Author Topic: Episode #56  (Read 17178 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steven Novella

  • SGU Panel Member
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
    • http://www.theskepticsguide.org
Episode #56
« on: August 18, 2006, 05:23:06 PM »
Interview with Ken Feder - skeptical archaeologist
News Items: Evolution Survey, Water tree
Your E-mails and Questions: Abiogenic Origin of Oil,Dinosaur Petroglyphs, Acupuncture
Name That Logical Fallacy
Science or Fiction
Skeptical Puzzle
Steven Novella
Host, The Skeptics Guide
snovella@theness.com

Offline hastrong

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 336
Episode #56
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2006, 01:41:00 PM »
Steve,

It doesn't look like #56 made it into the podcast feed.
"Do unto crackers and grape juice as thou wouldst do unto me" -- Some long-haired hippie-cannibal-type long, long ago, in a Palestine far, far away.

Offline JHGRedekop

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 160
    • http://77track7.blogspot.com
Episode #56
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2006, 08:59:24 PM »
So far I've listened to the first part, just short of the start of the interview, and I gotta ask -- were you guys a little sleep deprived or something? You seemed rather giddy, and the whole "Stephane" thing was weird. You lost a potential listener on the Skeptics list Bill Bennetta & I are on:

"Don't bother [listening] - I listened to a few minutes which was more than enough.  It was pretty much 90% lame attempts at self-indulgent "humour" laced with snide, sarcastic putdowns.  The moderator's pronunciation of the name "Stephan" (a  guy in France who sent in an email to the program) prompted great hilarity and juvenile variations (including an insulting reference to the guy's nationality).  All in all IMO it was something one would expect to hear at a drunken nerd party.  If these characters expect to change anyone's minds with such antics, I expect they will be disappointed."

You didn't leave a great impression there.

I thought the discussions of abiotic oil and accupuncture were good, but something seemed off with the show (so far -- like I said, I haven't had a chance to listen to the interview yet). I have to say, the dismissive "Whatever" to the mispronounciation of Stephane's name wasn't very professional.

Offline cyborganics

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 289
    • http://www.cyborganics.org
Episode #56
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2006, 10:57:11 PM »
Ouch.

I can understand the complaint but I also think the effort to dismiss the show on one segment of one episode is somewhat injudicious.

Besides, SGU has nothing compared to the rough edges on the ‘This week in science’ and I’m referring more specifically to that Justin character but I still listen to that show because they do have some good information. I just weed out Justin’s political bias and flippant persona from the valid logical points and thank goodness Kristen is there to clean it up. Likewise, SGU has odd moments, that is undeniable but as I see it the methodologies used on SGU when getting into the more intellectual dissection of fact and logic from fiction serve as an excellent example of applied skepticism.

But yes, the prior or post moments outside of the unbiased skepticism that evoke ridicule and sarcasm can be distasteful to those who are looking for a more dedicated intellectual show. As for me, I laughed at the Staphane exchange and the occasional ridicule of crazy ideas but I do cringe when the regulars ridicule each other. It’s the same feeling I get when as I shy away from witnessing friends exchange unprovoked cheap shots when I don’t understand the history that this behavior is normal and reaffirming their personal connection to each other.

As long as the exchanges of the members are from being honestly themselves with each other and are not artificial in trying to make a good show of it, I for one am fine with it. But please SGU; don’t pretend to be anything you are not. Pretense is a far worse thing than misunderstood personal jibs between friends, unless of course you guys don’t really like each other much – then perhaps being cordial would be better for the show.


All in all, SGU is still tops for this regular listener.
cientist: A man who knows nothing until there is nothing left to understand.

www.cyborganics.org

Offline chris

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 64
Episode #56
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2006, 11:02:01 PM »
Okay, so I just relistened to the start of the show. I don't think that the Stephane thing was meant to be insulting or snide. I actually found it very funny.  Here's Steven pronouncing a name the way he thinks it's supposed to be pronounced. Rebecca asks him if an alternative pronunciation is the correct one.  Here's where the humour come in: rather that taking the skeptical, scientific viewpoint that the issue needs to be dealt with by debate and evidence-gathering - as we'd expect from Steven - he dismisses Rebecca's opinion with a 'whatever'.  This is more what we'd expect from a True Believer, one who dismisses other's view without considering them.  This dissonance between expected and actual outcomes is a standard device in jokes.

The "it's French" bit highlights the fact that foreign names often don't have the pronunciations we Westerners expect.  Bjork, mentioned earlier in the podcast, for example is pronounced byerk, not byork.  It should also be mentioned that French pronunciation has also influenced American language.  I was suprised to learn last year that Americans pronounce herb 'erb' like the French, rather than the way we pronounce it here in New Zealand: 'herb'.

Anyway, this is just my 2c.  You guys put out a wonderful podcast, and this weeks' was in no way an exception. The interview with Ken Feder went much too fast and left so many topics out. Ken mentioned Graeme Hancock and his wacky ideas - that would be a great topic for a followup interview.

Offline Three

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 205
Episode #56
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2006, 02:43:41 AM »
"Ste-feign" got me laughing so hard I couldn't breathe.  I think Diet Pepsi travelled from my mouth through my eardrums and out my sinuses.  Gawd that was funny.  I'm still laughing.  

Stefain?

How on earth did that slip from Steven's mouth?  

Priceless.

I love SGU even more now.
 didn't do it.

Offline Luna

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 830
Episode #56
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2006, 04:26:20 AM »
JHGRedekop how idiotic are you. To dismise a show, when they are simply joking? Do you need such stale commentary without any humour at all? You sound more like a sophisto then a intellectual with that logic. You're the one whos not left an impression. Listen to all 56 episodes, if the sight of people joking offends you, your either a tightass or just a plain jerk. So until you've listened to more than 10 minutes your not allowed to comment.

