Topic: Podcast Change suggestions

[StinkyPete]

I actually enjoy all of the skeptical games that you guys have done.  I think the problem comes when you decide that the same games/segments should be done weekly. 

My suggestion: switch it up

One week do a skeptical puzzle and a name that logical fallacy...
Next week do Science or Fiction and Whose That Noisy...
etc.

I also agree about the no interview shows.  I think I just like the variety.  I also really enjoy listener questions about basic science.  Those are some of my favorites.

[StinkyPete]

My other idea is that you can have listeners who are musicians (ahem... like me) submit intro music for you guys for some of your segments, and maybe replace some of the existing ones... eh? 

I apologize, but some of the transitional music in the show, and especially the "Science or Fiction" music are obnoxious to me.

[stewgreen]

since magic is sucha good way of teaching critical thinking  why not have a segment at the beginning of the show :
- Invite the panel and listeners to guess how a well known magic  or clairvoyant trick  is done,
- then give them the whole programme to think about it.
-Then at the end ask them for their thoughts before you reveal the answer.

bye stew

[stewgreen]

pity I can't start a new topic so i'll put my feedback here

Complaining about SGU
If no one complains then nothing gets improved
Hi, British people only bother to complain.
1. Waffling - I have to listen at 150% speed to SGU, whereas British and Australian shows cut down the banter, repetition and "err" to get more programme in.

2. Same old same old guests - OK there have been some good guests recently, but most come from a circuit of people who I hear on the other skeptic also and sometimes it gets a bit incestuous when the show hosts interview each other. Maybe try harder to broaden reach to guests who maybe wouldn't even call themselves skeptics : People in charge of science education : ask them about the importance of scientific and critical thinking, get some of those media people on who give equal time or more to woo woo and challenge them on what damage they are doing if they are too afraid to come on get someone from the media unions or people who are supposed to supervise like FCC.Some investigative reporter needs to confront pharmacy and book shop owners to ask them if they  realize their store displays are hurting society. They restrict the display of porn or fascist materials, but not some stuff which perpetuates damaging health lies. 

3. Panel are getting weak on the the Science or Pseudo game : Instead of educating the public by clearly applying their critical thinking skills they are going too emotional like saying  "that doesn't feel right to me"
3a. I know it would take more time, but you could include the guest in the game sometime. Actually you'd save "ah em" time", by announcing the questions before the guests piece giving the panel 20 minutes to figure.
3b Secondly you could make it a 2 person team game, and pause the recording for 5 minutes of coffee and come back when the are ready with their answers.
3c. It would be good if you sent an intern down the street and into the college or mall or science fair to get some youths to answer the questions.

3d Real Pseudo - Scan thee Wuwu press and include their idea as one of the 3. That works much better than an actual true story where Steve has just changed the numbers.

4. The Rationalists Universe TRU - Change the name first to the Skeptic and Rationalists Guide.Then drop the "Skeptic". The problem is "Skeptic" has such negative connatations in North America. In books and Hollywood films the "Skeptic" is the negative guy who gets proved wrong.... the "Rationalist" is the Spock who saves the Earth from disaster.

PS - On SGU recent episode the panel did scoff at someone believing in dowsing explaining :
you a never more than 1m away from something which can be  said to be a correct find e.g. Water at some depth or other , cable etc, They did not explain they all knew that in the many properly controlled trials done dowsing always completely failed.

bye .. keep up the good work
Stew

[TalkingBook]

Panel are getting weak on the the Science or Pseudo game...

3d Real Pseudo - Scan thee Wuwu press and include their idea as one of the 3. That works much better than an actual true story where Steve has just changed the numbers.

Science or Fiction?

1. Scientists produce evidence that there is a 'significant amount' of water on the moon.

2. Researchers discover that the rate at which changes happen in the DNA of Adélie penguins has been much faster than previously thought.

-or-

3. Some guy creates a real perpetual motion machine in his basement and shows how it was used to perpetrate the moon landing hoax, destroying our entire view of physics and trust in government in the process.
Gee, you're right, that would make a much more interesting segment. 

[Green Ideas]

Science or Fiction is the best, you blasphemous infidels!

[AussieBob]

We limit the shows to 1hr 18 min so they can be burned onto a CD.

Who uses those anymore?

I do.



They make outstanding Beer Coasters.

