Author Topic: Episode #648  (Read 5430 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GodSlayer

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 15040
Re: Episode #648
« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2017, 07:33:28 PM »
neat to hear that Cara likes our flat white :) (all I ever order when I have occasion to waste $5 on a drink)

I hear that we're a coffee snob country (NZ), and I've heard that US coffee is garbage, but I always find it hard to believe, like if someone said KFC make terrible fried chicken--how does Starbucks do so well? how have they managed to never improve? :P
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 GodSlayer

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 15040
Re: Episode #648
« Reply #16 on: December 11, 2017, 07:36:23 PM »
Cara spoke with far too much generality in regards to European coffee
I've only been to Europe twice, first to Ireland and then to England some 10 years later.
"Coffee" by and large was instant coffee.  :-X
Luckily by the time I went to England there were some Starbucks in some places.

next week: american bacon vs bacon (aka 'canadian bacon')
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 lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5037
Re: Episode #648
« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2017, 08:41:13 PM »
neat to hear that Cara likes our flat white :) (all I ever order when I have occasion to waste $5 on a drink)

I hear that we're a coffee snob country (NZ), and I've heard that US coffee is garbage, but I always find it hard to believe, like if someone said KFC make terrible fried chicken--how does Starbucks do so well? how have they managed to never improve? :P

We are a coffee snob country; not as good as Italy, but better than Oz, IMHO.

Dude, there is good coffee in the US, but it isn't at Starbucks and you have to get beta from locals to find it.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 16942
Re: Episode #648
« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2017, 04:31:48 AM »
Cara spoke with far too much generality in regards to European coffee
I've only been to Europe twice, first to Ireland and then to England some 10 years later.
"Coffee" by and large was instant coffee.  :-X
Luckily by the time I went to England there were some Starbucks in some places.
Theres been a big change in the past 10 years or so in the UK and Ireland regarding coffee, but the continental Europeans have always taken it very seriously.

Online daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9564
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #648
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2017, 09:52:33 AM »
neat to hear that Cara likes our flat white :) (all I ever order when I have occasion to waste $5 on a drink)

I hear that we're a coffee snob country (NZ), and I've heard that US coffee is garbage, but I always find it hard to believe, like if someone said KFC make terrible fried chicken--how does Starbucks do so well? how have they managed to never improve? :P

The generic coffee served in most restaurants in the U.S. is weak, flat, and bland. However there is excellent coffee to be had if you care to get it. Just not where you are likely to be eating out. And of course you can make excellent coffee at home if you care to. But most Americans don't care. Most Americans make the same dull, flat, bland coffee that most restaurants make. Most Americans don't care about good coffee, but we have it for those who do.

It's a big country, and generalizations don't hold up very well.
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 Jeremy's Sea

  • Kintsukuroi, baby.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • 667 - Neighbor of the beast.
Re: Episode #648
« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2017, 04:24:35 PM »
neat to hear that Cara likes our flat white :) (all I ever order when I have occasion to waste $5 on a drink)

I hear that we're a coffee snob country (NZ), and I've heard that US coffee is garbage, but I always find it hard to believe, like if someone said KFC make terrible fried chicken--how does Starbucks do so well? how have they managed to never improve? :P

The generic coffee served in most restaurants in the U.S. is weak, flat, and bland. However there is excellent coffee to be had if you care to get it. Just not where you are likely to be eating out. And of course you can make excellent coffee at home if you care to. But most Americans don't care. Most Americans make the same dull, flat, bland coffee that most restaurants make. Most Americans don't care about good coffee, but we have it for those who do.

It's a big country, and generalizations don't hold up very well.
Exactly. That's inane to the point of insanity to say that you can't drink good coffee in America. The world is generally getting beans from the same places, so it comes down to roasting it, and not every place in America roasts the exact same way. Of course large restaurants freeze dry everything, but that's like saying you can't get a good burger in America because McDonald's sucks. At least three places in my neighborhood alone roast their own coffee beans and it's all excellent. Jay Novella's idiotic snobbery aside, there is plenty of good coffee in the US, god forbid anyone has to look further than a McDs or Starbucks for it...  :jay: ::) :D
Knowledge is power. France is bacon.

Offline phooey

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
Re: Episode #648
« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2017, 05:09:30 PM »
So Steven talked all about a study that researched about why people don't believe "science."

On top of the fact that you are not defining what is science (not trusting that all GMO foods are safe is unscientific?  How so?), Steven also didn't even bother to tell us the name of the study or where to reference it. 

Pretty unscientific Steven. 

Offline st3class

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 397
Re: Episode #648
« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2017, 05:32:01 PM »
So Steven talked all about a study that researched about why people don't believe "science."

On top of the fact that you are not defining what is science (not trusting that all GMO foods are safe is unscientific?  How so?), Steven also didn't even bother to tell us the name of the study or where to reference it. 

Pretty unscientific Steven.

Show notes:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcast/sgu/648

Link to blog post from show notes:
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-causes-of-science-denial/

Link to study from blog post:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167217741314
It's always more complicated than that.

Offline phooey

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
Re: Episode #648
« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2017, 05:45:10 PM »
Well I was going to say something along the lines of this, but I see on the discussion page someone said it much better than me:



michaelegnor says:   
December 4, 2017 at 10:53 am   

The term “science denial” is deeply offensive. It equates disagreement about science with Holocaust denial, which is obviously the reason “denial” rather than “disagreement” is used. It is nasty and insulting, and no decent scientist should use the term. It has Orwellian overtones.

Was Einstein a physics denier, because he rejected the luminiferous ether? Was Copernicus an astronomy denier? What disgusting ways to refer to people with whom you disagree.

