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

[thaiboxerken]

No need for personal attacks. IMO it is more productive to discuss ideas.

It's not a personal attack. I'm pointing out that just because you don't know how something could be explained scientifically does not mean it has to be Chi.

If you seriously think that a punch (or a strike or a kick) achieves maximum acceleration within one inch, please feel free to post some evidence or your reasoning. I seriously doubt that's the case, but I'm ignorant!

I don't think anyone claimed that a person can get maximum acceleration in one inch. However, there are plenty of physical/scientific reasons to propose a person can strike someone hard enough to do some kind of damage at that distance. Chi-magic doesn't need to be invoked until you can eliminate these mundane explanations.

FYI, "ignorant" is not an insultive term.

 

[Kahalachan]

Yay for entertainment
Nay for education

 

[thaiboxerken]

I disagree. They've pointed out a few things that surprised me to learn. I didn't realize how dangerous and uncontrolled the cheerleading competitions were.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

" Elvis lives. Rudolph Valetino told me so.
So much for the paranormal and - the Resurrection." Inquiring Lynn

 

[Kahalachan]

I disagree. They've pointed out a few things that surprised me to learn. I didn't realize how dangerous and uncontrolled the cheerleading competitions were.

That's generally what entertaining shows do.

Maybe once in awhile you learn something new but it's not like every episode will be enlightening.

 

[thaiboxerken]

That's generally what entertaining shows do.

Maybe once in awhile you learn something new but it's not like every episode will be enlightening.

It's a 20 minute episode, I think pointing out the general facts about an issue is about all they have time to do. I personally know a few people who are less woo because of the show, one believed in reflexology and the other believed in psychics.

While many at the JREF know all about many of these things, the general public has no idea what confirmation bias, cold-reading or other trickery/fallacy people use to justify their beliefs are.

 

[ponderingturtle]

caniswalensis and SOdhner:

Personally, I thought the whole thing was very funny! And getting people wound up correcting you made it even funnier! Great job!

So you support trolling?

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

So you support trolling?

No, but this was more satire and humour than trolling, in my opinion. Given all the off-topic nonsense I have seen on this forum, all the actual trolling, the ad hominum attacks, and sheer lunacy, I don't think a little humour is uncalled for at times. And if people didn't keep trying to correct them, it would have been a short one post joke. The act of people trying to correct them over and over again just made the whole thing even more entertaining. And in a thread where much discussion is being had about entertainment vs. education, it seems somehow appropriate.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, but this was more satire and humour than trolling, in my opinion.

He was stating a position he did not believe in for the Lulz. That you found what you thought were people getting mad at him funny, shows you liking successful basic trolling.

 

[caniswalensis]

Hi all,

This will be my last post pertaining to what I have done, and I hope that I can difinitively explain my actions and my motivations to everyone's satisfaction.

I was not stating a position on any issue. I was not attempting to troll people for lulz.

I was playing the imbecile in hopes of making people laugh; nothing more. If there were any lulz to be had, I was directing them towards myself. This is something I have done before both in RL conversations and in internet forums with good results. Anyone that cares to look at my body of posts will see that I like to joke around a lot, but that I am striving to be a skeptic and critical thinker in ernest. I believe they will also see that I am not in any way a troll. Not here, and not anywhere else.

People are welcome to their opinions of me and my actions, and I can understand how my motives would be misunderstood in this case, and why people might be put out at me for wasting some of their valuable time.

However, we are talking about a total number of posts that is so small the actual trouble I have caused with my joke is not worth the fuss being raised, in my opinion. Additionally, I have apologized in public, I have sent friend requests, and I have sent personal messages trying to make this right, apparently to no avail. I am at a loss as to what else I could do to make amends. (I would welcome suggestions though) It seems as though This one incident of a joke not coming off has branded me as a troll with some. If that is the case, I think that might be an over-reaction, but I do take responsability for what I did, and regret it.

I do want to make it clear to all that I am truely sorry for whatever agggrevation or wasted effort I have caused any of you. I sincerely mean that. I take full responsability for any trouble or upset I have caused and assure you that I regret doing so. I also promise not to repeat my error in the future. From now on, I will strive to make my intentions crystal clear, wether I am joking or serious.

Sincerely, Canis

 

[SOdhner]

So you support trolling?

You know what? Next time anyone makes a joke around ponderingturtle they might want to have a giant "SARCASM" or "JOKE" header. I would suggest making it a bright color as well, just in case.

