The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Why Bullshit! Is Indeed Bullshit
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So, as some of you may know, there's a show on Showtime hosted by magician duo Penn & Teller called Bullshit! In the show, the duo attempt to debunk common beliefs and groups - past fodder on the show has included PETA, environmentalism, life coaches, the Boy Scouts, capital punishment, and so on. The thing is, well...the boys let their enthusiasm and ideology get ahead of other things.
Like honesty, for one. Throughout the show, when they've dealt with issues not so cut and dried, they resort to mental forms of legerdemain. A good example comes from a recent episode purporting to prove that the energy crisis is bullshit. As part of it, they hand over a hybrid (it appeared to be a Prius, but I'm not sure) to two lesbians on a blind date, who then drive it from Los Angeles to Oxnard, while looking at 0-60 acceleration and cargo space. While these might seem at first glance to be good tests, looking deeper, one thing becomes apparent - they're all tests that play to the inherent weaknesses of hybrids. There was no testing of city driving (which is where hybrids truly shine), nor discussion of modifications to improve hybrid performance (like adding a plug). So to an average viewer, it looks like they've proven that hybrids are overhyped. To someone that knows a bit about the issue, though, it's clear that they've painted a distorted image in their favor. The problem is that they tend to do this a lot when reality doesn't fit their theory.
What worries me is that their misconceptions might become mainstream, which means that it will become even harder to fight them.
Like honesty, for one. Throughout the show, when they've dealt with issues not so cut and dried, they resort to mental forms of legerdemain. A good example comes from a recent episode purporting to prove that the energy crisis is bullshit. As part of it, they hand over a hybrid (it appeared to be a Prius, but I'm not sure) to two lesbians on a blind date, who then drive it from Los Angeles to Oxnard, while looking at 0-60 acceleration and cargo space. While these might seem at first glance to be good tests, looking deeper, one thing becomes apparent - they're all tests that play to the inherent weaknesses of hybrids. There was no testing of city driving (which is where hybrids truly shine), nor discussion of modifications to improve hybrid performance (like adding a plug). So to an average viewer, it looks like they've proven that hybrids are overhyped. To someone that knows a bit about the issue, though, it's clear that they've painted a distorted image in their favor. The problem is that they tend to do this a lot when reality doesn't fit their theory.
What worries me is that their misconceptions might become mainstream, which means that it will become even harder to fight them.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
0
Posts
Also I recall they did both an episode on how diet fads are stupid (just eat less and excersize!), then an episode on how genetics was the only thing that mattered.
No, Penn. Problem not solved. A tree is a tree is a tree is not a correct argument. Following is a list of trees:
*Apple tree
*Palm tree
*Maple tree
*Redwood
*Fig tree
*Mango tree
*Weeping willow
*Oak tree
*Joshua tree
*Pine tree
*Cherry tree
Go ahead. Tell me those are all the same. I dare you.
their argument (i didn't see the show) was probably that trees that are made into paper are specifically grown on tree farms (yes, they exist). they were planted for the purpose of being pulped.
The episode had plenty of other logical holes in it, though, it seems you really found the crappiest of all to focus on.
That's not the main problem with the argument, although yes, replacing a 200 year old native hardwood with a crappy five year old pine will indeed fuck things up in terms of ecosystem function. The main problem is that the tree taken is not immediately replaced with one of equivalent biomass, so there's a significant lag between causing a problem and fixing it. And in the case of plantations, its never quite fixed. Trees are harvested at early maturity, before they get to the size of their predescessors, and certianly before they develop many of the physical features that trees provide as ecosystem services, for instance hollows used as nesting sites.
Then let's try a less benign example - like their attempt to make the anti-Walmart crowd look irrational (while the fringes are a bit batty, the arguments against Walmart have been thoroughly researched.) At several points, they actually avoid countering the arguments against their position in that episode.
You can't actually get high of it either, it has 1/10th the amount of the effector in it as drug hemp.
Unfortunately it has a large stigma about it (hemp) and will probably never be touched.
And you can tell the show is "HARDXXXCORE teen" fodder, for those kids who act all bad-ass and intellectual but have misguided opinions, by the name.
