Author Topic: Podcast #54  (Read 23413 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Clintsc9

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 142
Podcast #54
« on: August 05, 2006, 03:41:09 AM »
Thank you Steven and the Rogues for a very entertaining podcast this week.  Even, or especially, with no guest the podcasts are still excellent.  Perry, you are a gem.  For better or worse, I always nod in agreement at your statements and ideas.

Bring on the Ann Coulter debate!

Regarding Chiropractors, I find it amazing the acceptence they receive these days.  In Australia, you can get rebates on chiropractic services on most health insurance schemes and further here in Queensland, a person who has been injured at work and has an accepted workers' compensation claim is entitled to have their treatment by a chiropractor paid for by the workers' compensation scheme.
From http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/W/WorkersCompA03.pdf (page 408 of publication or page 410 of .pdf)

Quote
(Qld)Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - Schedule 6 - Medical Treatment -   (a) treatment by a doctor, dentist, physiotherapist,
occupational therapist, psychologist, chiropractor, osteopath, podiatrist or speech pathologist;

My personal experience from using them in the past is that I often went to them with a lower back complaint. They would do some 'manipulation' (no x-rays involved) and recommend I return in a week for more. (Cost $40.00 each time).   After about four visits in four weeks ($160.00) I would feel OK.  I was a bit slow in discovering that if I simply took it easy for four weeks, I felt much the same, but I would have $160 more in my pocket.

By the way, this week's puzzle has appeared in other places.  There is a question in the first version of Trivial Pursuit regarding milk in coffee and the late great Professor Julius Summner Miller also regularly asked this question.

The fat content of milk provides the answer.
Clint Lovell
--------------
Why does confirmation bias always happen to me?

Offline Perry

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Podcast #54
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2006, 02:56:54 PM »
Yes, yes, but what kind of gem?

Offline Rustle

  • The Number You Are Thinking Of
  • *
  • Posts: 69
Podcast #54
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2006, 04:05:36 PM »
Regarding Ann Coulter:

"...no liberal will debate me on this"

I know I tend to be nit-picky but, this is just not a liberal issue.  If you believe in YEC, that doesn't mean you're a conservative, it means you're ****ing stupid.  I realize the two things overlap quite frequently in our current political climate, but that doesn't always have to be the case.

And having split that hair, I think that I have to say that Ann does point out one important thing:  liberal politicians have no balls.  Hrmm actually I think you could take the liberal out of that sentence and still be spot on.  Politicians just don't want to challenge the wikiality of an idea like creationism.

Offline Anders Nilsson

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 8
Podcast #54
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2006, 04:27:21 PM »
In Sweden its possible to get a referal from the public health care system to a chiro so that you will not have to pay for it but I think it is restricted to back pain symptoms. If you pay for it yourself you can get any sort of nutter though including the kind that sign you up for regular treatments every month for the rest of your life.
Great show btw, this time I got my wife to listen and she realy liked it as well.

Offline Wonko the Sane

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Podcast #54
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2006, 05:10:33 PM »
Quote from: "Rustle"


And having split that hair, I think that I have to say that Ann does point out one important thing:  liberal politicians have no balls.  Hrmm actually I think you could take the liberal out of that sentence and still be spot on.  Politicians just don't want to challenge the wikiality of an idea like creationism.


Excellent use of the word "wikiality"
'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

"People in bamboo houses should not throw pandas" -Jesus

Offline Sillysighbean

  • Triskaidekaphilic
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • http://www.myspace.com/jimpatten
Ann Coulter
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2006, 06:27:23 PM »
I do not think Ann Coulter is stupid. I believe she makes these inflammatory remarks to create controversy, so she can sell more books. She only wants a little bit of your money. My anger is reserved for the Faith Healers who want ALL of your money, followed by chiropractors, homeopaths and tarot card readers, who want some of your money. In the words of my dear late grandfather:  "I will listen to anything anybody has to say, up to the point where I feel they have their hand in my pocket."
    Perry is a diamond. I hope he never takes drugs, drinks a lot of alcohol, or overeats. He will still be funny, but may turn into Artie Lange.

Offline chris

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 64
Podcast #54
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2006, 07:24:56 PM »
Another great show.  I think the only way to settle the pirates vs ninjas debate is empirical data.

As for guests, may I suggest getting people from where it isn't currently summer, ie: the southern hemisphere?  An ideal choice would be Richard Saunders.  He's a paranormal investigator, podcaster, and has worked with James Randi on many occasions.

The skeptical puzzle can be solved using Newton's law of cooling, which states that the bigger the difference in temperatures between an object and its environment, the faster it will cool.  Thus, the answer is put the milk in at the beginning.

Ann Coulter's challenge sounds to me a bit like a scrawny guy walking into a wrestling match and shouting "BRING IT ON!" to all the big fighters.  Everybody ignores him because he isn't worth the effort, and he goes away thinking that they are all too scared to fight him.

