Author Topic: Episode #683  (Read 1477 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steven Novella

  • SGU Panel Member
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1786
    • http://www.theskepticsguide.org
Episode #683
« on: August 11, 2018, 12:27:06 PM »
Interview with Sean Carroll; What’s the Word: Orthogonal; News Items: Remembering is Seeing, Hothouse Tipping Point, Novel Amino Acids, Weird, Rogue Planet, Corporal Punishment; Who’s that Noisy; Questions and E-mails: Monkeys and Apes; Science or Fiction
Steven Novella
Host, The Skeptics Guide
snovella@theness.com

Offline Friendly Angel

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4205
  • Post count reset to zero in both forum apocalypses
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2018, 05:22:37 PM »
Chickadee - Nuthatch... or vice versa.





Mooney = do you see it?
Amend and resubmit.

Offline PabloHoney

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • How many pits are in a pear?
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2018, 06:10:54 PM »
Chickadee - Nuthatch... or vice versa.





Mooney = do you see it?


1. Nuthatch
2. Chickadee
3. Burger and fries.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2018, 06:37:05 PM by PabloHoney »

Offline PabloHoney

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • How many pits are in a pear?
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2018, 06:15:42 PM »
I wish when talking about climate change, they'd talk about it more like a call to action for listeners.  Especially, encourage people to buy electric cars (or at least not buy gas guzzlers) and to limit mileage driven, since that's the area where individuals can have the biggest impact, as I understand. 
They emphasized the value of voting, which is swell, but make the topic more actionable!

Offline Friendly Angel

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4205
  • Post count reset to zero in both forum apocalypses
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2018, 07:01:01 PM »
3. Burger and fries.

Yeah, I tried to find an example that was by itself so I wouldn't be primed, but they all had the "before" photos as well and I couldn't honestly say if I would've seen the image or not.

I didn't check on your bird ID's, because ... who cares.
Amend and resubmit.

Offline solarchook

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 2
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2018, 10:36:43 PM »
I enjoyed the discussion of apes and moneys and their taxonomy. It’s an interesting example that can be used to illustrate major rifts within the taxonomic community that played out a few decades ago. A basic role of taxonomy is to classify species and organise them into groups. The question then becomes, how best should we do this? The general consensus now it that we should organise them phylogenetically—that is, according to our best current approximation of the ‘one true tree of life’, representing the patterns of evolutionary descent. Among the competing system is phenetics, which says we should organise them according to their overall similarities. According to phenetics, monkeys are a natural group. According to phylogenetics, they are not—they form a paraphyletic group, meaning they are descended from a common ancestor but the group does not include all such ancestors. This paraphyletic group sits within the monophyletic group (or clade), known as the Simiiformes, which includes new world monkeys, old world monkeys, apes and humans.

As Steve and Cara rightly pointed out, the listener who claims that apes are not monkeys, because without them monkeys are not a monophyletic group, is confusing scientific classifications with more everyday phenetic-type folk classifications. There are many, many everyday groupings of organisms that are not monophyletic (and hence not true groups in the phylogenetic sense). Some common examples of paraphyletic groups include:
•   Apes (typically excludes humans)
•   Monkeys (as discussed above)
•   Ungulates (excludes whales and dolphins)
•   Reptiles (excludes birds and mammals)
•   Fish (excludes all terrestrial vertebrates)
•   Wasps (excludes bees and ants)
•   Crustaceans (excludes insects)
•   Prokaryotes (excludes all eukaryotes, including humans).

To be consistent, the pedants who pull you up every time you say dinosaur (“don’t you mean non-avian dinosaur?”) or ape (“don’t you mean non-human ape?”) should also interject when you say fish ("don’t you mean non-terrestrial fish?") or prokaryote (“don’t you mean non-eukaryotic prokaryote?”) which becomes absurd and unhelpful.

And while we’re at it, consider that there are also common names given to several polyphyletic groups (meaning groups of organisms descended from different branches of the tree of life), such as worms. But that’s opening a whole other can of them.

Offline mabell_yah

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2018, 10:39:54 PM »
I'm not terribly surprised about the SIMP auroras.  That fact that it's outside a heliosphere doesn't automatically place it in a perfect vacuum. It seems reasonable that the auroras are the result of interaction with the interstellar medium. Here's the first sentence of the wiki page:

Quote
In astronomy, the interstellar medium (ISM) is the matter and radiation that exists in the space between the star systems in a galaxy. This matter includes gas in ionic, atomic, and molecular form, as well as dust and cosmic rays.

BTW the recently discovered/proposed planet 9 orbits so far out that it never enters the heliosphere.

Offline fuzzyMarmot

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 503
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2018, 05:01:00 AM »
I loved Jay's segment (and Steve's neurologica post) on the climate tipping point paper.

Interestingly, there is a whole field of "early warning signals" that attempts to monitor small statistical fluctuations (critical slowing down, increasing autocorrelation, increasing variance) to determine if we are approaching a critical transition. It is a controversial but fascinating field of research:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1659/20130263.short
http://www.early-warning-signals.org/theory/what-are-early-warning-signals/

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8853
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2018, 03:54:11 PM »
So if there's going to be another debate how about:

Steve Novella and Sean Carroll vs. Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz

I'd pay to see that.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online bachfiend

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2018, 07:53:12 PM »
So if there's going to be another debate how about:

Steve Novella and Sean Carroll vs. Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz

I'd pay to see that.

