Author Topic: Episode #77  (Read 30888 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steven Novella

  • SGU Panel Member
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1818
    • http://www.theskepticsguide.org
Episode #77
« on: January 13, 2007, 12:30:58 PM »
Podcast #77 1/10/2007
Interview with Spencer Weart, author of The Discovery of Global Warming
News Items: Stem Cell Updates, Enviga, Hawking in Space, Weight loss pill firms fined
Your E-mails and Questions: Corrections, The Moon, True belief skeletons
Randi Speaks: Coincidence
Science or Fiction
Skeptical Puzzle
Steven Novella
Host, The Skeptics Guide
snovella@theness.com

Offline Mike

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2367
    • SGUFans.net
Episode #77
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2007, 12:56:48 PM »
My answer to this week's skeptical puzzle:

Quote
The Shroud of Turin
"We're just so damn exciting." - Dr. Steven Novella, MD

Offline Sam

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 248
    • http://home.no.net/bigsam
Episode #77
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2007, 01:32:05 PM »
Regarding young skeptics, Emily Rosa who was mentioned in episode 57 debunked therapeutic touch at age 9. Pretty strong candidate if you ask me 8)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Rosa

Inventing excuses to believe is not the same as having good reasons to believe.

Offline CleveDan

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 782
negative calories
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2007, 01:36:07 PM »
pick any drink and buy a freakin pallet of it at Sam's or COSTCO and carry it out to the car by yourself.....you'll burn plenty of calories
"The argument is absurd almost beyond description – but not quite, so I will describe the absurdity" --Dr. Steve Novella
"I was a little confused as to why it was relevant for Miller to give us all a lesson in evolutionary biology" --Casey Luskin.....An AssHat of some note

Offline Omega

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Episode #77
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2007, 02:20:26 PM »
Great episode. my anwser to the puzzle is:

Quote
The Shroud of Turin

Offline Nigel

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 775
  • One man, one opinion
    • The Skeptical Review
Episode #77
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2007, 02:39:34 PM »
I tried Enviga a couple of weeks ago on a train from Philadelphia back home.  Philadelphia was one of the first markets to get it.  About fifteen minutes after I drank it, my hearts started to flutter, and become light headed for a few minutes.  It didn't taste particularly good.  I have a fairly high tolerance for caffeine.  No, I didn't drop a paint size or anything.

Offline Paul Ganssle

  • Objective Hitler
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3615
Episode #77
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2007, 03:36:27 PM »
Quote
Jesus's burial shroud (specifically Shroud of Turin, but I don't think you can write about something 6 centuries before it is made.)


My answer to the question is above.
quot;if you looat the world and think there is a God nothin make sense but if you see it fro a naturalistivc perspectiove all the shti goin on is exactly what youd expect-"  -The Always Eloquent Richard Dawkins

Offline Timothy Clemans

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
Episode #77
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2007, 03:59:53 PM »
Quote from: "Sam"
Regarding young skeptics, Emily Rosa who was mentioned in episode 57 debunked therapeutic touch at age 9. Pretty strong candidate if you ask me 8)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Rosa



PBS Scientific American Frontiers mentioned Rosa before it was known if her work would be published.
url=http://www.theskepticsguide.org][/url]

Offline maidden

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 5
    • http://maidden.livejournal.com
Episode #77
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2007, 04:32:32 PM »
I'll agree with everyone saying
Quote
the shroud of Turin

is the answer to the puzzle.

Offline findthecost

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 3
Episode #77
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2007, 06:45:25 PM »
I have a friend who became public with their views that were atheistic, and read their first skeptic magazine in eighth grade. Their skepticism haas increased and listens to your show weekly. So this person, 12 in seventh grade and thirteen in eight, was not as young as Emily Rosa, but was worth mentioning.

Offline mickal777

  • Beleth Gave Me 100 Gold
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4164
    • Trip to Japan
Episode #77
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2007, 07:05:50 PM »
Damn

First one I knew straight away and first one I didn't listen too straight away...

