Who pissod off Penn?

[Skeptic Ginger]

So I finally got around to watching P&T's global-warming episode of Bull____. The only scientific journal cited was an issue of TIME magazine from nearly forty years ago with the famous "imminent Ice Age" article. The only climate scientist interviewed was the former weatherman for "Good Morning America" who went on to start The Weather Channel. Al Gore was ad hommed, as were the usual New Agey types and people in the street. In addition to the weatherman emeritus, we hear from a non-famous, non-groovy non-scientist who's president of a libertarian think tank, and a non-famous, non-groovy non-scientist from the group that published Al Gore's utility bills.

The reason Penn doesn't know much about climate change is that he's not asking the right people the right questions. This show lived up to its name.

Yep, claim to be a skeptic but conveniently ignore the principles when the evidence causes cognitive dissonance with your political or religious beliefs. In this case, Penn's lack of a true skeptical philosophy shines through loud and clear. It fits with what I thought about the BS episode on the uselessness of recycling.

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you have any evidence that supports your implicit claim that I am lying when I describe the funding several of my colleagues' projects are currently receiving?

You are deducting wrongly. I am not claiming - in any way - that you are lying. Just misinformed.

Tell me, do you do any kind of science yourself?

???

What difference does that make??

I can't know about science, unless I "do any kind of science" myself?

What kind of arrogant ivory-tower attitude is that?

What you describe is certainly true --- for most branches of science: much of physics, chemistry, physiology, medicine, and so on. Other branches of science does not necessarily experience the same thing. Morphology, systematics, taxonomy, and related fields are excellent examples of this. These are subjects which are decidedly not big business, as evidenced by my examples above. A significant amount of all taxonomic work is being carried out by scientists who are retired, and thus have time to do it.

That may be so - but they don't do it in solitude, do they? No, in order to do real science, they need to exchange information, discoveries and theories with a lot of other people.

Science doesn't progress because there are people sitting alone in their study chamber. Science progresses because of a massive, rapid exchange of knowledge with as many people as possible.

 

[Kotatsu]

You are deducting wrongly. I am not claiming - in any way - that you are lying. Just misinformed.

So when my former supervisor sat down in my room about two months ago and told me that he didn't get any of the funding he had applied for for his earth-worm project, but said that as he thought it was such a good project, he was going to go through with it anyway, and asked me to bring some small vials with me to Lapland so I could bring any earthworms I might find with me home, he was just misinforming me?

Seriously, I work with this, Claus. I have been part of his projects for about 2 years, much of which was spent working on a project he had no funding for. My salary was paid from an entirely different source, which constituted the main part of my work for him, and for which he did receive funding. But some of it he had to do without funding. It is as simple as that.

???
What difference does that make??
I can't know about science, unless I "do any kind of science" myself?
What kind of arrogant ivory-tower attitude is that?

Curiously, you seem to have made up a post of your own, to which you are replying here. It certainly have no relation to my posts at all. I don't even understand the reasoning behind it, so I will leave it at that.

So, do you do any kind of science yourself?

That may be so - but they don't do it in solitude, do they? No, in order to do real science, they need to exchange information, discoveries and theories with a lot of other people.

Why do you ask a question if you have no intention to let me answer it before you fill in your own reply?

Yes, what you say is true in a general sense, but the scientists don't need to get funded to do it in all areas of science. They do cooperate --- the third paper I am writing with my former supervisor mentioned above will also include a taxonomist from Italy, for instance --- but it is miles away from being "big business". My field, for example, has few if any applications, does not require very much advanced technology require international cooperation and massive funding, and is carried out largely alone. My own supervisor does not work with the organisms I work with even.

Science doesn't progress because there are people sitting alone in their study chamber. Science progresses because of a massive, rapid exchange of knowledge with as many people as possible.

The two are not mutually exclusive, as one described what happens before publication and the other describes what happens after it. Science does often progress by people like the guy working with Hippoboscid flies mentioned before. He works entirely alone on his project (1), comparing specimens, reading descriptions, and --- eventually --- building keys. I have no idea if he's doing that in a study chamber, but he's not doing it as part of a vast international collaboration.

When he publishes his findings, however, the key is to get the information he has collected and evaluated spread to, and hopefully accepted by, as many people as possible. But those two are different phases of the same study. Science progresses by the combination of both.