Caniswalensis made a harmless joke. I thought it was an obvious joke which is why it was funny when people took him seriously. This isn't trolling though. Trolling is where you deliberately set out to make people mad and start a flamewar. The results can sometimes be similar, I suppose, except in this case the only one I see getting upset is ponderingturtle which would imply to me that in this case it is just him being a bad sport.

And that's okay. We are all entitled to being a bad sport sometimes. There are things that get us more upset than they should. Caniswalensis has decided to apologize even though it clearly wasn't his intent to anger anyone, which is very nice of him and I wouldn't personally expect the same if I were in ponderingturtle's position because I try very hard to be self-aware about things where I am being more reactionary that I should. I don't always succeed, of course.

Anyway, back to the actual subject at hand...

I think what it comes down to is that in the big wide world of woo there are some topics that BS is better equipped to handle than others. I would say that the political issues suffer somewhat from the admitted bias of the hosts, and some of the really big complicated issues are tough because of the time restriction. Clearly the place where they excel is areas where they can quickly run down a list of reasons that something doesn't make sense - I thought they did a good job with chiropractic, for example.

 

[Segnosaur]

That's generally what entertaining shows do.

Maybe once in awhile you learn something new but it's not like every episode will be enlightening.

Keep in mind though that you are probably approaching things from the point of view of an experienced skeptic. Those who are currently deeply immersed in Woo will probably 'learn' more than those who have already learned quite a bit about the nonsense already.

 

[dasmiller]

You know what? Next time anyone makes a joke around ponderingturtle they might want to have a giant "SARCASM" or "JOKE" header. I would suggest making it a bright color as well, just in case.

Caniswalensis made a harmless joke. I thought it was an obvious joke which is why it was funny when people took him seriously. This isn't trolling though. Trolling is where you deliberately set out to make people mad and start a flamewar.

Concur. IMO, a troll is deliberately attempting to upset people. Canis was just clowning around.

Anyway, back to the actual subject at hand...

I think what it comes down to is that in the big wide world of woo there are some topics that BS is better equipped to handle than others. I would say that the political issues suffer somewhat from the admitted bias of the hosts, and some of the really big complicated issues are tough because of the time restriction. Clearly the place where they excel is areas where they can quickly run down a list of reasons that something doesn't make sense - I thought they did a good job with chiropractic, for example.

And I thought they did a great job with Life Coaches, and that Pets episode (particularly that "hey, we're living in glass houses" disclaimer at the end). And that bottled water steward was hysterical.

But as for some of the big, complicated issues - part of the problem is the time limit, but another part is the format. Complex issues with complex causes, hard-to-explain (but serious) risks, the usual mix of conflicting data and unknowns, and legitimate conflicting interests really aren't suited to the BS style. Or, I suspect, to any entertainment program. And I can see why they'd want to take a shot at some of those big, complicated issues anyway, but . . . maybe BS simply isn't the right forum for that.

 

[Emet]

Since I was directly involved in the "joke"--on the receiving end, here's my take.

As I explained in a p.m., I sometimes read this forum when tired, and am simultaneously engaged in something mindless--like watching P & T on TV. Probably not a good idea to post when my critical thinking or reading skills are on standby, but so be it.

I took no offense at the joke; nor was I offended that others found it amusing that I didn't "get it". With my retrospectroscope on, it is amusing to me.

I am a jokester off-line, and rarely get taken in by someone's joke. When they do "get" me, I congratulate them for their success at "joking the joker", unless it is mean spirited, which it rarely (if ever) is.

We now return you to the discussion of the show--I've only seen two episodes, both of which I liked... but recognize it for what it is... an entertainment show with a definite POV and limited time to make their case... I can see by other posters that sometimes they "hit their mark", sometimes not. Well, that's show biz...

 

[Jono]

Are skeptics such whiners?

 

[Sogtul]

I want to make sure you didn't misunderstand what was being said: it's not that acupuncturists don't have specific rules or methods that they use to decide where they put the needles, it's that research has clearly shown that following those rules/guidelines is no more effective than if someone just did it randomly. That means that the placement of the needles, no matter how deliberate OR random, is not something that makes accupuncture work.

