On Wednesday Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) did a radio interview with The Amazing Randi, whom Penn calls "the most important person in the world to me; the person who changed my life the most." Toward the end (~36:00), we find this exchange, which suggests to me that Penn has a better grasp of the issues, and his own limitations:
Matthew:- "Remember, both Teller and Randi are professional polemicists, not scientists"
A scientist takes their white lab coat off and goes home and takes a herbal remedy for their anxiety, then sits down with a beer and watches a news item on Avian Flu, Global Warming, the war on terror, genetic food modification, US democracy, the next election etc etc
and what do they think or believe when it comes to topics such as these?
what are you saying about scientists? That they are rational citizens outside their specialty?
Please enlighten us. Because if you are, then you are SOOOO mistaken...
Scientifc knowledge amongst 'scientists' is so specialised and detached from wider world knowledge and experience that we often see formal rational frameworks coexisting alongside utter irrationalism in the same person, apparently without any conflict or discomfort. And a complete lack of rational investigation in the media definitely contributes to a lack of rational investigation of one's own beliefs.
Scientists. The idea of a scientist is so alien to today's social landscape that the suggestion that we have scientists living amongst us is simply laughable given what we witness daily.
'Professional polemisict' - what rubbish. That's called hiding behind intellecually arrogant terminology with no meaning. Anyone with balls enough to stand up and tell it like it is about the dark ages we live in gets my vote.
Obviously I did not phrase my comment about Teller very well. I did not intend to suggest that Teller has been caught making stuff up, as has Randi. I'm not aware of any such instances.
However, Teller's attitude as displayed in that interview does bring into question his willingness to question his beliefs today, unlike his willingness to question them at age 16 or 17. Obviously there is a great deal of emotional hang-up there re: his dead mother, and obviously he was there as a polemicist, not in order to learn something (assuming the story is accurately relayed). Reacting with hatred towards someone he does not know because he does not like the results of their scientific research does not speak well of Teller's committment to overcome bias. I should have clarified this in my previous comment, and not made it sound like I was accusing Teller of lying.
Matthew, saying "I hate you" to someone is certainly not polite, but it hardly counts as "playing fast-and-loose with the truth." Sometimes people really do hate other people.
Randi's problem is he already "knows" what is real and what cannot possibly be. At some level this makes him willing to play fast-and-loose with the truth in the interest of "winning". I.E.:
Matthew:- "Remember, both Teller and Randi are professional polemicists, not scientists"
A scientist takes their white lab coat off and goes home and takes a herbal remedy for their anxiety, then sits down with a beer and watches a news item on Avian Flu, Global Warming, the war on terror, genetic food modification, US democracy, the next election etc etc
and what do they think or believe when it comes to topics such as these?
what are you saying about scientists? That they are rational citizens outside their specialty?
Please enlighten us. Because if you are, then you are SOOOO mistaken...
Scientifc knowledge amongst 'scientists' is so specialised and detached from wider world knowledge and experience that we often see formal rational frameworks coexisting alongside utter irrationalism in the same person, apparently without any conflict or discomfort. And a complete lack of rational investigation in the media definitely contributes to a lack of rational investigation of one's own beliefs.
Scientists. The idea of a scientist is so alien to today's social landscape that the suggestion that we have scientists living amongst us is simply laughable given what we witness daily.
'Professional polemisict' - what rubbish. That's called hiding behind intellecually arrogant terminology with no meaning. Anyone with balls enough to stand up and tell it like it is about the dark ages we live in gets my vote.
Not that it matters that much..But the above referenced interview was with Penn Jillette..
Teller is Penn's partner in his magic act..not his last name..
Robin,
Obviously I did not phrase my comment about Teller very well. I did not intend to suggest that Teller has been caught making stuff up, as has Randi. I'm not aware of any such instances.
However, Teller's attitude as displayed in that interview does bring into question his willingness to question his beliefs today, unlike his willingness to question them at age 16 or 17. Obviously there is a great deal of emotional hang-up there re: his dead mother, and obviously he was there as a polemicist, not in order to learn something (assuming the story is accurately relayed). Reacting with hatred towards someone he does not know because he does not like the results of their scientific research does not speak well of Teller's committment to overcome bias. I should have clarified this in my previous comment, and not made it sound like I was accusing Teller of lying.
Matthew, saying "I hate you" to someone is certainly not polite, but it hardly counts as "playing fast-and-loose with the truth." Sometimes people really do hate other people.
Randi's problem is he already "knows" what is real and what cannot possibly be. At some level this makes him willing to play fast-and-loose with the truth in the interest of "winning". I.E.:
http://www.sheldrake.org/co...
and
http://dailygrail.com/node/...
I'm not sure that Teller is much better. For example:
http://michaelprescott.type...
Remember, both Teller and Randi are professional polemicists, not scientists.