Author Topic: Episode #58 (Read 18245 times)

Joe Shmoe · « **Reply #15 on:** Sep 04, 2006, 05:19:19 PM »

Jack of Diamonds

Timothy Clemans · « **Reply #16 on:** Sep 04, 2006, 08:46:03 PM »

The ether! Hey I learned about that in "Einstein Revealed".

Roy P · « **Reply #17 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 03:21:54 PM »

Quote from: "Omega"

Is there some reason why Itunes doesn't have the most recent episode?

I'm still waiting too!? Is anyone else experiencing the same problem with iTunes?

dec · « **Reply #18 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 05:26:01 PM »

i can't find it in itunes either

Omega · « **Reply #19 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 06:49:05 PM »

I still haven't got it through Itunes, I had to download it from the site.

So does anyone know what is the problem?

switchtech · « **Reply #20 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 06:53:59 PM »

On Pluto: Perhaps the IAU should have taken a page from the book of Mathmatics and simply defined a solar planet as one of the set of items {Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto}. Or in otherwords, a planet is an object that the IAU recognizes and awards the designation "planet."

On monkey's and raptors - Ow! My sides hurt! So how big were these birds and how small the monkeys....

By the way, next time an IDer argues we didn't evolve from monkeys, tell them "You're right, monkey's evolved from people!" and see how far their eye's roll back in their heads. :lol:

jbs

Timothy Clemans · « **Reply #21 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 08:12:41 PM »

I bored now. I think i listened to every podcast. I hope NOVA tonight will be interesting to watch.

Mr. Crowe · « **Reply #22 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 09:28:39 PM »

I see the 6 of Diamonds... but why are your diamonds black? Strange cards... Or maybe remote viewing is bunk.

kiwidust · « **Reply #23 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 11:21:30 PM »

Great show (as always) but I do have a peeve. I think it was Rebecca who berated the pope for being "infallible" but changing the position of another Pope.

Papal Infallibility (like the suppossed idolotry of saints) is often criticized but very rarely understood. In short the Pope is NOT infallible at all times. Instead he is only infallible (supposedly) when speaking on certain matters (faith and morals) in a certain way (called "ex cathedra").

Basically the Pope, to be infalliable, must be speaking in his official role as teacher of the flock in an effort to bind them together and even then only in cases were the matter pertains to faith or morals (and usually only in cases pertaining to teachings from apostlic times).

As usual Wikipedia has a decent write-up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

This "power" is relatively recent (it was created in the 1870's) and very rarely utilized. In fact many Pope's argue against it as it effectively limits their power (in that they cannot overturn any ex cathedra declaration).

In fact the whole thing is rather fuzzy. The vatican does not maintain a "master list" of ex cathedra statements - and many of the few that do exist are often challeged.

So for all these reasons it's incredibly unlikely that any statements or teachings concerning evolution would ever be issued ex cathedra.

Frankly if I were a pope and could ask God for a Super-Power and this is what he gave me I'd be heartily pissed.

In the interest of full disclosure I was raised Catholic until I was 11 but never had any real faith. I've been an outspoken atheist for the past 20 years.

Still - if your going to criticize religion at least get it right. ;^)

Timothy Clemans · « **Reply #24 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 11:31:32 PM »

Quote from: "kiwidust"

Great show (as always) but I do have a peeve. I think it was Rebecca who berated the pope for being "infallible" but changing the position of another Pope.

Papal Infallibility (like the suppossed idolotry of saints) is often criticized but very rarely understood. In short the Pope is NOT infallible at all times. Instead he is only infallible (supposedly) when speaking on certain matters (faith and morals) in a certain way (called "ex cathedra").

Basically the Pope, to be infalliable, must be speaking in his official role as teacher of the flock in an effort to bind them together and even then only in cases were the matter pertains to faith or morals (and usually only in cases pertaining to teachings from apostlic times).

As usual Wikipedia has a decent write-up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

This "power" is relatively recent (it was created in the 1870's) and very rarely utilized. In fact many Pope's argue against it as it effectively limits their power (in that they cannot overturn any ex cathedra declaration).

In fact the whole thing is rather fuzzy. The vatican does not maintain a "master list" of ex cathedra statements - and many of the few that do exist are often challeged.

So for all these reasons it's incredibly unlikely that any statements or teachings concerning evolution would ever be issued ex cathedra.

Frankly if I were a pope and could ask God for a Super-Power and this is what he gave me I'd be heartily pissed.

In the interest of full disclosure I was raised Catholic until I was 11 but never had any real faith. I've been an outspoken atheist for the past 20 years.

Still - if your going to criticize religion at least get it right. ;^)

Rebecca is still very interesting to listen to. Hey she did science or fiction right and yet sbe couldn't express thought but could think.

Supertomcat · « **Reply #25 on:** Sep 06, 2006, 07:34:42 AM »

I'll take the Penn and Teller answer - three of clubs (although the 'death ace' was my first thought!)

