| |
The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe - Podcast 195 - 4/15/2009
|
|
|
|
|
<<< Back to Podcast Archive
|
|
The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe
The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is produced by SGU Productions, LLC - dedicated to promoting critical thinking, reason, and the public understanding of science through online and other media. The first episode of the SGU podcast went online on May 4th, 2005. It soon became a popular science/skeptical podcast, and remains one of the most popular science podcasts on iTunes.
SGU Podcasting Awards: SGU on XM: You can listen to the SGU on America's Talk XM 166 every Saturday night from 8-9pm Eastern.
|
Podcast
195
-
April 15, 2009
|
News Items: John Maddox Dies, The Hand of God, Flying Microbots, Darwin Awards, Homeopathy Nonsense, Belief in Ghosts
Questions and E-mails: Corrections, Induction in Science
Randi Speaks
Science or Fiction
Who's That Noisy
|
|
|
|
Segment: News Items
|
|
|
Segment: Questions and E-mails
|
|
Question # 1 - Corrections
|
Macrobe Followup
Hello Rogues
I love the show, having listened to every episode from the beginning. It is not only fun, but I always learn something I can use in either my teaching or research. I can now return the favor in a very minor way. I am a paleontologist who specializes in invertebrate fossils and evolution. I teach geology at The College of Wooster.
In your discussion of the large deep sea protist Gromia sphaerica, you wondered why its shell is called a "test". This is true for the shells found in other protist groups (such as foraminiferans), and for the primary skeleton of echinoids (including sea urchins and sand dollars). The term comes from the Latin "testa" which means (simply enough) a shell and was sometimes also used for a skull or even a pot. In biology the term is often used to designate a shell which has soft organic material on the outside as well, something like the skin over a skull during life. Protists and echinoids usually have some sort of layer covering the outside of their tests.
You covered the evolutionary implications of Gromia and its tracks very well. I study trace fossils and can tell you that this discover made quite a stir in the scientific community.
Again, excellent show! If you ever have paleontological questions, I'd love to give them a try.
Best Wishes,
Mark A. Wilson
Professor of Geology
The College of Wooster
http://www.wooster.edu/geology/MWilson.html
Kosher Corn Syrup
http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_c/bl_pesachcornsyrup.htm
Creationist Survey
It was stated on the last podcast 193 based on a New Scientist survey that 48 percent of Science school teachers, "said that they taught about creationism or ID as a legitimate alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origins of species."
That's a lot. I used this in an argument with my wife. She said I would have to back it up.
The following is from the New Scientist survey:
However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48% - about 12.5% of the total survey - said they taught it as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species".
So 48% of a quarter of the survey equals about 12.5%.
12.5% not 48% of science teachers"said that they taught about creationism or ID as a legitimate alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origins of species."
Am I reading this wrong?
Thanks
AndréHébert
|
|
Question # 2 - Induction in Science
|
I’ve been debating with a friend about the nature of science, and he brought up the following argument:
“1. All inferences from experience to conclusions about the future presuppose the principle that the future will resemble the past. (Principle of the Uniformity of Nature)
a. If we suspect that the course of nature may change and that the past is no guide to the future, then all experience becomes useless and does not support any conclusion about the future.
2. Therefore, no argument from experience can support the principle that the future will resemble the past.
3. No deductive argument can establish the principle that the future will resemble the past.
4. Therefore, the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature cannot be rationally justified.
5. If the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature cannot be rationally justified, then inductive reasoning in science cannot be rationally justified.
6. Therefore, inductive reasoning in science cannot be rationally justified. ”
Your thoughts?
Marty Tsai
|
|
Segment: Randi Speaks
|
|
Randi Speaks
|
Neurology and Magic
|
|
Segment: Science or Fiction [ Click Here to Show the Answers ]
|
|
|
Segment: Who's That Noisy
|
|
Whos That Noisy
|
Answer to Last Week - A Glacier Melting
|
|
Segment: Quote of the Week
|
|
Quote of the Week
|
"When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities"
- David Hume
|
|
|
|
|
|