Skeptic's Circle

I realize Penn & Teller's extreme libertarianism may rub some (including me) the wrong way. Perhaps you should bring this issue up at the next Skeptics' Circle.

You should at least give me credit for not mentioning Steve Milloy. ;-)

Penn is a "research" fellow at Cato. Do you need to know any more than that?
[url=http://www.cato.org/people/jillette.html]link[/url]

Come on now, again with the evolution...

Thanks for the link to my critique of Penn & Teller's TV show. A couple of points before I go silent again.

First, no one I know objects to P&T because they are extreme libertarians. I certainly don't, tho I admit to no great love for libertarians. The problem is the disservice they do to the skeptic movement by engaging in tactics that would make a creationist proud. The fact is that when Penn & Teller don't like the science, they mock it. The show they did on "Environmental Hysteria" is a classic example. They don't take on the environmental movement by attacking the science, but by trying to link it to well meaning but misinformed people. They make the whole thing seem so silly. Yet the science behind global warming and the current mass extinction is anything but silly.

One of the most notable lacks on the show so far are scientist that work in the field. Instead they would rather depend on fellow Cato "scholars", right-wing disc jockeys, and political scientist (which last time I checked, are really no scientist at all). Take a moment to wonder why...

AFAIK both Penn and Teller are "research" fellows at Cato, bringing a whole new meaning to the term "research".

One last thing. Let no one mistake my admiration of Penn & Teller. As a fellow magician I appreciate the skill and talent they exhibit practicing our craft. However, I am one that believe that "skeptics" should be honest as the day is long. What separates us from the pseudoscience fan and the religious nut is a willingness to view the world as it really is. Not how we like it to be. Unfortunately, Penn & Teller view the world through libertarian glasses that do nothing but distort. A sorry position for a skeptic.

The science might not be silly, but a significant portion of the followers are, and they certainly taint the discussion.

What's this current mass extinction you speak of, and why is it bad?

You will have to explain how followers (whatever that is) effect what is a scientific discussion. Science, last time I checked, did not care if you are a fan or not.

According to "Evolution: The Current Mass Extinction":

The background level of extinction known from the fossil record is about one species per million species per year, or between 10 and 100 species per year (counting all organisms such as insects, bacteria, and fungi, not just the large vertebrates we are most familiar with).

[...]

The typical rate of extinction differs for different groups of organisms. Mammals, for instance, have an average species "life span" from origination to extinction of about 1 million years, although some species persist for as long as 10 million years. There are about 5,000 known mammalian species alive at present. Given the average species life span for mammals, the background extinction rate for this group would be approximately one species lost every 200 years. Of course, this is an average rate -- the actual pattern of mammalian extinction is likely to be somewhat uneven. Some centuries might see more than one mammalian extinction, and conversely, sometimes several centuries might pass without the loss of any mammal species. Yet the past 400 years have seen 89 mammalian extinction, almost 45 times the predicted rate, and another 169 mammal species are listed as critically endangered.

Yes, I was pretty disappointed with some of their episodes (the environment one, recycling, smoking) too but tend to put it in the 'deliberately polemic' category and let it slide. Skeptics shouldn't be put off viewing most of the other Bullshit! episodes where they demolish stuff like remote viewing, magnetic therapy, reflexology, alien abduction, creationism, near death experiences etc etc. They are very well done and really hilarious.

by discussion, I was referring to the general discussion, not just within the scientific community, since the vast majority of people do not belong to the group of scientists. The ordinary person's perceptions end up making the difference since the politicians want to get elected, and the ordinary people do most of the electing.

Why is this so-called mass extinction bad?

OK, I'll have to agree with some of this. The bottom line is that I really like Penn and Teller when they're debunking standard paranormal fare. I like their "in-your-face" methodology. They're exceedingly entertaining. However, I have to agree with some of the comments above that they tend to stray from pure skepticism when venturing into very politically-charged topics. As Amanda says, I think they try a little too hard to be contrarian in their polemics. Nonetheless there is no doubt that they are among the most effective popularizers of skepticism; they are unmatched in their ability to debunk paranormal phenomena in an entertaining by simply replicating them and showing that they do not necessarily have to have a "supernatural" explanation--hence my mention of them in the Skeptics' Circle. Despite their tendency to stray when their libertarianism overshadows their formidable skeptical skills, they are still heavy hitters among popularizers of skeptical thinking.

