Topic: Episode #305

[Steven Novella]

regarding investments - how about secured bonds. And insured savings accounts count also. This is akin to translational research - taking some basic science that very solid and then extending it to a specific application. Or, taking an existing treatment with a known mechanism and extending its application a bit. There is a need for this maximally conservative research, but it cannot be all we do. There is a sweet spot of research that's just beyond the edge of our current knowledge. Go too far, and the probability of yielding fruit plummets. Don't go far enough, and we won't be extending our knowledge.

[Steven Novella]

Regarding bacteria - we did misspeak. Bacteria outnumber human cells 10 to 1, and bacterial genes outnumber human genes. But bacteria make up about 2-9 pounds per person.

[Trinoc]

Yeah, I reacted to this too. Bacteria makes up 60% of human feces, but that's dry mass. How much feces do we carry around? I'd be surprised if they outweigh e.g. the muscles or the viscera.

I need a reference before I buy that.

I don't think "dry mass" is a valid objection. A large part of the mass of bacteria is water, just like all other cells.

[TheLostVertex]

What you described in the Swindlers List segment is called a bidding fee auction, or penny auction. Its a pretty wide spread scam where the sole goal is to get people to bid on items(and pay the small fee). It is basically a small scale lottery at its best, and a total scam at its worst when the sites rig the time limits(which is most times).

[werecow]

That "End of the World" Guy Was Crazy!

Happy post-doomsday everyone!

[krelnik]

What you described in the Swindlers List segment is called a bidding fee auction, or penny auction.

Yes, I've always heard them referred to as penny auction sites.  The main one I heard alot about (including alot of criticism) was Swoopo.  They certainly seem unethical to me, though I suppose you could argue they are technically not scams.

[John Osborne-Rigby]

I enjoyed the new segment, but I thought it might be more science-oriented than 'consumer watchdog'.

[GodSlayer]

I enjoyed the new segment, but I thought it might be more science-oriented than 'consumer watchdog'.

why?

[John Osborne-Rigby]

Not that I mind the 'heads up' for shonky practices generally, just that it seemed more of a public service announcement to my ears on my commute this morning. This particular example I felt didn't have much scope for a discussion from a scientific POV, as the rest of the show does. Early days though; I'll be interested to hear what Jay has found for future programmes.

[Demosthenes]

WTN
I’m guessing that the frog is correct, but if it isn’t then my votes for a very pissed off cat!

Burger the Angry Lunatic Cat

[GodSlayer]

Not that I mind the 'heads up' for shonky practices generally, just that it seemed more of a public service announcement to my ears on my commute this morning. This particular example I felt didn't have much scope for a discussion from a scientific POV, as the rest of the show does. Early days though; I'll be interested to hear what Jay has found for future programmes.

judging by the title, I'd have thought this was a skepticism podcast first, science second.

whereas Are We Alone (Seth's podcast) is more science first, skepticism second.

maybe the latter would be better for your commute?

[Moloch]

Imagine being an intelligent life-form that evolves on a planet with an atmosphere so thick that you are never able to even know if anything exists beyond it. Then imagine the magnitude of the discovery when the first probe pierces upward through the atmosphere and takes a peek at the universe beyond that world.

[John Osborne-Rigby]

Thanks for the suggestion - I'll have a listen, though I disagree that the programme is 'skepticism podcast first, science second' since it is reliance on evidence obtained through rigorous scientific methodology that gives weight to the sceptical argument. The point of contention I had with that segment was that whilst Jay et al were certainly sceptical of the practices of  that particular organisation, it wasn't selling bad science. For me a lot of the enjoyment of this podcast arises from the panel's discussion of a particular claim or discovery; I should point out that I'm not in any way disappointed by this segment; it is merely an observation.

[GodSlayer]

I disagree that the programme is 'skepticism podcast first, science second' since it is reliance on evidence obtained through rigorous scientific methodology that gives weight to the sceptical argument.

there's only one?
I thought skepticism was quite wide-reaching.

it wasn't selling bad science.

it was just a business model that could make ?customers? angry if they actually knew what was going on...a 'too good to be true' promise worth being skeptical of (maybe some are sometimes rigged, maybe some are fair, and as long as you know how it works, like a lottery, it's ultimately your call if you think it's worth your money). I don't see why there is a need for science in this area of skepticism. nor do I see the point in limiting skepticism beyond what is useful and interesting and helpful to what is merely science, things that warrant skepticism only in the 'press release misinterpretation' form.

For me a lot of the enjoyment of this podcast arises from the panel's discussion of a particular claim or discovery

for me, this potentially practical information about a business model I might encounter is far more interesting than any astronomy discovery I've managed to pay attention to (and these feature on a regular basis, rarely requiring skepticism more than a simple deflation of expectations). each to their own, eh.

[Moloch]

I thoroughly enjoyed the new segment, very fascinating and I look forward to more. Admittedly though I do find the segment name a little awkward due to the connotations.