Print

[seaotter]

I think I remember in the news a year or two back some scientists that claimed they came up with a different solution to what happens in a black hole that doesn’t require a singularity.  If I remember right, everything outside would be the same (event horizon, etc). 

Anyone remember this or know what the hell I’m talking about?

I remember about as much as you do, but at least you know you didn't dream it.

[skidoo]

"Hi, I'm Dr. Novella, Pareidoliaologist."
"Haven't I seen you before?"
"No, but I get that a lot."

LMMFAO

[illogik01]

I dont think you should have to be a first year medical student to know about the dangers of water intoxication it should be taught in a high school health class. Teens may consume excess quantitys of water for many reasons (hazing, drugs, sport, bets) so its a small effort to educate the kids and possibly save them from dying in what i think must be one of the most horrible ways possible.

Im still furious with this "nutritionist" She has put this woman on a diet without A FUCKING GOOGLE SEARCH  ON THE SUBJECT ! This would have shown her that what she was about to do to this woman could kill her. I get her thought process was something like "Hrrrrrr wat-errr gooood! hydromacation!!!!! salts baahhhdddd heart atttack!!!!"

I give this bitch the official illogic pimp slap of skepticism.

[wannabeplato]

I dont think you should have to be a first year medical student to know about the dangers of water intoxication it should be taught in a high school health class. Teens may consume excess quantitys of water for many reasons (hazing, drugs, sport, bets) so its a small effort to educate the kids and possibly save them from dying in what i think must be one of the most horrible ways possible.

NO WAY!
You telling me your going to tell someone about something called Water Intoxication to someone who can't buy beer yet?  Must come up with a better name first!..

[mali]

Btw, George Hrab's "girlfriend" on his arm was actually Soccergirl. It peaked my interest and I found myself shamefully trailing the whole tale on the internet. Maybe I had too much science and logic during TAM and needed a little something sweet.
They looked damn cute. You couldn't help but watch them together. However it sounds lie he's single. Go Rebecca!

[Malachi]

I dont think you should have to be a first year medical student to know about the dangers of water intoxication it should be taught in a high school health class. Teens may consume excess quantitys of water for many reasons (hazing, drugs, sport, bets) so its a small effort to educate the kids and possibly save them from dying in what i think must be one of the most horrible ways possible.

Im still furious with this "nutritionist" She has put this woman on a diet without A FUCKING GOOGLE SEARCH  ON THE SUBJECT ! This would have shown her that what she was about to do to this woman could kill her. I get her thought process was something like "Hrrrrrr wat-errr gooood! hydromacation!!!!! salts baahhhdddd heart atttack!!!!"

I give this bitch the official illogic pimp slap of skepticism.

You don't have to be a first year medical student.  That's what makes this even more offensive.  Every Nurse I have ever met knows about this, and so does every single paramedic I have ever known, (from Basic EMT qualifications on up).  The idea that someone could be claiming any sort of medical related qualification at all and not know this goes well into the realms of criminal negligence in my mind.  Unfortunately, we will just have to wait and see if British law agrees with us, (and if it doesn't.. it certainly should).

As for your concerns about it accidentally happening. *shakes head*  we aren't talking about 'Sports' amounts of water.  We are talking about almost painfully large amounts of water.   Once the body's electrolytic balance goes out far enough for it to start getting dangerous, it actually is painful, (the descriptions of: nausea, vomiting, and possible seizure really don't do the unpleasantness of it justice), because the body's basic systems are working so hard to flush the extra fluids at that point.  For me, in five years as a medic for the Army, (prior... I'm out nowadays), I only ever saw it once and that was a psych patient who had pretty much the reasoning you described above, "Water is GOOD! everything else is BAD!  So I'll do nothing but drink WATER!!!".  However, the key point to realize there is that this was a psych patient.

So, though I agree with you that it is an issue worth educating people on, (I'd mention it as an aside as part of first aid training if I had my choice and would make it a basic mention in all biology classes in high school), it isn't as big a risk as you seem to think.

