I’m genuinely surprised by this suggestion. I used to be an avid viewer of the Daily Show because I did find it funny and a better way to keep vaguely abreast of the news than watching actual news but I’ve largely stopped watching now primarily because of Jon Stewart’s inability to be rational about most of the topics he discusses. I actually think Colbert has a much better grasp of science and seems a clearer thinker behind the persona.
Colbert has some very nasty things to say against cryonics, and to people who don’t celebrate Christmas.
Jon presents a much better picture of his actual stances when he’s not on the Daily Show. His latest appearance on the O’Reilly Factor particularly impressed me.
When he’s on his own show, it’s much more about being funny and exposing hypocrisy. I thought this community liked debunkers; I guess, with the topics being primarily political in nature and with the short time format making it prohibitive of expressing complex thoughts, it’s easy to dismiss.
Colbert has some very nasty things to say against cryonics, and to people who don’t celebrate Christmas.
He is certainly satirizing those who criticize people who don’t celebrate Christmas. It is at least possible (though much less likely) that he is also mocking those who criticize cryonics.
I wasn’t referring to his ‘war on Christmas’ segments, but to his Christmas special. I don’t have access to the lyrics, as I’m on my work connection at the moment and it’s blocking everything, but I seem to recall him saying in the final song, “If you believe in nothing, then you’re just a sorry nothing, And if you think I’m just being funny, then you’ve got another think coming,” or something to that effect.
He also interviewed Larry Johnson on the show, and since then has been mocking the cryonics movement because of the lies perpetrated by Mr. Johnson.
It was “Some folks believe in nothing / But if you believe in nothing /Then what’s to keep the nothing from coming for you”, which seems pretty obviously sarcastic to me.
I think there was something more on the version I saw after that segment. I no longer have access to it, and I’m not willing to expend more effort to prove a point I don’t consider particularly interesting.
Suffice to say that Colbert is a strong theist; I don’t think that’s controversial.
Suffice to say that Colbert is a strong theist; I don’t think that’s controversial.
His character is a strong theist. It is less clear what his real views are. I believe he is a practicing Catholic but I get the impression his actual views on religion are rather more nuanced than those his character presents.
No, he is a strong theist. I like him a lot (although I’m not a liberal, like his fans usually are) but he is a very religious man, even in his out of character interviews. He also seemed to be trying to sincerely argue against Dawkins during part of his second interview with him.
Colbert has some very nasty things to say against cryonics, and to people who don’t celebrate Christmas.
I don’t recall seeing his comments on these particular topics but it can be hard to tell when you are seeing the character Stephen Colbert speaking and when you are getting a glimpse of his actual opinions. Generally if he is explicitly attacking something it is the character speaking.
I’m not holding him up as a pillar of rationality anyway, just saying he seems more rational than Stewart (which is no great achievement in my opinion). I also get the impression that he has more scientists on his show and his questions reveal a greater understanding than Stewart’s even when they are explicitly critical. This may say more about his writers than it does about him personally but his guest selection at least suggests to me that he has more of a genuine interest in science than Stewart.
I think it is true that there is a tension between being funny and giving the audience what they want to hear and actually exploring complex ideas. I don’t think either program is immune from that. I should also say that I think Stewart actually does a better job than most ‘real’ news shows in the US so judged against the spectacularly low bar of mainstream TV broadcast journalism in the US he can actually look quite rational.
You apparently don’t see the rationality that I do. Maybe I watch more often, or maybe I’m applying Thomas’s suggestion more than you.
I am curious as to your current motive. Are you attempting to say that Jon Stewart should not be a hero? That he should not be associated with rationality at all? That you don’t like the Daily Show? That people in “the media” aren’t and can’t be rational? Or that I’m plain wrong that Jon Stewart can be a representative of the search for truth, fact, and understanding?
That wasn’t the reason for posting. Not my downvote by the way in case you assumed it was.
You apparently don’t see the rationality that I do. Maybe I watch more often, or maybe I’m applying Thomas’s suggestion more than you.
I used to watch every episode. I stopped watching because it got to the point where the irritation I felt at the fuzzy thinking, irrationality and bias began to outweigh the entertainment I got from the comedy and the sometimes interesting interviewees. I only watch the Daily Show very occasionally these days and the Colbert report slightly more often.
I am curious as to your current motive.
Really it was expressing surprise at the big difference of opinion and perhaps looking to understand it. I stopped watching the Daily Show largely because Jon Stewart’s particular brand of irrationality was more than cancelling out any enjoyment I was getting from the show. To see him suggested as a ‘hero’ of rationality was thus surprising. When I see a dramatic difference of opinion I generally like to try and understand what’s behind it and figure out if I should be updating.
I’ve always been puzzled by the idea of personal heroes so it is possible that my inability to grasp the concept of a hero is part of the problem here.
I’ve always been puzzled by the idea of personal heroes so it is possible that my inability to grasp the concept of a hero is part of the problem here.
I’ve noticed that, even if it may be a worthwhile endeavor, it doesn’t help so much when you present the names to other people. Every time I’ve done so, I’ve been challenged by similar disagreements, and it becomes difficult for me to express why I consider them to be useful role models.
My suggestion to you is not to update. If I could take the whole thread back, I would. Consider me updated to ‘personal heroes should remain personal,’ and ‘this post is not a call for personal heroes, but for easily remarked upon examples of rationality in the real world.’
