I like Penn&Teller, the magicians and debunkers of pseudoscience and general inanity. I regularly use clips from their show in my critical reasoning class, despite cringing every time Penn indulges in his “fuck this” and “motherfucker that” exercise in free speech (it distracts the students from the real point, not to mention the always lurking possibility of an administrator asking me about the appropriateness of foul language in a philosophy class). Heck, I even recently went to Vegas to see them in person, had a photo taken with Teller, and managed to tell him (to his surprise) about how my students enjoy stimulating discussions triggered by the duo’s antics.
But as we have learned recently from the Atheist Alliance / Dawkins Foundation / Bill Maher fiasco, “skepticism” is sometimes too broad a label, as someone can be properly skeptical in politics but not about pseudoscience (Maher), while someone else may be great at debunking astrology and magnetic therapy, and yet also unable to shed some huge blinders when it comes to politically charged issues. The latter is, unfortunately, Penn&Teller’s case, as made excruciatingly clear by the 2008 (season 6) episode “Being Green” of "Bullshit!" I just watched it last night, and I found myself wanting to call up Penn to let go a few expletives of my own. Fortunately, I don’t have his phone number.
Comments
Dear Tommaso,
you write:
"TV has long ceased to be a means of education for the masses. We ache
every time we are shown we need to find alternatives, but that is the
reality of things: people do not watch TV to get smarter."
Well, which channels do people use to get smarter? Newspapers? Books? The web? I think that people who want to get "intellectual stimulus" and information are looking for them everywhere. People who do not look for those two qualities which we here value seemingly a lot, choose the other offerings the various media do offer - cheap thrill, filling the time, sensations, simply entertainment, confirmation of their prejudice, advice what to buy and what not and so on, the list would never stop. Also the positive side has a long list. The media are just carriers, the content can be so much. So I do not think that we should give up on the media, including the TV. There still are great TV programs around - but it naturally all depends on who can receive them and how.
Besides, are we three (Massimo, you and me) the members of the masses or not? I think we can not escape! We are members of the public in many connections. In some connections we can have privileges given by our education history and our professions, but we still are members of the public in most connections. And "the reality of things" is that "the masses" are looking for something positive. True, in fully commercialized world all this becomes different. Fortunately, there are still other dimensions to our lives than those expressible in dollars. And in Europe, we still have the public TV channels, who still have to some degree the role in "education for the masses", which they sometimes take seriously.
you write:
"TV has long ceased to be a means of education for the masses. We ache
every time we are shown we need to find alternatives, but that is the
reality of things: people do not watch TV to get smarter."
Well, which channels do people use to get smarter? Newspapers? Books? The web? I think that people who want to get "intellectual stimulus" and information are looking for them everywhere. People who do not look for those two qualities which we here value seemingly a lot, choose the other offerings the various media do offer - cheap thrill, filling the time, sensations, simply entertainment, confirmation of their prejudice, advice what to buy and what not and so on, the list would never stop. Also the positive side has a long list. The media are just carriers, the content can be so much. So I do not think that we should give up on the media, including the TV. There still are great TV programs around - but it naturally all depends on who can receive them and how.
Besides, are we three (Massimo, you and me) the members of the masses or not? I think we can not escape! We are members of the public in many connections. In some connections we can have privileges given by our education history and our professions, but we still are members of the public in most connections. And "the reality of things" is that "the masses" are looking for something positive. True, in fully commercialized world all this becomes different. Fortunately, there are still other dimensions to our lives than those expressible in dollars. And in Europe, we still have the public TV channels, who still have to some degree the role in "education for the masses", which they sometimes take seriously.
Ladislav Kocbach | 09/29/09 | 04:35 AM
Hi Ladislav,
sure, I was not implying that we should give up TV as a means of communication; rather, I was saying we have to reckon with the fact that the people who sit down in front of a TV screen they do so, in 99% of the cases, not to get information and education, but to get entertainment. So the thing is twofold: one of course does not want to give up _offering_ science and education on TV, but one has to also realize that before one can try and reach those who might listen, one has to most of all train their ears. Thus my conclusion, that an education to Science can only be done in Schools.