No misunderstanding. That's why I said "in my experience" and referred to the example given (i.e., "a complete layman can randomly inject the needles to reach equal results"). To clarify, I went to an acupuncturist with a lot of neck pain and could not turn my head to the right. After the treatment -which helped reduce the pain- I told her that my neck mobility was still very limited. She grabbed my left foot and immediately pressed a small area that was very tender to the touch. With my feedback she found the precise spot in that small area were the pain was greater. In a matter of seconds I was able to turn my head to the right.
Nothing random about this. She knew exactly where to go for the specific problem. We even talked briefly about the area with the "solution" (e.g., foot) being relatively far a way from area with the symptom (e.g., neck), which was surprising to me. I didn't expect to e able to turn my head after she worked on my foot, but it happened. And this was at the end of the session. If random placement of needles would have yielded the same results, my neck pain and mobility would have improved with the rest of the needles inserted in my body during that session. Obviously that was not the case.
So my experience has been quite different. Since my acupuncturist is also an M.D. as I think I've mentioned, we have talked about Western scientific research. In fact, in June I sent her an article called "Adenosine A1 receptors mediate local anti-nociceptive effects of acupuncture"
nature.com/neuro/journal/v13/n7/full/nn.2562.html

The authors are from:
Center for Translational Neuromedicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA.
Department of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, US National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

I have not read the other research that was mentioned (links?), but one thing that comes to mind if randomness worked for those patients is the placebo effect, present also in Western medicine.

 

[Sogtul]

Two things come to mind reading this sentence. The first is, no kidding. Research is ongoing--that's what scientists DO, is research. Once there's no more research needed, science will stop.

Yes!

The second is that this sentence implies that Eastern mysticism does not need more research. I don't care where the mysticism came from, mysticism as such is not worth my time. It has the same odds of being correct as Tarot cards or fairy tales, and I give it as much seriousness.

No! I'm not implying that. You can choose to view it that way, but that's your choice rather than my intention.

Okay. What is chi?

As I think I've mentioned or alluded to, that should be one of the first steps in serious research. An operational definition of Chi is needed.
I'm not a Chi expert or researcher, but from what I've read in both scientific articles as well as martial arts books and magazines, Chi encompasses -at least- the following:
Vital energy
Nutrition
Mental attitude
Breathing

As I recall, there's already some research on effects related to Chi (e.g., heat, electricity), but the focus is outside of the body. One approach could be to measure the effects of Chi within the body. For example, blood oxygen, adrenaline, chemical changes, etc. Maybe explore differences when an expert in Chi focuses his/her Chi on their left index finger and contrast any selected measures against their right index finger, other fingers, etc. Or compare the results to those of people unfamiliar with Chi. Perhaps just concentrating on a specific part of the body will yield the same results, even for people who don't know anything about Chi.

You first have to demonstrate that there's something to explain. So far, no martial art I've seen (and none that the people I've spoken with have seen) can't be explained by a knowledge of vectors.

Well, Chi is not exclusive to martial arts, and there's a lot of BS that's quite popular. For example, this "master" using Chi to defend himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMgVmFzBrus
Or the no-touch knockdown BS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM_qg5d1YGI

As my Sensei says, there's one thing called common sense

But what kind of demonstration would you want? To me, Shi Yan Ming's one-inch punch seems like a good place to start. One approach is already mentioned in page 3. And you could explain to the researcher who was baffled by the results all about vectors.
BTW, I've seen him break the bottom of a beer bottle by hitting the top of the bottle. I used to do that when I was a bartender. Nice trick, no Chi necessary.

In other words, I first have to establish that the dragon in my garage exists before you can start proposing tests to see what species it is.

You mean, like showing that breathing, focusing, eating well, etc., have an impact on the body?
Or the benefits of Tai Chi and Chi Kung for health, stress, etc.
Or last week's recommendation of using Tai Chi for Fibromyalgia patients, and suggested further study? (Chenchen Wang, M.D., M.P.H., Christopher H. Schmid, Ph.D., Ramel Rones, B.S., Robert Kalish, M.D., Janeth Yinh, M.D., Don L. Goldenberg, M.D., Yoojin Lee, M.S. and Timothy McAlindon, M.D., M.P.H.)
I would focus more of this side of Chi, and perhaps compare it with light physical activity and look at the differences, for example. I would not focus on the "masters" selling BS, or legends of people flying. I did enjoy Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and Kill Bill 1 and 2. Do I believe Chi can help people fly and accomplish other "superhuman" feats? No.

This is getting to be a bit off-topic, and I'll be happy to answer any further questions or comments at the thread I created precisely because I don't believe in some of the BS being sold by martial arts "masters."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183420

 

[SOdhner]

If random placement of needles would have yielded the same results, my neck pain and mobility would have improved with the rest of the needles inserted in my body during that session. Obviously that was not the case.

Ah! Okay, I see what you are saying now. I would suggest that the discussion you had with her about it, the ritual of it, made you more receptive to the idea that it was "working" but of course I wasn't there and am not a doctor, etc. What it comes down to for me is that if it worked reliably they would have been able to properly track results in a study rather than having it match the control group.

