Author Topic: Episode #605  (Read 4821 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 2397

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
Re: Episode #605
« Reply #90 on: February 18, 2017, 02:58:37 AM »
I hate sports talk, but I like statistical fallacies talk, and anyway you can't expect to love every topic of discussion and banter on a show as diverse as the SGU.

Sports talk shows are shit.  They are as bad as political call in shows.
All call in shows suck. 

Meh, I dunno.... I like The Atheist Experience, for example. The callers still have ignorant pet hypotheses, but that's kind of the point of the show. In fact, I think if the SGU did a call-in segment, that would be kind of awesome (no longer than 10 minutes at a time, though, the Neal Adams interview still haunts me).

The Atheist Experience is a good example, mainly because they actively engage with and challenge their callers, they don't pander to them. But after you've watched/listened to a certain number of episodes, you'll have heard pretty much all the content that's going to come up in any number of episodes.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3365
  • mooh
Re: Episode #605
« Reply #91 on: February 18, 2017, 08:29:41 AM »
I hate sports talk, but I like statistical fallacies talk, and anyway you can't expect to love every topic of discussion and banter on a show as diverse as the SGU.

Sports talk shows are shit.  They are as bad as political call in shows.
All call in shows suck. 

Meh, I dunno.... I like The Atheist Experience, for example. The callers still have ignorant pet hypotheses, but that's kind of the point of the show. In fact, I think if the SGU did a call-in segment, that would be kind of awesome (no longer than 10 minutes at a time, though, the Neal Adams interview still haunts me).

The Atheist Experience is a good example, mainly because they actively engage with and challenge their callers, they don't pander to them. But after you've watched/listened to a certain number of episodes, you'll have heard pretty much all the content that's going to come up in any number of episodes.

True. I mostly just like to listen to Matt Dillahunty when he goes on one of his rants. He's well spoken and well informed. But I haven't done so in ages for exactly that reason.

EDIT: Fell off the wagon as soon as I wrote that. }|:op

« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 09:09:31 AM by werecow »
Mooohn!

Offline mbresciani

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 5
Re: Episode #605
« Reply #92 on: February 22, 2017, 12:13:04 AM »
For the most part, they do keep their biases out of the show. So once in a while they don't. Must they whitewash everything?

That is my sentiment exactly.  ;)  There are a lot of taboo subjects that they avoid which I wish they would critique. Double standards and hypocrisy are not compatible with sound skepticism.

BTW: I am not saying that they chose that letter so they could each repeat the phrase "Donald Trump is like Hitler" over and over again in a cowardly way without having to back it up with any rational argument, but it seems there is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on here, unless they actually believe that Donald Trump is literally like Hitler.  If so, then I wonder where they stand on that old "If you had a time machine would you go back and kill Hitler?"  I think that the CIA and FBI would also be interested, as you don't need a time machine in the Donald Hiler scenario.

Offline mbresciani

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 5
Re: Episode #605
« Reply #93 on: February 22, 2017, 12:21:23 AM »
I wish you would keep your obvious political biases out of the show.  I am sure that if the exact same letter writer had substituted the words "third wave feminism is like the Taliban" for "Trump is like Hitler", you would not only have passed on using it for the segment, you would have deplatformed  the person for ever speaking at any of your events.

For the most part, they do keep their biases out of the show. So once in a while they don't. Must they whitewash everything?

And for the record, when they weren't talking about Trump before the inauguration, there were a whole pile of people crying "Why aren't you talking about Trump??"

No, so now that he is your president, because he is like Hitler, is it OK to punch him like a Nazi?  Also, would you go back in time to kill Hitler?  Oh, that's right you don't need the time machine.

Offline mbresciani

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 5
Re: Episode #605
« Reply #94 on: February 22, 2017, 12:34:44 AM »
I wish you would keep your obvious political biases out of the show.  I am sure that if the exact same letter writer had substituted the words "third wave feminism is like the Taliban" for "Trump is like Hitler", you would not only have passed on using it for the segment, you would have deplatformed  the person for ever speaking at any of your events.


They do keep their political biases out of the show, so much so that except for Cara, I have not the slightest idea where they stand politically. But when politicians openly deny science and promote pseudoscience, that requires a response from skeptics, and they have done it much more gently than some other podcasters.

I see.  So you think that you can't rule out the possibility that the others might be deplorable Trump supporters.

In that segment they didn't criticize anything Trump said, did or thinks. They just took it as a given for sake of argument that he was like Hitler without any reasoning or evidence given.  If the letter had be written exactly as is but with the words "BLM is like the KKK" or "Feminism is like the Taliban" (poor Hitchens) it wouldn't have passed through as just being academic.  Double standards and hypocrisy = anti-intellectual.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 12:57:34 AM by mbresciani »

Offline arthwollipot

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5608
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #605
« Reply #95 on: February 22, 2017, 01:21:31 AM »
He's not my President, mate. I don't even have a President.

Offline Fast Eddie B

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2597
Re: Episode #605
« Reply #96 on: February 22, 2017, 07:34:19 AM »
Of course, if you went back and killed baby Hitler in the crib, the same conditions would still have existed that led to his rise. And maybe someone more cunning and rational might have arisen in his place and managed to win WWII.

