<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Bshirley</id>
	<title>SGUTranscripts - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Bshirley"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bshirley"/>
	<updated>2026-04-14T12:02:01Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.43.8</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10768</id>
		<title>SGU Episode 581</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10768"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T22:04:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:27:14) */ checklist&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Editing required&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{InfoBox&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeNum     = 581&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeDate    = August 27&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2016  &amp;lt;!-- broadcast date --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeIcon    = File:Proximab2.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|previous       =                          &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to previous episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|next           =                        &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to next episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|rebecca        =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|bob            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|jay            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|evan           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|cara           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|perry          =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest1         =      &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest2         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no second guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest3         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no third guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|downloadLink   = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2016-08-27.mp3&lt;br /&gt;
|forumLink      = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,47202.0.html&lt;br /&gt;
|qowText        = Our place in the Galaxy nor our Galaxy itself is special. Darwin has further shown that humans are a natural product of evolution by means of natural selection. The discovery of extrasolar life will demonstrate that even that last claim to being special will have to be abandoned&lt;br /&gt;
|qowAuthor      = Mario Livio, astrophysiscist &amp;lt;!-- add author and link --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;You&#039;re listening to the Skeptics&#039; Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Hello, and welcome to The Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, August 24&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2016; and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SGU Going to DragonCon &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(0:27)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What&#039;s the Word &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(3:32)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* {{w|Inquiline}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== News Items ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Proxima Centauri Follow Up &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(7:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, Matt &#039;[http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ Potentially Habitable Exoplanet Confirmed Around Nearest Star!]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Universe Today&#039;&#039;. Fraser Cain. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anthropocene &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(15:01)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Yirka, Bob &#039;[http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Phys.org&#039;&#039;. Omicron Technology Limited. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene Anthropocene] on Wikipedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(New era is based on all the environmental effects humans are having on the Earth)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== World Wide Web Turns 25 &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(26:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
*  http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832 1st website ever restored to its 1992 glory: CERN&#039;s ancient page describes the &amp;quot;W3&amp;quot; project]&#039;. &#039;&#039;CBC News: Technology and Science&#039;&#039;. CBC/Radio-Canada. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Commercial at 33:33)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- reference added as convenience for transcriber. raw link can be removed if desired. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fighting Against Pseudoscience &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(34:54)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =    y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: All right, Evan, there was this article&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Grant, Richard P &#039;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2016/aug/23/scientists-losing-science-communication-skeptic-cox Why scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Science - Occam&#039;s Corner&#039;&#039;. The Guardian News. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; published recently about science communication and fighting against pseudoscience that is interesting, although I don&#039;t totally agree with it. But let&#039;s talk about it. Tell us about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah. It appeared in the Guardian, it was written by a former biologist. He turned blogger. His name is Richard Grant. And the title of his article is, “Why Scientists Are Losing the Fight to Communicate Science to the Public.” So I&#039;ll read a few things directly from the article, and then we can sort of comment on it as we go.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says that, “Scientists and science-communicators are engaged in a constant battle with ignorance. But that&#039;s an approach doomed to failure.” Okay. He says that, &amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;“A video did the rounds a couple of years ago of some self-styled skeptic disagreeing (robustly, shall we say) with an anti-vaxxer. The speaker was roundly cheered by everyone for sharing the video. He sure put that idiot in their place! Scientists love to argue, cutting through bullshit and getting to the truth of the matter is pretty much the job description.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I kinda don&#039;t necessarily fully agree with that. But he goes on to say,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;”It&#039;s not really surprising scientists and science supporters frequently take on those who dabble in homeopathy or deny anthropogenic climate change, or who oppose vaccinations or genetically modified food. Brian Cox was at it last week performing a smack down on a climate change denier on the ABC&#039;s Q&amp;amp;A discussion program. He brought graphs (knock-out blow) and yet it leaves me cold. Is this really what science communication is about? Is this informing and changing minds, winning people over to a better, brighter future? I doubt it somehow.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I had a lot of problems with this article. So I think the core point that he&#039;s making, that you can&#039;t just oppose belief in pseudoscience with facts; you have to understand the psychological motivation why people are believing that pseudoscience – sure. That&#039;s absolutely valid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, but that&#039;s also not ... new.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We all know that it&#039;s not a deficit problem. Sci-com, the reason it&#039;s not as effective as we&#039;d like to be is not because there&#039;s just not enough knowledge out there. We know that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, my problem was he&#039;s writing to science communicators, and he is about twenty years behind on the conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s how I felt. It&#039;s like, “Where have you been?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, this is like, I remember having this conversation literally twenty years ago ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: when we were really getting involved with this. And there&#039;s so much more nuance, there&#039;s so much more involved with this. I just briefly put this up on our Facebook page and said that he&#039;s actually committing the problem that he&#039;s criticizing. He&#039;s sort of talking at us and not to us, and not really addressing the issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So like, for example, he&#039;s talking as if there is only true believers, but that&#039;s not true. There&#039;s not only true believers. First of all, there are a lot of people who are in the middle, or are just undecided, or just don&#039;t really know about whatever the topic is, like vaccines. Like, hey, there are a lot of parents who are, they hear concerning things about vaccines, but they&#039;re not anti-vaxxers. And so just putting the correct information out there and opposing the anti-vaxxers has a dramatic effect on the public conversation. It&#039;s an incredibly valuable resource to people who just want to know what the facts are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And it absolutely does prevent people, I think, from going down that rabbit hole and becoming a conspiracy theorist or an anti-science denier or whatever. And also, there are con artists out there as well. That&#039;s another group. There are people who are exploiting the true believers, are exploiting the community, exploiting the beliefs, the conspiracies, whatever, just to make money, just to sell their wares, to sell their snake oil; and they absolutely need to be deconstructed and taken apart. Their claims need to be vigorously opposed. They need to be corrected. We need to have the correct factual information out there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, when dealing with groups of people who believe things for ideological, emotional, political, sociological reasons, we need to address them in the context of the reason for their belief; and we know that there&#039;s a back-fire effect. People could dig their heels in if you make them defend their ideology. Yeah, we&#039;ve been through all of this. This is what we talk about all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So his article was just naive. It was just uninformed. As I was reading it, I&#039;m like, “God, this really would have benefited if he actually spoke to a skeptic at some point who&#039;s been doing this for more than a couple of weeks.” His opinions might have had some depth to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Or a professional science communicator,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: somebody who does this for a living, and who&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: studies outcome effects, and who talks to other science communicators. It was a little bit judgy, this whole thing. What is the quote? Somewhere in here. He&#039;s like, “How often is it that science communications actually listen to the needs of their audience?” And it&#039;s like, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: the number one thing we always say in sci-com is know your audience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s the first thing every science communicator&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: talks about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right, right, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s just so dismissive to act as though we&#039;re ... I think he&#039;s really getting upset at scientists who don&#039;t communicate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Um-hmm, maybe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I don&#039;t know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s frustrating. And also,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Frustrating&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: is it fair to ask, who &#039;&#039;is&#039;&#039; this guy?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Steve chuckles)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Who is he? Really? Richard Grant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I don&#039;t know. I don&#039;t know who he is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: &#039;&#039;(Laughs)&#039;&#039; You know? He works in med – yeah, here it is. “He&#039;s a former biochemist, cell biologist, structural biologist now working in medical communications and founder of the independent blogging network, Occam&#039;s Typewriter.” Okay, so he&#039;s just like one of the many of us. Basically, instead of saying, “Here are the ways that many of us can improve,” he&#039;s saying, “Wow, you guys all suck at this.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Steve, I got the same feeling &#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039; you did. This is very incomplete, way too black and white, not recognizing the broad spectrum where people fall along the lines of science, intelligence, or understanding science. In fact, he breaks it down into – he gives basically two general reasons as to why he arrived at this conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says, “First, in general, people don&#039;t like being told what to do. When the experts tell us how to live our lives, or worse, what to think, something rebels in people, especially when there&#039;s even the merest whiff of controversy or uncertainty.” And then he says, the second point is that on the whole he doesn&#039;t think that people that object to vaccines or GMO&#039;s are at heart anti-science, some are, but most aren&#039;t. People simply want to know that someone is listening, that someone is taking their worry seriously, and that somebody cares for them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I just don&#039;t agree with that. Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: I don&#039;t know where he arrived &#039;&#039;(laughs)&#039;&#039; at that point, or how he got ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I mean,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: that conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: you know, he&#039;s armchair criticizing a community of people that he doesn&#039;t really understand. Again, I&#039;m not gonna play the card, like, “He doesn&#039;t have the cred to have an opinion.” Of course he does. But if you&#039;re going to be judgmental about what other people are doing, you&#039;d better make a good, sincere effort to understand what they&#039;re actually doing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And we do have the advantage here. The SGU is eleven years old. We&#039;ve been doing this for twenty years. This is a very interactive medium. We get dozens, dozens of emails every day. I read dozens of comments to my blog, and comments on our Facebook posts every day. We are interacting with people. We are interacting with a broad audience as well as our community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have a much better idea of what people actually think, and how they actually respond to what we say, than this guy apparently does, you know? He would have benefited tremendously from talking to somebody who&#039;s actually involved in doing this. We just got an email today. I wasn&#039;t planning on reading this, but I&#039;ll just say it&#039;s somebody who&#039;s name is Kim. I won&#039;t give her full name, who basically said, “Hey, I started out as an absolutely true believer, gullible, believed everything.” An impressive list of pseudoscience had dominated her life. Listened to our show, and then over time was totally converted into a skeptic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So he&#039;s just factually wrong, that nobody ever gets converted, because we get these emails all of the time. It&#039;s probably statistically a small number, but you can&#039;t say that it never happens. And in any case, that&#039;s not even the primary goal. The primary goal is informing people who are open to the information, who are not already true believers. So, anyway, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: unfortunately, we encounter a lot of this, this sort of armchair criticism. It is, I agree with you, Cara. It&#039;s just being judgy. He ends -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s judgy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: the way he ends, yeah, it was so terrible. He&#039;s said, “Most science communication isn&#039;t about persuading people, it&#039;s self-affirmation for those already on the inside. Look at us,” it says. “Aren&#039;t we clever? We are exclusive. We are a gang. We are a family. It&#039;s tribalism.” That&#039;s bullshit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I&#039;m not saying there isn&#039;t any of that. Of course there is. People are tribal, we do have our communities. It is a source of identity. But it is so much not that, that is not what dominates science communication and skeptical activism. It is absolutely about persuading people. We are sincerely interested in engaging in the conversation, and persuading as many people as we can; and we&#039;re constantly self-examining, and looking at published research to figure out how to better do it, and we talk about it all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Oh yeah, absolutely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, it&#039;s just, you know – he really, I think, again, as I say, especially in that piece that he was doing, he&#039;s guilty of the exact thing that he&#039;s criticizing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah! He&#039;s also so fatalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s not like he&#039;s really putting forth any better options.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He&#039;s basically, “Well, some minds will never change.” It&#039;s like, “Okay, thanks?” And then he sort of kind of throws a toogawanda under the bus to some extent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He was honestly one of the most, I think, effective and sort of non-controversial&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: medical communicators out there, you know? His writings touch people who are absolutely religious or absolutely magical thinking, and they still can read his things and not feel insulted, and take something from them. He&#039;s just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a very good writer in that way. I don&#039;t know. Everything about it is a little bit like, the worst of what it is to write a blog. You know, I think blogs are incredibly important, and they&#039;re incredibly necessary, and good blogs can be better than bad journalism; but sometimes blogs can be very lazy. There was no reporting done on this. He never spoke to anybody&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: before he wrote this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah, it&#039;s an opinion piece&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: more than anything, and, you know, I don&#039;t know what the Guardian&#039;s all about as far as putting this out as a news article, but&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s a bit annoying, &#039;cause it doesn&#039;t say “opinion,” and it doesn&#039;t say&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: No, it&#039;s not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: “blog.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It says, “Science: Occam&#039;s Corner.” Like, this is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: listed under, “Science.” Obviously, “Occam&#039;s Corner” sounds like it&#039;s his blog that he has on the Guardian, but it&#039;s not really clear that that&#039;s what somebody&#039;s reading. So anybody who comes across this who doesn&#039;t know the difference between good and bad science journalism might look at this and say, “Oh my gosh, well, this is the state of things,” not realizing that he never interviewed a single person, or did any real reporting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Ugh! Anyway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, he also makes ... one last comment on this. He makes this very typical rookie mistake. I think we&#039;ve sort of made this mistake and then fixed it because this is what the evidence shows, is the idea that people are resistant to facts in general, which is not true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Nope&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: What the evidence shows is that if you give people facts, they change their opinion. They change their opinion to meet the facts unless they are already ideologically bound to one position. So people behave differently for emotionally held ideological opinions versus things that they don&#039;t have an emotional stake in. And so you have to deal with people differently in different contexts. But he was nowhere near drilling down to that level of detail in his article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, okay let&#039;s move on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Pew Belief Poll &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(47:05)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =    y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y   &lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
S: Cara, tell us about the latest Pew poll about belief.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lipka, Michael &#039;[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/ Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Fact Tank: News in the Numbers&#039;&#039;. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Sure. So you guys may remember a report last year by Pew that detailed a really sharp decline in Christian affiliation, and a growing number of Americans reporting themselves as quote, “nones.” That was part of a really big study called the 2014 Religious Landscape study that was published in 2015. It included at the time thirty-five thousand seventy-one respondents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what the Pew research group decided to do is a follow up, a recontact study, where they found – or maybe they reached out to more. But they ultimately ended up having I think five thousand individuals who they interviewed more in depth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of those five thousand individuals, one thousand one hundred forty-nine of those define themselves as “nones,” or unaffiliated. So that was broken down into four hundred twenty-six different atheists or agnostics, and seven hundred twenty-three people who indicated that their religion is quote, “nothing in particular.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The real purpose of the recontact study was part of a bigger question about whether or not people choose new churches, when they choose new churches or houses of worship. And so they found a lot of really interesting outcomes on that. How often throughout the lifespan people go to a new church. What are the reasons that motivate them from leaving their former congregation, going to their new congregation. But within that, of course, they had all of these quote, “nones.” And so they found that there were a lot of really interesting things that came out of the nones, and they – N-O-N-E-S, not N-U-N-S – and they &#039;&#039;(Evan chuckles)&#039;&#039; dug a little bit deeper and asked a lot of questions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So again, just to be clear, as part of a big thirty-five thousand people study a few years ago, they recontacted five thousand individuals. But now I&#039;m only gonna be talking about the one thousand one hundred forty-nine individuals within that group who defined themselves as unaffiliated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So here&#039;s some interesting  stuff: The vast majority of these unaffiliated individuals say that they were actually raised as a member of a particular religion before shedding their religious identity in adulthood. So about seventy-eight percent of those people that they interviewed that said that they don&#039;t identify with a religion were raised religious, which to me seems reasonable. I mean, my personal anecdotal experience, and maybe it&#039;s because I grew up in the Bible belt (it&#039;s very rare for me to meet people who had no religion as they were growing up; much more common when I actually met people with similar viewpoints that said they had left a church earlier).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The really, I think, interesting thing here is that what they wanted to do is know why. “Why did you actually leave if you were raised religious?” And they found that there were a &#039;&#039;ton&#039;&#039; of different responses because they actually allowed for open-ended responses. So I&#039;ll read you some quotes in a bit. But there were some themes that sort of clustered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest response, which was about half (actually forty-nine percent of individuals) said that they left because they don&#039;t believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: That&#039;s pretty straight-forward. “I don&#039;t believe, so I&#039;m not gonna go any more.” About twenty percent said that they left because they disliked organized religion. About eighteen percent said that they were just religiously unsure or undecided. And then only ten percent of this group that identified as a none or unaffiliated actually self-defined as an inactive believer, meaning that they still had those beliefs, but they either are non-practicing or they&#039;re too busy to attend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So there is still within that nones group, I think, a little bit of a holdover of what I might not define as a none or an unaffiliated. So that&#039;s kind of interesting to parse it in that way. Under the “Don&#039;t believe” group, we found that many people said that they were disenchanted, and that&#039;s why they no longer believe. Some people said they just are not interested in, or they don&#039;t need religion, or that their views evolved. But that was actually a very small number. And only one percent of the individuals overall said that they went through a crisis of faith.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it does seem like it was less common that something happened in their lives that really changed their opinion. More common that, as we were just talking about, it was a slow, gradual thing that happened through learning and thinking and coming across new evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: And the internet as well, I&#039;m sure has ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, the internet probably had a big part of that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Totally fits with what I would expect. I think just largely generational. I think that they younger generations – it&#039;s funny. A lot of them, it&#039;s not like their atheist, they&#039;re so areligious &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: they&#039;re not even an atheist, you know what I mean? It&#039;s like they just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: It&#039;s not on their radar. Not on their radar.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting that “none” label&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, “None.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think that we&#039;re seeing a lot, or just, “I&#039;m religiously unaffiliated.” There is something interesting though: Remember how I said forty-nine percent of this overall group said that they just don&#039;t believe, and that&#039;s why they left. Interestingly, if they actually broke that down into the people who self-identify as atheist versus agnostic versus quote, “Nothing in particular,” actually eighty-two percent of atheists say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. Sixty-three percent of agnostics say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. And only thirty-seven percent of the “Nothing in particular” group left because they said they don&#039;t believe; which also makes sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Are you surprised by any of these findings?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: No, none of this really stuck out to me too much. I mean, it&#039;s definitely interesting. I think probably what&#039;s more interesting is the overall thing, like, Bob and I were talking about before we were on air, just the overall trends that we&#039;re seeing away from a specific religion or organized religion, and into a kind of personal formulation of spirituality, religion, or lack thereof.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does seem like we&#039;re seeing an individualistic move away from these big groups, and I do kind of find that interesting because we hear about these studies all the time, a lot of nay-sayers will send us these studies and we&#039;ll actually describe them on the show where congregations, church groups, being in a community actually is correlated with positive health benefits. And so it is kind of interesting that we&#039;re seeing more and more people sort of leaving that organized community behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And I think that&#039;s where we&#039;re starting to see some changes, even within the atheistic community. Some people still like the idea that they&#039;re unaffiliated and they don&#039;t want to be part of a group, but you&#039;re starting to see some. Atheist groups meeting and even having kind of their version of a quote, “church,” (which of course is completely secular&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: &#039;&#039;(Chuckles)&#039;&#039; Yeah, right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: but is still a group thing so that they can have that sense of community).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That&#039;s basically what secular humanism is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I do wonder a couple of things when I see these kind of numbers: One is, “Is this a long-term trend?” You know, is this the arc of human history to become less religious over time, or is this cyclical? You know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Wax and wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, you know, it&#039;s hard to get out of your time frame, and to try to look at the big picture. Certainly in the last I would say couple hundred years, it seems like the power that religion has on our society, even in the United States (which is fairly religious for a Western country),&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: it&#039;s definitely been on the wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, for sure, with, understanding evolution, just advances in scientific thinking, that&#039;s been a big thing; and like you guys said, the internet, just being able to meet people who are like-minded that maybe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: don&#039;t live down the street from you, is huge; and feeling more confident in coming out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And the second question I have is (and I think I know the answer to this), but, as religion is on the wane, are people just replacing it with other forms of belief systems? This doesn&#039;t necessarily mean that there are more people who are being rational, or who are rejecting all ideology or all belief systems. It&#039;s more that they&#039;re rejecting traditional organized religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s &#039;&#039;so&#039;&#039; true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Becoming druids? And&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: warlocks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Just new age stuff, yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I know so, in L.A., it is very rare for me to meet people who are religious. I actually forget that that&#039;s a thing. I grew up in a very religious part of the country, the Bible belt. I live in L.A. Most everyone I know is non-religious. Yet,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: But they&#039;re still spiritual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: if you dig deep - oh, they&#039;re crazy spiritual! They have&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a university out here that&#039;s basically a cult. It&#039;s like a spiritual psychology university where people are studying, like, past life interactions and energy transfer,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: and chi. The woo thinking, the medical quackery, and the, yes, quote, “Spiritual,” - and I don&#039;t want to misuse that word. I have a hard time with that word because I think it comes with a lot of baggage. I think that it&#039;s perfectly legitimate for individuals to consider themselves to be spiritual in a sort of zen kind of way; you know, finding perfundity in nature. Carl Sagan even used the term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Sure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think he can talk about spirituality in a way that it is not magical thinking, and then you can talk about spirituality in a way that&#039;s absolutely magical thinking, and we have a lot of those people here on the West Coast. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Why can&#039;t everybody be like us?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Rogues laugh)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Then we wouldn&#039;t have to exist!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aw, how sad!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We would just vanish in a puff of smoke.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If the whole world were skeptical, obviously, you can&#039;t say no to that, but it would be interesting because we would not have to exist at that point. We wouldn&#039;t need a skeptical movement if there wasn&#039;t so much irrationality in the world. I&#039;d still rather have the rational world though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Who&#039;s That Noisy &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(56:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y    &lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
