Author Topic: Episode #713  (Read 2017 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RMoore

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 61
Re: Episode #713
« Reply #30 on: March 12, 2019, 07:45:19 PM »
Regarding mice seeing infrared:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/nanoparticles-let-mice-see-near-infrared-light-65545

Toward the end of the segment, Bob speculates about being able to see warm objects with this technology. I suspect he is confusing two ranges of the infrared
spectrum. the near infrared and the long-wave infrared.

As described in the article, the technology works with near infrared, at a wavelength of 980 nm (nanometers). Objects at around human body temperature
or even a pot of boiling water are going to emit long-wave infrared at wavelengths of multiple thousands of nm, with no significant radiation in the 980 nm range.
They would not appear brighter through this technology than they do without it.


Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8181
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #713
« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2019, 09:11:00 PM »
Regarding mice seeing infrared:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/nanoparticles-let-mice-see-near-infrared-light-65545

Toward the end of the segment, Bob speculates about being able to see warm objects with this technology. I suspect he is confusing two ranges of the infrared
spectrum. the near infrared and the long-wave infrared.

As described in the article, the technology works with near infrared, at a wavelength of 980 nm (nanometers). Objects at around human body temperature
or even a pot of boiling water are going to emit long-wave infrared at wavelengths of multiple thousands of nm, with no significant radiation in the 980 nm range.
They would not appear brighter through this technology than they do without it.

The rogues are enthusiastic, but not always as knowledgeable as we might like. Steve and Cara are the only actual scientists among them. I still can't forget when one of them speculated that self-driving car technology would (could?) lead to hotel rooms that detach themselves from the hotel, pick you up at the airport, and drive you back to the hotel and re-attach themselves. As if reliance on human drivers were the only obstacle to detachable, street-legal hotel rooms.

Compared to that, Bob's mistake about infrared radiation seems minor.
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 mabell_yah

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Episode #713
« Reply #32 on: March 13, 2019, 02:58:51 AM »
I wrote the following letter to Steven Novella:
I really enjoy your "name the logical fallacy" segment on the SGU. I wish it was on every episode. You did a pretty good job with the TJD's climate denier letter, but I take exception to the way you handled the AOC quote.

TJD wrote "AOC is screeching we only have 12 years before we all die".

Right out of the gate, that's an ad hominem. Her intonation has nothing to do with the argument. It's also a lie as the video shows her to be quite calm, speaking in a low and soothing voice.

You criticized AOC's communication at length while citing an actual AOC quote: "the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change". When pressed, you expanded a little: "she and other young Americans fear 'the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change'".

Let me offer a more complete version of the quote:

"I think the part of that that IS generational is that millennials and gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like 'the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change' and your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it? And like this is our WWII and I think for younger people we're looking at this and we're like how are we saying 'let's take it easy' when 3,000 Americans died last year".

Do you really think this hurts the cause? She's talking about big ideas like the end of the world (as we know it) and WWII, comparing them to small-minded "how are we going to pay for it". Whether you agree with her or not, I think the rhetoric is legitimate. I would point out that she never makes a scientific declaration that the world will end. She's talking about the concerns and fears of the younger generations. That's fair. That's human.

Finally, you criticized TDJ for using an out-lier like AOC to represent the whole planet change thing. It seems like you're doing a similar thing with AOC by excessively criticizing her one comment, which is not exactly part of her standard stump speech.

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7266
Re: Episode #713
« Reply #33 on: March 13, 2019, 09:43:54 AM »
The ads are often the best part of the podcast.  Jus saying'.

No, they're not.

That would be a matter of opinion.

I am not exaggerating when I say that the only reason I pay for the premium feed is so that I don't get ads. No-one is ever on the Discord when I'm able to log on (which is one reason why I prefer the forum), and while the premium content is nice, I wouldn't be too upset to not get it, and I can't afford to travel so I can't get discount tickets to NECSS. No ads is worth paying for.

The vehemence with which you hold your opinion does not, however, render that opinion fact.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline grandpotato

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Episode #713
« Reply #34 on: March 13, 2019, 09:54:20 AM »
I wrote the following letter to Steven Novella:
I really enjoy your "name the logical fallacy" segment on the SGU. I wish it was on every episode. You did a pretty good job with the TJD's climate denier letter, but I take exception to the way you handled the AOC quote.

TJD wrote "AOC is screeching we only have 12 years before we all die".

Right out of the gate, that's an ad hominem. Her intonation has nothing to do with the argument. It's also a lie as the video shows her to be quite calm, speaking in a low and soothing voice.

You criticized AOC's communication at length while citing an actual AOC quote: "the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change". When pressed, you expanded a little: "she and other young Americans fear 'the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change'".