Cheers,
T.
sure, I was not implying that we should give up TV as a means of communication; rather, I was saying we have to reckon with the fact that the people who sit down in front of a TV screen they do so, in 99% of the cases, not to get information and education, but to get entertainment. So the thing is twofold: one of course does not want to give up _offering_ science and education on TV, but one has to also realize that before one can try and reach those who might listen, one has to most of all train their ears. Thus my conclusion, that an education to Science can only be done in Schools.
Cheers,
T.
Tommaso Dorigo | 09/29/09 | 05:29 AM
Dear Tommaso,
Here I can not resist the Wikipedia temptation:
A school (from Greek σχολή (scholē), originally meaning leisure, and also "that in which leisure is employed", "school"), is an institution designed to allow and encourage students (or "pupils") to learn, under the supervision of teachers. (from wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School )
Well, the schooling, at least historically, seems to be associated with "leisure", thus also the informal learning. Much of what we know we learned informally. This should according to my opinion not diminish the importance of the schools, but we should not forget the rest of the life.
But good information might also be entertaining! That is supposedly why anybody outside of science wants to read these pages. But we should probably continue this friendly debate somewhere else....
Here I can not resist the Wikipedia temptation:
A school (from Greek σχολή (scholē), originally meaning leisure, and also "that in which leisure is employed", "school"), is an institution designed to allow and encourage students (or "pupils") to learn, under the supervision of teachers. (from wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School )
Well, the schooling, at least historically, seems to be associated with "leisure", thus also the informal learning. Much of what we know we learned informally. This should according to my opinion not diminish the importance of the schools, but we should not forget the rest of the life.
But good information might also be entertaining! That is supposedly why anybody outside of science wants to read these pages. But we should probably continue this friendly debate somewhere else....
Ladislav Kocbach | 09/29/09 | 06:41 AM
The most disturbing base element of your argument is that you don't consider Al Gore a pandering, pseudo-intellectual hypocrite. Mr. Gore belittles and talks down to the common unwashed masses about how poorly we treat the environment while he is chartering private planes, rolling down the highway in over-sized SUV caravans and consuming as much electricity as a small hamlet to light his estate. Spare me your righteous indignation over the fact that Penn & Teller had the fortitude to call Mr. Gore out for his Bullshit!
The common term for someone that acts in this way is "asshole" or you can follow President Obama's lead by categorizing Mr. Gore with Kanye West as a "jack-ass"; however that is degrading to the farm animal. Perhaps the more recently coined term "douche-tard" may be a more accurate definition for Mr. "I-invented-the-internet-&-I'm-greener-than-you" Gore.
Regards.
Anonymous (not verified) | 09/26/09 | 04:05 AM
Gerhard Adam | 09/26/09 | 14:44 PM
So because of who he is, he isn't held to any standards? How about directly profiting from the "carbon credits" he is pimping?
http://www.google.com/search?&q=Gore+carbon-credit+company
Yet anyone who dissents from the religion of global warming is a "wingnut"? Seriously?
Eric E (not verified) | 10/09/09 | 23:11 PM
If you think climate change is simply a political agenda, then that is being foolish. If you question the veracity of the science, then what is the argument?
Regardless of what Al Gore says or does, changes nothing regarding the science. It is either valid or it isn't. There are plenty of hypocrites everywhere, so no one's hands are clean on that score.
Regardless of what Al Gore says or does, changes nothing regarding the science. It is either valid or it isn't. There are plenty of hypocrites everywhere, so no one's hands are clean on that score.
Gerhard Adam | 10/10/09 | 02:54 AM
Why aren't they the same? Taking people's money and promising something you can't deliver, whether that be eternal salvation or a cooler planet, is downright evil.
And you seem to imply that all climate scientists think anthropogenic global warming will do irreparable damage to the environment. That's completely false. In reality, their views on what's driving climate change and what repercussions will come of it are all over the place. Even though relying on a retired weather man wasn't the wisest of choices, P&T were more correct than you're letting on, Dr. Pigliucci.
Anonymous (not verified) | 09/27/09 | 05:09 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 09/27/09 | 08:59 AM
I wouldn't want to hang my hat on this bit of nonsense, but is does make sense to ask if it is PRACTICAL to try to prevent warming from getting worse. The evidence that individuals and groups will do something painful in the present to POSSIBLY prevent some AWFUL future event is limited.
