Author Topic: Episode #279  (Read 6822 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4744
Re: Episode #279
« Reply #30 on: November 20, 2010, 10:58:14 PM »
clarification wanted re. "cola"

is this is the only flavored non-alcoholic cold beverage people drink regularly enough to inquire about? or was grape soda and orange soda and lemonade and the like also looked at and had no such effect?

I think they were looking at caffinated beverages.  But what about the evil hfcs???
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline GodSlayer

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 15007
Re: Episode #279
« Reply #31 on: November 21, 2010, 07:15:33 AM »
re. Science or Fiction / Kepler

far as I know, the last syllable isn't silent any more than is the 'n' in Steven, it's a different name.

Quote from: wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_pronounce_johannes
How do you pronounce johannes? It's a German name meaning John. It's pronounced yo-HAHN-ess.


Quote from: dictionary.infoplease.com/johannes
johannes ... Pronunciation: ( jō-han'ēz, -is)
Quote from: Thomas Carlyle
In a controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.

Offline clavicorn

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 57
Re: Episode #279
« Reply #32 on: November 21, 2010, 06:57:41 PM »
I'll have to listen again, but I think that in "Science or Fiction," Steve was making the inference that since people prefer 1% interest to 20% interest more strongly than they prefer 0% interest to 20% interest, they therefore prefer 1% to 0%, which is obviously faulty logic.

Offline Chew

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9188
  • Juror #8
Re: Episode #279
« Reply #33 on: November 21, 2010, 07:07:34 PM »
I'll have to listen again, but I think that in "Science or Fiction," Steve was making the inference that since people prefer 1% interest to 20% interest more strongly than they prefer 0% interest to 20% interest, they therefore prefer 1% to 0%, which is obviously faulty logic.

Usually the SoF items in the show notes has a link to the item.

The original paper is here: http://www.jcr-admin.org/pressreleases/111510111603_Palmeirasrelease.pdf
« Last Edit: November 21, 2010, 07:10:11 PM by Chew »
"3 out of 2 Americans do not understand statistics." -Mark Crislip

Online stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10132
Re: Episode #279
« Reply #34 on: November 21, 2010, 07:27:40 PM »
I'll have to listen again, but I think that in "Science or Fiction," Steve was making the inference that since people prefer 1% interest to 20% interest more strongly than they prefer 0% interest to 20% interest, they therefore prefer 1% to 0%, which is obviously faulty logic.

That's not what he said. He was making the point that (as behavioral economic data has shown), people judge values relatively. As in, by ratio. Since any non-zero interest rate is infinitely (or indefinitely) larger than 0, it's confusing to people.

Offline mindme

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8657
    • http://www.yrad.com/cs
Re: Episode #279
« Reply #35 on: November 21, 2010, 07:34:08 PM »
The World Toilet Organization is one of those things that live the Ignoble Prize maxim of "makes you laugh and then makes you think". As Dr. Crislip likes to say we all get to live to 80 because of good plumbing, vaccines, and antibiotics. Few people really pay much attention to how important good plumbing is and how rotten the plumbing is in third world nations.
"Because the world needs more Mark Crislip."

Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast
Korean Podcast
Michael Goudeau, Vegas Comedy Entertainer Available for Trade Shows

Offline clavicorn

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 57
Re: Episode #279
« Reply #36 on: November 21, 2010, 07:45:07 PM »
Steve did indeed explain the interest rate study accurately during the reveal, but the science-or-fiction choice that the rogues were given was a variation on the headline for the above-cited paper, "Do Consumers Prefer 1% interest over 0% Interest?"

Again, just because you prefer A (1%) to B (20%) but don't prefer C (0%) to B (20%), it doesn't follow that you prefer A to C.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2010, 11:58:56 PM by clavicorn »

Online stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10132
Re: Episode #279
« Reply #37 on: November 21, 2010, 08:51:22 PM »
Again, because you prefer A (1%) to B (20%) but don't prefer C (0%) to B (20%), it doesn't follow that you prefer A to C.

OK, good point. This article actually says that a 0% interest rate appears to be less of a deal relative to a 20% interest rate than a 1% rate relative to a 20% interest rate. But it doesn't say anywhere that they prefer 1% to 0%.

Interesting article, WTF headline, as usual.

Offline mgsharp86

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 4
Re: Episode #279
« Reply #38 on: November 22, 2010, 06:21:57 AM »
No one else constantly cringe throughout DJ's interview? 'outreach'... 'mission'... 'donate'... it took me back to sitting in a certain building on a sunday morning. I'm all for events and gatherings like TAM or in the pub, but we're not a mission to save souls here!

Still enjoyed the episode.

Offline MountainManPan

  • Banned
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3461
Re: Episode #279
« Reply #39 on: November 22, 2010, 06:44:58 AM »
He never claimed to be on a mission to save souls.  But there are probably still a lot of skeptics out there who do not realize they are skeptics. 

Offline Kwisatz Haderach

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11170
Re: Episode #279
« Reply #40 on: November 22, 2010, 07:53:45 AM »
He never claimed to be on a mission to save souls.  But there are probably still a lot of skeptics out there who do not realize they are skeptics.

And a lot a skeptics out there who do not realize they are evangelical hucksters. 

Offline mgsharp86

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 4
Re: Episode #279
« Reply #41 on: November 22, 2010, 08:09:35 AM »
Of course, I wasn't trying to say he claimed to be saving souls - just pointing out the terminology used is identical to that which people use who ARE in the saving souls business. I find it a little excessive or misplaced.

Offline holometer

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 1
Re: Episode #279
« Reply #42 on: November 22, 2010, 01:15:57 PM »
It is a similar business, except we'r trying to save our own minds from all the preaching. I guess it take some finance to tell people that they don't even have a soul....and problem solved no soul saving required...

Offline Old Hoplite

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Molon Labe
Re: Episode #279
« Reply #43 on: November 22, 2010, 04:07:12 PM »
How could you not admire anyone who owned a tame moose and had his nose cut off in a duel. (Although, does make me wonder what the other guy might have had hacked off.)

By the way, Kepler hated Tycho's guts because he was a drunken philanderer and Kepler was a bit monkish. But Kepler needed Tycho observational data to develop his theory of planetary motion.  Not sure that would be a reason to poison him.

However mercury was used as a cure for the clap. So maybe Tycho got a dose and the cure was worse than the disease.

Beer is proof God loves us. Ben Franklin

Offline clavicorn

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 57
Re: Episode #279
« Reply #44 on: November 22, 2010, 06:46:16 PM »
No one else constantly cringe throughout DJ's interview?
This is one of the rare times I've skipped material on the Skeptics' Guide. I really dislike "meta" discussions about the skepticism movement. Sometimes this stuff crops up in the interviews conducted at TAM as well; understandable, I guess, since that's what they're all there for, but I would rather hear about science and pseudoscience than about the JREF and whatnot.