* Answer to last week: Space X landing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Membership drive at 59:14)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Absence of Evidence &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:00:16)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y   &lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science or Fiction &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:09:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- I have difficulty differentiating Bob / Jay / Evan - if there are spots you can help, thanks -bshirley, transcriber ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = science or fiction section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =  y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = &amp;lt;!--- add more if you like ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y &amp;lt;!--- needs checking ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y &amp;lt;!--- needs checking ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Science or Fiction music)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;It&#039;s time for Science or Fiction&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious, and I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Are you guys ready for this week? Three regular news items. &amp;lt;!--- overlapping responses ---&amp;gt; Alright, here we go. These are interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Items===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number one: a new study finds that rat whiskers contain chemical receptors to smell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Morris, Amanda &amp;quot;[http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2016/08/whiskers-help-animals-sense-winds-direction.html Whiskers Help Animals Sense the Direction of the Wind]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;McCormick School of Engineering.&#039;&#039; Northwestern University. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822155920.htm Chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition: Study challenges distinctiveness of human cooperation.]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Science News.&#039;&#039; Emory Health Sciences. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; And,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number three: scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazaro, Sage &amp;quot;[http://observer.com/2016/08/scientists-discovered-how-to-jumpstart-the-brain-of-a-coma-patient Real-Life Awakening: Scientists ‘Jumpstart’ the Brain of a Coma Patient]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Observer.&#039;&#039; Observer.com. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob, go first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Bob&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Alright, the rat whiskers, sure, that makes sense, i mean, would you call it “smell”? I could see that. I could see that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Un, the second, let’s see… chimpanzees choosing cooperation over competition, five to one, that’s… that kinda goes against what I’ve been led to believe about how… if you said bonobos I would absolutely agree with you, but chimpanzees are definitely more on the uncooperative/irascible&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;vocabulary&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irascible Wiktionary:irascible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; scale.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: …irascible… (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Scientist, let’s see, number three, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultrasound. I just kinda love brain stimulation. I think it, i’ve heard, I know it’s not, you know, it’s not, it doesn’t necessarily do what they’ve been claiming over these years but I think, I still have read some interesting experiments that have surprising effects, so I’ll tentatively go with that one. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um, cooperation over competition, five to one, alright I’m gonna say the &#039;&#039;&#039;chimpanzees is fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Okay. Jay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Jay&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: This one about the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors… what I can’t figure out is how, how is the chemical receptor in the rat whisker communicating back to the brain? There’s no electrical type nerve connection from the organ, the receptor, to the brain. Unless it’s… i don’t know. I just don’t see how that can possibly be. It seems completely BS to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second one here, researchers find chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition. I don’t know about the rate of five to one, but I do agree with that and I think that makes a lot of sense. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And this last one, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating the brain, the thing that Bob has hidden in a drawer next to his bed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Apparently, it’s not hidden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: I just wanted to make sure Cara was awake, that’s all. That’s why I said that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I’m awake. I’m awake.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘’(laughter)’’&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Stimulating the brain brings people from, …minimally conscious to fully conscious with a low power ultra sound. I agree because this reminds me what it’s like when I wake up in the morning, and that’s my coffee. So, sure, this is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I just &#039;&#039;&#039;don’t think the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039; and the chemical receptors, and them helping them smell thing. No. Nope, I don’t agree. That’s fake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: Ok. Evan?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Evan&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: So, the patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious. I suppose those… minimally conscious is a technical state of some sort. Not a coma? Or like…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, it ‘’is’’ a coma, but minimally conscious is pretty self explanatory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Okay. But now, you stimulate the brain with a low powered ulrta sound? So, how did they do that? Or, why does that, why does a low powered ultra sound have that ability to that? I don’t really understand it. This one’s tricky.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next one, the middle one, chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. I think that one will be science. I don’t think there’s any problem with that ratio. It may ‘’seem’’ high, but, you know, chimpanzees are very cool. Very cool. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How closely related in our DNA are we to chimpanzees? Ninety …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: 98 percent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: It depends on how you count it. There’s no one objective answer to that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: yeah, but it’s very high.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhere between 96 and 98 percent is the usual figure that the scientists give.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: alright, fair enough, I think people, although they’re competitive also i think we ‘’do’’ have a lot of cooperation, so I think we kinda mirror that. I think we’re okay there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And the last one is the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors. So, I’m gonna… this one I’m having a problem with because, I’ll go back to what we were talking about before with the logical fallacies &amp;lt;!--- link https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_581#Name_That_Logical_Fallacy:_Absence_of_Evidence_.281:00:16.29 ---&amp;gt;, isn’t this something we would have figured out maybe a ‘’long’’ time ago? You know, rat whiskers. It’s not like some hidden thing that we weren’t able to… what prevented us from determining this a long time ago? So, I think we would have found the evidence for that a while ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, therefore I think I’ll agree with Jay, I think &#039;&#039;&#039;the rat whisker one is gonna turn out to be the fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Alright. And, Cara…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cara&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think I’m torn between rat whiskers and the consciousness situation, so I’ll start with the chimpanzees. It seems reasonable to me. I’ve seen ‘’a lot’’ of primate studies, going all the way down to monkeys, not even apes, that show high rates of competition and of helping get food or share things in order to maximize the benefit for the group. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do rat whiskers contain a chemical receptor that help with sm… well I’ll disagree with jay because that is what a whisker ‘’is’’. It is an organ. It’s a sensory organ that actually helps with probe reception, or it helps them navigate their environment. So, if you cut certain whiskers you can do all kinds of neurological studies where you change some of the representation on the sensory cortex. So there ‘’is’’ a direct connection between whiskers and the brain, but ‘’chemical’’ receptors is interesting to me because I don’t think they have a physical way to bind anything. I mean, that would be what the receptor is. But it would be crazy if they just now found that because rat whiskers… or rats are such a common laboratory animal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And then scientists report a case where a patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious – Okay, so they woke up. – after using low power ultra sound. I think I’ve seen cases where consciousness is kind of sparked with thalamic stimulation. It’d be crazy if you could do this from outside the brain, and usually ultra sound is delivered from outside. So, I mean, I want this one to be true. So maybe – whuah, this is hard – I’m gonna hope that the ultrasound is also science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And that the &#039;&#039;&#039;fiction is the chemical receptors on the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039;. Because I just think they would have found that sooner. That would be my reasoning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 3===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Okay (1:19:45)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, you all agree with the third one, so let’s start there. Scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound. You all think this one is science. And this one is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(many): Yeah, baby.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yay. Wow, that’s so cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob: And Cara, great job. You pretty much nailed a lot of the details there. This was thalamic stimulation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, it was!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: The thalamus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: The thalmus. First of all, I was very careful in how I worded this. This was a single case. And they can’t prove that the stimulation is what did it, just that the patient woke up after they stimulated them. But, the timing ‘’does’’ look good, but they’ll obviously have to replicate it to see how generalizable this effect is, and if the effect is actually real. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, let me throw in some caveats here. First of all, this is a patient who was in a coma because of trauma. Trauma patients have a much better prognosis that patients who, for example, have diffuse anoxic ischemic injury.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Arciniegas, Dr. David B. &amp;quot;[http://www.internationalbrain.org/articles/hypoxicischemic-brain-injury/ Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;International Brain Injury Association&#039;&#039;. InternationalBrain.org. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; So, if your whole brain is injured because of lack of oxygen, these types of things generally don’t work. But if you have trauma to the brain, there may be pieces of the brain which work and other pieces to the brain that don’t work. And this is sort of a classic scenario where probably the cortex was relatively spared, and was still pretty functional, but the cortex just wasn’t being activated by the deeper structures like the thalamus. And so, if you could get the thalamus, if you could kick start or jump start the thalamus–which is what they’re calling it–you can do it with drugs, you can do it with wires, with deep-brain stimulation, if you can get that thalamus to function more it can wake up the rest of the brain, which is actually not that bad off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Isn’t it crazy how tenuous that is? Oh, my god.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, right? These little centers, deep in your brain, alerting your whole cortex, and if they get taken out, you’re in a coma. Your whole brain could be perfectly normal, but you’re essentially permanently asleep, because you don’t have the mechanism to alert or wake up your brain. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in those special cases where that’s the problem, this kind of thing can work. There was also a study where they implanted a chip basically to stimulate the thalamus and the deep structures. That also can be effective. So, eventually that may be the intervention. But, this is now using just an external, low power ultra sound focused on the thalamus to stimulate it. They described the patient being, again, minimally conscious. They would be able to do ‘’some’’ things, but not much. They occasionally would attend to external stimulation. Then after the treatment, they were essentially awake. They would look at the examiner. They did a fist bump, it was reported. One of the doctors as they were walking away they would follow commands, participate in their feeding. Still not neurologically normal. The guy still has brain damage. And was still was minimally verbal. I think would just shake his head yes and no, but would do so appropriately, but wasn’t really speaking. Again, he woke up but was not returned to neurologically intact. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do think we’re gonna see, fairly soon, these types of interventions to treat this one subgroup of patients who have enough brain function to be awake, but their deep structure’s just not working well enough to alert the brain. And all we need to do is stimulate it in order to get them to wake up. And we’re just figuring out the different techniques for doing that. Yeah, but very very cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Very cool. Maybe this could work for…, I know it’s a very specific case, but …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah. Okay, we’ll go backwards, I guess. We’ll go to number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. Bob, you think this one is the fiction, everyone else thinks this is science, and this one… is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Ahh, F-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Sorry, Bob.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: So, this was a little surprising actually, because previous research seemed to indicate that chimpanzees in particular are very competitive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yes!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: They’re greedy. You know, chimpanzees are often described as greedy, like they can’t inhibit their need to take things. They’ll steal. They’ll cheat. They’ll freeload. And they’ll compete against each other for resources. In this study, though, researchers tried to do a more open ended experiment with/in a more natural group environment. So, they had eleven chimpanzees who were involved in this study and essentially they gave them tasks to do that would result in a reward. But the task required either two chimpanzees to cooperate or three chimpanzees to cooperate; one chimpanzee could not get the reward by themselves. And they just observed their behavior. For example, did the chimpanzees work together, and did they police themselves for theft or freeloading or competition. And in fact, they did. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They engaged in a lot of policing behavior or enforcement strategies. For example, they wouldn’t expose the rewards if somebody… if a chimpanzee who had previously freeloaded was hanging around. They would say “nope, not until we get this jerk outta here. We’re not gonna do it.” You know. Sometimes the more alpha males would get involved in policing and punishing and ejecting the previous freeloaders or thieves from the area. They essentially enforced cooperation collectively as a group through punishment and these kind of behaviours. Which is what humans do. That’s essentially our system of justice is largely about, enforcing social norms and living together, cooperating, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And lots of other animals do that too. Birds, lots of birds do this. Birds will, for example, some species of birds will warn each other if predators are coming. But if one bird doesn’t participate in that, then other birds won’t warn them when it’s their turn. So, they use reciprocity as a way of awarding and punishing this behavior. So, even birds do this. So, cooperation’s actually fairly wide spread in the animal kingdom but it is ‘’not’’ unique to humans. Although some researchers have argued that our level of cooperation ‘’is’’ unique to humans. But every time somebody says that, you know, it seems like we find that chimpanzees do it too. And this is a similar case. Chimpanzees were mostly cooperating and engaging in a number of behaviors to enforce that cooperation, on the group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: So that’s nice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aww. That’s really cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That’s pretty cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhat cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 1===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: (laughs) …all this means that… a new study finds that rat whiskers&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskers Whiskers]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Wikipedia&#039;&#039;. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; contain chemical receptors that help them to smell, that is complete and total fiction. And the whiskers that themselves are basically hairs. They don’t have nerves in them. They have nerves at the base of the hair that sense the movement in the whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Yea, where you saying that there were receptors in the whiskers?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, but I made that up. That was wrong. That’s the lie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Okay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: The whiskers are just hairs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: (inaudible)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: They are like vibro- receptors at the base of the whiskers. So, the rat can sense, they get sensory information to their brain that actually helps them map the world when those whiskers move. The new study that inspired this item though was a study showing that rats can use their whiskers to sense the direction of the wind. And that helps them follow odors. So, if they’re smelling something, they need to know what the direction of the wind is blowing in in order to track that odor back to it’s source. And their whiskers help them do that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this study, very quickly, was they had rats enter an arena through a door and there were five fans. One of the fans was on and blowing. The hole at the base of that fan led to food. The hole at the base of the other four fans did not. So, if they couldn’t sense the wind at all, they would have a 20 percent chance of guessing the correct hole out of the gate. But the rats were able to do it 60 percent of the time, not just 20 percent of the time. But in order to show that they were using their whiskers, they then cut off their whiskers to see how they would do. Okay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Aww.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: But they said that the cutting off of the whiskers is painless. It’s like cutting off your hair. And they grow back. So, there’s no permanent harm done. So, they would cut off their whiskers, and then their performance dropped by 20 percent. So, they were still able to do better than chance, because there were other ways to sense the wind. But their performance decreased significantly because they no longer had their whiskers as a sensory organ. This suggests that they were sensing the wind, in part, with their whiskers. That was the study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I looked it up. I couldn’t find any evidence that they sniffed the air with their whiskers at all. I guess they could lick their whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: That’s what I was thinking. It’s exactly what I was licking, uh… thinking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If there’s stuff clinging to the whiskers, they could taste it by licking it. But the whiskers themselves don’t have receptors on them, as far as I could find. They’re just hair. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alright, Evan, give us the quote…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Skeptical Quote of the Week &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:27:14)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y    &lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And until next week, this is your Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Outro404}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today I Learned: ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Steve states in this episode that Name That Logical Fallacy is a very popular segment that they don&#039;t do often enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== vocabulary ===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references group=&amp;quot;vocabulary&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Navigation}} &amp;lt;!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- Create category redirect pages for each segment mentioned below - https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Page categories&lt;br /&gt;
|Religion &amp;amp; Faith           = y &amp;lt;!--  Pew Belief Poll (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Pseudoscience        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Science &amp;amp; the Media        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10767</id>
		<title>SGU Episode 581</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10767"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T22:02:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* References */ added vocabulary references tag&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Editing required&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{InfoBox&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeNum     = 581&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeDate    = August 27&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2016  &amp;lt;!-- broadcast date --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeIcon    = File:Proximab2.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|previous       =                          &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to previous episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|next           =                        &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to next episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|rebecca        =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|bob            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|jay            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|evan           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|cara           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|perry          =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest1         =      &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest2         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no second guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest3         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no third guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|downloadLink   = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2016-08-27.mp3&lt;br /&gt;
|forumLink      = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,47202.0.html&lt;br /&gt;
|qowText        = Our place in the Galaxy nor our Galaxy itself is special. Darwin has further shown that humans are a natural product of evolution by means of natural selection. The discovery of extrasolar life will demonstrate that even that last claim to being special will have to be abandoned&lt;br /&gt;
|qowAuthor      = Mario Livio, astrophysiscist &amp;lt;!-- add author and link --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;You&#039;re listening to the Skeptics&#039; Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Hello, and welcome to The Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, August 24&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2016; and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SGU Going to DragonCon &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(0:27)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What&#039;s the Word &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(3:32)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* {{w|Inquiline}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== News Items ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Proxima Centauri Follow Up &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(7:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, Matt &#039;[http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ Potentially Habitable Exoplanet Confirmed Around Nearest Star!]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Universe Today&#039;&#039;. Fraser Cain. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anthropocene &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(15:01)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Yirka, Bob &#039;[http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Phys.org&#039;&#039;. Omicron Technology Limited. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene Anthropocene] on Wikipedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(New era is based on all the environmental effects humans are having on the Earth)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== World Wide Web Turns 25 &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(26:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
*  http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832 1st website ever restored to its 1992 glory: CERN&#039;s ancient page describes the &amp;quot;W3&amp;quot; project]&#039;. &#039;&#039;CBC News: Technology and Science&#039;&#039;. CBC/Radio-Canada. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Commercial at 33:33)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- reference added as convenience for transcriber. raw link can be removed if desired. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fighting Against Pseudoscience &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(34:54)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =    y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: All right, Evan, there was this article&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Grant, Richard P &#039;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2016/aug/23/scientists-losing-science-communication-skeptic-cox Why scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Science - Occam&#039;s Corner&#039;&#039;. The Guardian News. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; published recently about science communication and fighting against pseudoscience that is interesting, although I don&#039;t totally agree with it. But let&#039;s talk about it. Tell us about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah. It appeared in the Guardian, it was written by a former biologist. He turned blogger. His name is Richard Grant. And the title of his article is, “Why Scientists Are Losing the Fight to Communicate Science to the Public.” So I&#039;ll read a few things directly from the article, and then we can sort of comment on it as we go.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says that, “Scientists and science-communicators are engaged in a constant battle with ignorance. But that&#039;s an approach doomed to failure.” Okay. He says that, &amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;“A video did the rounds a couple of years ago of some self-styled skeptic disagreeing (robustly, shall we say) with an anti-vaxxer. The speaker was roundly cheered by everyone for sharing the video. He sure put that idiot in their place! Scientists love to argue, cutting through bullshit and getting to the truth of the matter is pretty much the job description.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I kinda don&#039;t necessarily fully agree with that. But he goes on to say,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;”It&#039;s not really surprising scientists and science supporters frequently take on those who dabble in homeopathy or deny anthropogenic climate change, or who oppose vaccinations or genetically modified food. Brian Cox was at it last week performing a smack down on a climate change denier on the ABC&#039;s Q&amp;amp;A discussion program. He brought graphs (knock-out blow) and yet it leaves me cold. Is this really what science communication is about? Is this informing and changing minds, winning people over to a better, brighter future? I doubt it somehow.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I had a lot of problems with this article. So I think the core point that he&#039;s making, that you can&#039;t just oppose belief in pseudoscience with facts; you have to understand the psychological motivation why people are believing that pseudoscience – sure. That&#039;s absolutely valid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, but that&#039;s also not ... new.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We all know that it&#039;s not a deficit problem. Sci-com, the reason it&#039;s not as effective as we&#039;d like to be is not because there&#039;s just not enough knowledge out there. We know that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, my problem was he&#039;s writing to science communicators, and he is about twenty years behind on the conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s how I felt. It&#039;s like, “Where have you been?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, this is like, I remember having this conversation literally twenty years ago ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: when we were really getting involved with this. And there&#039;s so much more nuance, there&#039;s so much more involved with this. I just briefly put this up on our Facebook page and said that he&#039;s actually committing the problem that he&#039;s criticizing. He&#039;s sort of talking at us and not to us, and not really addressing the issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So like, for example, he&#039;s talking as if there is only true believers, but that&#039;s not true. There&#039;s not only true believers. First of all, there are a lot of people who are in the middle, or are just undecided, or just don&#039;t really know about whatever the topic is, like vaccines. Like, hey, there are a lot of parents who are, they hear concerning things about vaccines, but they&#039;re not anti-vaxxers. And so just putting the correct information out there and opposing the anti-vaxxers has a dramatic effect on the public conversation. It&#039;s an incredibly valuable resource to people who just want to know what the facts are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And it absolutely does prevent people, I think, from going down that rabbit hole and becoming a conspiracy theorist or an anti-science denier or whatever. And also, there are con artists out there as well. That&#039;s another group. There are people who are exploiting the true believers, are exploiting the community, exploiting the beliefs, the conspiracies, whatever, just to make money, just to sell their wares, to sell their snake oil; and they absolutely need to be deconstructed and taken apart. Their claims need to be vigorously opposed. They need to be corrected. We need to have the correct factual information out there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, when dealing with groups of people who believe things for ideological, emotional, political, sociological reasons, we need to address them in the context of the reason for their belief; and we know that there&#039;s a back-fire effect. People could dig their heels in if you make them defend their ideology. Yeah, we&#039;ve been through all of this. This is what we talk about all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So his article was just naive. It was just uninformed. As I was reading it, I&#039;m like, “God, this really would have benefited if he actually spoke to a skeptic at some point who&#039;s been doing this for more than a couple of weeks.” His opinions might have had some depth to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Or a professional science communicator,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: somebody who does this for a living, and who&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: studies outcome effects, and who talks to other science communicators. It was a little bit judgy, this whole thing. What is the quote? Somewhere in here. He&#039;s like, “How often is it that science communications actually listen to the needs of their audience?” And it&#039;s like, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: the number one thing we always say in sci-com is know your audience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s the first thing every science communicator&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: talks about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right, right, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s just so dismissive to act as though we&#039;re ... I think he&#039;s really getting upset at scientists who don&#039;t communicate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Um-hmm, maybe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I don&#039;t know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s frustrating. And also,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Frustrating&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: is it fair to ask, who &#039;&#039;is&#039;&#039; this guy?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Steve chuckles)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Who is he? Really? Richard Grant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I don&#039;t know. I don&#039;t know who he is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: &#039;&#039;(Laughs)&#039;&#039; You know? He works in med – yeah, here it is. “He&#039;s a former biochemist, cell biologist, structural biologist now working in medical communications and founder of the independent blogging network, Occam&#039;s Typewriter.” Okay, so he&#039;s just like one of the many of us. Basically, instead of saying, “Here are the ways that many of us can improve,” he&#039;s saying, “Wow, you guys all suck at this.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Steve, I got the same feeling &#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039; you did. This is very incomplete, way too black and white, not recognizing the broad spectrum where people fall along the lines of science, intelligence, or understanding science. In fact, he breaks it down into – he gives basically two general reasons as to why he arrived at this conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says, “First, in general, people don&#039;t like being told what to do. When the experts tell us how to live our lives, or worse, what to think, something rebels in people, especially when there&#039;s even the merest whiff of controversy or uncertainty.” And then he says, the second point is that on the whole he doesn&#039;t think that people that object to vaccines or GMO&#039;s are at heart anti-science, some are, but most aren&#039;t. People simply want to know that someone is listening, that someone is taking their worry seriously, and that somebody cares for them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I just don&#039;t agree with that. Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: I don&#039;t know where he arrived &#039;&#039;(laughs)&#039;&#039; at that point, or how he got ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I mean,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: that conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: you know, he&#039;s armchair criticizing a community of people that he doesn&#039;t really understand. Again, I&#039;m not gonna play the card, like, “He doesn&#039;t have the cred to have an opinion.” Of course he does. But if you&#039;re going to be judgmental about what other people are doing, you&#039;d better make a good, sincere effort to understand what they&#039;re actually doing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And we do have the advantage here. The SGU is eleven years old. We&#039;ve been doing this for twenty years. This is a very interactive medium. We get dozens, dozens of emails every day. I read dozens of comments to my blog, and comments on our Facebook posts every day. We are interacting with people. We are interacting with a broad audience as well as our community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have a much better idea of what people actually think, and how they actually respond to what we say, than this guy apparently does, you know? He would have benefited tremendously from talking to somebody who&#039;s actually involved in doing this. We just got an email today. I wasn&#039;t planning on reading this, but I&#039;ll just say it&#039;s somebody who&#039;s name is Kim. I won&#039;t give her full name, who basically said, “Hey, I started out as an absolutely true believer, gullible, believed everything.” An impressive list of pseudoscience had dominated her life. Listened to our show, and then over time was totally converted into a skeptic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So he&#039;s just factually wrong, that nobody ever gets converted, because we get these emails all of the time. It&#039;s probably statistically a small number, but you can&#039;t say that it never happens. And in any case, that&#039;s not even the primary goal. The primary goal is informing people who are open to the information, who are not already true believers. So, anyway, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: unfortunately, we encounter a lot of this, this sort of armchair criticism. It is, I agree with you, Cara. It&#039;s just being judgy. He ends -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s judgy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: the way he ends, yeah, it was so terrible. He&#039;s said, “Most science communication isn&#039;t about persuading people, it&#039;s self-affirmation for those already on the inside. Look at us,” it says. “Aren&#039;t we clever? We are exclusive. We are a gang. We are a family. It&#039;s tribalism.” That&#039;s bullshit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I&#039;m not saying there isn&#039;t any of that. Of course there is. People are tribal, we do have our communities. It is a source of identity. But it is so much not that, that is not what dominates science communication and skeptical activism. It is absolutely about persuading people. We are sincerely interested in engaging in the conversation, and persuading as many people as we can; and we&#039;re constantly self-examining, and looking at published research to figure out how to better do it, and we talk about it all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Oh yeah, absolutely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, it&#039;s just, you know – he really, I think, again, as I say, especially in that piece that he was doing, he&#039;s guilty of the exact thing that he&#039;s criticizing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah! He&#039;s also so fatalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s not like he&#039;s really putting forth any better options.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He&#039;s basically, “Well, some minds will never change.” It&#039;s like, “Okay, thanks?” And then he sort of kind of throws a toogawanda under the bus to some extent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He was honestly one of the most, I think, effective and sort of non-controversial&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: medical communicators out there, you know? His writings touch people who are absolutely religious or absolutely magical thinking, and they still can read his things and not feel insulted, and take something from them. He&#039;s just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a very good writer in that way. I don&#039;t know. Everything about it is a little bit like, the worst of what it is to write a blog. You know, I think blogs are incredibly important, and they&#039;re incredibly necessary, and good blogs can be better than bad journalism; but sometimes blogs can be very lazy. There was no reporting done on this. He never spoke to anybody&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: before he wrote this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah, it&#039;s an opinion piece&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: more than anything, and, you know, I don&#039;t know what the Guardian&#039;s all about as far as putting this out as a news article, but&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s a bit annoying, &#039;cause it doesn&#039;t say “opinion,” and it doesn&#039;t say&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: No, it&#039;s not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: “blog.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It says, “Science: Occam&#039;s Corner.” Like, this is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: listed under, “Science.” Obviously, “Occam&#039;s Corner” sounds like it&#039;s his blog that he has on the Guardian, but it&#039;s not really clear that that&#039;s what somebody&#039;s reading. So anybody who comes across this who doesn&#039;t know the difference between good and bad science journalism might look at this and say, “Oh my gosh, well, this is the state of things,” not realizing that he never interviewed a single person, or did any real reporting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Ugh! Anyway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, he also makes ... one last comment on this. He makes this very typical rookie mistake. I think we&#039;ve sort of made this mistake and then fixed it because this is what the evidence shows, is the idea that people are resistant to facts in general, which is not true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Nope&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: What the evidence shows is that if you give people facts, they change their opinion. They change their opinion to meet the facts unless they are already ideologically bound to one position. So people behave differently for emotionally held ideological opinions versus things that they don&#039;t have an emotional stake in. And so you have to deal with people differently in different contexts. But he was nowhere near drilling down to that level of detail in his article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, okay let&#039;s move on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Pew Belief Poll &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(47:05)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =    y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y   &lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