Offline materialmama

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • http://www.materialmama.com
Episode #77
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2007, 07:47:55 PM »
Great episode, thank you!

I was wondering why the astronomer was referred to as a "female astronomer"?  Are they so few that it's worth noting the female before astronomer?  Just curious.

Thanks again!!!

M.

Offline chris

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 64
Episode #77
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2007, 08:50:44 PM »
Quote from: "materialmama"
Great episode, thank you!

I was wondering why the astronomer was referred to as a "female astronomer"?  Are they so few that it's worth noting the female before astronomer?  Just curious.

Thanks again!!!

M.


In the past the majority of astronomers have been male. This is changing though, and it was noted at the latest meeting of the International Astronomical Union that women are set to become more than 50% in the not-too-distant future. In my university department, the ratio of astronomy postgrads is something like 3:1 women to men.

Offline mcrislip

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 27
young skeptics
« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2007, 09:08:51 PM »
there would two kinds of skepticism in my kids:
religious and the rest of the woo woo.

As third generation atheists, they grew up and follow their parents lack of belief.

The youngest, at 9, still believes in Santa (the last year I hope) and his beliefs parallel his parents, but seem to have no organized thought processes behind them.  He says mostly what he has heard the family say around the dinner table.  

My 13 year old's objections to religious concepts are much more moral-ethical than scientific, although his reasoning is increasingly his own.  It is not the un scientific nature of religion he objects to, but the inequities he sees them causing.  He also objects to logical inconsistencies in religious arguments more than lack of correlation with the real world. He has slowly changed from magical thinking to quasi rational thinking from age 10 to now, but there has never be a firm boundary he crossed.

As to the rest of the woo woo in the world, they don't care.  It is not part of their world view and doesn't filter into their interests, even though (or probably because) it is a topic of great interest to their parents.    Golf, basketball, music, school and friends are what interest them.  Bigfoot? Astrology?  Mind Reading?  They couldn't care less.

When these issues (UFO, astrology etc) come up, they usually talk to me or my wife to get the basics and then apparently dismiss them from further consideration once they are found to be in the goofball category; the actual scientific arguments do not seem to be of interest.  

Neither use anything that even remotely could be considered scientific information to prove or disprove the woo woo of the world, although both are very good at logical thinking and seeing the flaws and contradictions in arguments. Espcially when their parents say contradictory things that affect what they get to do.  That seems universal with their friends as best I can tell.

So while I would call them both skeptic, it is an attitude from the familial environment rather than any thoughtful scientific based approach to the world.

Offline jason

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3067
Re: young skeptics
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2007, 10:27:43 PM »
Quote from: "mcrislip"
He also objects to logical inconsistencies in religious arguments more than lack of correlation with the real world.

Curiously, this is what struck me as early as I can remember: the parts of religious dogma that just didn't make sense. Since my family was pretty much un-religious (neither for nor against, which is fairly typical of Australia), there was no one to tell me to "just believe it"... so I never did.
Quote from: "mcrislip"
When these issues (UFO, astrology etc) come up, they usually talk to me or my wife to get the basics and then apparently dismiss them from further consideration once they are found to be in the goofball category; the actual scientific arguments do not seem to be of interest.

I suspect this is the critical difference: you and your wife are figures that your children trust above all others. If you had instead said, "sure I believe in <whatever>", your kids may have simply accepted your judgement.
Quote from: "mcrislip"
Neither use anything that even remotely could be considered scientific information to prove or disprove the woo woo of the world, although both are very good at logical thinking and seeing the flaws and contradictions in arguments. Espcially when their parents say contradictory things that affect what they get to do.  That seems universal with their friends as best I can tell.

Then again, maybe they wouldn't fall for a some pseudo-science that didn't make logical sense! If your perception that their friends appear to also be applying logic to the information presented, my optimism for the next generation has been boosted significantly.
quot;Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
"Scientific skepticism: the buck stops at reality."

 

personate-rain
personate-rain