Questions for Penn & Teller on TAM7
- Thread starter automatthias
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tam7
strimmer
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2007
- Messages
- 125
My first TAM was 5, and I had a great conversation with the man who runs the magic shop at the Riviera. (Who also happened to teach Sylvia Browns son magic, and told me Penn has a secret room in his house that has a swing in it) told me that Penn and Teller were prohibited from performing at the Riviera because at a Magic conference there Teller came out strapped to a crucifix and they did a skit that pissed a lot of people off. I thought that is why they did the Q & A there, was because the Riviera wouldn't let them do anything else. So when they did it again, I was very disappointed. Tellers spoon bending story was great, and something like that would be perfect for them.
Last edited:
TsarBomba
One Damn Dirty Ape
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2007
- Messages
- 808
To be fair, Teller was great when he gave us the spoon bending demonstration, but I have to agree with Wolfman with the lameness of P and T's Q and A "presentation." The thing that it most reminded me of was being at a SciFi convention (and I have been to a few) where some guy/gal who was "Extra #7 on Episode 5 of Season 4 of Babylon Five gets up on stage and does the same damn thing that P&T did, just answer questions. Not that I don't appreciate the questions and answers sometimes, a pure Q and A by P and T for two TAMS running was a total waste of time. Maybe next time JREF should book Bill Shatner--that man can put on a show.
Well, hey, Penn & Teller were on Babylon 5....
On the other other hand...
TAM6 was my first national skeptic event--though certainly not my last!--and also my first chance to see Penn & Teller live. I did enjoy the Q & A, including Penn spouting out his yap. I agree with an earlier post, he does this partly to piss people off; I think he also holds some principle-based free market / Libertarian ideas that a lot of the more "left" or "liberal" -type folks in the JREF community have issues with--and it's his nature to throw out verbal hand grenades to see who flinches.
For example, public education is a Holy Cow to many people who equate the alternative to Public School to be hordes of uneducated people. For much of American history, "public" school was in fact financed privately and locally by the parents of the children of a town or rural area. This historical record may be what the opponents of public schooling are looking at. I'm not here arguing for or against public school, just observing that it is possible for a reasonable and intelligent person to think it's not the only answer. Penn Jillette is, of course, in the comfortable position of not having to send his kids to public school--which makes it easier for him to say they shouldn't exist. It would have been interesting to get Teller's view, since he taught school for a while...and while we may be fairly comfortable that government-managed schooling is 'safe' in this country, anyone who has watched the curriculum changes in say, Japan, move to match the political preferences of the ruling party knows there is some risk of indoctrination or widespread, deliberate misinformation occuring. If there was no concern about the content of public education, why would there be such a concerted effort to keep IDiots from dominating school boards? Again, if you deflate the (probably deliberate) florid phrasing, there's a legitimate concern under the flashy offensiveness.
Penn doubtless knows that another hot potato in this community is to say that you in any way disagree with the whole Human-caused Global Warming thing. I think that, in all honesty, we can and should accept that Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" is full of BS. He quotes numbers and scenarios that simply don't agree with the data (even that the IPCC has produced)--30-foot sea level rises, GW having caused Kilamanjaro's glacier to recede, etc. It is puzzling to me why the skeptic community does not repudiate dishonest or pseudo-scientific statements by GW proponents as well as GW opponents. All supporting or failing to denounce gross misrepresentations of fact by the GW extremists does is make the whole topic vulnerable to "see, they're just inventing it" arguments from the other side. We expect UFOlogists to disown acknowledged frauds or clearly identified now-IFOs, we need to apply the same standards to subjects that are valid. Bad research or hyperbole is bad data, and should be excluded, no matter how much we agree with the results.
I've undoubtedly cheesed off a lot of folks here, but part of being skeptical (and reasonable) is being willing to look at and understand the arguments against ideas you hold. One of the most important values in science is looking for ways to test hypotheses, and running those tests. Finding out the truth is more important than who finds it--any decent scientist will value someone who puts his ideas to the test. It's part of the process of refining and enhancing our knowledge.
There are lots of interesting questions we could plan for P & T that are non-political, and I agree that putting together a list for next year would be great. For instance, how about asking them, "If you wanted to fool a group of psi researchers, would you be more inclined to use misdirection, cold reading, prestidigitation, planted results, or some other magician's standard?"
"Have you ever started researching a topic for a BS episode and ended up deciding it was legitimate? What topic(s)?"
"Do you think learning some basic magic tricks enhances critical thinking skills? Do you know if that idea has been tested?"
Best wishes to all!