S: Cara, tell us about the latest Pew poll about belief.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lipka, Michael &#039;[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/ Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Fact Tank: News in the Numbers&#039;&#039;. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Sure. So you guys may remember a report last year by Pew that detailed a really sharp decline in Christian affiliation, and a growing number of Americans reporting themselves as quote, “nones.” That was part of a really big study called the 2014 Religious Landscape study that was published in 2015. It included at the time thirty-five thousand seventy-one respondents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what the Pew research group decided to do is a follow up, a recontact study, where they found – or maybe they reached out to more. But they ultimately ended up having I think five thousand individuals who they interviewed more in depth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of those five thousand individuals, one thousand one hundred forty-nine of those define themselves as “nones,” or unaffiliated. So that was broken down into four hundred twenty-six different atheists or agnostics, and seven hundred twenty-three people who indicated that their religion is quote, “nothing in particular.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The real purpose of the recontact study was part of a bigger question about whether or not people choose new churches, when they choose new churches or houses of worship. And so they found a lot of really interesting outcomes on that. How often throughout the lifespan people go to a new church. What are the reasons that motivate them from leaving their former congregation, going to their new congregation. But within that, of course, they had all of these quote, “nones.” And so they found that there were a lot of really interesting things that came out of the nones, and they – N-O-N-E-S, not N-U-N-S – and they &#039;&#039;(Evan chuckles)&#039;&#039; dug a little bit deeper and asked a lot of questions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So again, just to be clear, as part of a big thirty-five thousand people study a few years ago, they recontacted five thousand individuals. But now I&#039;m only gonna be talking about the one thousand one hundred forty-nine individuals within that group who defined themselves as unaffiliated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So here&#039;s some interesting  stuff: The vast majority of these unaffiliated individuals say that they were actually raised as a member of a particular religion before shedding their religious identity in adulthood. So about seventy-eight percent of those people that they interviewed that said that they don&#039;t identify with a religion were raised religious, which to me seems reasonable. I mean, my personal anecdotal experience, and maybe it&#039;s because I grew up in the Bible belt (it&#039;s very rare for me to meet people who had no religion as they were growing up; much more common when I actually met people with similar viewpoints that said they had left a church earlier).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The really, I think, interesting thing here is that what they wanted to do is know why. “Why did you actually leave if you were raised religious?” And they found that there were a &#039;&#039;ton&#039;&#039; of different responses because they actually allowed for open-ended responses. So I&#039;ll read you some quotes in a bit. But there were some themes that sort of clustered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest response, which was about half (actually forty-nine percent of individuals) said that they left because they don&#039;t believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: That&#039;s pretty straight-forward. “I don&#039;t believe, so I&#039;m not gonna go any more.” About twenty percent said that they left because they disliked organized religion. About eighteen percent said that they were just religiously unsure or undecided. And then only ten percent of this group that identified as a none or unaffiliated actually self-defined as an inactive believer, meaning that they still had those beliefs, but they either are non-practicing or they&#039;re too busy to attend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So there is still within that nones group, I think, a little bit of a holdover of what I might not define as a none or an unaffiliated. So that&#039;s kind of interesting to parse it in that way. Under the “Don&#039;t believe” group, we found that many people said that they were disenchanted, and that&#039;s why they no longer believe. Some people said they just are not interested in, or they don&#039;t need religion, or that their views evolved. But that was actually a very small number. And only one percent of the individuals overall said that they went through a crisis of faith.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it does seem like it was less common that something happened in their lives that really changed their opinion. More common that, as we were just talking about, it was a slow, gradual thing that happened through learning and thinking and coming across new evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: And the internet as well, I&#039;m sure has ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, the internet probably had a big part of that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Totally fits with what I would expect. I think just largely generational. I think that they younger generations – it&#039;s funny. A lot of them, it&#039;s not like their atheist, they&#039;re so areligious &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: they&#039;re not even an atheist, you know what I mean? It&#039;s like they just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: It&#039;s not on their radar. Not on their radar.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting that “none” label&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, “None.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think that we&#039;re seeing a lot, or just, “I&#039;m religiously unaffiliated.” There is something interesting though: Remember how I said forty-nine percent of this overall group said that they just don&#039;t believe, and that&#039;s why they left. Interestingly, if they actually broke that down into the people who self-identify as atheist versus agnostic versus quote, “Nothing in particular,” actually eighty-two percent of atheists say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. Sixty-three percent of agnostics say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. And only thirty-seven percent of the “Nothing in particular” group left because they said they don&#039;t believe; which also makes sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Are you surprised by any of these findings?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: No, none of this really stuck out to me too much. I mean, it&#039;s definitely interesting. I think probably what&#039;s more interesting is the overall thing, like, Bob and I were talking about before we were on air, just the overall trends that we&#039;re seeing away from a specific religion or organized religion, and into a kind of personal formulation of spirituality, religion, or lack thereof.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does seem like we&#039;re seeing an individualistic move away from these big groups, and I do kind of find that interesting because we hear about these studies all the time, a lot of nay-sayers will send us these studies and we&#039;ll actually describe them on the show where congregations, church groups, being in a community actually is correlated with positive health benefits. And so it is kind of interesting that we&#039;re seeing more and more people sort of leaving that organized community behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And I think that&#039;s where we&#039;re starting to see some changes, even within the atheistic community. Some people still like the idea that they&#039;re unaffiliated and they don&#039;t want to be part of a group, but you&#039;re starting to see some. Atheist groups meeting and even having kind of their version of a quote, “church,” (which of course is completely secular&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: &#039;&#039;(Chuckles)&#039;&#039; Yeah, right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: but is still a group thing so that they can have that sense of community).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That&#039;s basically what secular humanism is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I do wonder a couple of things when I see these kind of numbers: One is, “Is this a long-term trend?” You know, is this the arc of human history to become less religious over time, or is this cyclical? You know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Wax and wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, you know, it&#039;s hard to get out of your time frame, and to try to look at the big picture. Certainly in the last I would say couple hundred years, it seems like the power that religion has on our society, even in the United States (which is fairly religious for a Western country),&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: it&#039;s definitely been on the wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, for sure, with, understanding evolution, just advances in scientific thinking, that&#039;s been a big thing; and like you guys said, the internet, just being able to meet people who are like-minded that maybe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: don&#039;t live down the street from you, is huge; and feeling more confident in coming out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And the second question I have is (and I think I know the answer to this), but, as religion is on the wane, are people just replacing it with other forms of belief systems? This doesn&#039;t necessarily mean that there are more people who are being rational, or who are rejecting all ideology or all belief systems. It&#039;s more that they&#039;re rejecting traditional organized religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s &#039;&#039;so&#039;&#039; true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Becoming druids? And&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: warlocks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Just new age stuff, yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I know so, in L.A., it is very rare for me to meet people who are religious. I actually forget that that&#039;s a thing. I grew up in a very religious part of the country, the Bible belt. I live in L.A. Most everyone I know is non-religious. Yet,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: But they&#039;re still spiritual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: if you dig deep - oh, they&#039;re crazy spiritual! They have&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a university out here that&#039;s basically a cult. It&#039;s like a spiritual psychology university where people are studying, like, past life interactions and energy transfer,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: and chi. The woo thinking, the medical quackery, and the, yes, quote, “Spiritual,” - and I don&#039;t want to misuse that word. I have a hard time with that word because I think it comes with a lot of baggage. I think that it&#039;s perfectly legitimate for individuals to consider themselves to be spiritual in a sort of zen kind of way; you know, finding perfundity in nature. Carl Sagan even used the term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Sure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think he can talk about spirituality in a way that it is not magical thinking, and then you can talk about spirituality in a way that&#039;s absolutely magical thinking, and we have a lot of those people here on the West Coast. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Why can&#039;t everybody be like us?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Rogues laugh)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Then we wouldn&#039;t have to exist!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aw, how sad!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We would just vanish in a puff of smoke.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If the whole world were skeptical, obviously, you can&#039;t say no to that, but it would be interesting because we would not have to exist at that point. We wouldn&#039;t need a skeptical movement if there wasn&#039;t so much irrationality in the world. I&#039;d still rather have the rational world though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Who&#039;s That Noisy &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(56:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y    &lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
* Answer to last week: Space X landing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Membership drive at 59:14)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Absence of Evidence &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:00:16)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y   &lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science or Fiction &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:09:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- I have difficulty differentiating Bob / Jay / Evan - if there are spots you can help, thanks -bshirley, transcriber ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = science or fiction section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =  y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = &amp;lt;!--- add more if you like ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y &amp;lt;!--- needs checking ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y &amp;lt;!--- needs checking ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Science or Fiction music)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;It&#039;s time for Science or Fiction&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious, and I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Are you guys ready for this week? Three regular news items. &amp;lt;!--- overlapping responses ---&amp;gt; Alright, here we go. These are interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Items===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number one: a new study finds that rat whiskers contain chemical receptors to smell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Morris, Amanda &amp;quot;[http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2016/08/whiskers-help-animals-sense-winds-direction.html Whiskers Help Animals Sense the Direction of the Wind]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;McCormick School of Engineering.&#039;&#039; Northwestern University. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822155920.htm Chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition: Study challenges distinctiveness of human cooperation.]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Science News.&#039;&#039; Emory Health Sciences. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; And,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number three: scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazaro, Sage &amp;quot;[http://observer.com/2016/08/scientists-discovered-how-to-jumpstart-the-brain-of-a-coma-patient Real-Life Awakening: Scientists ‘Jumpstart’ the Brain of a Coma Patient]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Observer.&#039;&#039; Observer.com. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob, go first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Bob&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Alright, the rat whiskers, sure, that makes sense, i mean, would you call it “smell”? I could see that. I could see that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Un, the second, let’s see… chimpanzees choosing cooperation over competition, five to one, that’s… that kinda goes against what I’ve been led to believe about how… if you said bonobos I would absolutely agree with you, but chimpanzees are definitely more on the uncooperative/irascible&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;vocabulary&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irascible Wiktionary:irascible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; scale.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: …irascible… (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Scientist, let’s see, number three, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultrasound. I just kinda love brain stimulation. I think it, i’ve heard, I know it’s not, you know, it’s not, it doesn’t necessarily do what they’ve been claiming over these years but I think, I still have read some interesting experiments that have surprising effects, so I’ll tentatively go with that one. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um, cooperation over competition, five to one, alright I’m gonna say the &#039;&#039;&#039;chimpanzees is fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Okay. Jay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Jay&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: This one about the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors… what I can’t figure out is how, how is the chemical receptor in the rat whisker communicating back to the brain? There’s no electrical type nerve connection from the organ, the receptor, to the brain. Unless it’s… i don’t know. I just don’t see how that can possibly be. It seems completely BS to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second one here, researchers find chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition. I don’t know about the rate of five to one, but I do agree with that and I think that makes a lot of sense. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And this last one, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating the brain, the thing that Bob has hidden in a drawer next to his bed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Apparently, it’s not hidden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: I just wanted to make sure Cara was awake, that’s all. That’s why I said that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I’m awake. I’m awake.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘’(laughter)’’&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Stimulating the brain brings people from, …minimally conscious to fully conscious with a low power ultra sound. I agree because this reminds me what it’s like when I wake up in the morning, and that’s my coffee. So, sure, this is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I just &#039;&#039;&#039;don’t think the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039; and the chemical receptors, and them helping them smell thing. No. Nope, I don’t agree. That’s fake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: Ok. Evan?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Evan&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: So, the patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious. I suppose those… minimally conscious is a technical state of some sort. Not a coma? Or like…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, it ‘’is’’ a coma, but minimally conscious is pretty self explanatory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Okay. But now, you stimulate the brain with a low powered ulrta sound? So, how did they do that? Or, why does that, why does a low powered ultra sound have that ability to that? I don’t really understand it. This one’s tricky.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next one, the middle one, chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. I think that one will be science. I don’t think there’s any problem with that ratio. It may ‘’seem’’ high, but, you know, chimpanzees are very cool. Very cool. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How closely related in our DNA are we to chimpanzees? Ninety …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: 98 percent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: It depends on how you count it. There’s no one objective answer to that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: yeah, but it’s very high.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhere between 96 and 98 percent is the usual figure that the scientists give.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: alright, fair enough, I think people, although they’re competitive also i think we ‘’do’’ have a lot of cooperation, so I think we kinda mirror that. I think we’re okay there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And the last one is the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors. So, I’m gonna… this one I’m having a problem with because, I’ll go back to what we were talking about before with the logical fallacies &amp;lt;!--- link https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_581#Name_That_Logical_Fallacy:_Absence_of_Evidence_.281:00:16.29 ---&amp;gt;, isn’t this something we would have figured out maybe a ‘’long’’ time ago? You know, rat whiskers. It’s not like some hidden thing that we weren’t able to… what prevented us from determining this a long time ago? So, I think we would have found the evidence for that a while ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, therefore I think I’ll agree with Jay, I think &#039;&#039;&#039;the rat whisker one is gonna turn out to be the fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Alright. And, Cara…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cara&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think I’m torn between rat whiskers and the consciousness situation, so I’ll start with the chimpanzees. It seems reasonable to me. I’ve seen ‘’a lot’’ of primate studies, going all the way down to monkeys, not even apes, that show high rates of competition and of helping get food or share things in order to maximize the benefit for the group. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do rat whiskers contain a chemical receptor that help with sm… well I’ll disagree with jay because that is what a whisker ‘’is’’. It is an organ. It’s a sensory organ that actually helps with probe reception, or it helps them navigate their environment. So, if you cut certain whiskers you can do all kinds of neurological studies where you change some of the representation on the sensory cortex. So there ‘’is’’ a direct connection between whiskers and the brain, but ‘’chemical’’ receptors is interesting to me because I don’t think they have a physical way to bind anything. I mean, that would be what the receptor is. But it would be crazy if they just now found that because rat whiskers… or rats are such a common laboratory animal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And then scientists report a case where a patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious – Okay, so they woke up. – after using low power ultra sound. I think I’ve seen cases where consciousness is kind of sparked with thalamic stimulation. It’d be crazy if you could do this from outside the brain, and usually ultra sound is delivered from outside. So, I mean, I want this one to be true. So maybe – whuah, this is hard – I’m gonna hope that the ultrasound is also science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And that the &#039;&#039;&#039;fiction is the chemical receptors on the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039;. Because I just think they would have found that sooner. That would be my reasoning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 3===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Okay (1:19:45)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, you all agree with the third one, so let’s start there. Scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound. You all think this one is science. And this one is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(many): Yeah, baby.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yay. Wow, that’s so cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob: And Cara, great job. You pretty much nailed a lot of the details there. This was thalamic stimulation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, it was!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: The thalamus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: The thalmus. First of all, I was very careful in how I worded this. This was a single case. And they can’t prove that the stimulation is what did it, just that the patient woke up after they stimulated them. But, the timing ‘’does’’ look good, but they’ll obviously have to replicate it to see how generalizable this effect is, and if the effect is actually real. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, let me throw in some caveats here. First of all, this is a patient who was in a coma because of trauma. Trauma patients have a much better prognosis that patients who, for example, have diffuse anoxic ischemic injury.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Arciniegas, Dr. David B. &amp;quot;[http://www.internationalbrain.org/articles/hypoxicischemic-brain-injury/ Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;International Brain Injury Association&#039;&#039;. InternationalBrain.org. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; So, if your whole brain is injured because of lack of oxygen, these types of things generally don’t work. But if you have trauma to the brain, there may be pieces of the brain which work and other pieces to the brain that don’t work. And this is sort of a classic scenario where probably the cortex was relatively spared, and was still pretty functional, but the cortex just wasn’t being activated by the deeper structures like the thalamus. And so, if you could get the thalamus, if you could kick start or jump start the thalamus–which is what they’re calling it–you can do it with drugs, you can do it with wires, with deep-brain stimulation, if you can get that thalamus to function more it can wake up the rest of the brain, which is actually not that bad off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Isn’t it crazy how tenuous that is? Oh, my god.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, right? These little centers, deep in your brain, alerting your whole cortex, and if they get taken out, you’re in a coma. Your whole brain could be perfectly normal, but you’re essentially permanently asleep, because you don’t have the mechanism to alert or wake up your brain. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in those special cases where that’s the problem, this kind of thing can work. There was also a study where they implanted a chip basically to stimulate the thalamus and the deep structures. That also can be effective. So, eventually that may be the intervention. But, this is now using just an external, low power ultra sound focused on the thalamus to stimulate it. They described the patient being, again, minimally conscious. They would be able to do ‘’some’’ things, but not much. They occasionally would attend to external stimulation. Then after the treatment, they were essentially awake. They would look at the examiner. They did a fist bump, it was reported. One of the doctors as they were walking away they would follow commands, participate in their feeding. Still not neurologically normal. The guy still has brain damage. And was still was minimally verbal. I think would just shake his head yes and no, but would do so appropriately, but wasn’t really speaking. Again, he woke up but was not returned to neurologically intact. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do think we’re gonna see, fairly soon, these types of interventions to treat this one subgroup of patients who have enough brain function to be awake, but their deep structure’s just not working well enough to alert the brain. And all we need to do is stimulate it in order to get them to wake up. And we’re just figuring out the different techniques for doing that. Yeah, but very very cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Very cool. Maybe this could work for…, I know it’s a very specific case, but …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah. Okay, we’ll go backwards, I guess. We’ll go to number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. Bob, you think this one is the fiction, everyone else thinks this is science, and this one… is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Ahh, F-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Sorry, Bob.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: So, this was a little surprising actually, because previous research seemed to indicate that chimpanzees in particular are very competitive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yes!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: They’re greedy. You know, chimpanzees are often described as greedy, like they can’t inhibit their need to take things. They’ll steal. They’ll cheat. They’ll freeload. And they’ll compete against each other for resources. In this study, though, researchers tried to do a more open ended experiment with/in a more natural group environment. So, they had eleven chimpanzees who were involved in this study and essentially they gave them tasks to do that would result in a reward. But the task required either two chimpanzees to cooperate or three chimpanzees to cooperate; one chimpanzee could not get the reward by themselves. And they just observed their behavior. For example, did the chimpanzees work together, and did they police themselves for theft or freeloading or competition. And in fact, they did. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They engaged in a lot of policing behavior or enforcement strategies. For example, they wouldn’t expose the rewards if somebody… if a chimpanzee who had previously freeloaded was hanging around. They would say “nope, not until we get this jerk outta here. We’re not gonna do it.” You know. Sometimes the more alpha males would get involved in policing and punishing and ejecting the previous freeloaders or thieves from the area. They essentially enforced cooperation collectively as a group through punishment and these kind of behaviours. Which is what humans do. That’s essentially our system of justice is largely about, enforcing social norms and living together, cooperating, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And lots of other animals do that too. Birds, lots of birds do this. Birds will, for example, some species of birds will warn each other if predators are coming. But if one bird doesn’t participate in that, then other birds won’t warn them when it’s their turn. So, they use reciprocity as a way of awarding and punishing this behavior. So, even birds do this. So, cooperation’s actually fairly wide spread in the animal kingdom but it is ‘’not’’ unique to humans. Although some researchers have argued that our level of cooperation ‘’is’’ unique to humans. But every time somebody says that, you know, it seems like we find that chimpanzees do it too. And this is a similar case. Chimpanzees were mostly cooperating and engaging in a number of behaviors to enforce that cooperation, on the group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: So that’s nice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aww. That’s really cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That’s pretty cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhat cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 1===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: (laughs) …all this means that… a new study finds that rat whiskers&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskers Whiskers]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Wikipedia&#039;&#039;. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; contain chemical receptors that help them to smell, that is complete and total fiction. And the whiskers that themselves are basically hairs. They don’t have nerves in them. They have nerves at the base of the hair that sense the movement in the whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Yea, where you saying that there were receptors in the whiskers?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, but I made that up. That was wrong. That’s the lie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Okay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: The whiskers are just hairs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: (inaudible)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: They are like vibro- receptors at the base of the whiskers. So, the rat can sense, they get sensory information to their brain that actually helps them map the world when those whiskers move. The new study that inspired this item though was a study showing that rats can use their whiskers to sense the direction of the wind. And that helps them follow odors. So, if they’re smelling something, they need to know what the direction of the wind is blowing in in order to track that odor back to it’s source. And their whiskers help them do that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this study, very quickly, was they had rats enter an arena through a door and there were five fans. One of the fans was on and blowing. The hole at the base of that fan led to food. The hole at the base of the other four fans did not. So, if they couldn’t sense the wind at all, they would have a 20 percent chance of guessing the correct hole out of the gate. But the rats were able to do it 60 percent of the time, not just 20 percent of the time. But in order to show that they were using their whiskers, they then cut off their whiskers to see how they would do. Okay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Aww.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: But they said that the cutting off of the whiskers is painless. It’s like cutting off your hair. And they grow back. So, there’s no permanent harm done. So, they would cut off their whiskers, and then their performance dropped by 20 percent. So, they were still able to do better than chance, because there were other ways to sense the wind. But their performance decreased significantly because they no longer had their whiskers as a sensory organ. This suggests that they were sensing the wind, in part, with their whiskers. That was the study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I looked it up. I couldn’t find any evidence that they sniffed the air with their whiskers at all. I guess they could lick their whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: That’s what I was thinking. It’s exactly what I was licking, uh… thinking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If there’s stuff clinging to the whiskers, they could taste it by licking it. But the whiskers themselves don’t have receptors on them, as far as I could find. They’re just hair. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alright, Evan, give us the quote…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Skeptical Quote of the Week &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:27:14)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And until next week, this is your Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Outro404}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today I Learned: ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Steve states in this episode that Name That Logical Fallacy is a very popular segment that they don&#039;t do often enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== vocabulary ===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references group=&amp;quot;vocabulary&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Navigation}} &amp;lt;!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- Create category redirect pages for each segment mentioned below - https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Page categories&lt;br /&gt;