---
(1) Unless you count the bird banders at Ottenby, Kvismaren, and possibly other places whom he has asked to collect any flies they find on the birds they band, put them in alcohol in a freezer, and send to him when convenient. Apart from occasional collection, they do not contribute anything to the actual research.

 

[GreNME]

Yep, claim to be a skeptic but conveniently ignore the principles when the evidence causes cognitive dissonance with your political or religious beliefs. In this case, Penn's lack of a true skeptical philosophy shines through loud and clear. It fits with what I thought about the BS episode on the uselessness of recycling.

Yet when asked about whether he thinks global warming is real, he stated that he not only doesn't know but that a lot of people he knows who are smarter than him say yes. How do you reconcile that with your accusations to his character?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yet when asked about whether he thinks global warming is real, he stated that he not only doesn't know but that a lot of people he knows who are smarter than him say yes. How do you reconcile that with your accusations to his character?

Read my posts in the last 6 pages and in the 6 pages in this thread where I have explained it ad nauseum. I don't feel like starting 12 pages of discussion all over again.

 

[GreNME]

I already read them, and still think you're either making assumptions about Penn's character.

It's not that I think global warming is fake or that humans aren't contributing (that's a different discussion). It's that I don't see the sense in attacking the character of people who seem to be open to the actual data that is out there but haven't yet come to a conclusion on their own.

 

[JoeEllison]

Yep, claim to be a skeptic but conveniently ignore the principles when the evidence causes cognitive dissonance with your political or religious beliefs. In this case, Penn's lack of a true skeptical philosophy shines through loud and clear. It fits with what I thought about the BS episode on the uselessness of recycling.

Well, Penn Jillette is sort of a giant douchebag blowhard, isn't he? I mean professionally, while Teller does all the real magic? The question is, has Penn forgotten that it is all just an act, or is his political stupidity part of the act, and we're all being fooled when we take his idiocy seriously?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I already read them, and still think you're either making assumptions about Penn's character.

It's not that I think global warming is fake or that humans aren't contributing (that's a different discussion). It's that I don't see the sense in attacking the character of people who seem to be open to the actual data that is out there but haven't yet come to a conclusion on their own.

For someone who is open but hasn't yet come to a conclusion, how do you explain SkeptiKilt's post on the P&T BS episode denying global warming?

My take on it is Penn's comment at TAM reflected the fact he's been faced with the fact he bought the lie. So rather than own up to it, he now claims to be uninformed. How do you do an episode on GW, and then later claim to just not know? Are the episodes supposed to be examples of critical thinking or are they as fake as the Loch Ness Monster and UFO TV docudramas?

 

[SkeptiKilt]

I already read them, and still think you're either making assumptions about Penn's character.

It's not that I think global warming is fake or that humans aren't contributing (that's a different discussion). It's that I don't see the sense in attacking the character of people who seem to be open to the actual data that is out there but haven't yet come to a conclusion on their own.

I'd take Penn's statement that he hasn't come to a conclusion about AGW a lot more seriously if he hadn't done an episode of BS about it, in which it's quite obvious that his working hypothesis is that AGW is BS. He pulls out the old canard of "thirty years ago pretty much everybody thought we were heading into a new Ice Age" based on one article in TIME magazine. That Penn uses that to start off the show is a BRF -- Big Red Flag. John Coleman chimes in with the "it's all due to the solar cycle" tune, which has been thoroughly debunked again and again. Next we laugh at some New Agers -- who are pretty funny -- and sneer at Al Gore. Somehow Gore's Oscar and his Nobel turn into arguments against AGW, and then we have a political opponent calling him a hypocrite because he has a large home/office building that uses a lot of electricity, and travels a lot to spread the word about AGW. Oh, did he mention Gore is fat? I don't remember, but it's usually the next thing on the menu.


If Penn knows a lot of people whom he acknowledges are smarter than he is, and who believe AGW is a real problem, why didn't he have any of them on the show? I think that it's reasonable to draw conclusions about his skeptical cred from this. He doesn't like Gore, his libertarian creed causes him to have a knee-jerk reaction to government regulation of anything, and he's allowed this to determine his attitude about AGW.