Pharyngula

Posted by: George Andrews | May 19, 2009 11:30 AM

No

Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 19, 2009 11:31 AM

I want her to discuss the level of knowledge necessary for one's opinion to be considered authoritative or expert.

I don't think either Jenny or Oprah would like to open that subject up for consideration, however.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Posted by: James F | May 19, 2009 11:32 AM

And that was PZ being "Minnesota nice!"

Posted by: Ordinary Man | May 19, 2009 11:33 AM

I think it would be just great if they just let the crazy hang all out.

Get a several groups of nutjobs, but of contrasting opinions, to argue with one another about how their brand of crazy is better than the others. By the end of the show, they'll be throwing chairs and spitting invectives at one another while the crowd chants

Jenny! Jenny! Jenny!

Posted by: Prometheus | May 19, 2009 11:38 AM

"What Should Jenny Do?"

Go away.

or

Lock herself in a big plexiglass box with smallpox and let the cameras roll.

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | May 19, 2009 11:43 AM

Daytime TV in the US is one big wasteland of garbage. Throw in every 'reality' show which matches the inanity and half of the comedy and drama shows which have become sop operas and that leaves little worthwhile beyond some PBS and some cable shows.

What should Jenny do? Dry up and go away. She is an ignorant, arrogant, untalented personality.

Posted by: Dr.Woody | May 19, 2009 11:45 AM

Babs Hag is a fucking embarrassment, one of the increasing and increasingly compelling reasons why I no longer listen to NPR "news" programs, and no longer donate to their fund-raisers.

This hurts me, because it deprives the LOCAL outlets--decent community-serving stations, with very different but also very valuable contributions to make to the local community--of donations I might make to support the locals, who tell me that I cannot specify/stipulate where my donation gets spent...

Posted by: Lorkas | May 19, 2009 11:46 AM

If only...

Posted by: Dr.Woody | May 19, 2009 11:48 AM

Isn't Jenny Mac a former porn-star, known for the mountainous magnificence of her surgically enhanced mammaries?

Posted by: red rabbit | May 19, 2009 11:49 AM

Gee... that's a really nice but still direct way of saying "she should pull her head out of her ass."

I wouldn't have thought of it myself.

Posted by: The Pale Scot | May 19, 2009 11:50 AM

this is better link

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/business/media/19fossil.html?ref=todayspaper

Posted by: lose_the_woo | May 19, 2009 11:55 AM

Pish posh. Knowledge and education are for the small people. Icons like Oprah need not be bothered with such trifles.

Posted by: Matt Heath | May 19, 2009 11:58 AM

Oprah fascinates the hell out of me. She doesn't seem to be a bad woman as such. She seems to have plenty of compassion, even some moral courage; I'm guessing she took some heat from viewers and advertisers for giving sympathy and air-time to LGBT folks back in the day. But she just doesn't seem to have any concept of TRUTH. People spout bullshit at her and it doesn't seem to occur to her to ask "Is this true?". She asks "Is this nice?", "Will this make people feel good?" but never "Is this true?".

So she ends up shilling for a hundred different, contradictory ideas. If you can deliver it in a package that makes people feel good about themselves she'll sell it on: Rick Warren, Deepak Chopra, the Secret, Barack Obama, it doesn't matter. I guess if she ever had Carl Sagan (who could do "life-affirming" as well as anyone) on her show, talking up the unique wonder of scientific discovery, she'd have thought everything he said was right too and yet not felt the least cognitive dissonance when she was praising some unsupported woo the next week.

If someone suggests that someone else is just plain wrong she gets uncomfortable. It's like she thinks it's rude.

Posted by: charley | May 19, 2009 12:04 PM

They might go for it in a Maury Povich kind of way.

Posted by: Susan | May 19, 2009 12:08 PM

If they DID go for it, I might even be enticed to watch television in the daytime again. Great idea, PZ!

Posted by: Scott Nutting | May 19, 2009 12:14 PM

Sounds like fine programming to me PZ... I think the Oprah crowd might even go for it! Jenny could have a good cry at the end of each episode and do the Jerry Springer 'final thought' where she tells everyone what she learned. Perhaps even some bikini action and nose-picking in between to keep us tuned in.

Posted by: Lauren | May 19, 2009 12:18 PM

Because I don't trust myself to be civil, I am somewhat plagiarizing your words. I don't think I can't type about Jenny McCarthy without resorting to hate speech.

Posted by: Paul Browne | May 19, 2009 12:24 PM

Matt (#26) I think you may have hit the nail right on its head.