|Religion &amp;amp; Faith           = y &amp;lt;!--  Pew Belief Poll (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Pseudoscience        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Science &amp;amp; the Media        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10766</id>
		<title>SGU Episode 581</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10766"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T22:00:56Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* Science or Fiction (1:09:38) */ checklist&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Editing required&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{InfoBox&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeNum     = 581&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeDate    = August 27&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2016  &amp;lt;!-- broadcast date --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeIcon    = File:Proximab2.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|previous       =                          &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to previous episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|next           =                        &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to next episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|rebecca        =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|bob            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|jay            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|evan           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|cara           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|perry          =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest1         =      &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest2         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no second guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest3         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no third guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|downloadLink   = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2016-08-27.mp3&lt;br /&gt;
|forumLink      = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,47202.0.html&lt;br /&gt;
|qowText        = Our place in the Galaxy nor our Galaxy itself is special. Darwin has further shown that humans are a natural product of evolution by means of natural selection. The discovery of extrasolar life will demonstrate that even that last claim to being special will have to be abandoned&lt;br /&gt;
|qowAuthor      = Mario Livio, astrophysiscist &amp;lt;!-- add author and link --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;You&#039;re listening to the Skeptics&#039; Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Hello, and welcome to The Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, August 24&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2016; and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SGU Going to DragonCon &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(0:27)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What&#039;s the Word &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(3:32)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* {{w|Inquiline}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== News Items ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Proxima Centauri Follow Up &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(7:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, Matt &#039;[http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ Potentially Habitable Exoplanet Confirmed Around Nearest Star!]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Universe Today&#039;&#039;. Fraser Cain. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anthropocene &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(15:01)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Yirka, Bob &#039;[http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Phys.org&#039;&#039;. Omicron Technology Limited. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene Anthropocene] on Wikipedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(New era is based on all the environmental effects humans are having on the Earth)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== World Wide Web Turns 25 &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(26:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
*  http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832 1st website ever restored to its 1992 glory: CERN&#039;s ancient page describes the &amp;quot;W3&amp;quot; project]&#039;. &#039;&#039;CBC News: Technology and Science&#039;&#039;. CBC/Radio-Canada. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Commercial at 33:33)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- reference added as convenience for transcriber. raw link can be removed if desired. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fighting Against Pseudoscience &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(34:54)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =    y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: All right, Evan, there was this article&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Grant, Richard P &#039;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2016/aug/23/scientists-losing-science-communication-skeptic-cox Why scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Science - Occam&#039;s Corner&#039;&#039;. The Guardian News. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; published recently about science communication and fighting against pseudoscience that is interesting, although I don&#039;t totally agree with it. But let&#039;s talk about it. Tell us about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah. It appeared in the Guardian, it was written by a former biologist. He turned blogger. His name is Richard Grant. And the title of his article is, “Why Scientists Are Losing the Fight to Communicate Science to the Public.” So I&#039;ll read a few things directly from the article, and then we can sort of comment on it as we go.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says that, “Scientists and science-communicators are engaged in a constant battle with ignorance. But that&#039;s an approach doomed to failure.” Okay. He says that, &amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;“A video did the rounds a couple of years ago of some self-styled skeptic disagreeing (robustly, shall we say) with an anti-vaxxer. The speaker was roundly cheered by everyone for sharing the video. He sure put that idiot in their place! Scientists love to argue, cutting through bullshit and getting to the truth of the matter is pretty much the job description.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I kinda don&#039;t necessarily fully agree with that. But he goes on to say,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;”It&#039;s not really surprising scientists and science supporters frequently take on those who dabble in homeopathy or deny anthropogenic climate change, or who oppose vaccinations or genetically modified food. Brian Cox was at it last week performing a smack down on a climate change denier on the ABC&#039;s Q&amp;amp;A discussion program. He brought graphs (knock-out blow) and yet it leaves me cold. Is this really what science communication is about? Is this informing and changing minds, winning people over to a better, brighter future? I doubt it somehow.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I had a lot of problems with this article. So I think the core point that he&#039;s making, that you can&#039;t just oppose belief in pseudoscience with facts; you have to understand the psychological motivation why people are believing that pseudoscience – sure. That&#039;s absolutely valid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, but that&#039;s also not ... new.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We all know that it&#039;s not a deficit problem. Sci-com, the reason it&#039;s not as effective as we&#039;d like to be is not because there&#039;s just not enough knowledge out there. We know that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, my problem was he&#039;s writing to science communicators, and he is about twenty years behind on the conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s how I felt. It&#039;s like, “Where have you been?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, this is like, I remember having this conversation literally twenty years ago ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: when we were really getting involved with this. And there&#039;s so much more nuance, there&#039;s so much more involved with this. I just briefly put this up on our Facebook page and said that he&#039;s actually committing the problem that he&#039;s criticizing. He&#039;s sort of talking at us and not to us, and not really addressing the issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So like, for example, he&#039;s talking as if there is only true believers, but that&#039;s not true. There&#039;s not only true believers. First of all, there are a lot of people who are in the middle, or are just undecided, or just don&#039;t really know about whatever the topic is, like vaccines. Like, hey, there are a lot of parents who are, they hear concerning things about vaccines, but they&#039;re not anti-vaxxers. And so just putting the correct information out there and opposing the anti-vaxxers has a dramatic effect on the public conversation. It&#039;s an incredibly valuable resource to people who just want to know what the facts are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And it absolutely does prevent people, I think, from going down that rabbit hole and becoming a conspiracy theorist or an anti-science denier or whatever. And also, there are con artists out there as well. That&#039;s another group. There are people who are exploiting the true believers, are exploiting the community, exploiting the beliefs, the conspiracies, whatever, just to make money, just to sell their wares, to sell their snake oil; and they absolutely need to be deconstructed and taken apart. Their claims need to be vigorously opposed. They need to be corrected. We need to have the correct factual information out there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, when dealing with groups of people who believe things for ideological, emotional, political, sociological reasons, we need to address them in the context of the reason for their belief; and we know that there&#039;s a back-fire effect. People could dig their heels in if you make them defend their ideology. Yeah, we&#039;ve been through all of this. This is what we talk about all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So his article was just naive. It was just uninformed. As I was reading it, I&#039;m like, “God, this really would have benefited if he actually spoke to a skeptic at some point who&#039;s been doing this for more than a couple of weeks.” His opinions might have had some depth to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Or a professional science communicator,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: somebody who does this for a living, and who&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: studies outcome effects, and who talks to other science communicators. It was a little bit judgy, this whole thing. What is the quote? Somewhere in here. He&#039;s like, “How often is it that science communications actually listen to the needs of their audience?” And it&#039;s like, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: the number one thing we always say in sci-com is know your audience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s the first thing every science communicator&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: talks about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right, right, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s just so dismissive to act as though we&#039;re ... I think he&#039;s really getting upset at scientists who don&#039;t communicate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Um-hmm, maybe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I don&#039;t know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s frustrating. And also,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Frustrating&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: is it fair to ask, who &#039;&#039;is&#039;&#039; this guy?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Steve chuckles)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Who is he? Really? Richard Grant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I don&#039;t know. I don&#039;t know who he is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: &#039;&#039;(Laughs)&#039;&#039; You know? He works in med – yeah, here it is. “He&#039;s a former biochemist, cell biologist, structural biologist now working in medical communications and founder of the independent blogging network, Occam&#039;s Typewriter.” Okay, so he&#039;s just like one of the many of us. Basically, instead of saying, “Here are the ways that many of us can improve,” he&#039;s saying, “Wow, you guys all suck at this.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Steve, I got the same feeling &#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039; you did. This is very incomplete, way too black and white, not recognizing the broad spectrum where people fall along the lines of science, intelligence, or understanding science. In fact, he breaks it down into – he gives basically two general reasons as to why he arrived at this conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says, “First, in general, people don&#039;t like being told what to do. When the experts tell us how to live our lives, or worse, what to think, something rebels in people, especially when there&#039;s even the merest whiff of controversy or uncertainty.” And then he says, the second point is that on the whole he doesn&#039;t think that people that object to vaccines or GMO&#039;s are at heart anti-science, some are, but most aren&#039;t. People simply want to know that someone is listening, that someone is taking their worry seriously, and that somebody cares for them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I just don&#039;t agree with that. Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: I don&#039;t know where he arrived &#039;&#039;(laughs)&#039;&#039; at that point, or how he got ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I mean,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: that conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: you know, he&#039;s armchair criticizing a community of people that he doesn&#039;t really understand. Again, I&#039;m not gonna play the card, like, “He doesn&#039;t have the cred to have an opinion.” Of course he does. But if you&#039;re going to be judgmental about what other people are doing, you&#039;d better make a good, sincere effort to understand what they&#039;re actually doing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And we do have the advantage here. The SGU is eleven years old. We&#039;ve been doing this for twenty years. This is a very interactive medium. We get dozens, dozens of emails every day. I read dozens of comments to my blog, and comments on our Facebook posts every day. We are interacting with people. We are interacting with a broad audience as well as our community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have a much better idea of what people actually think, and how they actually respond to what we say, than this guy apparently does, you know? He would have benefited tremendously from talking to somebody who&#039;s actually involved in doing this. We just got an email today. I wasn&#039;t planning on reading this, but I&#039;ll just say it&#039;s somebody who&#039;s name is Kim. I won&#039;t give her full name, who basically said, “Hey, I started out as an absolutely true believer, gullible, believed everything.” An impressive list of pseudoscience had dominated her life. Listened to our show, and then over time was totally converted into a skeptic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So he&#039;s just factually wrong, that nobody ever gets converted, because we get these emails all of the time. It&#039;s probably statistically a small number, but you can&#039;t say that it never happens. And in any case, that&#039;s not even the primary goal. The primary goal is informing people who are open to the information, who are not already true believers. So, anyway, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: unfortunately, we encounter a lot of this, this sort of armchair criticism. It is, I agree with you, Cara. It&#039;s just being judgy. He ends -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s judgy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: the way he ends, yeah, it was so terrible. He&#039;s said, “Most science communication isn&#039;t about persuading people, it&#039;s self-affirmation for those already on the inside. Look at us,” it says. “Aren&#039;t we clever? We are exclusive. We are a gang. We are a family. It&#039;s tribalism.” That&#039;s bullshit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I&#039;m not saying there isn&#039;t any of that. Of course there is. People are tribal, we do have our communities. It is a source of identity. But it is so much not that, that is not what dominates science communication and skeptical activism. It is absolutely about persuading people. We are sincerely interested in engaging in the conversation, and persuading as many people as we can; and we&#039;re constantly self-examining, and looking at published research to figure out how to better do it, and we talk about it all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Oh yeah, absolutely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, it&#039;s just, you know – he really, I think, again, as I say, especially in that piece that he was doing, he&#039;s guilty of the exact thing that he&#039;s criticizing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah! He&#039;s also so fatalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s not like he&#039;s really putting forth any better options.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He&#039;s basically, “Well, some minds will never change.” It&#039;s like, “Okay, thanks?” And then he sort of kind of throws a toogawanda under the bus to some extent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He was honestly one of the most, I think, effective and sort of non-controversial&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: medical communicators out there, you know? His writings touch people who are absolutely religious or absolutely magical thinking, and they still can read his things and not feel insulted, and take something from them. He&#039;s just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a very good writer in that way. I don&#039;t know. Everything about it is a little bit like, the worst of what it is to write a blog. You know, I think blogs are incredibly important, and they&#039;re incredibly necessary, and good blogs can be better than bad journalism; but sometimes blogs can be very lazy. There was no reporting done on this. He never spoke to anybody&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: before he wrote this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah, it&#039;s an opinion piece&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: more than anything, and, you know, I don&#039;t know what the Guardian&#039;s all about as far as putting this out as a news article, but&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s a bit annoying, &#039;cause it doesn&#039;t say “opinion,” and it doesn&#039;t say&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: No, it&#039;s not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: “blog.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It says, “Science: Occam&#039;s Corner.” Like, this is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: listed under, “Science.” Obviously, “Occam&#039;s Corner” sounds like it&#039;s his blog that he has on the Guardian, but it&#039;s not really clear that that&#039;s what somebody&#039;s reading. So anybody who comes across this who doesn&#039;t know the difference between good and bad science journalism might look at this and say, “Oh my gosh, well, this is the state of things,” not realizing that he never interviewed a single person, or did any real reporting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Ugh! Anyway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, he also makes ... one last comment on this. He makes this very typical rookie mistake. I think we&#039;ve sort of made this mistake and then fixed it because this is what the evidence shows, is the idea that people are resistant to facts in general, which is not true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Nope&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: What the evidence shows is that if you give people facts, they change their opinion. They change their opinion to meet the facts unless they are already ideologically bound to one position. So people behave differently for emotionally held ideological opinions versus things that they don&#039;t have an emotional stake in. And so you have to deal with people differently in different contexts. But he was nowhere near drilling down to that level of detail in his article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, okay let&#039;s move on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Pew Belief Poll &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(47:05)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =    y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y   &lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
S: Cara, tell us about the latest Pew poll about belief.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lipka, Michael &#039;[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/ Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Fact Tank: News in the Numbers&#039;&#039;. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Sure. So you guys may remember a report last year by Pew that detailed a really sharp decline in Christian affiliation, and a growing number of Americans reporting themselves as quote, “nones.” That was part of a really big study called the 2014 Religious Landscape study that was published in 2015. It included at the time thirty-five thousand seventy-one respondents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what the Pew research group decided to do is a follow up, a recontact study, where they found – or maybe they reached out to more. But they ultimately ended up having I think five thousand individuals who they interviewed more in depth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of those five thousand individuals, one thousand one hundred forty-nine of those define themselves as “nones,” or unaffiliated. So that was broken down into four hundred twenty-six different atheists or agnostics, and seven hundred twenty-three people who indicated that their religion is quote, “nothing in particular.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The real purpose of the recontact study was part of a bigger question about whether or not people choose new churches, when they choose new churches or houses of worship. And so they found a lot of really interesting outcomes on that. How often throughout the lifespan people go to a new church. What are the reasons that motivate them from leaving their former congregation, going to their new congregation. But within that, of course, they had all of these quote, “nones.” And so they found that there were a lot of really interesting things that came out of the nones, and they – N-O-N-E-S, not N-U-N-S – and they &#039;&#039;(Evan chuckles)&#039;&#039; dug a little bit deeper and asked a lot of questions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So again, just to be clear, as part of a big thirty-five thousand people study a few years ago, they recontacted five thousand individuals. But now I&#039;m only gonna be talking about the one thousand one hundred forty-nine individuals within that group who defined themselves as unaffiliated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So here&#039;s some interesting  stuff: The vast majority of these unaffiliated individuals say that they were actually raised as a member of a particular religion before shedding their religious identity in adulthood. So about seventy-eight percent of those people that they interviewed that said that they don&#039;t identify with a religion were raised religious, which to me seems reasonable. I mean, my personal anecdotal experience, and maybe it&#039;s because I grew up in the Bible belt (it&#039;s very rare for me to meet people who had no religion as they were growing up; much more common when I actually met people with similar viewpoints that said they had left a church earlier).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The really, I think, interesting thing here is that what they wanted to do is know why. “Why did you actually leave if you were raised religious?” And they found that there were a &#039;&#039;ton&#039;&#039; of different responses because they actually allowed for open-ended responses. So I&#039;ll read you some quotes in a bit. But there were some themes that sort of clustered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest response, which was about half (actually forty-nine percent of individuals) said that they left because they don&#039;t believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: That&#039;s pretty straight-forward. “I don&#039;t believe, so I&#039;m not gonna go any more.” About twenty percent said that they left because they disliked organized religion. About eighteen percent said that they were just religiously unsure or undecided. And then only ten percent of this group that identified as a none or unaffiliated actually self-defined as an inactive believer, meaning that they still had those beliefs, but they either are non-practicing or they&#039;re too busy to attend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So there is still within that nones group, I think, a little bit of a holdover of what I might not define as a none or an unaffiliated. So that&#039;s kind of interesting to parse it in that way. Under the “Don&#039;t believe” group, we found that many people said that they were disenchanted, and that&#039;s why they no longer believe. Some people said they just are not interested in, or they don&#039;t need religion, or that their views evolved. But that was actually a very small number. And only one percent of the individuals overall said that they went through a crisis of faith.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it does seem like it was less common that something happened in their lives that really changed their opinion. More common that, as we were just talking about, it was a slow, gradual thing that happened through learning and thinking and coming across new evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: And the internet as well, I&#039;m sure has ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, the internet probably had a big part of that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Totally fits with what I would expect. I think just largely generational. I think that they younger generations – it&#039;s funny. A lot of them, it&#039;s not like their atheist, they&#039;re so areligious &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: they&#039;re not even an atheist, you know what I mean? It&#039;s like they just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: It&#039;s not on their radar. Not on their radar.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting that “none” label&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, “None.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think that we&#039;re seeing a lot, or just, “I&#039;m religiously unaffiliated.” There is something interesting though: Remember how I said forty-nine percent of this overall group said that they just don&#039;t believe, and that&#039;s why they left. Interestingly, if they actually broke that down into the people who self-identify as atheist versus agnostic versus quote, “Nothing in particular,” actually eighty-two percent of atheists say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. Sixty-three percent of agnostics say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. And only thirty-seven percent of the “Nothing in particular” group left because they said they don&#039;t believe; which also makes sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Are you surprised by any of these findings?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: No, none of this really stuck out to me too much. I mean, it&#039;s definitely interesting. I think probably what&#039;s more interesting is the overall thing, like, Bob and I were talking about before we were on air, just the overall trends that we&#039;re seeing away from a specific religion or organized religion, and into a kind of personal formulation of spirituality, religion, or lack thereof.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does seem like we&#039;re seeing an individualistic move away from these big groups, and I do kind of find that interesting because we hear about these studies all the time, a lot of nay-sayers will send us these studies and we&#039;ll actually describe them on the show where congregations, church groups, being in a community actually is correlated with positive health benefits. And so it is kind of interesting that we&#039;re seeing more and more people sort of leaving that organized community behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And I think that&#039;s where we&#039;re starting to see some changes, even within the atheistic community. Some people still like the idea that they&#039;re unaffiliated and they don&#039;t want to be part of a group, but you&#039;re starting to see some. Atheist groups meeting and even having kind of their version of a quote, “church,” (which of course is completely secular&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: &#039;&#039;(Chuckles)&#039;&#039; Yeah, right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: but is still a group thing so that they can have that sense of community).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That&#039;s basically what secular humanism is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I do wonder a couple of things when I see these kind of numbers: One is, “Is this a long-term trend?” You know, is this the arc of human history to become less religious over time, or is this cyclical? You know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Wax and wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, you know, it&#039;s hard to get out of your time frame, and to try to look at the big picture. Certainly in the last I would say couple hundred years, it seems like the power that religion has on our society, even in the United States (which is fairly religious for a Western country),&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: it&#039;s definitely been on the wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, for sure, with, understanding evolution, just advances in scientific thinking, that&#039;s been a big thing; and like you guys said, the internet, just being able to meet people who are like-minded that maybe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: don&#039;t live down the street from you, is huge; and feeling more confident in coming out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And the second question I have is (and I think I know the answer to this), but, as religion is on the wane, are people just replacing it with other forms of belief systems? This doesn&#039;t necessarily mean that there are more people who are being rational, or who are rejecting all ideology or all belief systems. It&#039;s more that they&#039;re rejecting traditional organized religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s &#039;&#039;so&#039;&#039; true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Becoming druids? And&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: warlocks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Just new age stuff, yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I know so, in L.A., it is very rare for me to meet people who are religious. I actually forget that that&#039;s a thing. I grew up in a very religious part of the country, the Bible belt. I live in L.A. Most everyone I know is non-religious. Yet,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: But they&#039;re still spiritual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: if you dig deep - oh, they&#039;re crazy spiritual! They have&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a university out here that&#039;s basically a cult. It&#039;s like a spiritual psychology university where people are studying, like, past life interactions and energy transfer,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: and chi. The woo thinking, the medical quackery, and the, yes, quote, “Spiritual,” - and I don&#039;t want to misuse that word. I have a hard time with that word because I think it comes with a lot of baggage. I think that it&#039;s perfectly legitimate for individuals to consider themselves to be spiritual in a sort of zen kind of way; you know, finding perfundity in nature. Carl Sagan even used the term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Sure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think he can talk about spirituality in a way that it is not magical thinking, and then you can talk about spirituality in a way that&#039;s absolutely magical thinking, and we have a lot of those people here on the West Coast. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Why can&#039;t everybody be like us?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Rogues laugh)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Then we wouldn&#039;t have to exist!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aw, how sad!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We would just vanish in a puff of smoke.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If the whole world were skeptical, obviously, you can&#039;t say no to that, but it would be interesting because we would not have to exist at that point. We wouldn&#039;t need a skeptical movement if there wasn&#039;t so much irrationality in the world. I&#039;d still rather have the rational world though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Who&#039;s That Noisy &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(56:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y    &lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
