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

[SOdhner]

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?

In this case I was referring to acupuncture. I'm not aware of specific studies on Chi, and with the variation of definitions and claims I would need to get more specific in that case anyway. Still, the basic principle applies to everything so you can imagine me saying that in response to almost any claim: if it is a real thing that works, it should have measurable results that are distinguishable from the control group.

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.

I both agree and disagree. This result is interesting from a scientific viewpoint for sure, but "acupuncture" is something very specific with a specific set of beliefs. The results of this study do not support those methods and so it can't be said to prove anything about acupuncture. This response isn't really even pain relief in the sense that is being advertized by acupuncture.

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.

No, I'm sure it is the correct terminology in the sense that you said what you meant to say… it's just that I have no idea why some things are classified as "western" and others are not. Often it is used in a way that manages to imply that there is some sort of big shadowy organization that makes grand declarations about scientific findings or proper medical treatments, when in reality there is no such group. As far as I can tell, "Western Medicine" is a useless phrase because it generally is the same as a vague accusation of "THEY". As in "That's what THEY want you to believe!" or "THEY want to take our women!" - it's something that feels more like a conspiracy theory.

But I keep hoping to hear a clear and useful definition for "Western" medicine. Maybe someone knows one.

I agree with the research part. I'm not sure that this placebo effect is truly the case for acupuncture, though.

Well, so far nobody has done a study where it has been more effective than a placebo. To disprove the idea that the specific location of the needle is vital (a core belief of acupuncture) you can use real needles in both cases, and to disprove the idea that the poking is needed at all you can use a dull toothpick in the control group. A dull toothpick may also work to produce the minor and localized effect that is mentioned in the study you linked, but so can poking yourself in the arm - and if location doesn't matter and any kind of poke is good enough, what in the world would you need to go to an acupuncturist for?

I understand that you disagree with the findings of these studies, but around here personal anecdotes won't get you very far - that's as it should be. I won't insult you by comparing you to some of the crazies out there, but I will remind you that if personal anecdotes were able to trump scientific research there would be very little that didn't count as "proven". We have to keep to these standards, or where do we stop? I'm guessing you agree with me on principle.

"...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."

Yup. I'm sure that's all true. That doesn't trump any scientific studies. The IRS one is particularly silly - I think they also allow certain cases of faith healing to be deducted. It's not hard to find things that various organizations are okay with that are either unproven or actually disproven, even when those organizations are reputable in other cases.

 

[Sogtul]

Than you have not stated your possition well.

I've posted my view multiple times and provided links with examples and research. Don't blame me if you choose to ignore what I've typed. Or if I was misleading, please let me know where did I mention (or imply) that "Eastern mysticism does not need more research." If anything, I support the opposite. I'm all for research to gain a better understanding, even if research finds that Chi does not exist at all.

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.

Your first step of demonstrating enough "anomalies" is, IMO, given, whether by a lot of anecdotal evidence or by the thousands of years of history of the phenomenon or by the millions of people who believe in it. Unless your methodology chooses to disregard this. IMO, this should be sufficient for it to merit some research. And in fact, that's what has happened.

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

And I'll find many things
I can think of maybe 5 different things, and if I visit Google I'll probably find dozens more. What for?

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

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

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

I AGREE with this. Modern medicine is certainly explaining the benefits of things that people have done for thousands of years. And modern medicine can use a different terminology, sophisticated instruments, and a particular methodology to address this thing that some have called "Chi." Hence the importance of having a operational definition.

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

What am I proposing?

Wouldn't Occam's razor actually tell me that Chi is the answer?
From the Skeptic's Dictionary:
"Occam's razor is also called the principle of parsimony. These days it is usually interpreted to mean something like "the simpler the explanation, the better" or "don't multiply hypotheses unnecessarily.""

Isn't Occam's Razor a bit removed from scientific methodology?
"Rather, striving for simplicity can conflict with other essentials of scientific method. Ockham's principle-no matter whether in its original or in a modified version--cannot help toward a rational decision between competing explanations of the same empirical facts." (Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 135-140, 2007)

 

[Dinwar]

Your first step of demonstrating enough "anomalies" is, IMO, given, whether by a lot of anecdotal evidence or by the thousands of years of history of the phenomenon or by the millions of people who believe in it. Unless your methodology chooses to disregard this. IMO, this should be sufficient for it to merit some research. And in fact, that's what has happened.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". In other words, the mere fact that millions of people believe something, or there is thousands of years of history involved, is meaningless in science. You don't believe in faeries, right? How about geocentrism? How about animism?

And I'll find many things
I can think of maybe 5 different things, and if I visit Google I'll probably find dozens more. What for?