Bullshit!
It just screams "I WANT TO BE LIKE MADDOX!"
Mythbusters is great, they do everything logically and everything is explained properly so there are little questions. They do miss an angle every now and then but they aren't blatantly short-changing the other side.
I don't agree with Penn and Teller on everything (the recent ADA episode, especially), but I enjoy their show and hearing opinions because they really are just trying to make sure that people have as much freedom as is possible. That freedom might be civil, mental, or otherwise.
It takes whackjobs on both sides to come up with a satisfactory middle course.
Whackjobs on both sides simply makes more whack jobs.
Which solves nothing essentially. Look at the religious bullshit in the middle east.
Whackjob OPINIONS on both sides is necessary to come up with a satisfactory middle course.
Either end of the spectrum isn't good, but you have to know where the ends are, if that makes any sense.
their argument against 9/11 conspiracy theorists was basically "9/11 was sad... how dare you".
that was the day I stopped being interested in the show for anything more than a bit of humor.
Gotta know where the finish line is or everyone will just keep on running
EDIT: Hedgie also raises a good point.
It's a bit like saying a critic hated the movie because the popcorn had too much butter.
This was before I heard about the global warming etc... episodes. Did they really try to discount global warming and the like?
when they do their magic shows, sure.
I don't remember them ever discounting global warming, itself. In fact, I thought that the whole prius thing in the energy episode was really a tangent that they took in a show that was mainly about nuclear energy.
Their points about the hybrid cars seemed really weak to me, especially considering the fact that they could have talked about things like the carbon footprint required to transport the batteries to the manufacturing facilities (which I understand is quite large, please, someone disabuse me of this notion if it's incorrect).
Is there a website with criticisms of their criticisms? I'm really interested in just getting down to the truth of the matter, on a lot of these things.
Basically, there are two types of episodes. The first is where they go after a fringe movement or group (PETA, life coaches, BSA) - in many cases, these groups have stances that are odd and unacceptable. Therefore, bringing them to light is all that's needed to see how crazy they truly are. The second type, though, is where they delve into a complex issue (gun control, the energy crisis, the ADA) - in those episodes, they have a VERY specific stance, and they want you to accept it, even if it might be wrong...
Edit: One major time they got caught with egg on their face was the episode on secondhand smoke - it later came out that their stats came from Steve Milloy (better known as Big Tobacco's pet "scientist".)
I wouldn't really call it wrong, it's just that they misguide you to think that their's in the better case.
I'm curious about that episode. I haven't seen it, but what's the problem?
That episode disappointed me when they "disproved" the Kennedy conspiracy by shooting a melon.
How exactly did that disappoint you? It demonstrated exactly what they intended, namely that the way in which Kennedy's head jerks is consistent with being shot in the back, not front of the head.
This is important in that it is one of most commonly repeated arguments put forward by men wearing aluminium based headwear - "His head jerks the wrong way! ZOMG" - and it appears which compelling to the layman. P&T showed, as has been done by many before them, that the argument is specious.
That was one of the multiple arguments put forward in favour of JFK conspiracy nonsense which they debunked.
Indeed.
Unfortunately their crack research team failed to address the fact that the doctors at the Dallas hospital all reported seeing a small entry wound in the front of his head.
In short, for them to make their argument work, they have to ignore reality.
I'm afraid I'm not following your argument.
The Dallas examination was preliminary, does not fit with the ballistic facts, and is largely presented to us through hearsay.
It hardly seems a compelling reason to doubt physics.
They are saying that the melon shoot proves that the fatal shot came from behind by debunking the hole "back and to the left => grassy knoll gunman" claim. That doesn't address the issue of the reports of the doctors.
It was presented to me by watching the doctors speaking directly to camera.
I don't doubt the physics behind the process they describe, but I don't think that the proposed mechanism is a compelling reason to doubt the reports of half a dozen medically trained personnel saying that there was an entry wound at the front of Kennedy's head.
Also for bias, it has to do with the 'l' word that will probably incite a feeding frenzy if mentioned in full.