* Answer to last week: Space X landing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Membership drive at 59:14)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Absence of Evidence &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:00:16)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y   &lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science or Fiction &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:09:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- I have difficulty differentiating Bob / Jay / Evan - if there are spots you can help, thanks -bshirley, transcriber ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = science or fiction section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =  y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = &amp;lt;!--- add more if you like ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y &amp;lt;!--- needs checking ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y &amp;lt;!--- needs checking ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Science or Fiction music)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;It&#039;s time for Science or Fiction&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious, and I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Are you guys ready for this week? Three regular news items. &amp;lt;!--- overlapping responses ---&amp;gt; Alright, here we go. These are interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Items===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number one: a new study finds that rat whiskers contain chemical receptors to smell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Morris, Amanda &amp;quot;[http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2016/08/whiskers-help-animals-sense-winds-direction.html Whiskers Help Animals Sense the Direction of the Wind]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;McCormick School of Engineering.&#039;&#039; Northwestern University. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822155920.htm Chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition: Study challenges distinctiveness of human cooperation.]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Science News.&#039;&#039; Emory Health Sciences. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; And,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number three: scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazaro, Sage &amp;quot;[http://observer.com/2016/08/scientists-discovered-how-to-jumpstart-the-brain-of-a-coma-patient Real-Life Awakening: Scientists ‘Jumpstart’ the Brain of a Coma Patient]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Observer.&#039;&#039; Observer.com. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob, go first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Bob&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Alright, the rat whiskers, sure, that makes sense, i mean, would you call it “smell”? I could see that. I could see that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Un, the second, let’s see… chimpanzees choosing cooperation over competition, five to one, that’s… that kinda goes against what I’ve been led to believe about how… if you said bonobos I would absolutely agree with you, but chimpanzees are definitely more on the uncooperative/irascible&amp;lt;ref group=&amp;quot;vocabulary&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irascible Wiktionary:irascible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; scale.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: …irascible… (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Scientist, let’s see, number three, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultrasound. I just kinda love brain stimulation. I think it, i’ve heard, I know it’s not, you know, it’s not, it doesn’t necessarily do what they’ve been claiming over these years but I think, I still have read some interesting experiments that have surprising effects, so I’ll tentatively go with that one. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um, cooperation over competition, five to one, alright I’m gonna say the &#039;&#039;&#039;chimpanzees is fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Okay. Jay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Jay&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: This one about the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors… what I can’t figure out is how, how is the chemical receptor in the rat whisker communicating back to the brain? There’s no electrical type nerve connection from the organ, the receptor, to the brain. Unless it’s… i don’t know. I just don’t see how that can possibly be. It seems completely BS to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second one here, researchers find chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition. I don’t know about the rate of five to one, but I do agree with that and I think that makes a lot of sense. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And this last one, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating the brain, the thing that Bob has hidden in a drawer next to his bed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Apparently, it’s not hidden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: I just wanted to make sure Cara was awake, that’s all. That’s why I said that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I’m awake. I’m awake.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘’(laughter)’’&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Stimulating the brain brings people from, …minimally conscious to fully conscious with a low power ultra sound. I agree because this reminds me what it’s like when I wake up in the morning, and that’s my coffee. So, sure, this is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I just &#039;&#039;&#039;don’t think the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039; and the chemical receptors, and them helping them smell thing. No. Nope, I don’t agree. That’s fake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: Ok. Evan?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Evan&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: So, the patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious. I suppose those… minimally conscious is a technical state of some sort. Not a coma? Or like…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, it ‘’is’’ a coma, but minimally conscious is pretty self explanatory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Okay. But now, you stimulate the brain with a low powered ulrta sound? So, how did they do that? Or, why does that, why does a low powered ultra sound have that ability to that? I don’t really understand it. This one’s tricky.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next one, the middle one, chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. I think that one will be science. I don’t think there’s any problem with that ratio. It may ‘’seem’’ high, but, you know, chimpanzees are very cool. Very cool. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How closely related in our DNA are we to chimpanzees? Ninety …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: 98 percent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: It depends on how you count it. There’s no one objective answer to that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: yeah, but it’s very high.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhere between 96 and 98 percent is the usual figure that the scientists give.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: alright, fair enough, I think people, although they’re competitive also i think we ‘’do’’ have a lot of cooperation, so I think we kinda mirror that. I think we’re okay there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And the last one is the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors. So, I’m gonna… this one I’m having a problem with because, I’ll go back to what we were talking about before with the logical fallacies &amp;lt;!--- link https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_581#Name_That_Logical_Fallacy:_Absence_of_Evidence_.281:00:16.29 ---&amp;gt;, isn’t this something we would have figured out maybe a ‘’long’’ time ago? You know, rat whiskers. It’s not like some hidden thing that we weren’t able to… what prevented us from determining this a long time ago? So, I think we would have found the evidence for that a while ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, therefore I think I’ll agree with Jay, I think &#039;&#039;&#039;the rat whisker one is gonna turn out to be the fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Alright. And, Cara…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cara&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think I’m torn between rat whiskers and the consciousness situation, so I’ll start with the chimpanzees. It seems reasonable to me. I’ve seen ‘’a lot’’ of primate studies, going all the way down to monkeys, not even apes, that show high rates of competition and of helping get food or share things in order to maximize the benefit for the group. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do rat whiskers contain a chemical receptor that help with sm… well I’ll disagree with jay because that is what a whisker ‘’is’’. It is an organ. It’s a sensory organ that actually helps with probe reception, or it helps them navigate their environment. So, if you cut certain whiskers you can do all kinds of neurological studies where you change some of the representation on the sensory cortex. So there ‘’is’’ a direct connection between whiskers and the brain, but ‘’chemical’’ receptors is interesting to me because I don’t think they have a physical way to bind anything. I mean, that would be what the receptor is. But it would be crazy if they just now found that because rat whiskers… or rats are such a common laboratory animal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And then scientists report a case where a patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious – Okay, so they woke up. – after using low power ultra sound. I think I’ve seen cases where consciousness is kind of sparked with thalamic stimulation. It’d be crazy if you could do this from outside the brain, and usually ultra sound is delivered from outside. So, I mean, I want this one to be true. So maybe – whuah, this is hard – I’m gonna hope that the ultrasound is also science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And that the &#039;&#039;&#039;fiction is the chemical receptors on the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039;. Because I just think they would have found that sooner. That would be my reasoning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 3===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Okay (1:19:45)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, you all agree with the third one, so let’s start there. Scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound. You all think this one is science. And this one is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(many): Yeah, baby.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yay. Wow, that’s so cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob: And Cara, great job. You pretty much nailed a lot of the details there. This was thalamic stimulation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, it was!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: The thalamus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: The thalmus. First of all, I was very careful in how I worded this. This was a single case. And they can’t prove that the stimulation is what did it, just that the patient woke up after they stimulated them. But, the timing ‘’does’’ look good, but they’ll obviously have to replicate it to see how generalizable this effect is, and if the effect is actually real. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, let me throw in some caveats here. First of all, this is a patient who was in a coma because of trauma. Trauma patients have a much better prognosis that patients who, for example, have diffuse anoxic ischemic injury.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Arciniegas, Dr. David B. &amp;quot;[http://www.internationalbrain.org/articles/hypoxicischemic-brain-injury/ Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;International Brain Injury Association&#039;&#039;. InternationalBrain.org. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; So, if your whole brain is injured because of lack of oxygen, these types of things generally don’t work. But if you have trauma to the brain, there may be pieces of the brain which work and other pieces to the brain that don’t work. And this is sort of a classic scenario where probably the cortex was relatively spared, and was still pretty functional, but the cortex just wasn’t being activated by the deeper structures like the thalamus. And so, if you could get the thalamus, if you could kick start or jump start the thalamus–which is what they’re calling it–you can do it with drugs, you can do it with wires, with deep-brain stimulation, if you can get that thalamus to function more it can wake up the rest of the brain, which is actually not that bad off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Isn’t it crazy how tenuous that is? Oh, my god.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, right? These little centers, deep in your brain, alerting your whole cortex, and if they get taken out, you’re in a coma. Your whole brain could be perfectly normal, but you’re essentially permanently asleep, because you don’t have the mechanism to alert or wake up your brain. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in those special cases where that’s the problem, this kind of thing can work. There was also a study where they implanted a chip basically to stimulate the thalamus and the deep structures. That also can be effective. So, eventually that may be the intervention. But, this is now using just an external, low power ultra sound focused on the thalamus to stimulate it. They described the patient being, again, minimally conscious. They would be able to do ‘’some’’ things, but not much. They occasionally would attend to external stimulation. Then after the treatment, they were essentially awake. They would look at the examiner. They did a fist bump, it was reported. One of the doctors as they were walking away they would follow commands, participate in their feeding. Still not neurologically normal. The guy still has brain damage. And was still was minimally verbal. I think would just shake his head yes and no, but would do so appropriately, but wasn’t really speaking. Again, he woke up but was not returned to neurologically intact. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do think we’re gonna see, fairly soon, these types of interventions to treat this one subgroup of patients who have enough brain function to be awake, but their deep structure’s just not working well enough to alert the brain. And all we need to do is stimulate it in order to get them to wake up. And we’re just figuring out the different techniques for doing that. Yeah, but very very cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Very cool. Maybe this could work for…, I know it’s a very specific case, but …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah. Okay, we’ll go backwards, I guess. We’ll go to number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. Bob, you think this one is the fiction, everyone else thinks this is science, and this one… is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Ahh, F-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Sorry, Bob.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: So, this was a little surprising actually, because previous research seemed to indicate that chimpanzees in particular are very competitive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yes!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: They’re greedy. You know, chimpanzees are often described as greedy, like they can’t inhibit their need to take things. They’ll steal. They’ll cheat. They’ll freeload. And they’ll compete against each other for resources. In this study, though, researchers tried to do a more open ended experiment with/in a more natural group environment. So, they had eleven chimpanzees who were involved in this study and essentially they gave them tasks to do that would result in a reward. But the task required either two chimpanzees to cooperate or three chimpanzees to cooperate; one chimpanzee could not get the reward by themselves. And they just observed their behavior. For example, did the chimpanzees work together, and did they police themselves for theft or freeloading or competition. And in fact, they did. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They engaged in a lot of policing behavior or enforcement strategies. For example, they wouldn’t expose the rewards if somebody… if a chimpanzee who had previously freeloaded was hanging around. They would say “nope, not until we get this jerk outta here. We’re not gonna do it.” You know. Sometimes the more alpha males would get involved in policing and punishing and ejecting the previous freeloaders or thieves from the area. They essentially enforced cooperation collectively as a group through punishment and these kind of behaviours. Which is what humans do. That’s essentially our system of justice is largely about, enforcing social norms and living together, cooperating, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And lots of other animals do that too. Birds, lots of birds do this. Birds will, for example, some species of birds will warn each other if predators are coming. But if one bird doesn’t participate in that, then other birds won’t warn them when it’s their turn. So, they use reciprocity as a way of awarding and punishing this behavior. So, even birds do this. So, cooperation’s actually fairly wide spread in the animal kingdom but it is ‘’not’’ unique to humans. Although some researchers have argued that our level of cooperation ‘’is’’ unique to humans. But every time somebody says that, you know, it seems like we find that chimpanzees do it too. And this is a similar case. Chimpanzees were mostly cooperating and engaging in a number of behaviors to enforce that cooperation, on the group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: So that’s nice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aww. That’s really cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That’s pretty cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhat cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 1===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: (laughs) …all this means that… a new study finds that rat whiskers&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskers Whiskers]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Wikipedia&#039;&#039;. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; contain chemical receptors that help them to smell, that is complete and total fiction. And the whiskers that themselves are basically hairs. They don’t have nerves in them. They have nerves at the base of the hair that sense the movement in the whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Yea, where you saying that there were receptors in the whiskers?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, but I made that up. That was wrong. That’s the lie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Okay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: The whiskers are just hairs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: (inaudible)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: They are like vibro- receptors at the base of the whiskers. So, the rat can sense, they get sensory information to their brain that actually helps them map the world when those whiskers move. The new study that inspired this item though was a study showing that rats can use their whiskers to sense the direction of the wind. And that helps them follow odors. So, if they’re smelling something, they need to know what the direction of the wind is blowing in in order to track that odor back to it’s source. And their whiskers help them do that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this study, very quickly, was they had rats enter an arena through a door and there were five fans. One of the fans was on and blowing. The hole at the base of that fan led to food. The hole at the base of the other four fans did not. So, if they couldn’t sense the wind at all, they would have a 20 percent chance of guessing the correct hole out of the gate. But the rats were able to do it 60 percent of the time, not just 20 percent of the time. But in order to show that they were using their whiskers, they then cut off their whiskers to see how they would do. Okay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Aww.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: But they said that the cutting off of the whiskers is painless. It’s like cutting off your hair. And they grow back. So, there’s no permanent harm done. So, they would cut off their whiskers, and then their performance dropped by 20 percent. So, they were still able to do better than chance, because there were other ways to sense the wind. But their performance decreased significantly because they no longer had their whiskers as a sensory organ. This suggests that they were sensing the wind, in part, with their whiskers. That was the study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I looked it up. I couldn’t find any evidence that they sniffed the air with their whiskers at all. I guess they could lick their whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: That’s what I was thinking. It’s exactly what I was licking, uh… thinking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If there’s stuff clinging to the whiskers, they could taste it by licking it. But the whiskers themselves don’t have receptors on them, as far as I could find. They’re just hair. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alright, Evan, give us the quote…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Skeptical Quote of the Week &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:27:14)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And until next week, this is your Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Outro404}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today I Learned: ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Steve states in this episode that Name That Logical Fallacy is a very popular segment that they don&#039;t do often enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Navigation}} &amp;lt;!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- Create category redirect pages for each segment mentioned below - https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Page categories&lt;br /&gt;
|Religion &amp;amp; Faith           = y &amp;lt;!--  Pew Belief Poll (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Pseudoscience        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Science &amp;amp; the Media        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10765</id>
		<title>SGU Episode 581</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10765"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:54:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* Name That Logical Fallacy: Absence of Evidence (1:00:16) */ checklist&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Editing required&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{InfoBox&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeNum     = 581&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeDate    = August 27&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2016  &amp;lt;!-- broadcast date --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeIcon    = File:Proximab2.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|previous       =                          &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to previous episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|next           =                        &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to next episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|rebecca        =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|bob            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|jay            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|evan           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|cara           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|perry          =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest1         =      &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest2         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no second guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest3         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no third guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|downloadLink   = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2016-08-27.mp3&lt;br /&gt;
|forumLink      = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,47202.0.html&lt;br /&gt;
|qowText        = Our place in the Galaxy nor our Galaxy itself is special. Darwin has further shown that humans are a natural product of evolution by means of natural selection. The discovery of extrasolar life will demonstrate that even that last claim to being special will have to be abandoned&lt;br /&gt;
|qowAuthor      = Mario Livio, astrophysiscist &amp;lt;!-- add author and link --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;You&#039;re listening to the Skeptics&#039; Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Hello, and welcome to The Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, August 24&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2016; and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SGU Going to DragonCon &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(0:27)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What&#039;s the Word &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(3:32)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* {{w|Inquiline}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== News Items ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Proxima Centauri Follow Up &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(7:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, Matt &#039;[http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ Potentially Habitable Exoplanet Confirmed Around Nearest Star!]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Universe Today&#039;&#039;. Fraser Cain. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anthropocene &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(15:01)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Yirka, Bob &#039;[http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Phys.org&#039;&#039;. Omicron Technology Limited. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene Anthropocene] on Wikipedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(New era is based on all the environmental effects humans are having on the Earth)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== World Wide Web Turns 25 &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(26:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
*  http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832 1st website ever restored to its 1992 glory: CERN&#039;s ancient page describes the &amp;quot;W3&amp;quot; project]&#039;. &#039;&#039;CBC News: Technology and Science&#039;&#039;. CBC/Radio-Canada. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Commercial at 33:33)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- reference added as convenience for transcriber. raw link can be removed if desired. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fighting Against Pseudoscience &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(34:54)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =    y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: All right, Evan, there was this article&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Grant, Richard P &#039;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2016/aug/23/scientists-losing-science-communication-skeptic-cox Why scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Science - Occam&#039;s Corner&#039;&#039;. The Guardian News. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; published recently about science communication and fighting against pseudoscience that is interesting, although I don&#039;t totally agree with it. But let&#039;s talk about it. Tell us about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah. It appeared in the Guardian, it was written by a former biologist. He turned blogger. His name is Richard Grant. And the title of his article is, “Why Scientists Are Losing the Fight to Communicate Science to the Public.” So I&#039;ll read a few things directly from the article, and then we can sort of comment on it as we go.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says that, “Scientists and science-communicators are engaged in a constant battle with ignorance. But that&#039;s an approach doomed to failure.” Okay. He says that, &amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;“A video did the rounds a couple of years ago of some self-styled skeptic disagreeing (robustly, shall we say) with an anti-vaxxer. The speaker was roundly cheered by everyone for sharing the video. He sure put that idiot in their place! Scientists love to argue, cutting through bullshit and getting to the truth of the matter is pretty much the job description.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I kinda don&#039;t necessarily fully agree with that. But he goes on to say,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;”It&#039;s not really surprising scientists and science supporters frequently take on those who dabble in homeopathy or deny anthropogenic climate change, or who oppose vaccinations or genetically modified food. Brian Cox was at it last week performing a smack down on a climate change denier on the ABC&#039;s Q&amp;amp;A discussion program. He brought graphs (knock-out blow) and yet it leaves me cold. Is this really what science communication is about? Is this informing and changing minds, winning people over to a better, brighter future? I doubt it somehow.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I had a lot of problems with this article. So I think the core point that he&#039;s making, that you can&#039;t just oppose belief in pseudoscience with facts; you have to understand the psychological motivation why people are believing that pseudoscience – sure. That&#039;s absolutely valid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, but that&#039;s also not ... new.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We all know that it&#039;s not a deficit problem. Sci-com, the reason it&#039;s not as effective as we&#039;d like to be is not because there&#039;s just not enough knowledge out there. We know that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, my problem was he&#039;s writing to science communicators, and he is about twenty years behind on the conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s how I felt. It&#039;s like, “Where have you been?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, this is like, I remember having this conversation literally twenty years ago ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: when we were really getting involved with this. And there&#039;s so much more nuance, there&#039;s so much more involved with this. I just briefly put this up on our Facebook page and said that he&#039;s actually committing the problem that he&#039;s criticizing. He&#039;s sort of talking at us and not to us, and not really addressing the issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So like, for example, he&#039;s talking as if there is only true believers, but that&#039;s not true. There&#039;s not only true believers. First of all, there are a lot of people who are in the middle, or are just undecided, or just don&#039;t really know about whatever the topic is, like vaccines. Like, hey, there are a lot of parents who are, they hear concerning things about vaccines, but they&#039;re not anti-vaxxers. And so just putting the correct information out there and opposing the anti-vaxxers has a dramatic effect on the public conversation. It&#039;s an incredibly valuable resource to people who just want to know what the facts are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And it absolutely does prevent people, I think, from going down that rabbit hole and becoming a conspiracy theorist or an anti-science denier or whatever. And also, there are con artists out there as well. That&#039;s another group. There are people who are exploiting the true believers, are exploiting the community, exploiting the beliefs, the conspiracies, whatever, just to make money, just to sell their wares, to sell their snake oil; and they absolutely need to be deconstructed and taken apart. Their claims need to be vigorously opposed. They need to be corrected. We need to have the correct factual information out there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, when dealing with groups of people who believe things for ideological, emotional, political, sociological reasons, we need to address them in the context of the reason for their belief; and we know that there&#039;s a back-fire effect. People could dig their heels in if you make them defend their ideology. Yeah, we&#039;ve been through all of this. This is what we talk about all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So his article was just naive. It was just uninformed. As I was reading it, I&#039;m like, “God, this really would have benefited if he actually spoke to a skeptic at some point who&#039;s been doing this for more than a couple of weeks.” His opinions might have had some depth to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Or a professional science communicator,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: somebody who does this for a living, and who&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: studies outcome effects, and who talks to other science communicators. It was a little bit judgy, this whole thing. What is the quote? Somewhere in here. He&#039;s like, “How often is it that science communications actually listen to the needs of their audience?” And it&#039;s like, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: the number one thing we always say in sci-com is know your audience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s the first thing every science communicator&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: talks about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right, right, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s just so dismissive to act as though we&#039;re ... I think he&#039;s really getting upset at scientists who don&#039;t communicate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Um-hmm, maybe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I don&#039;t know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s frustrating. And also,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Frustrating&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: is it fair to ask, who &#039;&#039;is&#039;&#039; this guy?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Steve chuckles)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Who is he? Really? Richard Grant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I don&#039;t know. I don&#039;t know who he is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: &#039;&#039;(Laughs)&#039;&#039; You know? He works in med – yeah, here it is. “He&#039;s a former biochemist, cell biologist, structural biologist now working in medical communications and founder of the independent blogging network, Occam&#039;s Typewriter.” Okay, so he&#039;s just like one of the many of us. Basically, instead of saying, “Here are the ways that many of us can improve,” he&#039;s saying, “Wow, you guys all suck at this.