The only thing that worries me more than Jenny McCarthy getting a platform on national television to air her nonsense is the thought of what kind of people she and her producers are lining up as guests.

It's going to be ugly.

Posted by: TechSkeptic | May 19, 2009 12:25 PM

Did anyone else submit a suggestions and somehow end up at faseidl.com? He/She has a rant about Oprah's decision to give McCarthy a show. Is it possible the original link is not from Harpo productions?

Yup, me too. And I thought the exact same thing. Then got a little worried.

Posted by: Michael Goff | May 19, 2009 12:31 PM

Heh. That's like asking a biologist to speak at the creationist museum.

Great post.. but wont work.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 19, 2009 12:38 PM

Oprah fascinates the hell out of me.

I've got the same fascination, Matt (though it must be said, not enough to actually watch her show). She kinda reminds me of Lenny from Of Mice and Men, but soft-headed rather than developmentally-delayed, and incredibly rich and powerful rather than physically strong.

Deep down inside, she just really wants to feed the rabbits of the world.

Maybe one day she'll start petting Jenny McCarthy's long, blond hair, and then she'll pet it too hard, and Jenny'll make a noise, and Oprenny will put her hand over Jenny's mouth, just to get her to quiet down a little, and....

Posted by: Denis Alexander | May 19, 2009 12:43 PM

The question is not what Jenny should do. Instead, what should all the other celebrities that support medical science do? Here is a suggestion: create "Celebrities for Science" and run with it. I nominate Michael J. Fox for president.

Posted by: littlejohn | May 19, 2009 12:50 PM

I feel so bad. I said mean things about Jenny and her idiot boyfriend. I hope Oprah can forgive and maybe give me a car.

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | May 19, 2009 12:59 PM

Soap-Oprah.

She is Rush Limbaugh's "liberal" competition, you know. ;)

Posted by: Moggie | May 19, 2009 1:03 PM

#47:

I can't stop wondering if Oprah's parents really chose her name by reversing "Harpo".

OMG! She's a crypto-Marxist!

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | May 19, 2009 1:05 PM

I forgot to mention. She's much more spiritual than Rush.

Posted by: karen | May 19, 2009 1:07 PM

I second Prometheus' idea of "Lock herself in a big plexiglass box with smallpox and let the cameras roll."

It should be the very first show, extending over as many days/weeks as necessary. And Oprah should join her in the box.

Posted by: EW | May 19, 2009 1:12 PM

Here is another link to the breaking fossil story...

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In_New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_Mans_Earliest_Ancestor

Posted by: Personal Failure | May 19, 2009 1:16 PM

I'm fairly certain what I want Jenny to do isn't legal.

I'll settle for: attend actual science classes at an actual university. Hopefully some small portion of what is discussed will penetrate through that helmet of bleach.

Posted by: Sara | May 19, 2009 1:21 PM

I sent this:

"I would like to see Jenny McCarthy invite parents of children whose children either became seriously ill or died because of preventable diseases due to their lack of proper vaccinations. What are these parents' stories? How do they feel that their children either experienced immense pain or even died from diseases they never should have acquired to begin with?"

Posted by: Anonymous | May 19, 2009 1:28 PM

Make that "parents whose children either became..." not "parents of children whose children..." Although that too, I guess, even if that's a really convoluted way of getting around to saying 'grandchildren.' Oops.

Posted by: catgirl | May 19, 2009 1:36 PM

I'd like to a show where guests are invited who didn't vaccinate their children, but their children got autism anyway, but all of this would be a complete surprise to McCarthy. I also like the idea of a reality show where McCarthy goes to a good college to learn about immunology.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 19, 2009 1:42 PM

tell us exactly what you'd like to see Jenny do

I'm worried that my inability to stop thinking about this request makes me a bad person.

Posted by: Copernic | May 19, 2009 1:45 PM

My submission

Maybe she cover her experiences taking an organic chemistry class and how she learned the difference between methyl- and ethyl- alkyl groups and how they drastically alter the chemistry of their parent compounds and why it matters.

Perhaps she can join a clincal trial unit/group working tirelessly at any major research university or in the NIH so as to demonstrate the rigors of scientific investigation and how to work with statistics, bias, placebos, etc. She can then explain the different trial phases and the importance of properly working out dosing, toxicity, and efficacy factors.

Next she can do a piece on the study of cognitive science and how to ward off the tendancy to fall for confirmation and selective bias. Or hell, just spend an entire season reviewing logical fallacies and how they can distort our view of the world and interaction with each other.