To illustrate that there's actually something to DISCUSS. Otherwise we're talking celestial teapots and insubstantial garage dragons.

Isn't Occam's Razor a bit removed from scientific methodology?

Never mind. This pretty much says all we need to know about your stance and your understanding of science.

 

[SOdhner]

Your first step of demonstrating enough "anomalies" is, IMO, given, whether by a lot of anecdotal evidence or by the thousands of years of history of the phenomenon or by the millions of people who believe in it.

I would agree with this, though probably for different reasons... I wouldn't count it as "anomalies" but when enough people claim something, I do agree that it is worth testing if only for purposes of general education. Of course, some claims about chi will be more widespread than others and so some claims will be more worth testing. As such, there will always be some peripheral claims that go untested because "chi" does not refer to a single coherent idea at this point.

Wouldn't Occam's razor actually tell me that Chi is the answer?

No, because the addition of a new force on top of already-proven things counts as making it more complicated. It's not "Chi vs. Other Stuff" because the other stuff is already proven. You are right that Occam's Razor isn't the end-all be-all but I disagree with the quote that says it "cannot help toward a rational decision between competing explanations of the same empirical facts." If you propose a method for something (lightning or whatever, just pick something) that involves the simple application of existing and understood physics, and then I counter with an explanation that requires magic invisible elves... well, the simple explanation should be given more weight. Occam's Razor isn't proof but it helps you to narrow things down.

 

[Sogtul]

@SOdhner
I won't quote each thing you typed, but thank you for such an eloquent response. I'm not too familiar with current research in acupuncture, but I'll keep my eyes open.

I do agree with you regarding the aforementioned study, and the fact that science trumps social and/or political acceptance (as can definitely be the case with the WHO, IRS, etc.) and anecdotal evidence. I used that one as an example since it's one I recently read, but it definitely has its serious limitations.

One thing, though, is that at least my acupuncturist has often focused on specific points on my body, but not on necessarily using a needle and/or penetrating the skin. I'll also look into acupressure research.

Thanks again for your response.

 

[Sogtul]

@Dinwar,
I have no idea what you're talking about, so why would I want to discuss fairies and dragons with you? Obviously your views about what science is and how it works are different from mine.

 

[Dinwar]

so why would I want to discuss fairies and dragons with you?

I reject chi for precisely the same reason you reject dragons and faeries and animism (assuming, of course, that you reject them). I won't waste money studying chi for precisely the same reason as you would on studying dragon ecology, faerie physiology, or animism as a medical treatment (all of which have as much tradition and had as many believers as chi does).

 

[thaiboxerken]

Sogtul doesn't understand that Chi is just another word for "magic." It encompasses what we don't know. It's just god, in another form.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Amen and indeed, Grand Master Fox1
As libertarians, Penn and Teller are letting that poor ideology in the mater of global warmng bias them. That warming actually could induce more entrepreneurship and thus more and better jobs! We liberal capatalists want to put capitalism into order rather than get rid of it.
Libertarianism means the road to serfdom for most people- monopolies and the riddance of safety and health laws and consumer protection laws and probably for child labor and so forth! Google Liberalism Resurgent to get the dope on that dopey ideology that is libertarianism!

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Amen and indeed, Grand Master Fox!
As libertarians, Penn and Teller are letting that poor ideology in the mater of global warming bias them. That warming actually could induce more entrepreneurship and thus more and better jobs! We liberal capitalists want to put capitalism into order rather than get rid of it.
Libertarianism means the road to serfdom for most people- monopolies and the riddance of safety and health laws and consumer protection laws and probably for child labor and so forth! Google Liberalism Resurgent to get the dope on that dopey ideology that is libertarianism!

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Sogtul doesn't understand that Chi is just another word for "magic." It encompasses what we don't know. It's just god, in another form.

I agree that Sogtul doesn't seem to grasp the fact that chi is a defined concept like dragons but comparing it to god isn't accurate.

A "soul" would be a better analogy. Not in the sense of memory or personality, but rather chi is basically the energy that all living matter possess. It was ment to tell apart living matter and non-living matter.

In that sense it is a form of energy that without it a material cannot be alive, similar to why Frankenstein needed to be struck by lightning to jump start the body.

The short answer is chi is just like star war's "the force".

And to stay on topic, a good example of this garbage is when P&T showed the accutonics (sp?) practioner who moves a tunning fork over a woman and says her chi flows better... Seriously, what the fox does mean?
How does she know? If we do a proper double blind study having several patients where some had a tunning fork over and some haven't will the practioner be able to tell them apart?
Of course not. She'd have $1,000,000 if she could.
That is why the whole thing is a bunch of garbage.

The chi nonesense is no different than inventing a god and then claiming that you can harness that god's abilities by praying or not eating shellfish.