Let me offer a more complete version of the quote:

"I think the part of that that IS generational is that millennials and gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like 'the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change' and your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it? And like this is our WWII and I think for younger people we're looking at this and we're like how are we saying 'let's take it easy' when 3,000 Americans died last year".

Do you really think this hurts the cause? She's talking about big ideas like the end of the world (as we know it) and WWII, comparing them to small-minded "how are we going to pay for it". Whether you agree with her or not, I think the rhetoric is legitimate. I would point out that she never makes a scientific declaration that the world will end. She's talking about the concerns and fears of the younger generations. That's fair. That's human.

Finally, you criticized TDJ for using an out-lier like AOC to represent the whole planet change thing. It seems like you're doing a similar thing with AOC by excessively criticizing her one comment, which is not exactly part of her standard stump speech.

I agree with your sentiment. But I feel like Steve and Cara were holding different values when viewing this quote. I think Cara was being charitable to AOC's phrasing and saw how it could be beneficial from the planet as a whole if people could be quickly convinced with rhetoric. Steve seems to take more exception to loose language and strict adherence to truth. Which is fully consistent with how he views everything as he's constantly explaining nuance.

So Steve is trying to promote truthful careful discourse while Cara is being more gentle and just accepting her as being a human but also because it will draw more people into the message in the short term.

Maybe Steve believes the looseness will erode effectiveness over time over the short term wins?

I'm glad they argued. To show a ranges of views on all things but ultimately they do both agree on the goals that action on climate change is required.




Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8181
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #713
« Reply #35 on: March 13, 2019, 11:57:23 AM »
<...snip...>
Let me offer a more complete version of the quote:

"I think the part of that that IS generational is that millennials and gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like 'the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change' and your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it? And like this is our WWII and I think for younger people we're looking at this and we're like how are we saying 'let's take it easy' when 3,000 Americans died last year".

So the rogues presented Ocasio-Cortez as making an assertion that the world was going to end in 12 years if we do nothing, when she was actually presenting a hyperbolic version of a general sentiment among a class of people. This is a terrible example of taking a short clip out if context. That misrepresents the clear meaning of the speaker, and is just as bad as what climate-change deniers or evolution deniers do when they take a short clip of a quote from a scientist out of context to distort their meaning.

Epic fail for the rogues!

Ocasio-Cortez is not asserting that the world will end. She's saying that young people are concerned about climate change while others are just concerned with how we're going to pay for it.

And she's right on the mark. Note that when they want to have a war, they never ask how we're going to pay for it. But when a school needs money for books, or to pay teachers a decent wage, then the fuckwad warmongering presidents and legislators ask how we're going to pay for it. Of course, we could pay for the switch away from carbon-based, climate-changing fossil fuels to non-carbon based renewable energy sources if we cut the military back down to what we actually need to defend our borders from hostile invasion. Which is just about zero. Canadians are too nice to invade anybody, and Mexicans flock here because they like us and want to be part of the American dream. And both make us a better place when they come here.
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 arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8513
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #713
« Reply #36 on: March 13, 2019, 08:51:23 PM »
The ads are often the best part of the podcast.  Jus saying'.

No, they're not.

That would be a matter of opinion.

I am not exaggerating when I say that the only reason I pay for the premium feed is so that I don't get ads. No-one is ever on the Discord when I'm able to log on (which is one reason why I prefer the forum), and while the premium content is nice, I wouldn't be too upset to not get it, and I can't afford to travel so I can't get discount tickets to NECSS. No ads is worth paying for.

The vehemence with which you hold your opinion does not, however, render that opinion fact.

I was stating my own opinion and not objective fact. I never made a pretence of stating objective fact. "Best" is an inherently subjective word.

No Such Thing As A Fish is the only podcast I listen to where I can stand to listen to the host-delivered ads. All others I skip.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?

Offline lucek

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 112
Re: Episode #713
« Reply #37 on: March 13, 2019, 10:08:17 PM »
Talking about who used to do the quote made me a bit sad. I still will find myself tearing up over Perry. Truly a skeptical rogue of some note.
You have the power, but. . .
Power is just energy over time and. . .
Energy is just the ability to do work.

Offline fuzzyMarmot

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
Re: Episode #713
« Reply #38 on: March 13, 2019, 11:57:57 PM »
It's also important to note that the 12 year figure cited by AOC was not just a random number she pulled out of thin air-- she was directly referencing the U.N. report that we will reach a 1.5 degree increase in 12 years. This is a threshold beyond which the report suggests there will be catastrophic consequences.