Quote
I can understand the complaint but I also think the effort to dismiss the show on one segment of one episode is somewhat injudicious.


Not an injudicious, just plain asinine.
Praise Jesus.

Offline JHGRedekop

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 160
    • http://77track7.blogspot.com
Episode #56
« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2006, 07:23:06 AM »
Quote
JHGRedekop how idiotic are you. To dismise a show, when they are simply joking?


Um, please read what I wrote. I didn't dismiss the show. I promoted the show on the Skeptic list I'm on because I'm a fan, and then quoted the reaction it got from one of the list members.

Quote
Listen to all 56 episodes, if the sight of people joking offends you, your either a tightass or just a plain jerk. So until you've listened to more than 10 minutes your not allowed to comment.


I have listened to all 55 previous episodes, and enjoyed them. I enjoyed what I've listened to of this episode, too. My point was that the group unusually giddy this time around and that it had turned off at least one potential listener.

In podcasting (as in many things) you have to catch listeners quickly. You can't expect everyone to invest 55 hours into listening to your show before they decide if they like it or not.

Quote
Okay, so I just relistened to the start of the show. I don't think that the Stephane thing was meant to be insulting or snide.


Oh, I know it wasn't meant to be insulting or snide. But someone who doesn't know the group may not know that -- and in this case, didn't know that and was thoroughly put off by it.

It's like the Bill Bennetta interview. I know Bill's not racist, but people for who had never heard or talked to Bill before didn't know that, and he left the wrong impression.

Quote
I was suprised to learn last year that Americans pronounce herb 'erb' like the French, rather than the way we pronounce it here in New Zealand: 'herb'.


As Eddie Izzard said when comparing English and American culture: "We pronounce it 'hhherb' because there's a $&#*ing 'H' in it."

Offline chris

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 64
Episode #56
« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2006, 07:47:02 AM »
Quote from: "JHGRedekop"
My point was that the group unusually giddy this time around and that it had turned off at least one potential listener.

In podcasting (as in many things) you have to catch listeners quickly. You can't expect everyone to invest 55 hours into listening to your show before they decide if they like it or not.


Might I suggest that the person on the skeptic list give the show a fair chance.  I found that I really liked the show after a couple of episodes - I got to know the people involved and the style of the show.  Maybe the person who was put off by the first 10 minutes of the episode 56 should look through the list of past shows and pick out a couple of them that look particularly interesting to him (but perhaps not the Ninjas vs Pirates, or Eagles vs Monkeys, shows :wink:).  I'm sure he would agree that it is folly to draw such a broad conclusion from a small sample, and that a couple of episodes would be sufficient to allow a more meaningful assessment to be made.

Offline Luna

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 830
Episode #56
« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2006, 07:51:02 AM »
Sorry JHGRedekop :) I'll make sure to read more carefully next time. Although you didn't even point out the fact that it is not coming from you.
Praise Jesus.

Offline JHGRedekop

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 160
    • http://77track7.blogspot.com
Episode #56
« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2006, 08:00:54 AM »
Quote
Sorry JHGRedekop :) I'll make sure to read more carefully next time. Although you didn't even point out the fact that it is not coming from you.


I had thought I made that clear with the quotation marks and all -- I should have used the quote tag, though.

It's good to made sure of what was written before you start throwing "idiotic", "jerk", etc around, though. ;)

The list member would probably go for more of a Point of Inquiry approach, I suspect. More formal and "professional".

Offline Steven Novella

  • SGU Panel Member
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
    • http://www.theskepticsguide.org
Episode #56
« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2006, 08:11:26 AM »
All,

Thanks for all the helpful feedback. Balancing humor with skepticism is not easy - skepticism can be very dry and intellectual. The bulk of our feedback suggests that the balance we strike is fairly good - but it's hard to maintain it in every segment of every show.

But keep giving us critical feedback. It does affect how we balance the show.
Steven Novella
Host, The Skeptics Guide
snovella@theness.com

Offline JHGRedekop

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 160
    • http://77track7.blogspot.com
Episode #56
« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2006, 11:37:46 AM »
Quote from: Steven Novella
Thanks for all the helpful feedback. Balancing humor with skepticism is not easy - skepticism can be very dry and intellectual. The bulk of our feedback suggests that the balance we strike is fairly good - but it's hard to maintain it in every segment of every show.


I definitely think you guys do a very good job -- contrast Point of Inquiry, also a good show but very dry overall.

During the opening of the latest show, though, I started wondering if someone had hooked nitrous oxide canisters to your mikes, 'cause you were awfully giggly. :)

Offline JHGRedekop

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 160
    • http://77track7.blogspot.com
Episode #56
« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2006, 11:41:03 AM »
Quote
Quote from: Steven Novella
...


By the way, is anyone else having trouble with attributed quotes? Whenever I use quote="name" it fails, though quote by itself is ok. Am I overlooking something?

Offline Gilnei

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
  • Resident Brazilian Skeptic
Episode #56
« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2006, 11:54:27 AM »
Hey, the guy disliked this portion of the podcast and overreacted in his dismissive judgement. No big deal. That doesn't mean the homor should be toned down. Would you rather have a podcast without such memorable moments as the monkey vs. bird beakflip or the Diet Bacon Bet? I wouldn't.

(JHG, don't worry - that quotes problem is happening to everyone)
Scientists are the leading cause of cancer in lab rats.

 

personate-rain