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Steve, I got the same feeling &#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039; you did. This is very incomplete, way too black and white, not recognizing the broad spectrum where people fall along the lines of science, intelligence, or understanding science. In fact, he breaks it down into – he gives basically two general reasons as to why he arrived at this conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says, “First, in general, people don&#039;t like being told what to do. When the experts tell us how to live our lives, or worse, what to think, something rebels in people, especially when there&#039;s even the merest whiff of controversy or uncertainty.” And then he says, the second point is that on the whole he doesn&#039;t think that people that object to vaccines or GMO&#039;s are at heart anti-science, some are, but most aren&#039;t. People simply want to know that someone is listening, that someone is taking their worry seriously, and that somebody cares for them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I just don&#039;t agree with that. Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: I don&#039;t know where he arrived &#039;&#039;(laughs)&#039;&#039; at that point, or how he got ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I mean,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: that conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: you know, he&#039;s armchair criticizing a community of people that he doesn&#039;t really understand. Again, I&#039;m not gonna play the card, like, “He doesn&#039;t have the cred to have an opinion.” Of course he does. But if you&#039;re going to be judgmental about what other people are doing, you&#039;d better make a good, sincere effort to understand what they&#039;re actually doing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And we do have the advantage here. The SGU is eleven years old. We&#039;ve been doing this for twenty years. This is a very interactive medium. We get dozens, dozens of emails every day. I read dozens of comments to my blog, and comments on our Facebook posts every day. We are interacting with people. We are interacting with a broad audience as well as our community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have a much better idea of what people actually think, and how they actually respond to what we say, than this guy apparently does, you know? He would have benefited tremendously from talking to somebody who&#039;s actually involved in doing this. We just got an email today. I wasn&#039;t planning on reading this, but I&#039;ll just say it&#039;s somebody who&#039;s name is Kim. I won&#039;t give her full name, who basically said, “Hey, I started out as an absolutely true believer, gullible, believed everything.” An impressive list of pseudoscience had dominated her life. Listened to our show, and then over time was totally converted into a skeptic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So he&#039;s just factually wrong, that nobody ever gets converted, because we get these emails all of the time. It&#039;s probably statistically a small number, but you can&#039;t say that it never happens. And in any case, that&#039;s not even the primary goal. The primary goal is informing people who are open to the information, who are not already true believers. So, anyway, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: unfortunately, we encounter a lot of this, this sort of armchair criticism. It is, I agree with you, Cara. It&#039;s just being judgy. He ends -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s judgy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: the way he ends, yeah, it was so terrible. He&#039;s said, “Most science communication isn&#039;t about persuading people, it&#039;s self-affirmation for those already on the inside. Look at us,” it says. “Aren&#039;t we clever? We are exclusive. We are a gang. We are a family. It&#039;s tribalism.” That&#039;s bullshit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I&#039;m not saying there isn&#039;t any of that. Of course there is. People are tribal, we do have our communities. It is a source of identity. But it is so much not that, that is not what dominates science communication and skeptical activism. It is absolutely about persuading people. We are sincerely interested in engaging in the conversation, and persuading as many people as we can; and we&#039;re constantly self-examining, and looking at published research to figure out how to better do it, and we talk about it all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Oh yeah, absolutely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, it&#039;s just, you know – he really, I think, again, as I say, especially in that piece that he was doing, he&#039;s guilty of the exact thing that he&#039;s criticizing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah! He&#039;s also so fatalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s not like he&#039;s really putting forth any better options.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He&#039;s basically, “Well, some minds will never change.” It&#039;s like, “Okay, thanks?” And then he sort of kind of throws a toogawanda under the bus to some extent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He was honestly one of the most, I think, effective and sort of non-controversial&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: medical communicators out there, you know? His writings touch people who are absolutely religious or absolutely magical thinking, and they still can read his things and not feel insulted, and take something from them. He&#039;s just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a very good writer in that way. I don&#039;t know. Everything about it is a little bit like, the worst of what it is to write a blog. You know, I think blogs are incredibly important, and they&#039;re incredibly necessary, and good blogs can be better than bad journalism; but sometimes blogs can be very lazy. There was no reporting done on this. He never spoke to anybody&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: before he wrote this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah, it&#039;s an opinion piece&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: more than anything, and, you know, I don&#039;t know what the Guardian&#039;s all about as far as putting this out as a news article, but&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s a bit annoying, &#039;cause it doesn&#039;t say “opinion,” and it doesn&#039;t say&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: No, it&#039;s not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: “blog.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It says, “Science: Occam&#039;s Corner.” Like, this is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: listed under, “Science.” Obviously, “Occam&#039;s Corner” sounds like it&#039;s his blog that he has on the Guardian, but it&#039;s not really clear that that&#039;s what somebody&#039;s reading. So anybody who comes across this who doesn&#039;t know the difference between good and bad science journalism might look at this and say, “Oh my gosh, well, this is the state of things,” not realizing that he never interviewed a single person, or did any real reporting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Ugh! Anyway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, he also makes ... one last comment on this. He makes this very typical rookie mistake. I think we&#039;ve sort of made this mistake and then fixed it because this is what the evidence shows, is the idea that people are resistant to facts in general, which is not true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Nope&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: What the evidence shows is that if you give people facts, they change their opinion. They change their opinion to meet the facts unless they are already ideologically bound to one position. So people behave differently for emotionally held ideological opinions versus things that they don&#039;t have an emotional stake in. And so you have to deal with people differently in different contexts. But he was nowhere near drilling down to that level of detail in his article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, okay let&#039;s move on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Pew Belief Poll &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(47:05)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =    y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y   &lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
S: Cara, tell us about the latest Pew poll about belief.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lipka, Michael &#039;[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/ Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Fact Tank: News in the Numbers&#039;&#039;. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Sure. So you guys may remember a report last year by Pew that detailed a really sharp decline in Christian affiliation, and a growing number of Americans reporting themselves as quote, “nones.” That was part of a really big study called the 2014 Religious Landscape study that was published in 2015. It included at the time thirty-five thousand seventy-one respondents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what the Pew research group decided to do is a follow up, a recontact study, where they found – or maybe they reached out to more. But they ultimately ended up having I think five thousand individuals who they interviewed more in depth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of those five thousand individuals, one thousand one hundred forty-nine of those define themselves as “nones,” or unaffiliated. So that was broken down into four hundred twenty-six different atheists or agnostics, and seven hundred twenty-three people who indicated that their religion is quote, “nothing in particular.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The real purpose of the recontact study was part of a bigger question about whether or not people choose new churches, when they choose new churches or houses of worship. And so they found a lot of really interesting outcomes on that. How often throughout the lifespan people go to a new church. What are the reasons that motivate them from leaving their former congregation, going to their new congregation. But within that, of course, they had all of these quote, “nones.” And so they found that there were a lot of really interesting things that came out of the nones, and they – N-O-N-E-S, not N-U-N-S – and they &#039;&#039;(Evan chuckles)&#039;&#039; dug a little bit deeper and asked a lot of questions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So again, just to be clear, as part of a big thirty-five thousand people study a few years ago, they recontacted five thousand individuals. But now I&#039;m only gonna be talking about the one thousand one hundred forty-nine individuals within that group who defined themselves as unaffiliated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So here&#039;s some interesting  stuff: The vast majority of these unaffiliated individuals say that they were actually raised as a member of a particular religion before shedding their religious identity in adulthood. So about seventy-eight percent of those people that they interviewed that said that they don&#039;t identify with a religion were raised religious, which to me seems reasonable. I mean, my personal anecdotal experience, and maybe it&#039;s because I grew up in the Bible belt (it&#039;s very rare for me to meet people who had no religion as they were growing up; much more common when I actually met people with similar viewpoints that said they had left a church earlier).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The really, I think, interesting thing here is that what they wanted to do is know why. “Why did you actually leave if you were raised religious?” And they found that there were a &#039;&#039;ton&#039;&#039; of different responses because they actually allowed for open-ended responses. So I&#039;ll read you some quotes in a bit. But there were some themes that sort of clustered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest response, which was about half (actually forty-nine percent of individuals) said that they left because they don&#039;t believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: That&#039;s pretty straight-forward. “I don&#039;t believe, so I&#039;m not gonna go any more.” About twenty percent said that they left because they disliked organized religion. About eighteen percent said that they were just religiously unsure or undecided. And then only ten percent of this group that identified as a none or unaffiliated actually self-defined as an inactive believer, meaning that they still had those beliefs, but they either are non-practicing or they&#039;re too busy to attend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So there is still within that nones group, I think, a little bit of a holdover of what I might not define as a none or an unaffiliated. So that&#039;s kind of interesting to parse it in that way. Under the “Don&#039;t believe” group, we found that many people said that they were disenchanted, and that&#039;s why they no longer believe. Some people said they just are not interested in, or they don&#039;t need religion, or that their views evolved. But that was actually a very small number. And only one percent of the individuals overall said that they went through a crisis of faith.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it does seem like it was less common that something happened in their lives that really changed their opinion. More common that, as we were just talking about, it was a slow, gradual thing that happened through learning and thinking and coming across new evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: And the internet as well, I&#039;m sure has ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, the internet probably had a big part of that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Totally fits with what I would expect. I think just largely generational. I think that they younger generations – it&#039;s funny. A lot of them, it&#039;s not like their atheist, they&#039;re so areligious &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: they&#039;re not even an atheist, you know what I mean? It&#039;s like they just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: It&#039;s not on their radar. Not on their radar.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting that “none” label&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, “None.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think that we&#039;re seeing a lot, or just, “I&#039;m religiously unaffiliated.” There is something interesting though: Remember how I said forty-nine percent of this overall group said that they just don&#039;t believe, and that&#039;s why they left. Interestingly, if they actually broke that down into the people who self-identify as atheist versus agnostic versus quote, “Nothing in particular,” actually eighty-two percent of atheists say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. Sixty-three percent of agnostics say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. And only thirty-seven percent of the “Nothing in particular” group left because they said they don&#039;t believe; which also makes sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Are you surprised by any of these findings?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: No, none of this really stuck out to me too much. I mean, it&#039;s definitely interesting. I think probably what&#039;s more interesting is the overall thing, like, Bob and I were talking about before we were on air, just the overall trends that we&#039;re seeing away from a specific religion or organized religion, and into a kind of personal formulation of spirituality, religion, or lack thereof.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does seem like we&#039;re seeing an individualistic move away from these big groups, and I do kind of find that interesting because we hear about these studies all the time, a lot of nay-sayers will send us these studies and we&#039;ll actually describe them on the show where congregations, church groups, being in a community actually is correlated with positive health benefits. And so it is kind of interesting that we&#039;re seeing more and more people sort of leaving that organized community behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And I think that&#039;s where we&#039;re starting to see some changes, even within the atheistic community. Some people still like the idea that they&#039;re unaffiliated and they don&#039;t want to be part of a group, but you&#039;re starting to see some. Atheist groups meeting and even having kind of their version of a quote, “church,” (which of course is completely secular&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: &#039;&#039;(Chuckles)&#039;&#039; Yeah, right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: but is still a group thing so that they can have that sense of community).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That&#039;s basically what secular humanism is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I do wonder a couple of things when I see these kind of numbers: One is, “Is this a long-term trend?” You know, is this the arc of human history to become less religious over time, or is this cyclical? You know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Wax and wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, you know, it&#039;s hard to get out of your time frame, and to try to look at the big picture. Certainly in the last I would say couple hundred years, it seems like the power that religion has on our society, even in the United States (which is fairly religious for a Western country),&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: it&#039;s definitely been on the wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, for sure, with, understanding evolution, just advances in scientific thinking, that&#039;s been a big thing; and like you guys said, the internet, just being able to meet people who are like-minded that maybe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: don&#039;t live down the street from you, is huge; and feeling more confident in coming out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And the second question I have is (and I think I know the answer to this), but, as religion is on the wane, are people just replacing it with other forms of belief systems? This doesn&#039;t necessarily mean that there are more people who are being rational, or who are rejecting all ideology or all belief systems. It&#039;s more that they&#039;re rejecting traditional organized religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s &#039;&#039;so&#039;&#039; true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Becoming druids? And&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: warlocks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Just new age stuff, yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I know so, in L.A., it is very rare for me to meet people who are religious. I actually forget that that&#039;s a thing. I grew up in a very religious part of the country, the Bible belt. I live in L.A. Most everyone I know is non-religious. Yet,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: But they&#039;re still spiritual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: if you dig deep - oh, they&#039;re crazy spiritual! They have&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a university out here that&#039;s basically a cult. It&#039;s like a spiritual psychology university where people are studying, like, past life interactions and energy transfer,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: and chi. The woo thinking, the medical quackery, and the, yes, quote, “Spiritual,” - and I don&#039;t want to misuse that word. I have a hard time with that word because I think it comes with a lot of baggage. I think that it&#039;s perfectly legitimate for individuals to consider themselves to be spiritual in a sort of zen kind of way; you know, finding perfundity in nature. Carl Sagan even used the term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Sure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think he can talk about spirituality in a way that it is not magical thinking, and then you can talk about spirituality in a way that&#039;s absolutely magical thinking, and we have a lot of those people here on the West Coast. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Why can&#039;t everybody be like us?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Rogues laugh)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Then we wouldn&#039;t have to exist!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aw, how sad!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We would just vanish in a puff of smoke.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If the whole world were skeptical, obviously, you can&#039;t say no to that, but it would be interesting because we would not have to exist at that point. We wouldn&#039;t need a skeptical movement if there wasn&#039;t so much irrationality in the world. I&#039;d still rather have the rational world though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Who&#039;s That Noisy &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(56:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y    &lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
* Answer to last week: Space X landing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Membership drive at 59:14)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Absence of Evidence &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:00:16)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y   &lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science or Fiction &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:09:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- I have difficulty differentiating Bob / Jay / Evan - if there are spots you can help, thanks -bshirley ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Science or Fiction music)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;It&#039;s time for Science or Fiction&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious, and I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Are you guys ready for this week? Three regular news items. &amp;lt;!--- overlapping responses ---&amp;gt; Alright, here we go. These are interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Items===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number one: a new study finds that rat whiskers contain chemical receptors to smell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Morris, Amanda &amp;quot;[http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2016/08/whiskers-help-animals-sense-winds-direction.html Whiskers Help Animals Sense the Direction of the Wind]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;McCormick School of Engineering.&#039;&#039; Northwestern University. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822155920.htm Chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition: Study challenges distinctiveness of human cooperation.]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Science News.&#039;&#039; Emory Health Sciences. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; And,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number three: scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazaro, Sage &amp;quot;[http://observer.com/2016/08/scientists-discovered-how-to-jumpstart-the-brain-of-a-coma-patient Real-Life Awakening: Scientists ‘Jumpstart’ the Brain of a Coma Patient]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Observer.&#039;&#039; Observer.com. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob, go first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Bob&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Alright, the rat whiskers, sure, that makes sense, i mean, would you call it “smell”? I could see that. I could see that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Un, the second, let’s see… chimpanzees choosing cooperation over competition, five to one, that’s… that kinda goes against what I’ve been led to believe about how… if you said bonobos I would absolutely agree with you, but chimpanzees are definitely more on the uncooperative/irascible&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irascible Wiktionary:irascible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; scale.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: …irascible… (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Scientist, let’s see, number three, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultrasound. I just kinda love brain stimulation. I think it, i’ve heard, I know it’s not, you know, it’s not, it doesn’t necessarily do what they’ve been claiming over these years but I think, I still have read some interesting experiments that have surprising effects, so I’ll tentatively go with that one. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um, cooperation over competition, five to one, alright I’m gonna say the &#039;&#039;&#039;chimpanzees is fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Okay. Jay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Jay&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: This one about the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors… what I can’t figure out is how, how is the chemical receptor in the rat whisker communicating back to the brain? There’s no electrical type nerve connection from the organ, the receptor, to the brain. Unless it’s… i don’t know. I just don’t see how that can possibly be. It seems completely BS to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second one here, researchers find chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition. I don’t know about the rate of five to one, but I do agree with that and I think that makes a lot of sense. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And this last one, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating the brain, the thing that Bob has hidden in a drawer next to his bed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Apparently, it’s not hidden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: I just wanted to make sure Cara was awake, that’s all. That’s why I said that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I’m awake. I’m awake.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘’(laughter)’’&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Stimulating the brain brings people from, …minimally conscious to fully conscious with a low power ultra sound. I agree because this reminds me what it’s like when I wake up in the morning, and that’s my coffee. So, sure, this is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I just &#039;&#039;&#039;don’t think the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039; and the chemical receptors, and them helping them smell thing. No. Nope, I don’t agree. That’s fake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: Ok. Evan?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Evan&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: So, the patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious. I suppose those… minimally conscious is a technical state of some sort. Not a coma? Or like…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, it ‘’is’’ a coma, but minimally conscious is pretty self explanatory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Okay. But now, you stimulate the brain with a low powered ulrta sound? So, how did they do that? Or, why does that, why does a low powered ultra sound have that ability to that? I don’t really understand it. This one’s tricky.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next one, the middle one, chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. I think that one will be science. I don’t think there’s any problem with that ratio. It may ‘’seem’’ high, but, you know, chimpanzees are very cool. Very cool. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How closely related in our DNA are we to chimpanzees? Ninety …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: 98 percent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: It depends on how you count it. There’s no one objective answer to that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: yeah, but it’s very high.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhere between 96 and 98 percent is the usual figure that the scientists give.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: alright, fair enough, I think people, although they’re competitive also i think we ‘’do’’ have a lot of cooperation, so I think we kinda mirror that. I think we’re okay there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And the last one is the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors. So, I’m gonna… this one I’m having a problem with because, I’ll go back to what we were talking about before with the logical fallacies &amp;lt;!--- link https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_581#Name_That_Logical_Fallacy:_Absence_of_Evidence_.281:00:16.29 ---&amp;gt;, isn’t this something we would have figured out maybe a ‘’long’’ time ago? You know, rat whiskers. It’s not like some hidden thing that we weren’t able to… what prevented us from determining this a long time ago? So, I think we would have found the evidence for that a while ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, therefore I think I’ll agree with Jay, I think &#039;&#039;&#039;the rat whisker one is gonna turn out to be the fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Alright. And, Cara…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cara&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think I’m torn between rat whiskers and the consciousness situation, so I’ll start with the chimpanzees. It seems reasonable to me. I’ve seen ‘’a lot’’ of primate studies, going all the way down to monkeys, not even apes, that show high rates of competition and of helping get food or share things in order to maximize the benefit for the group. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do rat whiskers contain a chemical receptor that help with sm… well I’ll disagree with jay because that is what a whisker ‘’is’’. It is an organ. It’s a sensory organ that actually helps with probe reception, or it helps them navigate their environment. So, if you cut certain whiskers you can do all kinds of neurological studies where you change some of the representation on the sensory cortex. So there ‘’is’’ a direct connection between whiskers and the brain, but ‘’chemical’’ receptors is interesting to me because I don’t think they have a physical way to bind anything. I mean, that would be what the receptor is. But it would be crazy if they just now found that because rat whiskers… or rats are such a common laboratory animal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And then scientists report a case where a patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious – Okay, so they woke up. – after using low power ultra sound. I think I’ve seen cases where consciousness is kind of sparked with thalamic stimulation. It’d be crazy if you could do this from outside the brain, and usually ultra sound is delivered from outside. So, I mean, I want this one to be true. So maybe – whuah, this is hard – I’m gonna hope that the ultrasound is also science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And that the &#039;&#039;&#039;fiction is the chemical receptors on the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039;. Because I just think they would have found that sooner. That would be my reasoning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 3===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Okay (1:19:45)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, you all agree with the third one, so let’s start there. Scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound. You all think this one is science. And this one is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(many): Yeah, baby.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yay. Wow, that’s so cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob: And Cara, great job. You pretty much nailed a lot of the details there. This was thalamic stimulation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, it was!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: The thalamus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: The thalmus. First of all, I was very careful in how I worded this. This was a single case. And they can’t prove that the stimulation is what did it, just that the patient woke up after they stimulated them. But, the timing ‘’does’’ look good, but they’ll obviously have to replicate it to see how generalizable this effect is, and if the effect is actually real. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, let me throw in some caveats here. First of all, this is a patient who was in a coma because of trauma. Trauma patients have a much better prognosis that patients who, for example, have diffuse anoxic ischemic injury.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Arciniegas, Dr. David B. &amp;quot;[http://www.internationalbrain.org/articles/hypoxicischemic-brain-injury/ Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;International Brain Injury Association&#039;&#039;. InternationalBrain.org. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; So, if your whole brain is injured because of lack of oxygen, these types of things generally don’t work. But if you have trauma to the brain, there may be pieces of the brain which work and other pieces to the brain that don’t work. And this is sort of a classic scenario where probably the cortex was relatively spared, and was still pretty functional, but the cortex just wasn’t being activated by the deeper structures like the thalamus. And so, if you could get the thalamus, if you could kick start or jump start the thalamus–which is what they’re calling it–you can do it with drugs, you can do it with wires, with deep-brain stimulation, if you can get that thalamus to function more it can wake up the rest of the brain, which is actually not that bad off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Isn’t it crazy how tenuous that is? Oh, my god.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, right? These little centers, deep in your brain, alerting your whole cortex, and if they get taken out, you’re in a coma. Your whole brain could be perfectly normal, but you’re essentially permanently asleep, because you don’t have the mechanism to alert or wake up your brain. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in those special cases where that’s the problem, this kind of thing can work. There was also a study where they implanted a chip basically to stimulate the thalamus and the deep structures. That also can be effective. So, eventually that may be the intervention. But, this is now using just an external, low power ultra sound focused on the thalamus to stimulate it. They described the patient being, again, minimally conscious. They would be able to do ‘’some’’ things, but not much. They occasionally would attend to external stimulation. Then after the treatment, they were essentially awake. They would look at the examiner. They did a fist bump, it was reported. One of the doctors as they were walking away they would follow commands, participate in their feeding. Still not neurologically normal. The guy still has brain damage. And was still was minimally verbal. I think would just shake his head yes and no, but would do so appropriately, but wasn’t really speaking. Again, he woke up but was not returned to neurologically intact. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do think we’re gonna see, fairly soon, these types of interventions to treat this one subgroup of patients who have enough brain function to be awake, but their deep structure’s just not working well enough to alert the brain. And all we need to do is stimulate it in order to get them to wake up. And we’re just figuring out the different techniques for doing that. Yeah, but very very cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Very cool. Maybe this could work for…, I know it’s a very specific case, but …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah. Okay, we’ll go backwards, I guess. We’ll go to number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. Bob, you think this one is the fiction, everyone else thinks this is science, and this one… is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Ahh, F-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Sorry, Bob.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: So, this was a little surprising actually, because previous research seemed to indicate that chimpanzees in particular are very competitive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yes!