I'm half tempted to slightly alter the end of the Skeptics' Circle to include Tim's piece. (Of course, it may be unnecessary, given that he already included it in the comments of the Skeptics' Circle...)

Yes, I was pretty disappointed with some of their episodes (the environment one, recycling, smoking) too but tend to put it in the 'deliberately polemic' category and let it slide. Skeptics shouldn't be put off viewing most of the other Bullshit! episodes where they demolish stuff like remote viewing, magnetic therapy, reflexology, alien abduction, creationism, near death experiences etc etc. They are very well done and really hilarious.

I liked their standard debunking stuff too, but the fact that their tactics can and do easily lead to misinformation should make us question whether those tactics in general are fair, even when we agree with their conclusions.

"Kenner" (Michael Crichton) is also wrong that the number of malaria deaths was reduced to 50,000 per year. The actual number was more than ten times this.

I am not sure that skepticism is compatable with extreme views. Extreme views tend to cloud people's thinking. What do the rest of you think?

Orac, I have to say I am a bit surprised. Yes when Penn & Teller deal with the paranormal their work is outstanding, but so what? How does that excuse the fact that they are spreading misinformation about science in an attempt to validate their political beliefs? If we recommend the show, are we not recommending a program we know will mislead? Is that really a position we want skeptics to take?

This seems to me to be classic "the ends justify the means". Since they popularize skeptical thought, we should overlook the fact that they spread misinformation.

I thought one of the things we skeptics do is boost science. Why do we dispute the reality of Loch Ness? Ghosts? UFOs? ESP? I thought it was because the evidence was not in. And the only way to get that evidence, at least, in a way that would satisfy a skeptic, was scientifically. How can I possibly trust a skeptic that mocks science?

Here is another excellent critique of P&T's show.

Ben. Scientists believe some of the most important effects of this dramatic species loss are:

Serious impairment of the environment's ability to recover from natural and human-induced disasters.

Destruction of the natural systems that purify the world's air and water.

Reduction of the potential for the discovery of new medicines.

Increased flooding, drought, and other environmental disasters.

Substantial contribution to the degradation of the world's economies, thereby weakening the social and political stability of nations across the globe.

At least according to American Museum of Natural History.

so exactly which of the species that went extinct this century were critical to any of the things in your list, Dominion?

Ben asks, "Why is a mass extinction necessarily a bad thing?". Its exactly this kind of question which tells me that scientists such as myself (I am a population ecologist) are not doing a good enough reaching out to people like Ben. I have written about this topic for a number of years (see Quark Soup) and given lectures on the subject to audiences in different countries, but still many people ask, "Does biodiversity matter?" Many people in society sadly don't understand the unassailable link between human health, civilization and the natural world, we tend to dispense with the latter except when it comes to vague notions like aethetic values and the use of natural products (renewable and non renewable) for human consumption. The value of nature stops cold there for most people. Before I go on, I suggest that Ben, and anyone with similar feelings as is, read the following article, which clearly explains the importance of nature to humanity:

http://www.chem.brown.edu/chem12/readings/atlantic/Ehrlich/Ehrlich.html

In particular, I highlight a quote from misconception No. 2 (in the above article), which explains exactly why the arguments of Lomborg and others with little basic understanding of environmental science are clueless.

"Few environmental scientists would dispute the importance of aesthetic and moral arguments in defense of biodiversity -- the plants, animals, and microorganisms with which we share the earth. But few indeed would assert that these are the "best" arguments, in light of the materialistic, growth-oriented philosophy that now dominates the planet.