(Offhand observation) That he is your hero would be hard for someone to refute given that it is a property of your mind. The “rationalist” criteria on the other hand is something that gives grounds for your claim to be rejected or affirmed objectively. (For my part I’ve never heard of either of them.)
I’m genuinely surprised by this suggestion. I used to be an avid viewer of the Daily Show because I did find it funny and a better way to keep vaguely abreast of the news than watching actual news but I’ve largely stopped watching now primarily because of Jon Stewart’s inability to be rational about most of the topics he discusses. I actually think Colbert has a much better grasp of science and seems a clearer thinker behind the persona.
Colbert has some very nasty things to say against cryonics, and to people who don’t celebrate Christmas.
Jon presents a much better picture of his actual stances when he’s not on the Daily Show. His latest appearance on the O’Reilly Factor particularly impressed me.
When he’s on his own show, it’s much more about being funny and exposing hypocrisy. I thought this community liked debunkers; I guess, with the topics being primarily political in nature and with the short time format making it prohibitive of expressing complex thoughts, it’s easy to dismiss.
He is certainly satirizing those who criticize people who don’t celebrate Christmas. It is at least possible (though much less likely) that he is also mocking those who criticize cryonics.
I wasn’t referring to his ‘war on Christmas’ segments, but to his Christmas special. I don’t have access to the lyrics, as I’m on my work connection at the moment and it’s blocking everything, but I seem to recall him saying in the final song, “If you believe in nothing, then you’re just a sorry nothing, And if you think I’m just being funny, then you’ve got another think coming,” or something to that effect.
He also interviewed Larry Johnson on the show, and since then has been mocking the cryonics movement because of the lies perpetrated by Mr. Johnson.
It was “Some folks believe in nothing / But if you believe in nothing /Then what’s to keep the nothing from coming for you”, which seems pretty obviously sarcastic to me.
I think there was something more on the version I saw after that segment. I no longer have access to it, and I’m not willing to expend more effort to prove a point I don’t consider particularly interesting.
Suffice to say that Colbert is a strong theist; I don’t think that’s controversial.
His character is a strong theist. It is less clear what his real views are. I believe he is a practicing Catholic but I get the impression his actual views on religion are rather more nuanced than those his character presents.
No, he is a strong theist. I like him a lot (although I’m not a liberal, like his fans usually are) but he is a very religious man, even in his out of character interviews. He also seemed to be trying to sincerely argue against Dawkins during part of his second interview with him.
I can believe Colbert is a Penn&Teller-esque anti-cryonics type, but his Christmas special was definitely tongue in cheek.
I don’t recall seeing his comments on these particular topics but it can be hard to tell when you are seeing the character Stephen Colbert speaking and when you are getting a glimpse of his actual opinions. Generally if he is explicitly attacking something it is the character speaking.
I’m not holding him up as a pillar of rationality anyway, just saying he seems more rational than Stewart (which is no great achievement in my opinion). I also get the impression that he has more scientists on his show and his questions reveal a greater understanding than Stewart’s even when they are explicitly critical. This may say more about his writers than it does about him personally but his guest selection at least suggests to me that he has more of a genuine interest in science than Stewart.
I think it is true that there is a tension between being funny and giving the audience what they want to hear and actually exploring complex ideas. I don’t think either program is immune from that. I should also say that I think Stewart actually does a better job than most ‘real’ news shows in the US so judged against the spectacularly low bar of mainstream TV broadcast journalism in the US he can actually look quite rational.
He doesn’t have to be your hero.
You apparently don’t see the rationality that I do. Maybe I watch more often, or maybe I’m applying Thomas’s suggestion more than you.
I am curious as to your current motive. Are you attempting to say that Jon Stewart should not be a hero? That he should not be associated with rationality at all? That you don’t like the Daily Show? That people in “the media” aren’t and can’t be rational? Or that I’m plain wrong that Jon Stewart can be a representative of the search for truth, fact, and understanding?
That wasn’t the reason for posting. Not my downvote by the way in case you assumed it was.
I used to watch every episode. I stopped watching because it got to the point where the irritation I felt at the fuzzy thinking, irrationality and bias began to outweigh the entertainment I got from the comedy and the sometimes interesting interviewees. I only watch the Daily Show very occasionally these days and the Colbert report slightly more often.
Really it was expressing surprise at the big difference of opinion and perhaps looking to understand it. I stopped watching the Daily Show largely because Jon Stewart’s particular brand of irrationality was more than cancelling out any enjoyment I was getting from the show. To see him suggested as a ‘hero’ of rationality was thus surprising. When I see a dramatic difference of opinion I generally like to try and understand what’s behind it and figure out if I should be updating.
I’ve always been puzzled by the idea of personal heroes so it is possible that my inability to grasp the concept of a hero is part of the problem here.
I’ve noticed that, even if it may be a worthwhile endeavor, it doesn’t help so much when you present the names to other people. Every time I’ve done so, I’ve been challenged by similar disagreements, and it becomes difficult for me to express why I consider them to be useful role models.
My suggestion to you is not to update. If I could take the whole thread back, I would. Consider me updated to ‘personal heroes should remain personal,’ and ‘this post is not a call for personal heroes, but for easily remarked upon examples of rationality in the real world.’
(Offhand observation) That he is your hero would be hard for someone to refute given that it is a property of your mind. The “rationalist” criteria on the other hand is something that gives grounds for your claim to be rejected or affirmed objectively. (For my part I’ve never heard of either of them.)