At least I don't think it is.  I wouldn't mind one of the actual MD's here weighing in just to clear it up for all of us if possible.  You guys, (actual Doctors), know a great deal more than any of us medics,(me), on this topic and a definitive opinion would be useful.

edited for greater accuracy ---  I'm a prior medic.. no longer in the medical field at all since I got out of the army in 2000.

[MikeSmith]

Man, that's just gruesome.

But now, a question: this week's skeptical quote was obviously intended as an allusion to that whole PZ Myers incident--you know that something, it had something to do with a wafer, and I think one or two people might have mentioned it on the forum for the previous episode, do you remember?--and I was just wondering what you all think their angle was in saying it.

The quote was--

“We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us.”  (MARK! TWAIN!)

--and I was just wondering if it was implied that the "We" in there is the Catholic Church or is PZ Myers-sympathetic faction of the skeptical community. 

I guess I'm just curious to know if we were being scolded. 

If so, what are our sacred things?  I'd say nothing and everything--nothing, because I don't see anything as being supernaturally immune to reality or real criticisms, and everything, because...well...because...this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

[thebob]

But now, a question: this week's skeptical quote was obviously intended as an allusion to that whole PZ Myers incident--you know that something, it had something to do with a wafer, and I think one or two people might have mentioned it on the forum for the previous episode, do you remember?--and I was just wondering what you all think their angle was in saying it.

The quote was--

“We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us.”  (MARK! TWAIN!)

--and I was just wondering if it was implied that the "We" in there is the Catholic Church or is PZ Myers-sympathetic faction of the skeptical community. 

I guess I'm just curious to know if we were being scolded. 

If so, what are our sacred things?  I'd say nothing and everything--nothing, because I don't see anything as being supernaturally immune to reality or real criticisms, and everything, because...well...because...this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

There's no scolding going on, it is just supposed to help you look at yourself, through other peoples eyes.

The idea seems to be that there is "no" concept, idea, fact, meme or whatever, that someone, somewhere will not find laughable.

To a believer of a creationist beginning, a logical attempt at discovering how complex life came about is a futile endeavor, because god is above all human understanding. Faith is considered to be evidence enough. Even though these beliefs have been ingrained through threats of hell, peer pressure, indoctrination or whatever. Believers consider the argument closed.

To an atheist, sceptic or non believer, the creationists position seems just as untenable.

There isn't a valid argument that both sides will accept.

When you try and force your perspective, be prepared to be called arrogant.

It is because of this "immovable object vs irresistible force" problem that that proponents like Dawkins PZ et al. give no 'respect' at all to theists. They are attempting to redefine the default position, away from respect of authority, to independent skepticism.

Mark Twain has a refreshing clarity when expressing these concepts.

Rebecca hit the nail right on the head with this quote. I crush on her, because I find her brain sexy.

Cheers Rebecca.

[IrishJazz]

Man, that's just gruesome.

But now, a question: this week's skeptical quote was obviously intended as an allusion to that whole PZ Myers incident--you know that something, it had something to do with a wafer, and I think one or two people might have mentioned it on the forum for the previous episode, do you remember?--and I was just wondering what you all think their angle was in saying it.

The quote was--

“We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us.”  (MARK! TWAIN!)

--and I was just wondering if it was implied that the "We" in there is the Catholic Church or is PZ Myers-sympathetic faction of the skeptical community. 

I guess I'm just curious to know if we were being scolded. 

If so, what are our sacred things?  I'd say nothing and everything--nothing, because I don't see anything as being supernaturally immune to reality or real criticisms, and everything, because...well...because...this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

I think in the original quote Mark Twain was not envisioning a his fellow skeptics, but talking about Baptists despising the Pope while sensitive to criticism of full immersion. There are things that even skeptics regard as, if not holy, worthy of high regard. I think some of the defense of PZ was solidarity and loyalty to someone who shared a point of view that is not, in this culture, dominant.  And some of the argument against his action, done in the name of civility was from people who were having just having fun arguing with smart people with whom they largely agreed. (I have done the research on this, and positively identified at least one person guilty of this- myself.)

