reputable people on the other side.

I would like the show far more if they used more evidence and actually researched their subjects more, rather than skewed cherry picking of individuals to represent the debate.

I still watch it regularly because it's funny, and I like Penn & Teller. There have been some really great, well researched episodes, like those dealing with alternative medicines, healers, etc. The episode about "stranger danger" was one of my favorites.

 

[Dinwar]

I've known a few people who liked P&T, South Park, and similar things, who suddenly decided they hated them after one of their own beliefs was mocked.

The sign of a shallow thinker. I mean, both shows mock things I enjoy/I do (I haven't seen the episode on the past yet, but I'm a re-inacter, so I'm assuming it'll be insulting to me), yet I still enjoy them. Not everyone is going to agree with you, after all.

They focused some far left radicals, and then some hipster college student idiots who obviously don't actually know anything about the environment or what they were allegedly fighting for, they were just being trendy.

Actually, I found that one to be belivable. I mean, yeah, there are environmentalists out there that aren't like this--but if you go onto any college campus the environmentalists you find there are like P&T present them. I mean, I blew people's minds by asking 1) how much polution manufacturing wind turbines generates, and 2) what techniques were used to get parts per trillion analysis on certain chemicals. The leaders probably are better, but a disturbing number of people in many movements (not just environmentalism, and not just movements I disagree with) don't actually think about what their movement is about.

I would like the show far more if they used more evidence and actually researched their subjects more, rather than skewed cherry picking of individuals to represent the debate.

The point of the show isn't debate. It's to beat some idea to death with blunt force trauma. Sometimes they pick one ammenable to such murder (astrology, for example); sometimes they don't (environmentalism). But I don't see this as a valid option for imporving the show--it'd make the show into something it's not. Perhaps it'd be better for them to stay out of politics, and stick to claims about the physical world (which lend themselves to being crushed by overwhelming evidence)?

I guess my point is that asking P&T to run a debate is something like asking John Wayne to play the part of a cultured aristocrat. P&T are very good at what they do--but if they step outside of that limited sphere they fail horribly. Better to direct them to where their tactics will do the most good. Let other people do the other tactics.

Oh, and my typical Brian Dunning caviat: Remember that the show has a time limit. I guarantee it'll take you more than an hour to read through the Creationist claims over at Talk Origins, let alone begin to debunk them. P&T realize this, and don't even try to tell the whole story. They just tell a part of it. It's necessarily incomplete, and necessarily lacks the depth many would like to see. But ANY one hour show will lack that depth. (Yes, some shows do betterr--se the above paragraph for my counter-argument to that counter-argument. )