Steven Novella · « **Reply #26 on:** Sep 06, 2006, 08:30:05 AM »

Regarding iTunes - temporary problem with the RSS (because Jay, our webmaster, is in Mexico) but it should be fixed today. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Regarding Planets - The point I tried to make, and where I respectively disagree with Phil Plait, is that categorization is more than just cultural labeling. It reflects our understanding of nature (or should). The real debate over what is a planet has to do with our understanding of how the solar system began and evolved. The fact that it is so difficult to make a clean category for a planet is itself interesting. It reflects the spectrum of diverse objects in the solar system. Is the Kuiper belt a real structure in the solar system that reflects something about its history? If so, then perhaps having a separate category for Kuiper belt planetoids is a good idea.

For example, think of the categories of life. What is a mammal? Why is a platypus a mammal? The boundaries are fuzzy because of the way evolution works. Perhaps cladistics is a better method than the classic Linnaean system because it reflects evolution better, but then lung fish will be in a clade with people (and all other terrestrial tetrapods) and not fish. This is not a silly semantic debate, it reflects our understanding of nature.

Also, scientists have to refer to things, we need consistent labels. Making the labels as logical and functional as possible is an important goal.

Planets are fuzzy, but so what. Nature is fuzzy. We still need categories to help organize our thinking and knowledge.

WayneR · « **Reply #27 on:** Sep 06, 2006, 09:31:21 AM »

Quote

Regarding Planets - The point I tried to make, and where I respectively disagree with Phil Plait, is that categorization is more than just cultural labeling. It reflects our understanding of nature (or should). The real debate over what is a planet has to do with our understanding of how the solar system began and evolved. The fact that it is so difficult to make a clean category for a planet is itself interesting. It reflects the spectrum of diverse objects in the solar system. Is the Kuiper belt a real structure in the solar system that reflects something about its history? If so, then perhaps having a separate category for Kuiper belt planetoids is a good idea.

For example, think of the categories of life. What is a mammal? Why is a platypus a mammal? The boundaries are fuzzy because of the way evolution works. Perhaps cladistics is a better method than the classic Linnaean system because it reflects evolution better, but then lung fish will be in a clade with people (and all other terrestrial tetrapods) and not fish. This is not a silly semantic debate, it reflects our understanding of nature.

Also, scientists have to refer to things, we need consistent labels. Making the labels as logical and functional as possible is an important goal.

Planets are fuzzy, but so what. Nature is fuzzy. We still need categories to help organize our thinking and knowledge.

I have to agree with you, although it feels wrong to disagree with one of my heros, the BA. As an amateur astronomer, I frequently deal with the under-educated public at star parties, and I am in favor of anything that aids education. Having a precise definition for terms used in science makes it less confusing for the public. Although I would have liked an even simpler and less ambiguous definition (orbits a star, not a moon, greater than X km in shortest axis), this official definition is an improvement over the silly arguments over Pluto's designation we had without a definition for the term.

Thanks for the informative and entertaining podcasts,
Wayne Reed

Timothy Clemans · « **Reply #28 on:** Sep 06, 2006, 10:40:52 AM »

Quote from: "Steven Novella"

Regarding iTunes - temporary problem with the RSS (because Jay, our webmaster, is in Mexico) but it should be fixed today. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Regarding Planets - The point I tried to make, and where I respectively disagree with Phil Plait, is that categorization is more than just cultural labeling. It reflects our understanding of nature (or should). The real debate over what is a planet has to do with our understanding of how the solar system began and evolved. The fact that it is so difficult to make a clean category for a planet is itself interesting. It reflects the spectrum of diverse objects in the solar system. Is the Kuiper belt a real structure in the solar system that reflects something about its history? If so, then perhaps having a separate category for Kuiper belt planetoids is a good idea.

For example, think of the categories of life. What is a mammal? Why is a platypus a mammal? The boundaries are fuzzy because of the way evolution works. Perhaps cladistics is a better method than the classic Linnaean system because it reflects evolution better, but then lung fish will be in a clade with people (and all other terrestrial tetrapods) and not fish. This is not a silly semantic debate, it reflects our understanding of nature.

Also, scientists have to refer to things, we need consistent labels. Making the labels as logical and functional as possible is an important goal.

Planets are fuzzy, but so what. Nature is fuzzy. We still need categories to help organize our thinking and knowledge.

That is what Neil DeGrasse Tyson did at the Hayden Planetarium.

Roy P · « **Reply #29 on:** Sep 06, 2006, 11:05:12 AM »

Gave up with iTunes and downloaded from the site. Ha-ha-ha -- what a great show this is! I kept catching myself laughing out loud and screwing up my face with delight at the gang's comments. It's a good job I don't listen to this in public, plugged in to my own little iPod universe.

It now really is time for you to consider charging a small fee for downloading. We really cannot risk any of you deciding to leave. You, especially Steve who puts in a lot of time researching, all deserve to be remunerated for your weekly efforts. Well, if our Ricky Gervaise can do it

Thanks for unmissable podcasts!