If she's not willing to educate herself in these areas, perhaps she can continue to spout off about medicine and science as if she knows what she's talking about. Then, she can keep a running count of every child killed by a preventable viral disease and then baseline that against the rates before her anti-vax message became predominant and drove communities below herd-immunity This can be in the form of a digital counter at the bottom left hand side of the screen. At the end of each show, she can announce "Four kids dead this hour, see you tomorrow!"

Posted by: Copernic | May 19, 2009 1:52 PM

oops. the whole thing was to be bolded. damn html ignorance.

Posted by: maddogdelta | May 19, 2009 1:58 PM

Dear jenny

A couple of pointers to make your show the best it can be.

1. Put a sock in your mouth
2. take off your clothes
3. DIAF

Your "fan"
Reality

Posted by: NicM. | May 19, 2009 2:06 PM

I still have some questions about Indigo Children that I'd love to hear more about.

Maybe she could do a show about how 6 months of nursing school teaches you enough to talk down to career doctors, and another about how posing for Playboy gives you valid insights into childhood diseases.

Oh! And she could do a segment at the end of every show with a tribute to a different child that died of a preventable childhood disease due to a lack of local herd immunity as a way to pressure the pharmaceutical companies to start taking her seriously. In the event of major outbreaks and many deaths, she could do a whole tribute show, interview the parents and really get people on her side on this issue.

Posted by: Randy Stimpson | May 19, 2009 2:12 PM

This is going to be the most important comment I will ever make on this blog. It might also be my last one. So you all might want to pay special attention.

PZ's speech:

You are graduates of in institution that has encouraged you to think for yourself. I want you all to continue doing that.

Ok, I will. (After all I graduated with honors from the highly ranked University of Washington. I also managed to earn a masters degree from there just one year later.)

PZ's speech:

And what's more, I want you all to think very loudly, so the rest of us can hear.

Ok. I will. (In fact, I think I will write a blog.)

PZ commented:

Oh, get stuffed, Stimpson. You don't think, period.

PZ's speech:

you may be surprised at how much shock and dismay you can generate with the simple words, "I think you're wrong, and here's why."

I think you're wrong PZ and here's why.

PZ commented:

You're being inane, Stimpson. Want to get banned? Stay out of this thread, or you will be.

[Silence ... hmmm ... PZ was right ... let me think. It's a lot of fun to come to this blog to debate these people. Maybe I should be quiet. But a few days later I remember]

PZ's speech:

Go ahead, be offensive.

PZ, at the risk of being offensive and banned from this blog I would like to ask this question: I would like to know why you exclude me from the people that you encourage to think independently? From my perspective your attitude is seriously hypocritical and bigoted.

Posted by: truthspeaker | May 19, 2009 2:16 PM

Posted by: JBlilie | May 19, 2009 1:44 PM

I haven't watched TV for 22 years ... and counting.

The entire package (including almost all of PBS even), judging from the small amount of exposure I've been subjected to over the last ten years, is too stupid, shallow, spastic, shouted, spun, and contrived (whew, made it off the "S"s) to be tolerated. Insulting rubbish, nearly all of it.

I'm an optimist; but I'm just not willing to shovel all that horse shit to get at the tiny and rare ponies in there ...

If you have a DVD player, go to the video store (or Netflix or equivalent) and rent the following:

• The Wire


• Firefly


• The Shield


• The Sopranos (first season only)

Watch those, and you will have watched everything worth watching on TV in the last 10 years.

(Deadwood is supposed to be good too, but HBO canceled it in the middle.)

Posted by: shamar | May 19, 2009 2:22 PM

I still have some questions about Indigo Children that I'd love to hear more about.

Maybe she could do a show about how 6 months of nursing school teaches you enough to talk down to career doctors, and another about how posing for Playboy gives you valid insights into childhood diseases.

Oh! And she could do a segment at the end of every show with a tribute to a different child that died of a preventable childhood disease due to a lack of local herd immunity as a way to pressure the pharmaceutical companies to start taking her seriously. In the event of major outbreaks and many deaths, she could do a whole tribute show, interview the parents and really get people on her side on this issue.

ha ha ha, so true....

Posted by: Sastra | May 19, 2009 2:29 PM

Matt Heath #26 wrote:

But she just doesn't seem to have any concept of TRUTH. People spout bullshit at her and it doesn't seem to occur to her to ask "Is this true?". She asks "Is this nice?", "Will this make people feel good?" but never "Is this true?"