There are disagreements about science among scientists and laymen, and many people disagree with what appear to be majority views among scientists. Some of the opinions are well-informed (rejection of global warming hysteria), some opinions aren’t well-informed (belief that vaccines cause autism).

Science is inherently a debate. It is the constant testing of models against reality, and terms like “consensus” should be avoided, as they are political terms, not scientific terms.

Furthermore, the use of psychological studies to study “science denial” is odious. People who hold different opinions, well-informed or not, should not be treated like mental patients or insects pinned to a cork-board. They disagree on the science, and they should be respected. Disagreements that are based on evidence should be debated openly and respectfully.

The scientific profession doesn’t understand how much damage it is causing to itself by calling people who disagree with them “deniers” and treating them like mental patients. My opinion of scientists has plummeted since this garbage began, and millions of people share my views.


In particular I would add, calling skepticism about the know safety of GMO foods as unscientific, is about as unscientific as you can get. 

Offline Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9204
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Episode #648
« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2017, 06:50:43 PM »
With regards to the Net Neutrality discussion, I feel like something that was not discussed that perhaps should have been was how many people arguing against it seem to be doing so disingenuously so and that money seems to be a primary motivator.  I mean, maybe it's something else, but there is clearly a LOT of lobbying going on and there have been some pretty disturbing connections made between Pai and some ISPs.  To me, that puts his arguments in an entirely different light.  Maybe that qualifies as an ad hominem and I get that the point of the discussion was to focus solely on the individual arguments for and against, but I really think that it's not trivial to say that some arguments being put forward, while not completely unsound on their own, are not being argued in good faith and are simply being used as a means to undo the only protection consumers have.  It's kind of like Trump repealing the executive action protecting Dreamers on the basis that Congress should fix it.  He's not wrong, but what happens when the inevitably don't?

Offline Jeremy's Sea

  • Kintsukuroi, baby.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • 667 - Neighbor of the beast.
Re: Episode #648
« Reply #25 on: December 12, 2017, 06:56:50 PM »
lol one of the forums biggest science deniers just quoted Michael egnor.... the irony, it burns
Knowledge is power. France is bacon.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5281
  • mooh
Re: Episode #648
« Reply #26 on: December 12, 2017, 07:30:00 PM »
Well I was going to say something along the lines of this, but I see on the discussion page someone said it much better than me:


The term “science denial” is deeply offensive. It equates disagreement about science with Holocaust denial, which is obviously the reason “denial” rather than “disagreement” is used.



Furthermore, the use of psychological studies to study “science denial” is odious. People who hold different opinions, well-informed or not, should not be treated like mental patients or insects pinned to a cork-board. They disagree on the science, and they should be respected.


Look, if somebody "disagrees" with a set of facts that have been established beyond a reasonable doubt by the only set of methods we have to separate reality from fiction, and an enormous body of empirical evidence, then they are in denial about what we know about reality. That is not just any ordinary disagreement. And it so happens that, like any other recurrent pattern of human behavior, there is a certain set of psychological mechanisms at work there that are important enough for the (mal)functioning of our society that they should be studied in depth. That is true for Holocaust "disagreement", and it is equally true for "disagreement" with any well established scientific theory - on the basis of anything other than an extraordinary body of new evidence, that meets at least the same standards as those set for the body of evidence used to establish the original theory itself. If Egnor doesn't like being called a denier, he should familiarize himself with the evidence for evolution (or any of the other ideas he "disagrees" with, and perhaps more importantly with the scientific method and critical thinking), and follow that evidence to the inescapable conclusion it leads to.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2017, 09:06:12 PM by werecow »
Mooohn!

Offline GodSlayer

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 15040
Re: Episode #648
« Reply #27 on: December 12, 2017, 08:21:35 PM »
neat to hear that Cara likes our flat white :) (all I ever order when I have occasion to waste $5 on a drink)

I hear that we're a coffee snob country (NZ), and I've heard that US coffee is garbage, but I always find it hard to believe, like if someone said KFC make terrible fried chicken--how does Starbucks do so well? how have they managed to never improve? :P

We are a coffee snob country; not as good as Italy, but better than Oz, IMHO.

Dude, there is good coffee in the US, but it isn't at Starbucks and you have to get beta from locals to find it.

yeh, I'm sure I've seen the odd story about little boutique kiwi places in NYC, but it's just weird that Starbucks is like 'this swill is what people here like', rather than going 'hey, try this good stuff that's popular overseas' and seeing if it takes off. It seems weird that 'good' anything should be niche -- that a franchise wouldn't explore what's good and push that for their own success.
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.

Online daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9564
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #648
« Reply #28 on: December 12, 2017, 09:01:50 PM »
It's been years since I've been able to tolerate caffeine, but when I could, I thought Starbucks was exceptionally good coffee. Different people like different degrees of roasting. I like an extremely dark roast. The success of Starbucks shows that I'm not alone.

What I didn't like about them was their predatory commercial practices. Because there are independent coffee shops that also serve an excellent very dark roast. In both Spain and Cuba I got excellent coffee. By the time I was in NZ I was no longer able to tolerate caffeine, so I have no experience of coffee there.
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 Kwisatz Haderach

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11170
Re: Episode #648
« Reply #29 on: December 13, 2017, 12:41:44 AM »
Cara spoke with far too much generality in regards to European coffee
I've only been to Europe twice, first to Ireland and then to England some 10 years later.
"Coffee" by and large was instant coffee.  :-X
Luckily by the time I went to England there were some Starbucks in some places.

That's how is is in England, by and large - the only choices are instant coffee or Starbucks (or the Starbucks knock-offs "Costa" and "Nero").  And making coffee at home is not really an option because coffee beans/grounds are so expensive here.