Amen and indeed, Grand Master Fox1

Have no idea what you're trying to say or why you're attributing it to me.
All I said was that if you actually bother paying attention, Penn said multiple times in the global warming episode that the episode is about eco guilt which is indeed BS.

 

[Dinwar]

if you actually bother paying attention, Penn said multiple times in the global warming episode that the episode is about eco guilt which is indeed BS.

I think that's a problem people have with many episodes. They think P&T are saying X, when in reality they're saying Y. Yeah, they let their libertarianism get in the way a lot, and they muddy the waters to such an extent that the criticism "They don't stay on topic" or "Their arguments are unclear" is perfectly justified. But they often aren't saying what people think they're saying.

I mean, take the episode on taxes. Their argument isn't "Taxes are evil", though they often say as much (which, by the way, contradicts what they say in a different episode). Their argument is, as Penn says at one point, "Even if you want to give ___% of your income to the government you should still hate the tax code, because it's unnecessarily invasive."

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

I have a simple question. What is the unit of chi? If chi is a form of energy, and energy is defined as the ability to perform work, then it must have a measurable effect, and therefore be demonstrable and measurable. Therefore it must have a unit of measure. What is it?

"I don't know." and "It cannot be measured like that" are not acceptable answers. If it can do stuff, it must be able to be measured. If it can be measured, then it has to have a unit of measure. Would the believers please answer this simple question simply and succinctly. Thank you.

 

[chainlink]

According to wiki, Penn said he tried pitching it multiple times but showtime refused. He then gave the idea for the guys at southpark who did their episode and Penn said after that he doesn't have much to say on the matter.

I'm still waiting for their show on the Scientology cult, which has been conspicuously absent - as with all US media. In the last few years there have been many hard-hitting documentaries about Scientology made and broadcast in countries such as Britain, Germany, France, and Australia - yet not a single American TV show on the subject. Scientology is probably the single biggest "Bµllshit" scam operation in the country, and I can't think of anything more worthy of a "Bµllshit" episode. Yet Penn and Teller refuse to utter an unkind word about it, obviously fearful of the cult's army of litigation attorneys and private investigators.

Penn Jillette has a video blog in which he freely speaks his mind on a wide variety of topics. Here he has every opportunity to address issues that don't make the cut for the show. Yet on such a highly controversial --and frequently requested-- topic as Scientology, his complete silence is notably.

 

[mutile]

In that sense it is a form of energy that without it a material cannot be alive, similar to why Frankenstein needed to be struck by lightning to jump start the body.

I think you mean Frankenstein's creation was struck by lightning, although the creator and creation energy are seen as separate they may be and chi considered to be God, as also the holy spirit is said to be as part of the trinity God.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

I think you mean Frankenstein's creation was struck by lightning

Yeah, my mistake.

although the creator and creation energy are seen as separate they may be and chi considered to be God, as also the holy spirit is said to be as part of the trinity God.

Honestly, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Not trying to be offensive, I just didn't understand that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think that's a problem people have with many episodes. They think P&T are saying X, when in reality they're saying Y. Yeah, they let their libertarianism get in the way a lot, and they muddy the waters to such an extent that the criticism "They don't stay on topic" or "Their arguments are unclear" is perfectly justified. But they often aren't saying what people think they're saying.

I mean, take the episode on taxes. Their argument isn't "Taxes are evil", though they often say as much (which, by the way, contradicts what they say in a different episode). Their argument is, as Penn says at one point, "Even if you want to give ___% of your income to the government you should still hate the tax code, because it's unnecessarily invasive."

My favorite is the gun control episode where they decry emotional arguments and then go right to the emotional argument. Talk about bait and switch.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

My favorite is the gun control episode where they decry emotional arguments and then go right to the emotional argument. Talk about bait and switch.

What emotional argument? Their focus was:
2nd amendment, gun control zones aren't effective and that guns themselves aren't the problem.

Whether you agree or not is one thing, but those aren't emotional arguments.

Unless I'm missing something, been a while since I saw the episode.
Care to elaborate?

 

[mutile]

Yeah, my mistake.



Honestly, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Not trying to be offensive, I just didn't understand that.

I agree it was poorly worded.

If spirit and God can be considered the same and chi can be seen as 'spirit' , then it can also be seen as God.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What emotional argument? Their focus was:
2nd amendment, gun control zones aren't effective and that guns themselves aren't the problem.

Whether you agree or not is one thing, but those aren't emotional arguments.

Unless I'm missing something, been a while since I saw the episode.
Care to elaborate?

They specifically decried emotional arguments, then brought that woman who was at a mass shooting there. An explicitly emotional argument.