Spot on. You're not just describing Oprah here; I think you're also describing an awful lot of her viewers, as well as many of the people who are 'into' various forms of happy-clappy spirituality and woo. Heck, you may have even hit one of the main attitudes feeding religion itself -- a reluctance to separate questions of fact, from questions involving morals and meaning.

I recognize a lot of my woo-friends here. They will happily and eagerly embrace two contradictory views, as long as they both involve someone "feeling better about themselves." Asking if something is "true" evidently means asking if it's "true for" someone. And the worst thing you can do is deny someone's 'truth,' and tell them they're wrong. The only reason to do that, is ego. Ego means you're 'judgmental.' And not nice. The concept of reasoned debate horrifies them.

I came to the conclusion recently that many of these well-intentioned, fuzzy-minded people are classic 'bullshitters.' A 'bullshitter' is not a liar: it's someone who advocates something and does not care if it's right, or wrong, true, or false. Instead, they have some other, larger, more important agenda.

In the case of my friends -- and maybe in Oprah's case as well -- the larger agenda is 'being nice.' Helping others. Becoming a better person. Searching after the positive. Feeling good. Being supportive. Advancing your 'spirituality.'

You can't argue with a bullshitter, especially one who's hell-bent on Positive Thinking. You're not going to be on the same page, because you'd be trying to analyse and examine what they're saying as if it means something specific, and they're going to just throw out anything that sounds as if it may, in some way, lead to them ending up being nicer than you.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 19, 2009 2:30 PM

Randy, you make claims here at a science oriented blog, that when questioned or challenged, you can't back up with hard data from the peer reviewed literature, or with physical evidence. So, you are just background noise, that gets irritated that we don't take you seriously. We keep telling you what is necessary to be taken seriously, but you ignore it. So, what is your problem?

Posted by: Spyderkl | May 19, 2009 2:32 PM

Will they go for that? No. Which is unfortunate, because Jenny McCarthy isn't the only one with a talk show who really needs that education. Ahem.

Posted by: Spyderkl | May 19, 2009 2:34 PM

#78: I think you left out Carnivale; HBO canceled that too, sadly.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 19, 2009 2:38 PM

PZ, at the risk of being offensive and banned from this blog I would like to ask this question: I would like to know why you exclude me from the people that you encourage to think independently?

Because the blog behind that "here's" link is regurgitated creationist nonsense that PZ and many others have repeatedly shown to be WRONG, and that brings NOTHING new to the table and does NOTHING to show how PZ, or anyone else for that matter, is wrong about anything?

Or maybe because you repost your spam and nonsense in threads that have NOTHING to do with the topic, such as this one?(except that both you and McCarthy are crackpots on a mission, without any understanding of the term "science" who are blind to real evidence, of course.)

Posted by: catgirl | May 19, 2009 2:40 PM

I still have some questions about Indigo Children that I'd love to hear more about.

The Indigo/Crystal children thing is probably just a case of synesthesia gone horribly wrong. I have synesthesia, but fortunately I know better than to assume the colors I see have any particular meaning.

Posted by: Grant | May 19, 2009 2:41 PM

Here is my input:

Jenny is a popular, funny, and attractive woman and no doubt will make a fine talk show host. However, as a health care professional, I am concerned about the erroneous medical information she is spreading to a large and unknowing public. Her endorsement by Oprah and the exposure she will get will likely have a large negative effect on the health of our children. Her views on vaccination, for example, are totally wrong and is contradicted by the known scientific evidence. Parents are already denying their children the recommended vaccines due to Ms. McCarthy's stance, and more will do so in the future, I fear. An increase in preventable childhood illnesses is on the rise and will continue to rise as parents buy into her fallacious theories. I am saddened that sickness and even deaths of children will be due to Oprah's endorsement of Jenny McCarthy. There will be a body count involved here, and unfortunately, Oprah will be an accomplice to this.

If Ms. McCarthy is allowed to preach her anti-science, then I would suggest that she must give equal time to bona fide medical professionals and scientists who can offer the audience the true science and statistics regarding vaccines and other questionable medical practices. The public deserves no less.

Thank you.

Posted by: Sastra | May 19, 2009 2:45 PM

Randy Stimpson #76 wrote:

This is going to be the most important comment I will ever make on this blog. It might also be my last one. So you all might want to pay special attention.

Since you're specifically addressing points from PZ's speech to the graduates, I'm puzzled about why you're posting this important comment on a thread having to do with Jenny McCarthy, Oprah, and anti-vax woo. Looks like you're not paying attention.