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: They’re greedy. You know, chimpanzees are often described as greedy, like they can’t inhibit their need to take things. They’ll steal. They’ll cheat. They’ll freeload. And they’ll compete against each other for resources. In this study, though, researchers tried to do a more open ended experiment with/in a more natural group environment. So, they had eleven chimpanzees who were involved in this study and essentially they gave them tasks to do that would result in a reward. But the task required either two chimpanzees to cooperate or three chimpanzees to cooperate; one chimpanzee could not get the reward by themselves. And they just observed their behavior. For example, did the chimpanzees work together, and did they police themselves for theft or freeloading or competition. And in fact, they did. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They engaged in a lot of policing behavior or enforcement strategies. For example, they wouldn’t expose the rewards if somebody… if a chimpanzee who had previously freeloaded was hanging around. They would say “nope, not until we get this jerk outta here. We’re not gonna do it.” You know. Sometimes the more alpha males would get involved in policing and punishing and ejecting the previous freeloaders or thieves from the area. They essentially enforced cooperation collectively as a group through punishment and these kind of behaviours. Which is what humans do. That’s essentially our system of justice is largely about, enforcing social norms and living together, cooperating, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And lots of other animals do that too. Birds, lots of birds do this. Birds will, for example, some species of birds will warn each other if predators are coming. But if one bird doesn’t participate in that, then other birds won’t warn them when it’s their turn. So, they use reciprocity as a way of awarding and punishing this behavior. So, even birds do this. So, cooperation’s actually fairly wide spread in the animal kingdom but it is ‘’not’’ unique to humans. Although some researchers have argued that our level of cooperation ‘’is’’ unique to humans. But every time somebody says that, you know, it seems like we find that chimpanzees do it too. And this is a similar case. Chimpanzees were mostly cooperating and engaging in a number of behaviors to enforce that cooperation, on the group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: So that’s nice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aww. That’s really cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That’s pretty cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhat cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 1===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: (laughs) …all this means that… a new study finds that rat whiskers&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskers Whiskers]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Wikipedia&#039;&#039;. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; contain chemical receptors that help them to smell, that is complete and total fiction. And the whiskers that themselves are basically hairs. They don’t have nerves in them. They have nerves at the base of the hair that sense the movement in the whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Yea, where you saying that there were receptors in the whiskers?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, but I made that up. That was wrong. That’s the lie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Okay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: The whiskers are just hairs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: (inaudible)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: They are like vibro- receptors at the base of the whiskers. So, the rat can sense, they get sensory information to their brain that actually helps them map the world when those whiskers move. The new study that inspired this item though was a study showing that rats can use their whiskers to sense the direction of the wind. And that helps them follow odors. So, if they’re smelling something, they need to know what the direction of the wind is blowing in in order to track that odor back to it’s source. And their whiskers help them do that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this study, very quickly, was they had rats enter an arena through a door and there were five fans. One of the fans was on and blowing. The hole at the base of that fan led to food. The hole at the base of the other four fans did not. So, if they couldn’t sense the wind at all, they would have a 20 percent chance of guessing the correct hole out of the gate. But the rats were able to do it 60 percent of the time, not just 20 percent of the time. But in order to show that they were using their whiskers, they then cut off their whiskers to see how they would do. Okay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Aww.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: But they said that the cutting off of the whiskers is painless. It’s like cutting off your hair. And they grow back. So, there’s no permanent harm done. So, they would cut off their whiskers, and then their performance dropped by 20 percent. So, they were still able to do better than chance, because there were other ways to sense the wind. But their performance decreased significantly because they no longer had their whiskers as a sensory organ. This suggests that they were sensing the wind, in part, with their whiskers. That was the study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I looked it up. I couldn’t find any evidence that they sniffed the air with their whiskers at all. I guess they could lick their whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: That’s what I was thinking. It’s exactly what I was licking, uh… thinking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If there’s stuff clinging to the whiskers, they could taste it by licking it. But the whiskers themselves don’t have receptors on them, as far as I could find. They’re just hair. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alright, Evan, give us the quote…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Skeptical Quote of the Week &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:27:14)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And until next week, this is your Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Outro404}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today I Learned: ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Steve states in this episode that Name That Logical Fallacy is a very popular segment that they don&#039;t do often enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Navigation}} &amp;lt;!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- Create category redirect pages for each segment mentioned below - https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Page categories&lt;br /&gt;
|Religion &amp;amp; Faith           = y &amp;lt;!--  Pew Belief Poll (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Pseudoscience        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Science &amp;amp; the Media        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10764</id>
		<title>SGU Episode 581</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10764"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:54:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* Who&amp;#039;s That Noisy (56:39) */ checklist&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Editing required&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{InfoBox&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeNum     = 581&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeDate    = August 27&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2016  &amp;lt;!-- broadcast date --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeIcon    = File:Proximab2.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|previous       =                          &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to previous episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|next           =                        &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to next episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|rebecca        =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|bob            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|jay            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|evan           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|cara           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|perry          =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest1         =      &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest2         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no second guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest3         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no third guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|downloadLink   = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2016-08-27.mp3&lt;br /&gt;
|forumLink      = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,47202.0.html&lt;br /&gt;
|qowText        = Our place in the Galaxy nor our Galaxy itself is special. Darwin has further shown that humans are a natural product of evolution by means of natural selection. The discovery of extrasolar life will demonstrate that even that last claim to being special will have to be abandoned&lt;br /&gt;
|qowAuthor      = Mario Livio, astrophysiscist &amp;lt;!-- add author and link --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;You&#039;re listening to the Skeptics&#039; Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Hello, and welcome to The Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, August 24&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2016; and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SGU Going to DragonCon &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(0:27)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What&#039;s the Word &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(3:32)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* {{w|Inquiline}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== News Items ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Proxima Centauri Follow Up &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(7:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, Matt &#039;[http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ Potentially Habitable Exoplanet Confirmed Around Nearest Star!]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Universe Today&#039;&#039;. Fraser Cain. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anthropocene &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(15:01)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Yirka, Bob &#039;[http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Phys.org&#039;&#039;. Omicron Technology Limited. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene Anthropocene] on Wikipedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(New era is based on all the environmental effects humans are having on the Earth)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== World Wide Web Turns 25 &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(26:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
*  http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832 1st website ever restored to its 1992 glory: CERN&#039;s ancient page describes the &amp;quot;W3&amp;quot; project]&#039;. &#039;&#039;CBC News: Technology and Science&#039;&#039;. CBC/Radio-Canada. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Commercial at 33:33)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- reference added as convenience for transcriber. raw link can be removed if desired. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fighting Against Pseudoscience &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(34:54)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =    y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: All right, Evan, there was this article&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Grant, Richard P &#039;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2016/aug/23/scientists-losing-science-communication-skeptic-cox Why scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Science - Occam&#039;s Corner&#039;&#039;. The Guardian News. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; published recently about science communication and fighting against pseudoscience that is interesting, although I don&#039;t totally agree with it. But let&#039;s talk about it. Tell us about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah. It appeared in the Guardian, it was written by a former biologist. He turned blogger. His name is Richard Grant. And the title of his article is, “Why Scientists Are Losing the Fight to Communicate Science to the Public.” So I&#039;ll read a few things directly from the article, and then we can sort of comment on it as we go.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says that, “Scientists and science-communicators are engaged in a constant battle with ignorance. But that&#039;s an approach doomed to failure.” Okay. He says that, &amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;“A video did the rounds a couple of years ago of some self-styled skeptic disagreeing (robustly, shall we say) with an anti-vaxxer. The speaker was roundly cheered by everyone for sharing the video. He sure put that idiot in their place! Scientists love to argue, cutting through bullshit and getting to the truth of the matter is pretty much the job description.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I kinda don&#039;t necessarily fully agree with that. But he goes on to say,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;”It&#039;s not really surprising scientists and science supporters frequently take on those who dabble in homeopathy or deny anthropogenic climate change, or who oppose vaccinations or genetically modified food. Brian Cox was at it last week performing a smack down on a climate change denier on the ABC&#039;s Q&amp;amp;A discussion program. He brought graphs (knock-out blow) and yet it leaves me cold. Is this really what science communication is about? Is this informing and changing minds, winning people over to a better, brighter future? I doubt it somehow.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I had a lot of problems with this article. So I think the core point that he&#039;s making, that you can&#039;t just oppose belief in pseudoscience with facts; you have to understand the psychological motivation why people are believing that pseudoscience – sure. That&#039;s absolutely valid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, but that&#039;s also not ... new.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We all know that it&#039;s not a deficit problem. Sci-com, the reason it&#039;s not as effective as we&#039;d like to be is not because there&#039;s just not enough knowledge out there. We know that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, my problem was he&#039;s writing to science communicators, and he is about twenty years behind on the conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s how I felt. It&#039;s like, “Where have you been?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, this is like, I remember having this conversation literally twenty years ago ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: when we were really getting involved with this. And there&#039;s so much more nuance, there&#039;s so much more involved with this. I just briefly put this up on our Facebook page and said that he&#039;s actually committing the problem that he&#039;s criticizing. He&#039;s sort of talking at us and not to us, and not really addressing the issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So like, for example, he&#039;s talking as if there is only true believers, but that&#039;s not true. There&#039;s not only true believers. First of all, there are a lot of people who are in the middle, or are just undecided, or just don&#039;t really know about whatever the topic is, like vaccines. Like, hey, there are a lot of parents who are, they hear concerning things about vaccines, but they&#039;re not anti-vaxxers. And so just putting the correct information out there and opposing the anti-vaxxers has a dramatic effect on the public conversation. It&#039;s an incredibly valuable resource to people who just want to know what the facts are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And it absolutely does prevent people, I think, from going down that rabbit hole and becoming a conspiracy theorist or an anti-science denier or whatever. And also, there are con artists out there as well. That&#039;s another group. There are people who are exploiting the true believers, are exploiting the community, exploiting the beliefs, the conspiracies, whatever, just to make money, just to sell their wares, to sell their snake oil; and they absolutely need to be deconstructed and taken apart. Their claims need to be vigorously opposed. They need to be corrected. We need to have the correct factual information out there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, when dealing with groups of people who believe things for ideological, emotional, political, sociological reasons, we need to address them in the context of the reason for their belief; and we know that there&#039;s a back-fire effect. People could dig their heels in if you make them defend their ideology. Yeah, we&#039;ve been through all of this. This is what we talk about all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So his article was just naive. It was just uninformed. As I was reading it, I&#039;m like, “God, this really would have benefited if he actually spoke to a skeptic at some point who&#039;s been doing this for more than a couple of weeks.” His opinions might have had some depth to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Or a professional science communicator,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: somebody who does this for a living, and who&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: studies outcome effects, and who talks to other science communicators. It was a little bit judgy, this whole thing. What is the quote? Somewhere in here. He&#039;s like, “How often is it that science communications actually listen to the needs of their audience?” And it&#039;s like, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: the number one thing we always say in sci-com is know your audience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s the first thing every science communicator&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: talks about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right, right, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s just so dismissive to act as though we&#039;re ... I think he&#039;s really getting upset at scientists who don&#039;t communicate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Um-hmm, maybe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I don&#039;t know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s frustrating. And also,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Frustrating&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: is it fair to ask, who &#039;&#039;is&#039;&#039; this guy?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Steve chuckles)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Who is he? Really? Richard Grant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I don&#039;t know. I don&#039;t know who he is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: &#039;&#039;(Laughs)&#039;&#039; You know? He works in med – yeah, here it is. “He&#039;s a former biochemist, cell biologist, structural biologist now working in medical communications and founder of the independent blogging network, Occam&#039;s Typewriter.” Okay, so he&#039;s just like one of the many of us. Basically, instead of saying, “Here are the ways that many of us can improve,” he&#039;s saying, “Wow, you guys all suck at this.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Steve, I got the same feeling &#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039; you did. This is very incomplete, way too black and white, not recognizing the broad spectrum where people fall along the lines of science, intelligence, or understanding science. In fact, he breaks it down into – he gives basically two general reasons as to why he arrived at this conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says, “First, in general, people don&#039;t like being told what to do. When the experts tell us how to live our lives, or worse, what to think, something rebels in people, especially when there&#039;s even the merest whiff of controversy or uncertainty.” And then he says, the second point is that on the whole he doesn&#039;t think that people that object to vaccines or GMO&#039;s are at heart anti-science, some are, but most aren&#039;t. People simply want to know that someone is listening, that someone is taking their worry seriously, and that somebody cares for them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I just don&#039;t agree with that. Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: I don&#039;t know where he arrived &#039;&#039;(laughs)&#039;&#039; at that point, or how he got ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I mean,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: that conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: you know, he&#039;s armchair criticizing a community of people that he doesn&#039;t really understand. Again, I&#039;m not gonna play the card, like, “He doesn&#039;t have the cred to have an opinion.” Of course he does. But if you&#039;re going to be judgmental about what other people are doing, you&#039;d better make a good, sincere effort to understand what they&#039;re actually doing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And we do have the advantage here. The SGU is eleven years old. We&#039;ve been doing this for twenty years. This is a very interactive medium. We get dozens, dozens of emails every day. I read dozens of comments to my blog, and comments on our Facebook posts every day. We are interacting with people. We are interacting with a broad audience as well as our community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have a much better idea of what people actually think, and how they actually respond to what we say, than this guy apparently does, you know? He would have benefited tremendously from talking to somebody who&#039;s actually involved in doing this. We just got an email today. I wasn&#039;t planning on reading this, but I&#039;ll just say it&#039;s somebody who&#039;s name is Kim. I won&#039;t give her full name, who basically said, “Hey, I started out as an absolutely true believer, gullible, believed everything.” An impressive list of pseudoscience had dominated her life. Listened to our show, and then over time was totally converted into a skeptic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So he&#039;s just factually wrong, that nobody ever gets converted, because we get these emails all of the time. It&#039;s probably statistically a small number, but you can&#039;t say that it never happens. And in any case, that&#039;s not even the primary goal. The primary goal is informing people who are open to the information, who are not already true believers. So, anyway, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: unfortunately, we encounter a lot of this, this sort of armchair criticism. It is, I agree with you, Cara. It&#039;s just being judgy. He ends -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s judgy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: the way he ends, yeah, it was so terrible. He&#039;s said, “Most science communication isn&#039;t about persuading people, it&#039;s self-affirmation for those already on the inside. Look at us,” it says. “Aren&#039;t we clever? We are exclusive. We are a gang. We are a family. It&#039;s tribalism.” That&#039;s bullshit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I&#039;m not saying there isn&#039;t any of that. Of course there is. People are tribal, we do have our communities. It is a source of identity. But it is so much not that, that is not what dominates science communication and skeptical activism. It is absolutely about persuading people. We are sincerely interested in engaging in the conversation, and persuading as many people as we can; and we&#039;re constantly self-examining, and looking at published research to figure out how to better do it, and we talk about it all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Oh yeah, absolutely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, it&#039;s just, you know – he really, I think, again, as I say, especially in that piece that he was doing, he&#039;s guilty of the exact thing that he&#039;s criticizing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah! He&#039;s also so fatalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s not like he&#039;s really putting forth any better options.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He&#039;s basically, “Well, some minds will never change.” It&#039;s like, “Okay, thanks?” And then he sort of kind of throws a toogawanda under the bus to some extent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He was honestly one of the most, I think, effective and sort of non-controversial&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: medical communicators out there, you know? His writings touch people who are absolutely religious or absolutely magical thinking, and they still can read his things and not feel insulted, and take something from them. He&#039;s just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a very good writer in that way. I don&#039;t know. Everything about it is a little bit like, the worst of what it is to write a blog. You know, I think blogs are incredibly important, and they&#039;re incredibly necessary, and good blogs can be better than bad journalism; but sometimes blogs can be very lazy. There was no reporting done on this. He never spoke to anybody&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: before he wrote this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah, it&#039;s an opinion piece&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: more than anything, and, you know, I don&#039;t know what the Guardian&#039;s all about as far as putting this out as a news article, but&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s a bit annoying, &#039;cause it doesn&#039;t say “opinion,” and it doesn&#039;t say&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: No, it&#039;s not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: “blog.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It says, “Science: Occam&#039;s Corner.” Like, this is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: listed under, “Science.” Obviously, “Occam&#039;s Corner” sounds like it&#039;s his blog that he has on the Guardian, but it&#039;s not really clear that that&#039;s what somebody&#039;s reading. So anybody who comes across this who doesn&#039;t know the difference between good and bad science journalism might look at this and say, “Oh my gosh, well, this is the state of things,” not realizing that he never interviewed a single person, or did any real reporting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Ugh! Anyway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, he also makes ... one last comment on this. He makes this very typical rookie mistake. I think we&#039;ve sort of made this mistake and then fixed it because this is what the evidence shows, is the idea that people are resistant to facts in general, which is not true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Nope&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: What the evidence shows is that if you give people facts, they change their opinion. They change their opinion to meet the facts unless they are already ideologically bound to one position. So people behave differently for emotionally held ideological opinions versus things that they don&#039;t have an emotional stake in. And so you have to deal with people differently in different contexts. But he was nowhere near drilling down to that level of detail in his article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, okay let&#039;s move on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Pew Belief Poll &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(47:05)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =    y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y   &lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
S: Cara, tell us about the latest Pew poll about belief.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lipka, Michael &#039;[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/ Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Fact Tank: News in the Numbers&#039;&#039;. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Sure. So you guys may remember a report last year by Pew that detailed a really sharp decline in Christian affiliation, and a growing number of Americans reporting themselves as quote, “nones.” That was part of a really big study called the 2014 Religious Landscape study that was published in 2015. It included at the time thirty-five thousand seventy-one respondents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what the Pew research group decided to do is a follow up, a recontact study, where they found – or maybe they reached out to more. But they ultimately ended up having I think five thousand individuals who they interviewed more in depth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of those five thousand individuals, one thousand one hundred forty-nine of those define themselves as “nones,” or unaffiliated. So that was broken down into four hundred twenty-six different atheists or agnostics, and seven hundred twenty-three people who indicated that their religion is quote, “nothing in particular.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The real purpose of the recontact study was part of a bigger question about whether or not people choose new churches, when they choose new churches or houses of worship. And so they found a lot of really interesting outcomes on that. How often throughout the lifespan people go to a new church. What are the reasons that motivate them from leaving their former congregation, going to their new congregation. But within that, of course, they had all of these quote, “nones.” And so they found that there were a lot of really interesting things that came out of the nones, and they – N-O-N-E-S, not N-U-N-S – and they &#039;&#039;(Evan chuckles)&#039;&#039; dug a little bit deeper and asked a lot of questions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So again, just to be clear, as part of a big thirty-five thousand people study a few years ago, they recontacted five thousand individuals. But now I&#039;m only gonna be talking about the one thousand one hundred forty-nine individuals within that group who defined themselves as unaffiliated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So here&#039;s some interesting  stuff: The vast majority of these unaffiliated individuals say that they were actually raised as a member of a particular religion before shedding their religious identity in adulthood. So about seventy-eight percent of those people that they interviewed that said that they don&#039;t identify with a religion were raised religious, which to me seems reasonable. I mean, my personal anecdotal experience, and maybe it&#039;s because I grew up in the Bible belt (it&#039;s very rare for me to meet people who had no religion as they were growing up; much more common when I actually met people with similar viewpoints that said they had left a church earlier).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The really, I think, interesting thing here is that what they wanted to do is know why. “Why did you actually leave if you were raised religious?” And they found that there were a &#039;&#039;ton&#039;&#039; of different responses because they actually allowed for open-ended responses. So I&#039;ll read you some quotes in a bit. But there were some themes that sort of clustered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest response, which was about half (actually forty-nine percent of individuals) said that they left because they don&#039;t believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: That&#039;s pretty straight-forward. “I don&#039;t believe, so I&#039;m not gonna go any more.” About twenty percent said that they left because they disliked organized religion. About eighteen percent said that they were just religiously unsure or undecided. And then only ten percent of this group that identified as a none or unaffiliated actually self-defined as an inactive believer, meaning that they still had those beliefs, but they either are non-practicing or they&#039;re too busy to attend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So there is still within that nones group, I think, a little bit of a holdover of what I might not define as a none or an unaffiliated. So that&#039;s kind of interesting to parse it in that way. Under the “Don&#039;t believe” group, we found that many people said that they were disenchanted, and that&#039;s why they no longer believe. Some people said they just are not interested in, or they don&#039;t need religion, or that their views evolved. But that was actually a very small number. And only one percent of the individuals overall said that they went through a crisis of faith.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it does seem like it was less common that something happened in their lives that really changed their opinion. More common that, as we were just talking about, it was a slow, gradual thing that happened through learning and thinking and coming across new evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: And the internet as well, I&#039;m sure has ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, the internet probably had a big part of that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Totally fits with what I would expect. I think just largely generational. I think that they younger generations – it&#039;s funny. A lot of them, it&#039;s not like their atheist, they&#039;re so areligious &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: they&#039;re not even an atheist, you know what I mean? It&#039;s like they just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: It&#039;s not on their radar. Not on their radar.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting that “none” label&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, “None.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think that we&#039;re seeing a lot, or just, “I&#039;m religiously unaffiliated.” There is something interesting though: Remember how I said forty-nine percent of this overall group said that they just don&#039;t believe, and that&#039;s why they left. Interestingly, if they actually broke that down into the people who self-identify as atheist versus agnostic versus quote, “Nothing in particular,” actually eighty-two percent of atheists say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. Sixty-three percent of agnostics say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. And only thirty-seven percent of the “Nothing in particular” group left because they said they don&#039;t believe; which also makes sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Are you surprised by any of these findings?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: No, none of this really stuck out to me too much. I mean, it&#039;s definitely interesting. I think probably what&#039;s more interesting is the overall thing, like, Bob and I were talking about before we were on air, just the overall trends that we&#039;re seeing away from a specific religion or organized religion, and into a kind of personal formulation of spirituality, religion, or lack thereof.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does seem like we&#039;re seeing an individualistic move away from these big groups, and I do kind of find that interesting because we hear about these studies all the time, a lot of nay-sayers will send us these studies and we&#039;ll actually describe them on the show where congregations, church groups, being in a community actually is correlated with positive health benefits. And so it is kind of interesting that we&#039;re seeing more and more people sort of leaving that organized community behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And I think that&#039;s where we&#039;re starting to see some changes, even within the atheistic community. Some people still like the idea that they&#039;re unaffiliated and they don&#039;t want to be part of a group, but you&#039;re starting to see some. Atheist groups meeting and even having kind of their version of a quote, “church,” (which of course is completely secular&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: &#039;&#039;(Chuckles)&#039;&#039; Yeah, right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: but is still a group thing so that they can have that sense of community).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That&#039;s basically what secular humanism is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I do wonder a couple of things when I see these kind of numbers: One is, “Is this a long-term trend?” You know, is this the arc of human history to become less religious over time, or is this cyclical? You know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Wax and wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, you know, it&#039;s hard to get out of your time frame, and to try to look at the big picture. Certainly in the last I would say couple hundred years, it seems like the power that religion has on our society, even in the United States (which is fairly religious for a Western country),&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: it&#039;s definitely been on the wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, for sure, with, understanding evolution, just advances in scientific thinking, that&#039;s been a big thing; and like you guys said, the internet, just being able to meet people who are like-minded that maybe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: don&#039;t live down the street from you, is huge; and feeling more confident in coming out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And the second question I have is (and I think I know the answer to this), but, as religion is on the wane, are people just replacing it with other forms of belief systems? This doesn&#039;t necessarily mean that there are more people who are being rational, or who are rejecting all ideology or all belief systems. It&#039;s more that they&#039;re rejecting traditional organized religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s &#039;&#039;so&#039;&#039; true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Becoming druids? And&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: warlocks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Just new age stuff, yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I know so, in L.A., it is very rare for me to meet people who are religious. I actually forget that that&#039;s a thing. I grew up in a very religious part of the country, the Bible belt. I live in L.A. Most everyone I know is non-religious. Yet,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: But they&#039;re still spiritual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: if you dig deep - oh, they&#039;re crazy spiritual! They have&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a university out here that&#039;s basically a cult. It&#039;s like a spiritual psychology university where people are studying, like, past life interactions and energy transfer,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: and chi. The woo thinking, the medical quackery, and the, yes, quote, “Spiritual,” - and I don&#039;t want to misuse that word. I have a hard time with that word because I think it comes with a lot of baggage. I think that it&#039;s perfectly legitimate for individuals to consider themselves to be spiritual in a sort of zen kind of way; you know, finding perfundity in nature. Carl Sagan even used the term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Sure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think he can talk about spirituality in a way that it is not magical thinking, and then you can talk about spirituality in a way that&#039;s absolutely magical thinking, and we have a lot of those people here on the West Coast. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Why can&#039;t everybody be like us?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Rogues laugh)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Then we wouldn&#039;t have to exist!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aw, how sad!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We would just vanish in a puff of smoke.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If the whole world were skeptical, obviously, you can&#039;t say no to that, but it would be interesting because we would not have to exist at that point. We wouldn&#039;t need a skeptical movement if there wasn&#039;t so much irrationality in the world. I&#039;d still rather have the rational world though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Who&#039;s That Noisy &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(56:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y    &lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