How many respond to those with signs, "Repent the End is Near!"
Most of the world is not yet at a state of economic bliss where they are going to support stopping economic growth where they are at today. Not even the USA has reached this state. And, moral lectures about the evils of materialism are NOT going to change anyone's desire for MORE than they've got. Lot's more, if you are one of those who didn't make a killing in the Bush years.
And, the idea that a Green Revolution can replace non-Green activities, while politically popular, is nonsense. First, because cars like the Prius are horrible. An electric toaster on wheels. Only a tiny minority would ever WANT such cars. (Wanting to not spend money on gas is not the same as wanting a Prius.) Secondly, whatever Green technology that will be built is going to be built where everything else is built -- China. With the patents held in Japan. (Americans would do well to stay on top of WHO is filing patents.) The only jobs coming to the rest of the world will be installing" products, which will not be a very high paying job. How much does the Cable Guy make?
With no economic benefit -- and only costs -- in the PRESENT, the logical option is to wait until there are actual problems from warming. Then, there will be no alternative to investing in fixing them. These will be real infra-structure projects costing billions and employing thousands. For example, gates at the bottom of the Hudson. Moving most of LA to outside Vegas.
Nasty warm conditions will spur the development of solutions that folks would never accept now. And, to argue the human race will be unable to solve these problems -- cause it'll be "too late" flys seems a scare tactic worth of one's grandmother. "If you don't eat your beets, you'll ...".
Moreover, by waiting we assure ourselves the data collected is not a fluke. And, we know exactly what needs fixing. Moreover, every decade that passes moves us farther along the technology curve. A solution that we might now reject as "too costly" might be cheap in 20 years. Likewise, something we rush into now, might be inappropriate when seen a decade from now. CAPS is a good example.
One doesn't need to deny Global Warming to resist premature and economy destroying "fixes."
Steve (not verified) | 10/01/09 | 18:10 PM
Gerhard Adam | 10/01/09 | 20:30 PM
Computer storage and the entire semiconductor industry is an example of a problem cheaper to fix after it occurs. Shutting down a business today because it isn't perfect and we know there is a train wreck in the future doesn't make a lot of sense.
Obviously, relying on magical fairytale future science (which will require government funding homerun-ish high risk research the global warming skeptics/Republicans won't want to fund) as an excuse to do nothing in order to stick it to Al Gore isn't smart either.
Obviously, relying on magical fairytale future science (which will require government funding homerun-ish high risk research the global warming skeptics/Republicans won't want to fund) as an excuse to do nothing in order to stick it to Al Gore isn't smart either.
Hank Campbell | 10/01/09 | 21:00 PM
The green episode was the other one. It is obvious to anyone who's intellectually honest from their own observation that the climate is changing. Yes, the climate has changed before - usually because of volcanos - humans and our framing/industry do put a lot of pollution into the atmosphere and that's gotta be part of the reason
and really, even if we can't stop it, what's wrong with changing our behaviour to slow it down?
but, I did agree that carbon offsets are exactly like indulgences - it's buying permission to do something you shouldn't without any actual accountability for where the money's going.
At least when I joined the cheating offset site, the guy who paid me to be faithful so he could cheat - has my assurance that I am faithful to offset his cheating.
nina (not verified) | 10/09/09 | 15:18 PM
Anthony (not verified) | 11/08/09 | 22:22 PM













I have never seen the duo, which does not make it to cable TV in Italy. However, you picture a show which may lets you down by attacking Gore, after having done a good job at exposing frauds. The contrast is stark, and it triggers your anger. I well understand it, but this thing is what it is, a show: it does not look to me like a educational program. So you well know it is bound to please the audience, and like it or not, there are quite a few fellows out there that not only like foul language, but they also think Al Gore is a stupid jerk. No wonder they liked the show.
Science and rationality need other avenues to be taught to laymen, unfortunately. TV has long ceased to be a means of education for the masses. We ache every time we are shown we need to find alternatives, but that is the reality of things: people do not watch TV to get smarter.
Cheers,
T.