Author Topic: Podcast Topic suggestions  (Read 43148 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Razamataz

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 1
Re: Podcast Topic suggestions
« Reply #510 on: July 08, 2015, 03:05:25 PM »
I just saw this piece on an afternoon msnbc show with Lisa Miller PhD, a psychologist and 'spiritualist' pushing her book http://www.amazon.com/The-Spiritual-Child-Parenting-Lifelong/dp/125003292X. She has also done a TED Talk, it's on youtube if you want more. She was sounding pretty adamant about all her 'facts' and I'm very curious what the Rogues think about all this. I was yelling at the tv, and wife couldn't stay in the room!

http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle
The Cycle 7/7/15
Research suggests babies are born spiritual
Before a baby is born, parents already worry about how best to help them grow physically and how to support them emotionally. However, scientific research suggests that it is just as important to nurture a baby's natural spirituality.

Offline PabloHoney

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Podcast Topic suggestions
« Reply #511 on: July 23, 2015, 09:19:56 AM »
How about a book review of Sam Harris' Waking Up
http://www.samharris.org/waking-up

Would love to hear a discussion on his positions on Meditation and spirituality not being in conflict with science.

Offline brilligtove

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1409
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
    • Valuum
Re: Podcast Topic suggestions
« Reply #512 on: July 25, 2015, 09:01:21 PM »
Earlier I posted "Clear connection between wireless devices and cancer, experts say."

Based on what I've heard so far, I presume this is bunkum. The source material for the click bait headline is a paper is called "Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation." It is posted here:

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/full/10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557

I have been reading the study, but have no idea if the research they reviewed is any good. I'd love to hear your analysis of this analysis.
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Online lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2759
Re: Podcast Topic suggestions
« Reply #513 on: July 27, 2015, 12:28:17 AM »
I'd like to nominate Lynn Margulis and Rachael Carson for unsung science heroes... fat chance, though, they are both biologists.
"Our minds are not quite designed to understand how the world works, but to get us out of trouble rapidly and have progeny."  Nassim Taleb

Offline brilligtove

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1409
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
    • Valuum
Re: Podcast Topic suggestions
« Reply #514 on: July 27, 2015, 04:21:32 AM »
I'd like to nominate Lynn Margulis and Rachael Carson for unsung science heroes... fat chance, though, they are both biologists.

Are biologists ignored or under represented?
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Online Sawyer

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 191
Re: Podcast Topic suggestions
« Reply #515 on: July 27, 2015, 05:06:06 PM »
I'd like to nominate Lynn Margulis and Rachael Carson for unsung science heroes... fat chance, though, they are both biologists.

Are biologists ignored or under represented?

I thought this was a rather odd critique, but I have noticed a heavy emphasis on astronomy and computer science in the forgotten superheroes segment.  Now if part of the agenda of the SGU is to promote under represented demographics in science this makes total sense, because there's already a much higher percentage of women in biology compared to physics.  Stressing people who have been forgotten within these fields helps dispel more prominent myths about who makes the most contributions to science.  It really is rather silly that Hubble gets a freaking telescope named after him and Leavitt,Cannon, and Burnell get, well, nothing.

I would like to see a little more coverage of biology and medicine, especially considering Steve is a doctor.  All of the Rogues are Game of Thrones fans, how have they not selected John Snow as a forgotten medical pioneer!?!

EDIT:  Curiosity got the best of me.  Here's what I came up with for stats:
Quote
Mary Sherman Morgan         Aeronautical Engineering
Katherin Johnson         Aeronautical Engineering
Patrick Matthew         Agriculture
Fazlur Kahn         Architecture
Henrietta Leavitt         Astronomy
Vera Rubin         Astronomy
Sandra Faber         Astronomy
Jocelyn Bell Burnell         Astronomy
Annie Jump Cannon         Astronomy
Rosalind Franklin         Biology
Margaret Hamilton         Computer Science
Grace Hopper         Computer Science
Women of Eniac         Computer Science
Ada Lovelace         Computer Science
Jerry Lawson         Electrical Engineering
George Melies         Film
Emmy Noether         Mathematics
Edward Lorenz         Mathematics
Oswald Avery         Medicine
Charles Drew         Medicine
Earl Palmer         Music
Mary Anning         Paleontology
Charles Townes         Physics
Maria Goppert Mayer         Physics
Chien Shiug Wu         Physics
Lise Meitner         Physics
Ida Tacke         Physics
Irene Joliot Curie         Physics

Rosalind's looking awfully lonely.  I know she's been mentioned before but Frances Oldham Kelsey would be an excellent addition.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2015, 05:28:49 PM by Sawyer »

Online lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2759
Re: Podcast Topic suggestions
« Reply #516 on: July 27, 2015, 06:30:07 PM »
Biology isn't the Rogues strong suit.
"Our minds are not quite designed to understand how the world works, but to get us out of trouble rapidly and have progeny."  Nassim Taleb

Online Dan I

  • The Number You Are Thinking Of
  • *
  • Posts: 69
Re: Podcast Topic suggestions
« Reply #517 on: Today at 11:25:27 AM »
I think you guys should do a segment on what's been happening with IFLS recently. Over especially the last few months they have become almost nothing but pure, unfiltered, clickbait focused on generating as many clicks as possible for maximum ad revenue no matter how speculative the article or information.

For example, they were at the forefront of pushing that "mini-ice age is coming!" thing from a couple of weeks ago. Then the other day they finally released a "mini-ice age was a massive failure of communication."

Absolutely ZERO acknowledgement of their participation in said miscommunication. I, and others, pointed out in the Facebook comments to the "miscommunication" article their complicity and what happens? Well today I find that I have been blocked from commenting on any IFLS article. All I can do is share them to my feed.

My exact comment (and I may be giving away my identity to anyone who saw it in the feed here) was "A miscommunication that you gleefully participated in."

Nothing vulgar, threatening, obscence. Just a criticism albeit a snarky one.

Needless to say, I unfollowed and unliked them.

Simply refusing to listen to criticism or engage with it is exactly the OPPOSITE kind of behavior we want from a science communicator.

You guys had Elise on the podcast a few months ago and I think the responsible thing would be for you guys to invite her back to discuss the recent criticisms. If she refuses, and it seems almost certain she will, you should STILL do the segment, making clear you gave her a chance to respond and she refused.

But the SGU implicitly endorsed IFLS in your last interview and the responsible thing would be for the SGU to talk about the recent issues.