| |
The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe - Podcast 320 - 8/29/2011
|
|
|
|
|
<<< 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
320
-
August 29, 2011
|
Interview with Jad Abumrad
This Day in Skepticism
News Items: Hurricane Irene, ISS Threatened, LHC and Super Symmetry, Alien Signals
Who's That Noisy
Your Questions and E-mails: Tin Foil, Skeptical Shout-Out
Name That Logical Fallacy
Science or Fiction
|
|
|
|
Segment: This Day in Skepticism
|
|
Sept 2nd, 1914
|
The Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) became extinct as the last surviving bird of the colorful native American species of dove died at the Cincinnati Zoo.
|
|
Segment: News Items
|
|
|
Segment: Who's That Noisy
|
|
Who's That Noisy
|
Answer to last week: Marilyn Manson
|
|
Segment: Questions and Emails
|
|
Question #1:Tin Foil
|
Been listening to you guys for over three years now. Absolutely love the show and never miss an episode.
I wanted to bring something to your attention that is probably just a pet peeve. Tin foil, as in foil made of the metal "tin" (Sn - atomic number 50, weight 118.710) was phased out starting in 1910 and pretty much no longer in use by the end of WWII. As I am sure you all know having been in a kitchen at some point in your lives, it was replaced by the lighter and cheaper aluminum (Al - atomic number 13, weight 26.982). So nobody on this show was alive when tin foil was in use, yet the rogues on my favorite science podcast say tin foil over and over again for some reason. This bugs me because I am so used to you guys being thorough to the point of tedium up on complex science concepts or even pronunciation (see RF-ID vs. Arfid from the same episode). For instance, you would never let anyone get away with saying dry ice was frozen CO. You'd dog pile the rogue that said it, and it would probably by Jay and he'd come up with some hilarious reason that he said it (LOVE YOU JAY!).
In any event, could you guys discuss why some of these incorrect phrases such as "tin foil" seem so pervasive in our vernacular regardless of whether or not we know them to be correct and are given a pass? There are many examples of this type of thing in our language that even experts let slide on by. Many thanks and keep up the great work helping people to understand why we think the way we do and more importantly, why it is important to know why.
Jon, the Funky Medic
United States
|
|
Question #2: Skeptical Shout-out
|
Hey guys,
This may be a long shot, but I'm writing to see if you'd give a shout out to a coworker of mine who will be leaving our research group this week to pursue graduate studies.
He got me (and subsequently my friends/colleagues) into the SGU podcasts, and generally does a great job promoting skepticism and critical thinking. He's been a great person to discuss skepticism and critical thinking with, and we're going to miss him - As you may appreciate, it's hard to find people willing to engage in skeptical inquiry at a conversational level; much less people you really enjoy doing so with.
As a going away surprise, it would be awesome if maybe you could fit in a brief shout out/good luck to him as he departs for school. His name is Jan.
Anyway, great job on the podcast - Can't wait for SGU 24!
Cheers,
Brian Stoveken
Madison, WI
|
|
Segment: Name That Logical Fallacy
|
|
Defending Homeopathy
|
What I find so curious about people who represent themselves as pratitioners of "skepticism" is really how little of it they employ, and how predictable they can be in their beliefs.
If you're going to be a real skeptic, then the first things you would naturally be skeptical about would be your own beliefs. But instead what I see you doing is jumping to a conclusion made by others for you, that you're just passing along as talking points simply placing your own anecdotal theory in place of evidence: The physical, in vitro, in vivo, user demand and FDA regulatory protections. If you had a leg to stand on, you wouldn't be writing blogs about it, you and hordes of people like you would be actually doing something in court. If it's fraud, it can be proven as such in court. But you've already stipulated that you don't know anything much about the subject, except that you've been told it's implausible. SO how do you or any of the professional whiners expect to win when you’re in a forum other than your own, presided over by an impartial judge? But have you ever posed the question to someone other than Randi, is there any physico-chemical evidence for homeopathy? When your professional witnesses and our professional witnesses have finished testiying, you've lost. So really, in the face of reality, that this is a long practiced form of legal, curative medicine, do you really think you have enough of an argument against it to give you license to defame the Sherrs and others who have medical degrees? Of course not! Skepticism really is nothing more than a name peole give themselves when they want to dismiss or defame something they don't want to believe. And why don't they want to believe? Because they've placed their contempt ahead of their investigation, their nswers ahead of their questions. O how can they know anything if they don’t ask questions?
For example, if what you mean to say when you call homeopathy "quackery" is that it's fraud, then why has it not ever won this point when tried in a court of law? Look at what happened to a "skeptic" organization, the National Council Against Health Fraud, when they tried to sue a homeopathic remedy manufacturer on your point, that homeopathy is fraud. [Google NCAHF vs. King Bio] How do you explain this stupendous loss by the NCAHF?
Now watch what happens in Delarosa vs. Boiron. Watch what happens in the case of the homeopathic veterinarians who are now suing the veterinarian accreditation board. No one can always predict the future, but from what I’ve seen is that homeopathy always wins and skepticism always loses, and I presume this will hold true for Delarosa and the vets. Wait and see.
It’s a popular form of medicine worldwide that is growing by 30% a year. Do you really think you're going to stop it by acting stupid?
Homeopathy is amazing medicine when its use as properly. Try it and see for yourself. Meanwhile, allopathy is getting hammered!
Posted by: John Benneth | August 24, 2011 5:31 AM
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/01/jeremy_sherr_using_homeopathy_for_aids.php#comment-4921403
|
|
Segment: Interview
|
|
Interview with Jad Abumrad
|
Co-Host and producer of RadioLab
|
|
Segment: Science or Fiction [ Click Here to Show the Answers ]
|
|
|
Segment: Skeptical Quote of the Week
|
|
Skeptical Quote of the Week
|
pnd
|
|
|
|
|
|