Talk:Is It Real?

Is It Real Bias

I re-added and adjusted a bit the part of the show's presentation about the series being criticized for bias towards the skeptic's view. The source I used seems valid and extremely fair in regards to the presentation of the evidence for both sides of the view, without saying one side is right over the other. The article in question presented very solid evidence and gave sources for many scientific inconsistencies and even blatant skewing of data and selectively using certain evidence. Read the article, especially concerning the Psychic Pets episode and the comments of the British Office of Communications. Frankly, this has intrigued me to seek the possibility of a Bias or Criticism section. However, this is sufficient for now until valid sources can be gathered and verified. If you have any questions or comments concerning this, address them here and sign your name with four tildes. Random reverting without discussion or explanation will not be tolerated and I will revert it right back. The great kawa 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

For anybody who has wasted chunks of their lives watching the show, they can attest that the "facts" presented are entirely dubious. Is It Real and shows like it use the format of presenting "both sides to an argument," that are completely unrepresentative of either scientific of public opinion -- often preceded by some qualifyer or dignifyer like, "But this scientist disagrees, believing that The Loch-Ness Monster does exist..." The program will then feature one scientist who does not believe in the Loch-Ness Monster and one who does, giving the misrepresentation that the scientific community is roughly split 50/50 on the particular issue, which it simply isn't.

Every episode follows this formulaic, disingenous approach, and it is remarkably effective at tricking idiots like Kingsley to believe it. Mike Murray 21:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the words "ignoring logic". The scientific point of view is based upon logic.