As for your question, it wasn't asked of me -- but I've never had any problem with your comments. That is, I've disagreed with them, and have seen why they may be frustrating, but I haven't felt they went into 'troll' territory. I don't read the whole blog, though. And people differ on where they draw lines. Still, I don't think PZ should ban you.

But I would take this over into one of the 2 posts on the speech -- because it's not wise to derail a thread in order to ask why you've been asked to stifle it, or whatever.

Posted by: AJ Milne | May 19, 2009 2:51 PM

Re Stimpson's ongoing whine, I, for one, would be at least a little amused if PZ ever again has occasion to make that speech, he specifically singles this spamming yutz as the one exception to his directive, sorta a la this bit from the Onion...

'We need to hear from you...

'I mean, except from Stimpson. I mean, fuck, that guy's such a complete waste of time I wouldn't pollute my hamster's cage with a sheet of paper that had merely been lying next to the one he'd scrawled his drivel on. So, to reiterate: thinking is good, but if you're Randy Stimpson, the spamming moron who figures regurgitating creobot distractions counts as such activity, you might as well disregard this directive entirely now and save us all the trouble of scrolling past your BS. Thanks awfully, man...'

Posted by: LauraD | May 19, 2009 2:59 PM

This was my input for Oprah:

I am a mother of a mildly autistic son and wife to a man with a compromised immune system.

I want Jenny to bring in some real scientists and take an objective look at the data. Her position that vaccines cause autism is baseless. It saves no children from autism, but reducing the population vaccination rate costs children's lives and endangers people like my husband.

Posted by: Brock | May 19, 2009 3:06 PM

Here's what I submitted, with my real name and address:

"I would love to see Jenny McCarthy spend 5 minutes silently serving cookies and coffee to the audience, while the rest of the hour is used to televise genuine biology and medical research lectures, briefings from the Center for Disease Control, conferences from expert organizations like the American Medical Association, and discussions among well-published researchers and authors recommended by peer-reviewed magazines like Nature and Science. That would be a most excellent show."

I initially added "in a bikini", but figured that was asking too much ;)

Posted by: Anonymous Lurker | May 19, 2009 3:27 PM

Reverend BDC to RS:
"You think you are better suited to make judgment calls on subjects in which you are vastly undereducated and inexperienced than the people whose work you claim is wrong. And when you try and show that you know better you've been shot down repeatedly."

Good assessment. Sounds familiar though...

Jenny McCarthy = Randy Stimpson

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | May 19, 2009 3:29 PM

It might also be my last one.

empty promises...

Posted by: truthspeaker | May 19, 2009 3:47 PM

Posted by: Sastra | May 19, 2009 2:29 PM

Heck, you may have even hit one of the main attitudes feeding religion itself -- a reluctance to separate questions of fact, from questions involving morals and meaning.

Wow. Very insightful. Please enjoy a virtual internet cigar on me, Sastra.

Posted by: Grendels Dad | May 19, 2009 3:50 PM

“Most important post ever?”

Is Stimpson approaching Kwokian levels of self importance?

Posted by: Sigmund Freud | May 19, 2009 4:04 PM

[Randy @ 76] Since you're specifically addressing points from PZ's speech to the graduates, I'm puzzled about why you're posting this important comment on a thread having to do with Jenny McCarthy, Oprah, and anti-vax woo. Looks like you're not paying attention.

It should be obvious that Randy needs to break a rule here and there. He chose this thread because he wanted to derail the conversation so as to be super offensive. Notice that he also morphed. Not that he was guilty of sock puppetry and trying to hide his identity; he just wanted to break a rule. I mean NoR breaks the rules [Insipidity] all the time and he is an OM. And let’s not forget all the wanking that PZ does. I mean, why was PZ going on about himself during the commencement speech? The more I think about it the more I think that Randy secretly admires PZ and wants to follow in his footsteps. Coming over here as pissing on his blog is kind of like stealing a communion cracker.

Posted by: Gordon S | May 19, 2009 4:20 PM

mine:

I think a lot of the suggestions here are going to be telling the creators of this monstrosity to variously cancel the show or have it actually inform people about how anti-vaxxers are going to herald the comeback of polio and mumps, I think this is asking too much. It is absurd to think that Jenny McCarthy, a vapid narcissist and snake-oil huckster, would ever consent to having actual scientists and public health experts on the same stage as her.