The idea that technology can fully substitute for natural life-support systems recently underwent a damning test in the first Biosphere 2 "mission." Eight people moved into a 3.15-acre closed ecosystem, intending to stay for two years. The $200-million-plus habitat featured agricultural land, "wetlands," "rain forest," "desert," "savanna," and even a mini-ocean with coral reefs. A sample of biodiversity thought adequate to keep the system functioning was included, and the system was designed to supply the "biospherians" with all basic material needs and more. But comfort was short-lived, and the experiment ended early in failure: atmospheric oxygen concentration had dropped to 14 percent (a level typical of elevations of 17,500 feet); carbon dioxide spiked erratically; nitrous-oxide concentrations rose to levels that can impair brain function; nineteen of twenty-five vertebrate species went extinct; all pollinators went extinct, thereby dooming to eventual extinction most of the plant species; aggressive vines and algal mats overgrew other vegetation and polluted the water; crazy ants, cockroaches, and katydids ran rampant. Not even heroic efforts on the part of the system's desperate inhabitants could suffice to make the system viable.

What went wrong? Evidently more was involved than aesthetic or moral arguments for having the right components of nature in the closed system of Biosphere 2. This is also true in the closed system of the earth as a whole. The biospherians learned a basic lesson the hard way: humanity derives a wide array of crucial economic and life-support benefits from biodiversity and the natural ecosystems in which it exists. Many of these benefits are captured in the term "ecosystem services," which refers to the wide range of conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that are a part of them, sustain and fulfill human life. These services yield ecosystem goods, such as seafood, wild game, forage, timber, biomass fuels, and natural fibers. They also underpin agricultural productivity, the pharmaceutical industry (nine of the top ten pharmaceuticals in the United States are derived from natural sources), and many other aspects of industrial production.

Natural ecosystems perform critical life-support services that make consumption possible and upon which the prosperity of all societies depends. These include the purification of air and water; the mitigation of droughts and floods; the generation and preservation of soils and renewal of their fertility; the detoxification and decomposition of wastes; the pollination of crops and natural vegetation; control of the vast majority of potential agricultural pests; and partial control of climate. This array of services is generated by a complex interplay of natural cycles powered by solar energy and operating across a wide range of space and time scales.

These services operate on such a grand scale, and in such intricate and little-explored ways, that most of them could not be replaced by technology -- even if no expense were spared, as Biosphere 2 showed. Ecosystem services are worth trillions of dollars annually, but since they are not traded in economic markets, they do not carry prices. If they did, changes in those prices might serve to alert society to reductions in their supply or to deterioration of the underlying ecological systems that generate them. Moreover, humanity came into being after the underlying systems had been in operation for hundreds of millions to billions of years. Thus it is easy to take ecosystem services for granted and hard to imagine their disruption beyond repair. No one knows precisely which, or approximately how many, species are required to sustain human life; but to say that "there is no credible argument ... that ... all or even most of the species we are concerned to protect are essential to the functioning of the ecological systems on which we depend" is dangerously absurd. Until science can say which species are essential in the long term, we exterminate any at our peril".

The point here, for Ben and others asking this question, is that humans aren't exempt from the laws of nature. Over thousands of years, since our species developed agriculture, we have become more and more insulated from our actual dependence on the natural world. The ecologist Simon Levin said in his book, "Fragile Dominion", which I reviewed for Nature in 2000, that "Natural systems provide the conditions making it possible for humans to exist and persist... they do not maintain those conditions exclusively for Homo sapiens.. rather, Homo sapiens exists because these conditions PERMIT (my emphasis) it to do so".

"How can we trust a skeptic that mocks science?"

The question is not whether science should ever be "mocked," but what constitutes bad science worthy of mockery, as opposed to good science. You seem to have no problem watching Penn & Teller use similar techniques to mock "bad" science or pseudoscience (like creationism) but do not approve when they mock what you and most other scientists consider to be "good science," which, unfortunately, they sometimes do. I can understand that. However, my point is that everything is fair game for skepticism, including Penn & Teller themselves. Good science will withstand any mockery Penn & Teller can thow at it, and if they keep it up too much, pretty soon they will find themselves marginalized as far as scientists go.

I do agree that Penn & Teller's greatest flaw is that they occasionally let their libertarian tendencies lead them into falling prey to credulousness when it comes to politically charged issues, like the environment or second-hand smoke. I have not seen the specific episodes of Bullsh!t that you mention, mainly because I had been getting Showtime only by mistake from the cable company and the cable company finally realized it (after a year and a half). I didn't think the package that included Showtime was worth the cost. Consequently, I haven't seen most of the second season episodes, and I specifically haven't seen the episodes on second hand smoke or environmentalism. Perhaps I will rent them sometime. My take on their show comes mainly from the tried-and-true, the episodes on creationism, hypnotism, etc.

