talkmagic.co.uk

I'd argue that Derren Brown's link with science doesn't really have much to with psychology as DaveM suggested. Rather, I think that his link with the science community stems from the 'scientific approach' that Derren advocates in his books and shows. In exposing psychics, for example, Derren looks for the evidence which supports the claims psychics make in order to assess whether the skills are genuine. It's the same approach he uses in discussing religion, superstitions, etc. This is the same approach that scientists use to find out whether things work (at least I hope it is!). Essentially, then, I think the science community probably think that encouraging people to keep questioning how and why things work is a positive thing. While Derren is undoubtedly a very clever person, he is an illusionist so you wouldn't think he would have any scientific credibility in an academic sense.

Every so often the scientific community "adopts" celebrities who have a keen interest in science and/or scientific method. Douglas Adams is a good example of another ambassador for rational thinking who has no scientific education per sè just a keen interest in the field!

Grimshaw wrote:

DrTodd wrote:Derren is not a scientific expert, just one who has joined forces with Richard Dawkins and a adds celebrity endorsement to the science community.

Does the scientific community need celebrity endorsement?

The natural sciences, like many other disciplines, suffer from public image problems. I should know, my discpline is political science (some wonder what is scientific about politics ), so a bit of glamour can popularise the subject.

History has taken off with people like Simon Schama and Niall Ferguson (who are actually historians) and Dawkins has brought with him an explosion of interest in science.

DrTodd wrote:The natural sciences, like many other disciplines, suffer from public image problems. I should know, my discpline is political science (some wonder what is scientific about politics ), so a bit of glamour can popularise the subject.

History has taken off with people like Simon Schama and Niall Ferguson (who are actually historians) and Dawkins has brought with him an explosion of interest in science.

But I'd argue that Derren has done damage to the image of Psychology, with people believing you can actually use it to read minds. The public then get the wrong idea regarding science and specific disciplines therein. I like the idea that some see science as boring, its their loss if black words on white paper isn't enough, I don't see why it should need celebrity sparkle. Is it not interesting enough as it is?

Of course this conversation could go round in circles. I do see what you're all saying, its just another aspect of this fascination with celebrity we have that really annoys me. They've been given an authority over something they're not qualified to for no other reason than.....they're famous.

Grimshaw wrote:

DrTodd wrote:The natural sciences, like many other disciplines, suffer from public image problems. I should know, my discpline is political science (some wonder what is scientific about politics ), so a bit of glamour can popularise the subject.

History has taken off with people like Simon Schama and Niall Ferguson (who are actually historians) and Dawkins has brought with him an explosion of interest in science.

But I'd argue that Derren has done damage to the image of Psychology, with people believing you can actually use it to read minds. The public then get the wrong idea regarding science and specific disciplines therein. I like the idea that some see science as boring, its their loss if black words on white paper isn't enough, I don't see why it should need celebrity sparkle. Is it not interesting enough as it is?

Of course this conversation could go round in circles. I do see what you're all saying, its just another aspect of this fascination with celebrity we have that really annoys me. They've been given an authority over something they're not qualified to for no other reason than.....they're famous.

As every academic will tell you, a bit of sparkle will help the views on your research and, consequently, funding...

Grimshaw, I don't agree about damage to psychology- people seemed to believe that psychologists and psychiatrists could almost read minds even before Derren used the psychology/NLP patter. Speaking as a psychiatrist it just makes me smile.
I believe that if the tendency to believe/want to believe that psychology explains what is done in mentalism wasn't there already it would not have been so successful (citation needed )

Grimshaw wrote:

DrTodd wrote:The natural sciences, like many other disciplines, suffer from public image problems. I should know, my discpline is political science (some wonder what is scientific about politics ), so a bit of glamour can popularise the subject.

History has taken off with people like Simon Schama and Niall Ferguson (who are actually historians) and Dawkins has brought with him an explosion of interest in science.

But I'd argue that Derren has done damage to the image of Psychology, with people believing you can actually use it to read minds. The public then get the wrong idea regarding science and specific disciplines therein. I like the idea that some see science as boring, its their loss if black words on white paper isn't enough, I don't see why it should need celebrity sparkle. Is it not interesting enough as it is?

Of course this conversation could go round in circles. I do see what you're all saying, its just another aspect of this fascination with celebrity we have that really annoys me. They've been given an authority over something they're not qualified to for no other reason than.....they're famous.

I have to disagree with the point you make about it being 'their loss if black words on white paper isn't enough'. Some people struggle with learning through traditional methods such as reading books, so I think that anything which makes a subject more interesting for people is a great thing. And I think the same goes for anything that popularises things like education and gives people a renewed interest in it, whether celebrity endorsed or not.

soveda wrote:Grimshaw, I don't agree about damage to psychology- people seemed to believe that psychologists and psychiatrists could almost read minds even before Derren used the psychology/NLP patter. Speaking as a psychiatrist it just makes me smile.
I believe that if the tendency to believe/want to believe that psychology explains what is done in mentalism wasn't there already it would not have been so successful (citation needed )

That's interesting, I always believed that people thought the same as the character of Gareth Keenan in The Office, who, when faced with the idea of Tim becoming a psychologist said "They're all mad themselves."

I agree that for some the fascination lies in the application of supposed psychological principles, but Derren admits himself that he has backed away from that yet he still finds himself popular, and I think people leap to that conclusion anyway. I don't believe mentalists need force it.

cc100 wrote:

Grimshaw wrote:I have to disagree with the point you make about it being 'their loss if black words on white paper isn't enough'. Some people struggle with learning through traditional methods such as reading books, so I think that anything which makes a subject more interesting for people is a great thing. And I think the same goes for anything that popularises things like education and gives people a renewed interest in it, whether celebrity endorsed or not.

If it makes a subject more interesting for people, it is a great thing, but psychology doesn't allow you to read minds. It may try and explain behaviour, but it can't tell you what card someone is thinking of or the serial number on a £20 note in their wallet. Therefore the image of the discipline Derren is projecting is erroneous, and yet he is welcomed into the scientific community.

I'm in this month's Playgirl. (it's in the centre pages)

Lord Freddie wrote:I'm in this month's Playgirl. (it's in the centre pages)

Putting your King of Keighley flyers in without permission doesn't count.

Lord Freddie wrote:I'm in this month's Playgirl. (it's in the centre pages)

Make sure the staple isn't in a painful place.....