So, I have an alternate suggestion. Let's get Oprah Winfrey and Jenny McCarthy up on the stage, and have them argue about how either the bad attitudes of parents (or the kids themselves) or ethylmercury are the cause of their children's autism. Ms. Winfrey could talk about how Jenny McCarthy, by not embracing life to it's fullest, has angered whatever desert Kabbalah-god is behind The Secret so much that her child was misdiagnosed with an ASD, and Ms. McCarthy can accuse Ms. Winfrey of having a bad aura, probably a result of her shilling for Eli Lilly and other arms of the Big Autism conglomerates.

At the bottom of the screen, a CNN-like newsticker would scroll along the bottom, constantly updating the number of children killed as a result of the comeback of various diseases. For the present time, while herd immunity isn't low enough to yet kill huge numbers of kids, the scroll would be slow, so it could include ages (4 months, say), sex, weight, whatever. If the show is still on in a few years, though, you may need to speed it up, and take out everything but the names and ages. You could contrast this to with the number of people being diagnoses with ASDs. I'm sure the results would be great viewing.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I hope to see some of my more reasonable suggestions in the first show!

Gordon S.

P.S. - I hope you have Jim Carrey on the show! He is funny even when he is attempting to kill and paralyze children!

Posted by: luna1580 | May 19, 2009 4:35 PM

PZ's link seems to have come through this site:

http://faseidl.com/

make sure you actually submit here (just in case):

https://www.oprah.com/plugform.jsp?plugId=1985511&referer=http://www.oprah.com/index

i sent this:

I think that Ms. McCarthy's time would be best spent having a series of highly educated and respected epidemiologists as guests on her show.

These scientists could explain to her and her audience how diseases such as measles spread through populations, and explain exactly how parents choosing not to vaccinate their children will result in many deaths. I have a first cousin who is now 16 and lives with severe, non-verbal autism, I know how his life and his immediate family's lives have been shaped by this challenge, so I understand Ms. McCarthy's desire to prevent autism, but that doesn't excuse her promotion of false and dangerous anti-vaccination fear-mongering. Wanting to understand how her own son became autistic doesn't give Ms McCarthy the right to promote dangerous and unscientific "gut feelings" she has about it.

There is NO LINK between vaccination and autism, and until Ms. McCarthy learns to understand this scientific truth and announces it to her fans, children will DIE from vaccine-preventable illnesses. So, Ms. McCarthy should also do a show about how the only study that ever linked autism to vaccination has been revealed to be fraudulent and composed of falsified data. Please take this into consideration as you plan her subject matter.

Thank you.

Posted by: JBlilie | May 19, 2009 4:48 PM

Sastra@82:

You can't argue with a bullshitter

Indeed. How does one counter the belief in magic? I like the earlier idea that they stage a grand "battle of the woos" and let them rip eachother apart over the fine points of magical woo.

Posted by: Moggie | May 19, 2009 5:12 PM

#82:

I recognize a lot of my woo-friends here. They will happily and eagerly embrace two contradictory views, as long as they both involve someone "feeling better about themselves." Asking if something is "true" evidently means asking if it's "true for" someone. And the worst thing you can do is deny someone's 'truth,' and tell them they're wrong. The only reason to do that, is ego. Ego means you're 'judgmental.' And not nice. The concept of reasoned debate horrifies them.

I came to the conclusion recently that many of these well-intentioned, fuzzy-minded people are classic 'bullshitters.' A 'bullshitter' is not a liar: it's someone who advocates something and does not care if it's right, or wrong, true, or false. Instead, they have some other, larger, more important agenda.

Mmm... close, but this seems inconsistent, to me. You describe two different attitudes to truth.

Your second paragraph fits Harry G. Frankfurt's description of the bullshitter, in his classic work On Bullshit. But I don't think it's quite right for the woosphere. Frankfurt wrote:

This is the crux of the distinction between him and the liar. Both he and the liar represent themselves falsely as endeavoring to communicate the truth. The success of each depends on deceiving us about that. But the fact about himself that the liar hides is that he is attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality; we are not to know that he wants us to believe something that he supposes to be false. The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it. This does not mean that his speech is anarchically impulsive, but that the motive guiding and controlling it is unconcerned with how the things about which he speaks truly are.

This is a good description of a snake-oil salesman. Does the snake-oil work as advertised, objectively speaking? He doesn't care: his enterprise is to sell, not to describe the world as he believes it really is.

But the snake-oil consumers? I think they do, for the most part, care about what is "true" or "correct". It's just that, for them, truth is a value which is anchored in the emotional realm, rather than that of rational enquiry. The primacy of emotion in their way of looking at the world means that assigning truth based on what makes you feel good seems as natural to them as it seems unnatural to us.

Posted by: Ranger_Rick | May 19, 2009 6:02 PM

I want to see her eat boogers again.