In any case, I tend to look at their work in its totality over two decades, rather than focus on the relatively few examples when they've let their libertarian tendencies cloud their skeptical judgment. I do not think the "ends justify the means," or that we should forgive Penn & Teller their excesses. (Certainly, when they go overboard, they are just as worthy of criticism as any creationist.) However, on the whole, I still think they probably do more good than harm to skepticism (although, thanks to the very excesses you mention, the balance is no longer as overwhelmingly in their favor as it once was). My assessment could change in the future, however, depending on what they do from now on.

Some more notes on the show and more general criticisms.

The fundamental point is this: the entire tenor and organization of the show is not about discovering the truth about some issue, but instead about marshaling facts to support a pre-determined agenda (namely that the topic under discussion is "bullshit!"). Nothing can ever come out the other way. How is that skepticism?

I'm curious Orac. Why do you oppose pseudoscience?

I'm a libertarian, though I dislike P&T's use of pseudoscience to back up libertarian ideas (libertarianism has a lot going for it without needing to resort to pseudoscience). One thing they do kind of say in the first show is "Don't listen to what P&T have to say... with a bit of thinking you can work things out for yourself".

Agreed with the potentially baleful influence of P/T on secondhand smoke. I have seen others besides them tout DDT, though, so that *may be* a more open issue. (I'd still be leery of it.)

And, yes, Penn being listed as a "research fellow" by Cato is ridiculous on the following grounds:
1. If he really wanted to promote sound science, he'd recognize that a title such as "research fellow" ought to be reserved for a working scientist, whether Cato or somebody else is bestowing the title.
2. Cato is the group bestowing the title.

I e-mailed Bob Carroll at Skeptic's Dictionary about this six weeks ago, after one of his updates. He ran my e-mail in his next e-mail, then distanced himself further in his next e-mail after that.

Finally, encouraging P/T can also encourage even worse, such as John Stossel.

In fact, Bob was kind enough to link to my articles on P&T in his newsletter here and here

Bullshit is best when there are no politics involved (and most of the episodes fall into the non-political arena). So, as some here have said, I don't feel that writing off the entire endeavor is necessarily warranted. Of course, when politics do into enter the episodes, the somewhat insane Libertarian (big L) tenets can taint the message badly. (If you don't know how screwy the Libertarian Party Platform is, you can see my own revelation on this subject in a recent post on my group's site.)

Aaron said:

The fundamental point is this: the entire tenor and organization of the show is not about discovering the truth about some issue, but instead about marshaling facts to support a pre-determined agenda (namely that the topic under discussion is "bullshit!"). Nothing can ever come out the other way. How is that skepticism?

I don't think that's a fair statement. What you're seeing isn't the research that was done to come to the conclusion that, say, refloxology is bogus, but rather the end presentation showing the outcome of the research. If I come across a topic I want to investigate, I do the leg work, understand the data, formulate an opinion, then present my opinion and the supporting facts when I make my case. Just because the end presentation has a pre-determined outcome it doesn't follow that the research did as well. Of course, there's no guarantee that the research was done fairly either...

I enjoyed the skeptical look at P&T, though. It's an important reminder to keep our guards up at all times.

The early P&T episodes were good, because they took on the softest targets. When they turned to more nuanced issues, they became purveyors of bullshit themselves. Eg., reducing the entire issue of non-smoking legislation to questions about a single study of second hand smoke? That's bullshit. There are relevant legal precedents of a shape that even a libertarian ought to accept -- noise bylaws, for example. Even if one thought that my fundamental right is the right to property, that seems sufficient to explain why the neighbour's kid can't blast music onto my property at 3 AM. I don't have to show that his music will give me cancer, only that a reasonable person can regard it as a pain in the ass. Mutatis mutandis for second hand smoke.

Bullshit of most sorts proceeds from oversimplification, and that's the distilled method of P&T's show.

Bullshit's website isn't blocked to hide the truth from you. Showtime (the US network on which it airs) blocked all non-US IPs years before Bullshit! was even created. I believe it was in 99 or so, I can specificially remember that it was in 2002. If you were going for a joke, it was a very lame one.