[neo45]

They should add another girl to the panel. Rebecca greatly improved the show when she came on, and having two women may make it even better.

[AussieBob]

and having two women may make it even better.

This is always the goal in my experience.

[stands2reason]

They should add another girl to the panel. Rebecca greatly improved the show when she came on, and having two women may make it even better.

Oh great, let's bring affirmative action to the podcast.

What's wrong with adding hosts purely on their competency as podcast hosts? And does the SGU really need another host?

[neo45]

I like Rebecca; she brings a unique, witty perspective to an otherwise male centric podcast. She also has a sexy voice, and makes for good back and forth with the rest of the panel. If they can find another woman as intelligent, why not bring her to the show?

And they used to have 6 panel members when Perry was around. One more wouldn't be unheard of.

So, more women, I say.

[seaotter]

Male centric? It's science centric and most of them are males.

[stands2reason]

Male centric? It's science centric and most of them are males.

It's also White centric. They need an Asian.

[stewgreen]

the topic : I'm not going to be popular saying this but
has been locked so I'll stick my reply here

Skulker said
I'm not going to be popular saying this but
« on: May 22, 2009, 09:26:45 AM »I think SGU is starting to lose it a bit. I have loved the show, looked forward to it every week but lately it seems the show should be called the incredibly in-depth scientific guide to the universe not the skeptics guide. When SGU debunks something they are brilliant but sometimes I feel like the pod cast gets so detailed with science or a particular scientific discovery that it is no longer a skeptical podcast. I want to hear more debunking, more interviews, what about a debate with a skeptic and a creationist/alternative health advocate etc. Also where is Rebecca lately ? Her input gave the podcast sass also she is brilliant at calling BS BS. I know it is a voluntary commitment on behalf of the SGU team but I feel something special was created and it's started to lose it's way. Perhaps Jenny's show will be good fodder for SGU, what about a campaign to get a skeptic on Oprah ? that would be like climbing Mt Everest ! Anyway I will keep listening but I just didn't want to see the podcast wimper out without saying something. Logged


- It's about skeptics setting the agenda rather than reacting to scammers and getting more people science/critical thinking literate then Scams don't grow. -

 Skulker,I know what you mean - A lot of the science on SGU is stuff I have already heard on British/Australian Science Podcasts, but Science is closely connected to Skepticism.

Whats the difference between SGU and a normal science podcast ?
it has a job to encourage good reasoning and critical thinking, and the scientific method is part of this. It's all about truth, but we live in a world of distortion due to Information Porn in the media (hyping news headlines and appealing to the emotions tricks),  due to commercialism, marketing tricks and advertising, due to formulaic Hollywood films and due to humans genetically inbuilt irrationality.
- We need to make good decisions in life and understand the decisions that governments etc. make on our behalf, but we need the true picture.
- Skepticism and critical thinking helps us sort out what is truth.

- As regards "Jennys show being good fodder". If we skeptics aren't careful then
we end up on the back foot being reactive, allowing scammers to set the agenda, and giving then  undue free publicity. Sticking more to real science allows us to promote what is true instead of trying to counter what is untrue which is a much bigger job cos there are always a multitude more untrue positions than true positions. ie I could spend time debunking 10 theories of how a thing works or I could just explain the 1 true best idea of how it does work.
- Debunking and Exposing a scam is a good example of critical thinking in action. But scams keep appearing usually they are just new versions of scams exposed before, so it becomes a bit boring for the skeptic movement to do this ... Far better that the wider public learn to recognize a scam so preventing it growing legs and spreading to a wider audience. That's why SGU talks about science, it's about getting the publicc scientifically literate.

- The Skeptics movement is Great because :
- 1. Truly fun and enlightening as it explains amazing things which seem to be like magic
- 2. promotes the public understanding of Science and Critical thinking
- 3. Performs a consumer protection role in exposing scams and pseudoscience.

- "Who's that noisy" might be an interesting game, but I don't think it's that great at stimulating critical thinking... neither are some of the other games as effective as they might be due to the way they are played.
- Quote of day is stimulating and inspiring

Good job Jay !

bye Stew

[stewgreen]

I forgot one thing
Jay said on 223
"homeopathy needs to be ridiculed, right from when people start speaking about it "
 
No I think you'll only get peoples backs up and alienate them .. surely skeptics are open to new ideas
You have to keep banging the same science message again and again like a hammer on a nail and eventually they'll get it .