Posted by: Logicel | May 19, 2009 6:06 PM

Here's what I sent:

I would like Jenny to stop killing kids. I would like Jenny to learn from her mistake that vaccinations are dangerous and need to be 'greened' up (whatever that means). And I also would like if Ms. Winfrey supported evidential beliefs during her broadcasting. Until then, which will never happen, I will NEVER watch or listen or read anything to do with Harpo Productions.

Posted by: Jeanette | May 19, 2009 6:26 PM

Dream on.

Posted by: Paul Johnson | May 19, 2009 6:34 PM

oh yeah it was that faseidl site

Posted by: davem | May 19, 2009 7:08 PM

I'd like her to explain this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8057508.stm

Posted by: Citizen Z | May 19, 2009 8:10 PM

The form redirects to faseidl because his url is in the link PZ provided. Oprah's form redirects you back to the referrer after you submit.

Am I the only one who would not be worried or upset if Oprah's "Jenny" form actually had been hacked to take people to an anti-McCarthy website?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 19, 2009 9:09 PM

Leander, the world will be a better place when you get over the idea strangers care what you think about--providing you actually think. We have seen otherwise.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly | May 19, 2009 10:12 PM

Randy Stimpson @78...

To put it in terms you would understand:

In terms of intelligent talk, you're beyond redemption.

You have committed the unforgivable sin against the Holy Pharyngula of Intelligence.

Posted by: Traffic Demon | May 19, 2009 10:25 PM

"This is going to be the most important comment I will ever make on this blog."

Set the bar low and sometimes you can't help but reach it.

--BDT
1:4:9

Posted by: BostonRob | May 19, 2009 10:42 PM

My suggestion:
If you insist on giving this dangerous woman her own show, I want her to answer for propagating what is, at best, an unverified and unproven stance of anti-vaccination, and at worst a maliciously ignorant anti-intellectual crusade that has already resulted in the abhorrently unnecessary deaths of children and infants. I would not pose questions in person, as I believe fringe cranks that merely want attention should be ignored -- especially if their deluded viewpoints are actively luring frightened, uninformed parents to their children's destructions -- not praised for their outstanding ignorance.

Posted by: Ranger_Rick | May 19, 2009 11:40 PM

I think I've got it!

For her first show, Jenny McCarthy could interview Orac while snacking on a few low-calorie boogers.

I'd so watch that.

Posted by: Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM | May 20, 2009 12:15 AM

Leander @133 - Just in case no one else has said it - fuck you.

The day PZ kisses McCarthy's stoopid ass is the day I stop reading his blog.

(Now back to catching up reading.)

Posted by: John Morales | May 20, 2009 12:42 AM

Leander @133, your opinion is noted and sneered at.

Seriously, it's fanatics like you [PZ] that need to disappear. It's fanatics like radical Christians, the Taliban, and rabid ideoligists like you, that cast a bad light on the much more calm and reasonable majority of the group they belong to, and thus stand in the way of dialogue.

Get thee hence to Nisbet's blog. It's where you belong.

Posted by: JeffS | May 20, 2009 12:53 AM

Does anyone remember those dunk tanks they sometimes have at fairs and such.

My idea would involve one of those.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | May 20, 2009 1:19 AM

@ 78:

Watch those, and you will have watched everything worth watching on TV in the last 10 years.

Uh...you may want to add these on:
Curb your enthusiasm (the show)
Dexter (Seasons 1-2)
Family Guy
Robot Chicken
Venture Bros.

Posted by: shamar | May 20, 2009 1:51 AM

Uh...you may want to add these on: Curb your enthusiasm (the show) Dexter (Seasons 1-2) Family Guy Robot Chicken Venture Bros.

Yes...all those are much better than the ones he listed, lol :-)

Posted by: Citizen Z | May 20, 2009 7:42 AM

...rabid ideoligists(sic) like you, that cast a bad light on the much more calm and reasonable majority of the group they belong to, and thus stand in the way of dialogue.

Yeah, let's have a nice, mature dialogue:

And when the three medical experts disputed MCCarthy's claims that childhood vaccinations could be responsible for some autism cases on CNN news show Larry King Live, the actress exploded. Banging her hand on King's table, she scolded, "The increase (in immunisation) is ridiculous, you guys... It's plain and simple. It's bulls**t... Too many shots, too soon.