Offline Rustle

  • The Number You Are Thinking Of
  • *
  • Posts: 69
Re: Ann Coulter
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2006, 07:48:13 PM »
Quote from: "Sillysighbean"
I do not think Ann Coulter is stupid. I believe she makes these inflammatory remarks to create controversy, so she can sell more books. She only wants a little bit of your money. My anger is reserved for the Faith Healers who want ALL of your money, followed by chiropractors, homeopaths and tarot card readers, who want some of your money. In the words of my dear late grandfather:  "I will listen to anything anybody has to say, up to the point where I feel they have their hand in my pocket."



Generally speaking, I agree that Ann is some part planned provocative performance art.  And, I don't have a problem with her getting paid as a performer.  My problem with her is that she spreads misinformation, and that she has zero problem pushing dangerous ignorance for a buck.  

Example:   Ann stated her position on conservation as "God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet — it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping."  The fact that she KNOWS that she's full of shit when she says things like that just makes it worse, imo.

Offline Treigit

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Notes section?
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2006, 09:43:36 PM »
I've looked on the site a bit, but I can't seem to find the top 10 excorcism deaths. any pointers?

Offline Wonko the Sane

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Podcast #54
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2006, 10:02:22 PM »
Chris is right when he said "The skeptical puzzle can be solved using Newton's law of cooling, which states that the bigger the difference in temperatures between an object and its environment, the faster it will cool" When you realize this answer is obvious though it seems counter intuitive.

Although the REAL correct answer is, if you like you coffee hot it is better to pour the cup back into the pot.
'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

"People in bamboo houses should not throw pandas" -Jesus

Offline Three

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 205
Podcast #54
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2006, 10:21:08 PM »
im stuck on rebecca's evident fury over the idea that a study can be done to estimate the average lifespan of gays.  was it just me or did she seem overly ticked off and offended at this?  i don't get it.  what if the study had calculated the lifespan of some other group?  would she have been so convinced it cant be done?  

too bad she never jumps on here.  id like to know why all the fuss.  seems like a normal thing to do a study on to me.  i think bias needs to be kept in check at times. we all empathize with the sufferings of the gay community, and want nothing more than a cure for HIV to be found, but this particular issue didn't seem to warrant her strong response.
 didn't do it.

Offline Sillysighbean

  • Triskaidekaphilic
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • http://www.myspace.com/jimpatten
Horrible Epidemiolgy
« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2006, 04:11:04 AM »
From what I heard, Rebecca and the cast were flabbergasted at the "horrible epidemiology"  which was combing the obituaries  in community papers to gather the data. I did not think she was reacting to the actual study of the lifespan of gays. But then again, I only have a ten minute attention span, I could be wrong.

Offline cyborganics

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 289
    • http://www.cyborganics.org
Podcast #54
« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2006, 05:54:15 AM »
10 minutes?!!

Damn, I wish I cou...
cientist: A man who knows nothing until there is nothing left to understand.

www.cyborganics.org

Offline Steven Novella

  • SGU Panel Member
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1821
    • http://www.theskepticsguide.org
Podcast #54
« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2006, 07:43:18 AM »
The top 10 exorcism list is now on the notes page.
Steven Novella
Host, The Skeptics Guide
snovella@theness.com

Offline rebecca

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
    • http://www.skepchick.org
Podcast #54
« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2006, 07:55:16 AM »
Quote from: "Three"
im stuck on rebecca's evident fury over the idea that a study can be done to estimate the average lifespan of gays.  was it just me or did she seem overly ticked off and offended at this?  i don't get it.  what if the study had calculated the lifespan of some other group?  would she have been so convinced it cant be done?  

too bad she never jumps on here.  id like to know why all the fuss.  seems like a normal thing to do a study on to me.  i think bias needs to be kept in check at times. we all empathize with the sufferings of the gay community, and want nothing more than a cure for HIV to be found, but this particular issue didn't seem to warrant her strong response.


Hi Three,

I do jump on now and again, but don't have a ton of time to participate in the longer running discussions, so I tend to stay out. But just to clarify, I have no problem with the idea of researchers wanting to calculate the lifespan of a particular group of people. I have a big problem with Cameron's method of combing alternative newspaper obits to confirm his bigoted opinion. I am also very skeptical of the ability of any serious researcher to determine such a number, even with more stringent standards. Considering that we can't even accurately judge what percentage of the human race is gay, I don't see how such a study would work. I don't even think that sexual preference can always be easily defined by a person on an individual basis -- often, people recognize that they can be "gay," "straight," or any of a thousand other varieties of sexuality. With an inability to even accurately define who we're talking about, there's just too much guesswork to result in any reasonable number.
Skepchick <- Now with updated URL for 2012!