TAM6 was my first national skeptic event--though certainly not my last!--and also my first chance to see Penn & Teller live. I did enjoy the Q & A, including Penn spouting out his yap. I agree with an earlier post, he does this partly to piss people off; I think he also holds some principle-based free market / Libertarian ideas that a lot of the more "left" or "liberal" -type folks in the JREF community have issues with--and it's his nature to throw out verbal hand grenades to see who flinches.
For example, public education is a Holy Cow to many people who equate the alternative to Public School to be hordes of uneducated people. For much of American history, "public" school was in fact financed privately and locally by the parents of the children of a town or rural area. This historical record may be what the opponents of public schooling are looking at. I'm not here arguing for or against public school, just observing that it is possible for a reasonable and intelligent person to think it's not the only answer. Penn Jillette is, of course, in the comfortable position of not having to send his kids to public school--which makes it easier for him to say they shouldn't exist. It would have been interesting to get Teller's view, since he taught school for a while...and while we may be fairly comfortable that government-managed schooling is 'safe' in this country, anyone who has watched the curriculum changes in say, Japan, move to match the political preferences of the ruling party knows there is some risk of indoctrination or widespread, deliberate misinformation occuring. If there was no concern about the content of public education, why would there be such a concerted effort to keep IDiots from dominating school boards? Again, if you deflate the (probably deliberate) florid phrasing, there's a legitimate concern under the flashy offensiveness.
Penn doubtless knows that another hot potato in this community is to say that you in any way disagree with the whole Human-caused Global Warming thing. I think that, in all honesty, we can and should accept that Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" is full of BS. He quotes numbers and scenarios that simply don't agree with the data (even that the IPCC has produced)--30-foot sea level rises, GW having caused Kilamanjaro's glacier to recede, etc. It is puzzling to me why the skeptic community does not repudiate dishonest or pseudo-scientific statements by GW proponents as well as GW opponents. All supporting or failing to denounce gross misrepresentations of fact by the GW extremists does is make the whole topic vulnerable to "see, they're just inventing it" arguments from the other side. We expect UFOlogists to disown acknowledged frauds or clearly identified now-IFOs, we need to apply the same standards to subjects that are valid. Bad research or hyperbole is bad data, and should be excluded, no matter how much we agree with the results.
I've undoubtedly cheesed off a lot of folks here, but part of being skeptical (and reasonable) is being willing to look at and understand the arguments against ideas you hold. One of the most important values in science is looking for ways to test hypotheses, and running those tests. Finding out the truth is more important than who finds it--any decent scientist will value someone who puts his ideas to the test. It's part of the process of refining and enhancing our knowledge.
There are lots of interesting questions we could plan for P & T that are non-political, and I agree that putting together a list for next year would be great. For instance, how about asking them, "If you wanted to fool a group of psi researchers, would you be more inclined to use misdirection, cold reading, prestidigitation, planted results, or some other magician's standard?"
"Have you ever started researching a topic for a BS episode and ended up deciding it was legitimate? What topic(s)?"
"Do you think learning some basic magic tricks enhances critical thinking skills? Do you know if that idea has been tested?"
Best wishes to all!
Chimera
Mind Fetishist
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 394
It almost seemed like he was trying to prove his geek qualifications.
And, oh, did he ever.
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic, Autosycophant
I'd pretty much agree with you, if Penn had planned to give a presentation on that topic, and his purpose was to challenge people's thoughts in that area. But that's not what happened. He made no preparation whatsoever. He had no purpose, no theme, nothing. Just hop up on a chair, and let people ask him questions.
I don't mind being challenged; there were other speakers who presented ideas that I personally disagreed with, or that opened my eyes to new information. And all of those were great. That was not what Penn did...and any 'benefit' from his 'presentation' was due more to the people asking questions (who occasionally hit on questions that elicited interesting answers) than to any effort or preparation from Penn.
(And to TsarBomba...I agree, Teller's bit about the spoon bending was great)
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
I'm trying to figure out how any of the talks had anything to do with the whole Skepticism in the Age of The Internet thing. Which is why I wonder why they bother with themes.
For the record, I enjoyed Adam's talk.
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic, Autosycophant
For the record, I enjoyed it also. It was good entertainment. And had it been something I was watching for free on Myth Busters, or in a pod cast, I'd have no complaints whatsoever.
But, having paid good money to go to a conference that stated it was discussing "Skepticism in the Age of the Internet", I found it a waste of time. I wasn't paying to be entertained. I was paying to get information.
Now, if someone wants to organize another TAM whose theme is "Entirely Random Topics That May Or May Not Have Something To Do With Skepticism", and if there are people who want to pay to attend such a conference, then hey, I'd have no complaint at all about him giving a speech like that.