Since my acupuncturist is also an M.D. as I think I've mentioned, we have talked about Western scientific research. In fact, in June I sent her an article called "Adenosine A1 receptors mediate local anti-nociceptive effects of acupuncture"

Yeah, that was a really frustrating paper because it has nothing to do with acupuncture and yet acts as if it does. Pretty much, it says that when we get jabbed with something there's a local response that modulates the pain. It's interesting and if phrased like that it is also good solid science, but it applies equally to anything that pokes you, not just acupuncture. In fact, it doesn't work at all in the way acupuncture is described as working.

I have not read the other research that was mentioned (links?), but one thing that comes to mind if randomness worked for those patients is the placebo effect, present also in Western medicine.

You keep saying "Western medicine" and I don't understand. What makes something "Western"? I hear this all the time and I never get a good explanation. Anyway, yes. The placebo reaction is one that is commonly observed in people and applies to all sorts of things, which is why good studies try to take it into account by having the control group set up properly. The issue at hand is that if the "real" treatment being studied is no better than the placebo, it isn't doing anything. Such is the case for acupuncture.

 

[Dinwar]

No! I'm not implying that. You can choose to view it that way, but that's your choice rather than my intention.

Than you have not stated your possition well.

As I think I've mentioned or alluded to, that should be one of the first steps in serious research.

No, the first step is to demonstrate that there are enough anomolies to warrant serious research. THEN you attempt to explain what's happening, which may include hypothesizing chi. To hypothesize chi prior to establishing that there's even something to explain (in a rigorous manner) is to reverse the methodology of science.

But what kind of demonstration would you want?

Go through the medical literature and demonstrate that there's something going on not explainable via modern medicine, for example.

You mean, like showing that breathing, focusing, eating well, etc., have an impact on the body?

All of which is explicable via modern medicine, without hypothesizing chi.

Or the benefits of Tai Chi and Chi Kung for health, stress, etc.

All of which is explicable via modern medicine, without hypothesizing chi.

Or last week's recommendation of using Tai Chi for Fibromyalgia patients, and suggested further study?

All of which is explicable via modern medicine, without hypothesizing chi.

Basically, you need to get past Occam's Razor, because you're proposing a new thing, and you haven't done that.

 

[Sogtul]

Ah! Okay, I see what you are saying now. I would suggest that the discussion you had with her about it, the ritual of it, made you more receptive to the idea that it was "working" but of course I wasn't there and am not a doctor, etc. What it comes down to for me is that if it worked reliably they would have been able to properly track results in a study rather than having it match the control group.

The discussions we've had were after this particular visit. My own views regarding these alternative treatments is that I don't believe in them, but I'm open to see if they work. Typically, this has been the case after spending a lot of money on modern medicine and getting poor results.

What do you mean by "if it worked reliably they would have been able to properly track results in a study rather than having it match the control group"? Acupuncture? Chi? Sorry but I got lost with so many posts.

Yeah, that was a really frustrating paper because it has nothing to do with acupuncture and yet acts as if it does. Pretty much, it says that when we get jabbed with something there's a local response that modulates the pain. It's interesting and if phrased like that it is also good solid science, but it applies equally to anything that pokes you, not just acupuncture. In fact, it doesn't work at all in the way acupuncture is described as working.

But there's some relation, I think. And it can add to a healthy understanding of the science behind acupuncture. Maybe the same results can be obtained by tapping, or pinching, or massage, or trigger points, but at least there's an idea now related to what is actually going on physically, chemically, etc.

You keep saying "Western medicine" and I don't understand. What makes something "Western"? I hear this all the time and I never get a good explanation.

English is not my native language, and that's the way I've seen it written and mentioned. I apologize if that's not the correct terminology.

Anyway, yes. The placebo reaction is one that is commonly observed in people and applies to all sorts of things, which is why good studies try to take it into account by having the control group set up properly. The issue at hand is that if the "real" treatment being studied is no better than the placebo, it isn't doing anything. Such is the case for acupuncture.

I agree with the research part. I'm not sure that this placebo effect is truly the case for acupuncture, though. This is NOT based on any research, but rather in that it -surprisingly- worked for me for a variety of issues, which modern medicine failed to help me with. Maybe it works fine for some things, and not for others:
"...the World Health Organization endorses acupuncture for at least two dozen conditions and the US National Institutes of Health issued a consensus statement proposing acupuncture as a therapeutic intervention for complementary medicine. Perhaps most tellingly, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service approved acupuncture as a deductible medical expense in 1973."