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8181
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #713
« Reply #39 on: March 14, 2019, 10:23:32 AM »
I actually think that the 12-year figure is optimistic. Not for "the end of the world," but for the inevitable decline toward eventual chaos. I base this not on what the human race could accomplish technologically, but on what we could muster the political will to do. The nations of the world and the major corporations behind the politics are run by avaricious old men who have a short time horizon: They expect to live another ten to twenty years and they want to maintain their own personal income levels, and they don't particularly care what happens after.
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 gebobs

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 542
  • Me like hockey!
Re: Episode #713
« Reply #40 on: March 14, 2019, 11:27:19 AM »
... Just tell me this isn't about suicide bombers:

I know nothing about the singer. I am grateful to Soldier of FORTRAN for posting the lyrics so I didn't have to listen to the music.

I disagree that the above must be about suicide bombing. I will retract this opinion if the singer is known for that sort of thing. But I'm reminded of the old civil rights song, "This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine..." I'd not have used the reference to fireworks, but I can certainly see how someone might want to substitute "fireworks" for "this little light." Especially if she has an inflated opinion of her own value. The civil rights activists saw themselves as a collection of little lights. The singer might think she's a big light.

I can see how one might make the connection to suicide bombing, but I don't think that's the only valid interpretation of the lyrics as printed. Again, if this singer is known for violent lyrics or references to suicide, I'm willing to change my imterpretation.

I think the lyrics are simply about someone wanting to start afresh in a new place. Not exactly a rare feeling, or a rare theme in songs. No connection to suicide.

I figured SoF was joking. If not, shall we let Katy clear that up?

"Basically I have this very morbid idea . . . when I pass, I want to be put into a firework and shot across the sky over the Santa Barbara Ocean as my last hurrah. I want to be a firework, both living and dead. My boyfriend showed me a paragraph out of Jack Kerouac's book 'On the Road,' about people that are buzzing and fizzing and full of life and never say a commonplace thing. They shoot across the sky like a firework and make people go, 'Ahhh.' I guess that making people go 'ahhh' is kind of like my motto."

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/957236/katy-perry-the-billboard-cover-story

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2470
Re: Episode #713
« Reply #41 on: March 14, 2019, 11:33:05 AM »
I actually think that the 12-year figure is optimistic. Not for "the end of the world," but for the inevitable decline toward eventual chaos. I base this not on what the human race could accomplish technologically, but on what we could muster the political will to do. The nations of the world and the major corporations behind the politics are run by avaricious old men who have a short time horizon: They expect to live another ten to twenty years and they want to maintain their own personal income levels, and they don't particularly care what happens after.


We have already passed the threshold. We were supposed to arrive in 2020 with significant reductions, instead we set a new emissions record in 2018. There's no way for us to emit less than we were supposed to.

Now in addition to significant reductions, we need massive amounts of negative emissions to undo going over the threshold and the extra emissions released from permafrost thawing, etc.

https://www.cicero.oslo.no/en/carbonbudget-for-dummies

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4650
Re: Episode #713
« Reply #42 on: March 15, 2019, 01:57:53 PM »
Right, but I doubt he meant that the requirement would increase with the listenership. Unless their costs are only based on how many listeners they have.

I assume it would be based on listenership, and increase as listenership does. Otherwise, at which point would they pick a date to determine the 4%?

Personally I don't mind the ads that much, and I think that if it helps the SGU, then it's probably worth it.
"I appear as a skeptic, who believes that doubt is the great engine, the great fuel, of all inquiry, all discovery, and all innovation" - Christopher Hitchens

Offline Swagomatic

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2675
Re: Episode #713
« Reply #43 on: March 15, 2019, 02:28:43 PM »
Right, but I doubt he meant that the requirement would increase with the listenership. Unless their costs are only based on how many listeners they have.

I assume it would be based on listenership, and increase as listenership does. Otherwise, at which point would they pick a date to determine the 4%?

Personally I don't mind the ads that much, and I think that if it helps the SGU, then it's probably worth it.

Especially when you consider that, compared to most "free" podcasts, there are only a few commercials.  For years, I was a premium subscriber and only listened to the regular feed.  Now, I listen to the Patreon feed, because I really like the app.
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.
---George Bernard Shaw

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2470
Re: Episode #713
« Reply #44 on: March 15, 2019, 04:06:16 PM »
There's a whole other thread somewhere with opinions about the ads.

If 4% still means 4%, okay, but it seems weird to me that they could have a significant increase in regular payments and be further off from the goal if the relative increase in listenership is greater. How much are they spending on bandwidth vs. equipment, events, and feeding Jay?

 

personate-rain
personate-rain