So, apparently Jenny McCarthy's kid never had autism in the first place

[blutoski]

Emgineering = applied SCIENCE
BS: see above

Engineers are not trained in natural sciences just because it's in the title of their degree (same with computer science, political science &c)

And anyway neither of them is an engineer.
Adam has no postsecondary education but did some training to be an actor, which puts him on par with McCarthy.
Jamie's BA was in Russian linguistics.

 

[blutoski]

False equivalency. Do you really consider them the same? How many people have died from Woo pedaled by Penn And Teller? Is Randi also considered "a menace to public health" by the CDC?

No, but I'm talking about an inconsistency within skepticism to favour those whose results we like, regardless of process. We have a conflicting attitude toward whether skepticism is a process or a body of results. We have a conflicting attitude toward whether people should defer to experts or investigate independently.

You also do not seem to understand the role that magicians play in the sceptical movement. And why.

As somebody who has worked 30 years with magicians like Mandrake here in Canada, I'm pretty sure I do. They're not being asked to help because we think they're competent in the natural sciences - we're asking them to contribute skills within their limited expertise, which is principally the art of deception.

This is why very few magicians are considered useful to skepticism - we want what are called Magicians' Magicians - they guys who understand the underlying mechanisms, the guys who design illusions because they know how they work. All the other magicians lease those illusions, and few appear to understand the underlying psychology. [Doug Henning] comes to mind as a typical magician - he would be one of the last people I'd recruit to assist with paranormal investigation.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

What I was mainly saying is that she's not the source of information, just a celebrity who is raising attention to dubious claims. Nobody 'cites' her that I'm aware of. They cite the information they found on the Internet when they Google.

Likewise P&T who opine on health issues... skeptics don't 'cite' them, they are simply drawing attention to a topic and skeptics for the most part are Googling by themselves.

So this is the similarity I was describing: none of these people are qualified to give medical advice, but for some reason we criticize McCarthy for overstepping her competence, but not P&T or Milloy even though they're pretty clearly doing exactly the same thing.

Yes, people should not rely entirely upon Penn & Teller for information. No problem there. P&T are entertainers. They do not pretend to be scientists. They are popularizers of skepticism. Personally, I don't have a problem with entertainers or popularizers. I like being entertained. If you're being led astray because you're getting all of your information from P&T, and not thinking critically or doing your own research, that's your problem...or perhaps the problem of the educational system.

The issue I have with Jenny McCarthy has nothing to do with her being popular and famous. It's with her message. Her message is harming people. P&T also have a message, and, overall, I think it does much more good than harm. I don't criticize McCarthy because she's "overstepping her competence". That's a separate issue. Indeed, I think that if you are passionate about something, and you are in the public eye, you should use your soapbox. No, the problem I have with her is what her cause is.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Yes, people should not rely entirely upon Penn & Teller for information. No problem there. P&T are entertainers. They do not pretend to be scientists. They are popularizers of skepticism. Personally, I don't have a problem with entertainers or popularizers. I like being entertained. If you're being led astray because you're getting all of your information from P&T, and not thinking critically or doing your own research, that's your problem...or perhaps the problem of the educational system.

The issue I have with Jenny McCarthy has nothing to do with her being popular and famous. It's with her message. Her message is harming people. P&T also have a message, and, overall, I think it does much more good than harm. I don't criticize McCarthy because she's "overstepping her competence". That's a separate issue. Indeed, I think that if you are passionate about something, and you are in the public eye, you should use your soapbox. No, the problem I have with her is what her cause is.

Or, as the late great Jesus Christ said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7:16 (American Standard Version)

 

[Checkmite]

The difference is that P&T have much better evidence (usually) to back themselves up.

Sometimes all they have is wind. For instance, in the PETA episode, Ted Nugent had nothing substantial to offer on the subject except that he personally likes to hunt and eat meat and make fun of PETA, yet he was given a prominent place in the episode as a counterpoint.

I remember another episode about UFO conventions or something, where Penn's only narrated rebuttal to one attendee's statement was that the guy was a podiatrist ("a FOOT DOCTOOOR!!!").

 

[Trakar]

The difference is that P&T have much better evidence (usually) to back themselves up.

To back up their assertions and subjective opinions? not so much.

To support the little and infrequent science they occasionally insert to try and make their generally absurd pronouncements seem more like science? more so.

 

[blutoski]

Yes, people should not rely entirely upon Penn & Teller for information. No problem there. P&T are entertainers. They do not pretend to be scientists. They are popularizers of skepticism. Personally, I don't have a problem with entertainers or popularizers. I like being entertained. If you're being led astray because you're getting all of your information from P&T, and not thinking critically or doing your own research, that's your problem...or perhaps the problem of the educational system.

To be frank, I don't think anybody relies on one source, and that includes antivaxxers. They're clearly more likely to be doing their own research than pro-vaxxers, who are probably more likely to defer to expertise.

The issue I have with Jenny McCarthy has nothing to do with her being popular and famous. It's with her message. Her message is harming people. P&T also have a message, and, overall, I think it does much more good than harm. I don't criticize McCarthy because she's "overstepping her competence". That's a separate issue. Indeed, I think that if you are passionate about something, and you are in the public eye, you should use your soapbox. No, the problem I have with her is what her cause is.

Then we seem to agree. My comment wasn't directed at people with this view.

My concern was about people who apply the genetic fallacy or criticise her for giving advice outside her competence, while excusing equally unqualified skeptical celebrity champions, most of whom do the same thing.

It is inconsistent, and my feeling is that the explanation is mundane tribalism based on shared beliefs, rather than any preference for critical thinking as a process for obtaining them.