Part of the appeal of science/skepticism is that it provides a discipline that helps determine if an idea is valid. But another essential part is that it is a liberation from the necessity to be right about everything, a fatal anchor on absolutist religion.

Occasionally, or more than occasionally, being wrong is inevitable.  With over 560 posts on the Episode 156 thread, there has been plenty of opportunity for all participants to experience the joy of error and the agony of retreat.

[Febo]

But now, a question: this week's skeptical quote was obviously intended as an allusion to that whole PZ Myers incident--you know that something, it had something to do with a wafer, and I think one or two people might have mentioned it on the forum for the previous episode, do you remember?--and I was just wondering what you all think their angle was in saying it.
The quote was--

“We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us.”  (MARK! TWAIN!)

--and I was just wondering if it was implied that the "We" in there is the Catholic Church or is PZ Myers-sympathetic faction of the skeptical community. 
I guess I'm just curious to know if we were being scolded. 

I had assumed it was Rebecca demonstrating her ongoing cluelessness about what was being debated; no one was shocked about the cracker being defiled, we were disappointed at the embarrassing public behavior of fellow skeptics.

Regarding the Youtube video you linked to -- While Carl Sagan's monologue certainly inspires feelings a sacredness or holiness in a manner not inconsistent with an atheistic worldview, I don not think it is inconsistent with most religious folk's worldviews either.  It's actually a perfect example of how one can promote science to atheists and theists simultaneously and without being a douchebag.

[craig]

Or ...

You could go under the assumption that Rebecca wasn't thinking about us at all. 

It is possible that she read (or was told about) the current issue of Time that features Twain as one part of their "Making of America" series.  The issue has some great quotes that remind you of his great wit and incredible insight. This particular quote has some relevance to the recent kerfuffle but it is also much wider than that.

There are many opportunities in life to be scolded.  I wouldn't go out of my way to try to find a cryptic scolding in the words of a man who has been dead for nearly one hundred years

[Mark7300]

"Hi, I'm Dr. Novella, Pareidoliaologist."
"Haven't I seen you before?"
"No, but I get that a lot."

LMMFAO

I can't believe there are not five hundred posts here about how funny that was. I almost parked my car against a tree. Tha's a t-shirt waiting to happen.

[IrishJazz]

"Hi, I'm Dr. Novella, Pareidoliaologist."
"Haven't I seen you before?"
"No, but I get that a lot."

LMMFAO

I can't believe there are not five hundred posts here about how funny that was. I almost parked my car against a tree. Tha's a t-shirt waiting to happen.

Perhaps the multiple LMMFAO-related fatal crashes is the reason.

[pandamonium]

"Hi, I'm Dr. Novella, Pareidoliaologist."
"Haven't I seen you before?"
"No, but I get that a lot."

LMMFAO

I can't believe there are not five hundred posts here about how funny that was. I almost parked my car against a tree. Tha's a t-shirt waiting to happen.

  there's a thread around here somewhere where you can suggest these things....  in the 'suggestions' place...

here it is: http://skepchick.org/skepticsguide/index.php/topic,11046.0.html 

[MikeSmith]

Regarding the Youtube video you linked to -- While Carl Sagan's monologue certainly inspires feelings a sacredness or holiness in a manner not inconsistent with an atheistic worldview, I don not think it is inconsistent with most religious folk's worldviews either.  It's actually a perfect example of how one can promote science to atheists and theists simultaneously and without being a douchebag.

I agree--Sagan is awesome that way.

But as an atheist I also want to hear skeptical writings and thought that take that discussion to another level.  Sagan is awesome for introducing skepticism to a wider audience, but when I just want to increase my own mental arsenal, I like to read or hear some Dawkins or Harris.

As has been said all over these threads, there's room for multiple perspectives--but I think this general trend toward giving less respect to illogical thinking is a good one.