I think there should be a fallacy along the lines of "It couldn't be any worse". Given enough imagination, it can always be worse.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3365
  • mooh
Re: Episode #605
« Reply #97 on: February 22, 2017, 08:16:13 AM »
Of course, if you went back and killed baby Hitler in the crib, the same conditions would still have existed that led to his rise. And maybe someone more cunning and rational might have arisen in his place and managed to win WWII.

I think there should be a fallacy along the lines of "It couldn't be any worse". Given enough imagination, it can always be worse.

That's basically a special case of the argument from personal incredulity; I can't imagine it, therefore it can't happen.

Of course, that doesn't mean that things are likely to have been worse without Hitler. And if someone actually existed who could have come along who was even worse than Hitler, there must be some reason why that didn't actually happen.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 08:19:34 AM by werecow »
Mooohn!

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4903
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Episode #605
« Reply #98 on: February 22, 2017, 09:39:32 AM »
I wish you would keep your obvious political biases out of the show.  I am sure that if the exact same letter writer had substituted the words "third wave feminism is like the Taliban" for "Trump is like Hitler", you would not only have passed on using it for the segment, you would have deplatformed  the person for ever speaking at any of your events.


They do keep their political biases out of the show, so much so that except for Cara, I have not the slightest idea where they stand politically. But when politicians openly deny science and promote pseudoscience, that requires a response from skeptics, and they have done it much more gently than some other podcasters.

I see.  So you think that you can't rule out the possibility that the others might be deplorable Trump supporters.

In that segment they didn't criticize anything Trump said, did or thinks. They just took it as a given for sake of argument that he was like Hitler without any reasoning or evidence given.  If the letter had be written exactly as is but with the words "BLM is like the KKK" or "Feminism is like the Taliban" (poor Hitchens) it wouldn't have passed through as just being academic.  Double standards and hypocrisy = anti-intellectual.

Putting words in my mouth there, friend. That's not sound argument. They made it clear on a previous show that they are opposed to the things Trump is doing when they called him the Jerk of the Year, or something to that effect. I don't remember the exact phrase. But that does not tell me what their politics are. It only tells me that they oppose science denialism, anti-vaxxerism, climate change denial, and people who have contempt for facts and evidence. I know one person they disagree with, but I do not know what their politics are.

And they argued that the "Trump is like Hitler" trope is nonsense. Therefore, you have it backwards when you accuse them of claiming that Trump is like Hitler. The only similarity is in his appeal to the pent-up frustration and racism of a segment of society, and his contempt for facts and common sense. The rest remains to be seen. Hitler did not have death camps when he first came to power. But Trump is using similar rhetoric against Muslims and Mexicans that Hitler used against Jews, and this frightens me. I would not have been afraid that Jeb Bush might incite racial pogroms.

Of course, if you went back and killed baby Hitler in the crib, the same conditions would still have existed that led to his rise. And maybe someone more cunning and rational might have arisen in his place and managed to win WWII.

I think there should be a fallacy along the lines of "It couldn't be any worse". Given enough imagination, it can always be worse.

I was thinking something along these same lines. Hitler rose to power because of the disastrous economic conditions in Germany after WW I, and the anger of Germans against the victors of that war. His insanity was a large contributor to Germany's loss in WW II. If a sane person had come to power and waged a war, he might not have been stupid enough to invade Russia. He might have seen what happened to Napoleon, he might have conquered Western Europe, and stopped there to consolidate his power.

In King Lear, I think it might have been Edward who, upon meeting up with Gloucester, outcast and blind, says something to the effect of "Never think that things are at their worst. They can always get worse."

Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline 2397

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
Re: Episode #605
« Reply #99 on: February 22, 2017, 12:36:09 PM »
So Hitler might've been the best case scenario. And why those time travelers end up going back and not killing him, or to stop all the other time travelers.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3365
  • mooh
Re: Episode #605
« Reply #100 on: February 22, 2017, 03:15:27 PM »
In a hypothetical like this, I think the question should not be "could things have been worse", but "how likely would they have been to get worse". Frankly, I don't accept that the Third Reich was on the "better" side of the (proverbial) bell curve without a whole lot of evidence to the contrary.
Mooohn!

Offline Brshk1

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 2
Re: Episode #605
« Reply #101 on: February 23, 2017, 04:19:10 AM »
And digressing a little bit and going back to the topics covered in the episode, I was somehow disappointed that SGU failed to mention that February 11 is the International Day of Women and Girls in Science. It's been only the second year in a row, but events were held in many countries. And it's science and gender equality, isn't it?

Offline 2397

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
Re: Episode #605
« Reply #102 on: February 23, 2017, 04:43:26 AM »
Girls seem to be doing better in school than boys do in a lot of Western countries, so it might not necessarily be equality to focus specifically on girls.

For adults it's a different matter, but kids aren't part of the establishment and should all get as much encouragement as they can anyway.

Online Swagomatic

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2408
Re: Episode #605
« Reply #103 on: February 23, 2017, 10:16:35 AM »
And digressing a little bit and going back to the topics covered in the episode, I was somehow disappointed that SGU failed to mention that February 11 is the International Day of Women and Girls in Science. It's been only the second year in a row, but events were held in many countries. And it's science and gender equality, isn't it?

Yes, that definitely needs to be publicized more.  This is the first I've heard of it.  Thanks.
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.
---George Bernard Shaw

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9669
Re: Episode #605
« Reply #104 on: February 24, 2017, 09:03:24 PM »

 

personate-rain