If you’re going to have a debate, then it should be on a subject where there’s a real dichotomy, such as ‘evolution versus old earth creationism’ or the ‘existence of god(s) versus the absence of any.’

A debate on the merits of high fat/low carbohydrate diets versus high carbohydrate/low fat diets doesn’t fit this criterion.  There’s a wide range of perfectly acceptable diets.  I’ve been arguing all the time that it doesn’t matter whether you get 70% of your calories from fat or 70% from complex carbohydrates, provided at the end of the day you’ve burned all of it (and you’re not putting on weight in the form of increasing body fat).

The answer to the question as to which diet is best - a high fat diet or a high carbohydrate one - is neither.  It depends on the person.

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8853
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2018, 09:41:12 PM »
So if there's going to be another debate how about:

Steve Novella and Sean Carroll vs. Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz

I'd pay to see that.

If you’re going to have a debate, then it should be on a subject where there’s a real dichotomy, such as ‘evolution versus old earth creationism’ or the ‘existence of god(s) versus the absence of any.’

A debate on the merits of high fat/low carbohydrate diets versus high carbohydrate/low fat diets doesn’t fit this criterion.  There’s a wide range of perfectly acceptable diets.  I’ve been arguing all the time that it doesn’t matter whether you get 70% of your calories from fat or 70% from complex carbohydrates, provided at the end of the day you’ve burned all of it (and you’re not putting on weight in the form of increasing body fat).

The answer to the question as to which diet is best - a high fat diet or a high carbohydrate one - is neither.  It depends on the person.

That's not what the debate would be about. It seems you bring that up just to repeat your anecdote.

There are competing theories on diet and nutrition. The mainstream Diet Heart hypothesis and the alternate theory of carbohydrate which suggests that the high carb content of diet, especially sugars and refined flours, are a significant contributor if not root cause of CVD, TIID; metabolic syndrome, etc.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online bachfiend

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2018, 10:29:31 PM »
So if there's going to be another debate how about:

Steve Novella and Sean Carroll vs. Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz

I'd pay to see that.

If you’re going to have a debate, then it should be on a subject where there’s a real dichotomy, such as ‘evolution versus old earth creationism’ or the ‘existence of god(s) versus the absence of any.’

A debate on the merits of high fat/low carbohydrate diets versus high carbohydrate/low fat diets doesn’t fit this criterion.  There’s a wide range of perfectly acceptable diets.  I’ve been arguing all the time that it doesn’t matter whether you get 70% of your calories from fat or 70% from complex carbohydrates, provided at the end of the day you’ve burned all of it (and you’re not putting on weight in the form of increasing body fat).

The answer to the question as to which diet is best - a high fat diet or a high carbohydrate one - is neither.  It depends on the person.

That's not what the debate would be about. It seems you bring that up just to repeat your anecdote.

There are competing theories on diet and nutrition. The mainstream Diet Heart hypothesis and the alternate theory of carbohydrate which suggests that the high carb content of diet, especially sugars and refined flours, are a significant contributor if not root cause of CVD, TIID; metabolic syndrome, etc.

CarbShark,

You’re being increasingly tedious in trying to hijack threads into your ideological hobbyhorse.  Sean Carroll and Steven Novella teaming in a debate regarding religion has nothing to do with your obsession with your high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diet.  And for about the x-th time, the high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diet is a perfectly acceptable diet.  I’m just disagreeing that there’s any best diet.  And I’m not a true-believer attempting to proselytise my diet to anyone else, unlike you.

Your ‘competing theories on diet and nutrition’ may both be (partially) wrong (or right to much the same degree).  I think they are.  The existence of god(s) and their absence are competing hypotheses.  If one is true, then the other must be false.

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8853
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2018, 09:55:07 AM »
The discussed their debating in the episode and made reference to a next debate.

Suggesting Gary Taubes and Nina Ticholtz as potential debate opponents is on topic.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online Billzbub

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3605
  • I know you know I know
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2018, 11:15:18 AM »
I'd love to see CarbShark's debate, but I think they would have to swap in someone else for Sean Carroll because nutrition would be pretty far outside his area of expertise.  David Gorsky might be a better choice.  I don't think they would do it thought because a discussion about which type of good diet is the best diet has a lot lower of an impact than other topics that would be more exciting and impactful to more people.  Still, I would like to see Steve or Dr Gorsky do a deep dive on the more controversial claims of LCHF proponents that CarbShark mentioned.  But for the love of god, let's keep this thread's discussion limited to the discussion of the debate (as we have so far) and avoid discussing LCHF topics themselves.
Quote from: Steven Novella
gleefully altering one’s beliefs to accommodate new information should be a badge of honor

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8853
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2018, 12:42:40 PM »
I'd love to see CarbShark's debate, but I think they would have to swap in someone else for Sean Carroll because nutrition would be pretty far outside his area of expertise.  David Gorsky might be a better choice.  I don't think they would do it thought because a discussion about which type of good diet is the best diet has a lot lower of an impact than other topics that would be more exciting and impactful to more people.  Still, I would like to see Steve or Dr Gorsky do a deep dive on the more controversial claims of LCHF proponents that CarbShark mentioned.  But for the love of god, let's keep this thread's discussion limited to the discussion of the debate (as we have so far) and avoid discussing LCHF topics themselves.

Gorsky would be an excellent depart partner for Steve. 

Didn't Steve do a written debate once? That might be appropriate too. (At one point Dunning told all prominent skeptics to stop having debates, and I don't think there have been that many since then. Too bad.)
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

 

personate-rain
personate-rain