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic, Autosycophant
oops.
Last edited:
HarryKeogh
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 11,319
"whatever happened to that correction to the BS! episode on second-hand smoke that you said was going to happen in the third season? (at around the one minute mark here: We're now on season six and still nothing!"
Good point Teek, maybe someone should start a thread to suggest relevant questions to ask P&T at TAM7.
phyz
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 965
Well played, YoPapa. But I'd prefer giving them a topic or three that they can prepare something for. Something that would be fun for them. It seems like Q&A is torture for them and us.
Teek: I'm far from hunting down bootlegs of the film, but I'm curious as to your objections.
Oh, I just didn't like the film. I thought it was crap. Subjective judgement. I thought it was pretentious and didn't resolve. Nothing more sophisticated than that. But judging by the lukewarm response, I don't think I was the only one. Plus it was a bit lazy to play a video that wasn't related to any P&T stuff when people were there to hear them speak.
Normal Dude
Space Shuttle Door Gunner
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,966
I am completely spacing out, what was the video that P&T showed again?
Ziggy66
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2008
- Messages
- 241
That film was a little to subtle in making its points, barely understandable to those of us on the skeptical side. To the true believers it would be nearly incomprehensible.
phyz
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 965
Agreed. I was hoping to like it. But the hope was misplaced. And like Ziggy said, this was the most generous audience that film was going to get. "A little subtle?" You are too kind.
Normal Dude, it was the short film about Cold Reading, as told from the scam artist's POV.
Props for Penn, strange as I personally find his politics
Penn's a libertarian's libertarian, and I must admit that I have almost nothing nice to say on the topic of libertarianism. (I'm Canadian. That's not how we roll.) To my ear, his political opinions are totally preposterous and baffling—to the level that it's like he periodically announces that he's a deviled egg and no one else seems to find that odd.
(The fact that half the people reading this strongly disagree only underlines the need to keep skepticism as a movement as apolitical as possible. As I've argued elsewhere, it's as peripheral as it is divisive.)
But I think his participation at TAM deserves full respect. Personally, I don't mind the Q&A format in the slightest. It's adequately entertaining, sometimes very informative, and it unquestionably raises money for the JREF's good work. That adds up to wins across the board.
Penn and Teller blast in like rock stars, which I think is fair enough: they are rock stars. They come, bringing their fame with them, for the purpose of helping Randi. Good for them! I don't think they should feel obligated to cook up a whole presentation, nor to replicate parts of their professional act. What they do at TAM, just by showing up, is helpful and good, and I'm thankful for it. Moreover, they promote Randi and TAM from their other platforms.
Finally: although it is my personal opinion that their anarcho-capitalist political views mislead them on some general science questions, P&T nevertheless deserve full respect for their skeptical work. They carry the ball down the field every night, doing classical skeptical activism as an integral part of their show. And, where the topic is close to their area of expertise, they are voices of unparalleled authority and persuasiveness. (The "talking to the dead" episode of Bullsh*t is perhaps the best document ever prepared on the topic.)
Penn's a libertarian's libertarian, and I must admit that I have almost nothing nice to say on the topic of libertarianism. (I'm Canadian. That's not how we roll.) To my ear, his political opinions are totally preposterous and baffling—to the level that it's like he periodically announces that he's a deviled egg and no one else seems to find that odd.
(The fact that half the people reading this strongly disagree only underlines the need to keep skepticism as a movement as apolitical as possible. As I've argued elsewhere, it's as peripheral as it is divisive.)
But I think his participation at TAM deserves full respect. Personally, I don't mind the Q&A format in the slightest. It's adequately entertaining, sometimes very informative, and it unquestionably raises money for the JREF's good work. That adds up to wins across the board.
Penn and Teller blast in like rock stars, which I think is fair enough: they are rock stars. They come, bringing their fame with them, for the purpose of helping Randi. Good for them! I don't think they should feel obligated to cook up a whole presentation, nor to replicate parts of their professional act. What they do at TAM, just by showing up, is helpful and good, and I'm thankful for it. Moreover, they promote Randi and TAM from their other platforms.
Finally: although it is my personal opinion that their anarcho-capitalist political views mislead them on some general science questions, P&T nevertheless deserve full respect for their skeptical work. They carry the ball down the field every night, doing classical skeptical activism as an integral part of their show. And, where the topic is close to their area of expertise, they are voices of unparalleled authority and persuasiveness. (The "talking to the dead" episode of Bullsh*t is perhaps the best document ever prepared on the topic.)