We should have a polite dialogue with a woman who repeatedly claims doctors, as a profession, are either liars or incompetent. Or makes claims that could get children killed. ("You select your vaccines. They [now] put the influenza shot in the vaccine schedules in the first year. Do they need it?" - Don't read that interview unless you want to increase your blood pressure.)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 20, 2009 8:56 AM

@ 78:

Watch those, and you will have watched everything worth watching on TV in the last 10 years.

Uh...you may want to add these on:
Curb your enthusiasm (the show)
Dexter (Seasons 1-2)
Family Guy
Robot Chicken

Venture Bros.

The Wire
Mythbusters
Anthony Bourdain.
there are others

But TV has some nuggets, actually a few of them as long as you avoid the AmericanIdolCSIDancingwiththestars bullshit.

Usually off the 4 major networks.

Posted by: amanda | May 20, 2009 9:42 AM

I typed the following:

Here's what I sent her.

[i]I would like to see Jenny travel to Nigeria or India and volunteer with Unicef in their polio treatment campaigns.
Information here:
http://www.unicef.org/immunization/index_polio.html

and here:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs114/en/index.html

Thank you for helping draw much needed attention to this cause, which directly improves the lives of children
around the world.
[/i]

Posted by: amanda | May 20, 2009 10:01 AM

Oh jeez I REALLY need some coffee this a.m.

Re: the bounce concerns: If you take the referrer part out of Pharyngula's link, you won't get bounced to to that other site after you hit submit.

https://www.oprah.com/plugform.jsp?plugId=1985511

Posted by: Mike Mixer | May 20, 2009 11:51 AM

I would pay good money to see Hitchens tear her apart on her dime.

Posted by: JBlilie | May 20, 2009 12:00 PM

I've never had cable. Don't intend to ever have cable. From what I've seen on relatives' cable, you just go from ~4 channels of garbage (+PBS) to ~100 channels of garbage (+PBS and/or BBC)

The only disadvantage to not having cable I can see is that, for where I live, it makes having cable modem financially impractical and I'm stuck with DSL (which isn't bad and was a 3-order-of-magnitude jump (truly) from dial-up.)

Posted by: SkepticalDeb | May 20, 2009 3:30 PM

Thanks for the post. I made my comment as well, plus added a comment to the Jenny link in the section titled "Spirit". Apparently Jenny has a blog. Here's what Jenny's up to:

Wow. Jim and I are so jet-lagged. We just landed back in the states. I'm so tired that I actually called him Jerry. LOL. He was so tired that he didn't even notice. I had a good time. Jim's movie, A Christmas Carol, looks insane! Robert Zemeckis directed it. I don't get too excited by movies anymore, but this one blew my mind.

I'm glad to be back home. I missed Evan. I missed American food. It was amazing to watch the French eat though. Creams, breads, sorbets, smoking, drinking wine and the women were all skinny and gorgeous. What the hell is that about? I'm hanging in there for no sugar. I hope you are too. The French might be able to get away with eating whatever they want, but at least American girls have bigger boobs. Hahaha.

Posted by: jaywalkker | May 20, 2009 5:15 PM

My suggestions -
Episode 1: host epidemiologists from the CDC telling how they find, isolate, track, prevent, and work with the spread of diseases
Episode 2: host representatives of WHO and how the spread of preventable diseases in developing countries could be arrested but is not due to paranoid, uninformed opinions
Episode 3: host Eugenie Scott of the NCSE and working scientists to educate on the Scientific Method, what it is, how it works, how it is applied in daily life and formal research, and how it ensures accuracy.
Episode 4: host anyone from the NIH to explain the concept of "Herd Immunity" and why it is vital for the young, old, or those with weakened immune systems.
Episode 5: host debate between PR rep(s) from a pharmaceutical company and any spokes person from Generation Rescue
Episode 6: host survivors of measles, mumps, and rubella to tell what having the disease was/is like and how it (may) have affected they're life in an ongoing manner.

Posted by: stafford gordon | May 20, 2009 6:15 PM

I'm new to this site; it's UK late, but I'm in.

Posted by: BigDuck | May 21, 2009 2:05 AM

I sent this:

"Both my parents lost siblings to whooping cough. My mother carried the memory of her sister's last breath for 80 years. She wanted to pull the tiny white coffin back out of the ground and let her sister out.

Vaccinations have protected us from this and many other horrible diseases. They even protect those too young for vaccination by keeping the older kids around them from getting sick and infecting them.

I think that Ms. McCarthy should go and interview the parents of babies who have died after being infected by un-vaccinated children around them."

Posted by: Monado | May 21, 2009 3:02 AM

One striking impression I get of anti-vaccine commenters is that they're even more rabid than creationists.