* Answer to last week: Space X landing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Membership drive at 59:14)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Absence of Evidence &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:00:16)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science or Fiction &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:09:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- I have difficulty differentiating Bob / Jay / Evan - if there are spots you can help, thanks -bshirley ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Science or Fiction music)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;It&#039;s time for Science or Fiction&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious, and I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Are you guys ready for this week? Three regular news items. &amp;lt;!--- overlapping responses ---&amp;gt; Alright, here we go. These are interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Items===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number one: a new study finds that rat whiskers contain chemical receptors to smell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Morris, Amanda &amp;quot;[http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2016/08/whiskers-help-animals-sense-winds-direction.html Whiskers Help Animals Sense the Direction of the Wind]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;McCormick School of Engineering.&#039;&#039; Northwestern University. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822155920.htm Chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition: Study challenges distinctiveness of human cooperation.]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Science News.&#039;&#039; Emory Health Sciences. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; And,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number three: scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazaro, Sage &amp;quot;[http://observer.com/2016/08/scientists-discovered-how-to-jumpstart-the-brain-of-a-coma-patient Real-Life Awakening: Scientists ‘Jumpstart’ the Brain of a Coma Patient]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Observer.&#039;&#039; Observer.com. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob, go first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Bob&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Alright, the rat whiskers, sure, that makes sense, i mean, would you call it “smell”? I could see that. I could see that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Un, the second, let’s see… chimpanzees choosing cooperation over competition, five to one, that’s… that kinda goes against what I’ve been led to believe about how… if you said bonobos I would absolutely agree with you, but chimpanzees are definitely more on the uncooperative/irascible&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irascible Wiktionary:irascible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; scale.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: …irascible… (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Scientist, let’s see, number three, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultrasound. I just kinda love brain stimulation. I think it, i’ve heard, I know it’s not, you know, it’s not, it doesn’t necessarily do what they’ve been claiming over these years but I think, I still have read some interesting experiments that have surprising effects, so I’ll tentatively go with that one. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um, cooperation over competition, five to one, alright I’m gonna say the &#039;&#039;&#039;chimpanzees is fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Okay. Jay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Jay&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: This one about the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors… what I can’t figure out is how, how is the chemical receptor in the rat whisker communicating back to the brain? There’s no electrical type nerve connection from the organ, the receptor, to the brain. Unless it’s… i don’t know. I just don’t see how that can possibly be. It seems completely BS to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second one here, researchers find chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition. I don’t know about the rate of five to one, but I do agree with that and I think that makes a lot of sense. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And this last one, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating the brain, the thing that Bob has hidden in a drawer next to his bed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Apparently, it’s not hidden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: I just wanted to make sure Cara was awake, that’s all. That’s why I said that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I’m awake. I’m awake.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘’(laughter)’’&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Stimulating the brain brings people from, …minimally conscious to fully conscious with a low power ultra sound. I agree because this reminds me what it’s like when I wake up in the morning, and that’s my coffee. So, sure, this is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I just &#039;&#039;&#039;don’t think the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039; and the chemical receptors, and them helping them smell thing. No. Nope, I don’t agree. That’s fake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: Ok. Evan?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Evan&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: So, the patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious. I suppose those… minimally conscious is a technical state of some sort. Not a coma? Or like…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, it ‘’is’’ a coma, but minimally conscious is pretty self explanatory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Okay. But now, you stimulate the brain with a low powered ulrta sound? So, how did they do that? Or, why does that, why does a low powered ultra sound have that ability to that? I don’t really understand it. This one’s tricky.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next one, the middle one, chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. I think that one will be science. I don’t think there’s any problem with that ratio. It may ‘’seem’’ high, but, you know, chimpanzees are very cool. Very cool. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How closely related in our DNA are we to chimpanzees? Ninety …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: 98 percent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: It depends on how you count it. There’s no one objective answer to that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: yeah, but it’s very high.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhere between 96 and 98 percent is the usual figure that the scientists give.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: alright, fair enough, I think people, although they’re competitive also i think we ‘’do’’ have a lot of cooperation, so I think we kinda mirror that. I think we’re okay there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And the last one is the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors. So, I’m gonna… this one I’m having a problem with because, I’ll go back to what we were talking about before with the logical fallacies &amp;lt;!--- link https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_581#Name_That_Logical_Fallacy:_Absence_of_Evidence_.281:00:16.29 ---&amp;gt;, isn’t this something we would have figured out maybe a ‘’long’’ time ago? You know, rat whiskers. It’s not like some hidden thing that we weren’t able to… what prevented us from determining this a long time ago? So, I think we would have found the evidence for that a while ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, therefore I think I’ll agree with Jay, I think &#039;&#039;&#039;the rat whisker one is gonna turn out to be the fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Alright. And, Cara…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cara&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think I’m torn between rat whiskers and the consciousness situation, so I’ll start with the chimpanzees. It seems reasonable to me. I’ve seen ‘’a lot’’ of primate studies, going all the way down to monkeys, not even apes, that show high rates of competition and of helping get food or share things in order to maximize the benefit for the group. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do rat whiskers contain a chemical receptor that help with sm… well I’ll disagree with jay because that is what a whisker ‘’is’’. It is an organ. It’s a sensory organ that actually helps with probe reception, or it helps them navigate their environment. So, if you cut certain whiskers you can do all kinds of neurological studies where you change some of the representation on the sensory cortex. So there ‘’is’’ a direct connection between whiskers and the brain, but ‘’chemical’’ receptors is interesting to me because I don’t think they have a physical way to bind anything. I mean, that would be what the receptor is. But it would be crazy if they just now found that because rat whiskers… or rats are such a common laboratory animal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And then scientists report a case where a patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious – Okay, so they woke up. – after using low power ultra sound. I think I’ve seen cases where consciousness is kind of sparked with thalamic stimulation. It’d be crazy if you could do this from outside the brain, and usually ultra sound is delivered from outside. So, I mean, I want this one to be true. So maybe – whuah, this is hard – I’m gonna hope that the ultrasound is also science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And that the &#039;&#039;&#039;fiction is the chemical receptors on the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039;. Because I just think they would have found that sooner. That would be my reasoning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 3===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Okay (1:19:45)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, you all agree with the third one, so let’s start there. Scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound. You all think this one is science. And this one is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(many): Yeah, baby.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yay. Wow, that’s so cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob: And Cara, great job. You pretty much nailed a lot of the details there. This was thalamic stimulation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, it was!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: The thalamus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: The thalmus. First of all, I was very careful in how I worded this. This was a single case. And they can’t prove that the stimulation is what did it, just that the patient woke up after they stimulated them. But, the timing ‘’does’’ look good, but they’ll obviously have to replicate it to see how generalizable this effect is, and if the effect is actually real. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, let me throw in some caveats here. First of all, this is a patient who was in a coma because of trauma. Trauma patients have a much better prognosis that patients who, for example, have diffuse anoxic ischemic injury.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Arciniegas, Dr. David B. &amp;quot;[http://www.internationalbrain.org/articles/hypoxicischemic-brain-injury/ Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;International Brain Injury Association&#039;&#039;. InternationalBrain.org. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; So, if your whole brain is injured because of lack of oxygen, these types of things generally don’t work. But if you have trauma to the brain, there may be pieces of the brain which work and other pieces to the brain that don’t work. And this is sort of a classic scenario where probably the cortex was relatively spared, and was still pretty functional, but the cortex just wasn’t being activated by the deeper structures like the thalamus. And so, if you could get the thalamus, if you could kick start or jump start the thalamus–which is what they’re calling it–you can do it with drugs, you can do it with wires, with deep-brain stimulation, if you can get that thalamus to function more it can wake up the rest of the brain, which is actually not that bad off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Isn’t it crazy how tenuous that is? Oh, my god.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, right? These little centers, deep in your brain, alerting your whole cortex, and if they get taken out, you’re in a coma. Your whole brain could be perfectly normal, but you’re essentially permanently asleep, because you don’t have the mechanism to alert or wake up your brain. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in those special cases where that’s the problem, this kind of thing can work. There was also a study where they implanted a chip basically to stimulate the thalamus and the deep structures. That also can be effective. So, eventually that may be the intervention. But, this is now using just an external, low power ultra sound focused on the thalamus to stimulate it. They described the patient being, again, minimally conscious. They would be able to do ‘’some’’ things, but not much. They occasionally would attend to external stimulation. Then after the treatment, they were essentially awake. They would look at the examiner. They did a fist bump, it was reported. One of the doctors as they were walking away they would follow commands, participate in their feeding. Still not neurologically normal. The guy still has brain damage. And was still was minimally verbal. I think would just shake his head yes and no, but would do so appropriately, but wasn’t really speaking. Again, he woke up but was not returned to neurologically intact. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do think we’re gonna see, fairly soon, these types of interventions to treat this one subgroup of patients who have enough brain function to be awake, but their deep structure’s just not working well enough to alert the brain. And all we need to do is stimulate it in order to get them to wake up. And we’re just figuring out the different techniques for doing that. Yeah, but very very cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Very cool. Maybe this could work for…, I know it’s a very specific case, but …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah. Okay, we’ll go backwards, I guess. We’ll go to number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. Bob, you think this one is the fiction, everyone else thinks this is science, and this one… is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Ahh, F-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Sorry, Bob.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: So, this was a little surprising actually, because previous research seemed to indicate that chimpanzees in particular are very competitive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yes!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: They’re greedy. You know, chimpanzees are often described as greedy, like they can’t inhibit their need to take things. They’ll steal. They’ll cheat. They’ll freeload. And they’ll compete against each other for resources. In this study, though, researchers tried to do a more open ended experiment with/in a more natural group environment. So, they had eleven chimpanzees who were involved in this study and essentially they gave them tasks to do that would result in a reward. But the task required either two chimpanzees to cooperate or three chimpanzees to cooperate; one chimpanzee could not get the reward by themselves. And they just observed their behavior. For example, did the chimpanzees work together, and did they police themselves for theft or freeloading or competition. And in fact, they did. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They engaged in a lot of policing behavior or enforcement strategies. For example, they wouldn’t expose the rewards if somebody… if a chimpanzee who had previously freeloaded was hanging around. They would say “nope, not until we get this jerk outta here. We’re not gonna do it.” You know. Sometimes the more alpha males would get involved in policing and punishing and ejecting the previous freeloaders or thieves from the area. They essentially enforced cooperation collectively as a group through punishment and these kind of behaviours. Which is what humans do. That’s essentially our system of justice is largely about, enforcing social norms and living together, cooperating, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And lots of other animals do that too. Birds, lots of birds do this. Birds will, for example, some species of birds will warn each other if predators are coming. But if one bird doesn’t participate in that, then other birds won’t warn them when it’s their turn. So, they use reciprocity as a way of awarding and punishing this behavior. So, even birds do this. So, cooperation’s actually fairly wide spread in the animal kingdom but it is ‘’not’’ unique to humans. Although some researchers have argued that our level of cooperation ‘’is’’ unique to humans. But every time somebody says that, you know, it seems like we find that chimpanzees do it too. And this is a similar case. Chimpanzees were mostly cooperating and engaging in a number of behaviors to enforce that cooperation, on the group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: So that’s nice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aww. That’s really cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That’s pretty cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhat cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 1===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: (laughs) …all this means that… a new study finds that rat whiskers&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskers Whiskers]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Wikipedia&#039;&#039;. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; contain chemical receptors that help them to smell, that is complete and total fiction. And the whiskers that themselves are basically hairs. They don’t have nerves in them. They have nerves at the base of the hair that sense the movement in the whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Yea, where you saying that there were receptors in the whiskers?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, but I made that up. That was wrong. That’s the lie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Okay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: The whiskers are just hairs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: (inaudible)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: They are like vibro- receptors at the base of the whiskers. So, the rat can sense, they get sensory information to their brain that actually helps them map the world when those whiskers move. The new study that inspired this item though was a study showing that rats can use their whiskers to sense the direction of the wind. And that helps them follow odors. So, if they’re smelling something, they need to know what the direction of the wind is blowing in in order to track that odor back to it’s source. And their whiskers help them do that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this study, very quickly, was they had rats enter an arena through a door and there were five fans. One of the fans was on and blowing. The hole at the base of that fan led to food. The hole at the base of the other four fans did not. So, if they couldn’t sense the wind at all, they would have a 20 percent chance of guessing the correct hole out of the gate. But the rats were able to do it 60 percent of the time, not just 20 percent of the time. But in order to show that they were using their whiskers, they then cut off their whiskers to see how they would do. Okay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Aww.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: But they said that the cutting off of the whiskers is painless. It’s like cutting off your hair. And they grow back. So, there’s no permanent harm done. So, they would cut off their whiskers, and then their performance dropped by 20 percent. So, they were still able to do better than chance, because there were other ways to sense the wind. But their performance decreased significantly because they no longer had their whiskers as a sensory organ. This suggests that they were sensing the wind, in part, with their whiskers. That was the study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I looked it up. I couldn’t find any evidence that they sniffed the air with their whiskers at all. I guess they could lick their whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: That’s what I was thinking. It’s exactly what I was licking, uh… thinking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If there’s stuff clinging to the whiskers, they could taste it by licking it. But the whiskers themselves don’t have receptors on them, as far as I could find. They’re just hair. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alright, Evan, give us the quote…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Skeptical Quote of the Week &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:27:14)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And until next week, this is your Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Outro404}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today I Learned: ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Steve states in this episode that Name That Logical Fallacy is a very popular segment that they don&#039;t do often enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Navigation}} &amp;lt;!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- Create category redirect pages for each segment mentioned below - https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Page categories&lt;br /&gt;
|Religion &amp;amp; Faith           = y &amp;lt;!--  Pew Belief Poll (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Pseudoscience        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Science &amp;amp; the Media        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10763</id>
		<title>SGU Episode 581</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10763"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:53:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* Pew Belief Poll (47:05) */ checklist&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Editing required&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{InfoBox&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeNum     = 581&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeDate    = August 27&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2016  &amp;lt;!-- broadcast date --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeIcon    = File:Proximab2.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|previous       =                          &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to previous episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|next           =                        &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to next episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|rebecca        =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|bob            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|jay            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|evan           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|cara           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|perry          =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest1         =      &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest2         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no second guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest3         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no third guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|downloadLink   = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2016-08-27.mp3&lt;br /&gt;
|forumLink      = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,47202.0.html&lt;br /&gt;
|qowText        = Our place in the Galaxy nor our Galaxy itself is special. Darwin has further shown that humans are a natural product of evolution by means of natural selection. The discovery of extrasolar life will demonstrate that even that last claim to being special will have to be abandoned&lt;br /&gt;
|qowAuthor      = Mario Livio, astrophysiscist &amp;lt;!-- add author and link --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;You&#039;re listening to the Skeptics&#039; Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Hello, and welcome to The Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, August 24&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2016; and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SGU Going to DragonCon &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(0:27)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What&#039;s the Word &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(3:32)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* {{w|Inquiline}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== News Items ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Proxima Centauri Follow Up &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(7:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, Matt &#039;[http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ Potentially Habitable Exoplanet Confirmed Around Nearest Star!]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Universe Today&#039;&#039;. Fraser Cain. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anthropocene &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(15:01)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Yirka, Bob &#039;[http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Phys.org&#039;&#039;. Omicron Technology Limited. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene Anthropocene] on Wikipedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(New era is based on all the environmental effects humans are having on the Earth)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== World Wide Web Turns 25 &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(26:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
*  http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832 1st website ever restored to its 1992 glory: CERN&#039;s ancient page describes the &amp;quot;W3&amp;quot; project]&#039;. &#039;&#039;CBC News: Technology and Science&#039;&#039;. CBC/Radio-Canada. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Commercial at 33:33)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- reference added as convenience for transcriber. raw link can be removed if desired. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fighting Against Pseudoscience &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(34:54)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =    y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: All right, Evan, there was this article&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Grant, Richard P &#039;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2016/aug/23/scientists-losing-science-communication-skeptic-cox Why scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Science - Occam&#039;s Corner&#039;&#039;. The Guardian News. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; published recently about science communication and fighting against pseudoscience that is interesting, although I don&#039;t totally agree with it. But let&#039;s talk about it. Tell us about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah. It appeared in the Guardian, it was written by a former biologist. He turned blogger. His name is Richard Grant. And the title of his article is, “Why Scientists Are Losing the Fight to Communicate Science to the Public.” So I&#039;ll read a few things directly from the article, and then we can sort of comment on it as we go.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says that, “Scientists and science-communicators are engaged in a constant battle with ignorance. But that&#039;s an approach doomed to failure.” Okay. He says that, &amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;“A video did the rounds a couple of years ago of some self-styled skeptic disagreeing (robustly, shall we say) with an anti-vaxxer. The speaker was roundly cheered by everyone for sharing the video. He sure put that idiot in their place! Scientists love to argue, cutting through bullshit and getting to the truth of the matter is pretty much the job description.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I kinda don&#039;t necessarily fully agree with that. But he goes on to say,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;”It&#039;s not really surprising scientists and science supporters frequently take on those who dabble in homeopathy or deny anthropogenic climate change, or who oppose vaccinations or genetically modified food. Brian Cox was at it last week performing a smack down on a climate change denier on the ABC&#039;s Q&amp;amp;A discussion program. He brought graphs (knock-out blow) and yet it leaves me cold. Is this really what science communication is about? Is this informing and changing minds, winning people over to a better, brighter future? I doubt it somehow.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I had a lot of problems with this article. So I think the core point that he&#039;s making, that you can&#039;t just oppose belief in pseudoscience with facts; you have to understand the psychological motivation why people are believing that pseudoscience – sure. That&#039;s absolutely valid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, but that&#039;s also not ... new.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We all know that it&#039;s not a deficit problem. Sci-com, the reason it&#039;s not as effective as we&#039;d like to be is not because there&#039;s just not enough knowledge out there. We know that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, my problem was he&#039;s writing to science communicators, and he is about twenty years behind on the conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s how I felt. It&#039;s like, “Where have you been?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, this is like, I remember having this conversation literally twenty years ago ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: when we were really getting involved with this. And there&#039;s so much more nuance, there&#039;s so much more involved with this. I just briefly put this up on our Facebook page and said that he&#039;s actually committing the problem that he&#039;s criticizing. He&#039;s sort of talking at us and not to us, and not really addressing the issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So like, for example, he&#039;s talking as if there is only true believers, but that&#039;s not true. There&#039;s not only true believers. First of all, there are a lot of people who are in the middle, or are just undecided, or just don&#039;t really know about whatever the topic is, like vaccines. Like, hey, there are a lot of parents who are, they hear concerning things about vaccines, but they&#039;re not anti-vaxxers. And so just putting the correct information out there and opposing the anti-vaxxers has a dramatic effect on the public conversation. It&#039;s an incredibly valuable resource to people who just want to know what the facts are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And it absolutely does prevent people, I think, from going down that rabbit hole and becoming a conspiracy theorist or an anti-science denier or whatever. And also, there are con artists out there as well. That&#039;s another group. There are people who are exploiting the true believers, are exploiting the community, exploiting the beliefs, the conspiracies, whatever, just to make money, just to sell their wares, to sell their snake oil; and they absolutely need to be deconstructed and taken apart. Their claims need to be vigorously opposed. They need to be corrected. We need to have the correct factual information out there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, when dealing with groups of people who believe things for ideological, emotional, political, sociological reasons, we need to address them in the context of the reason for their belief; and we know that there&#039;s a back-fire effect. People could dig their heels in if you make them defend their ideology. Yeah, we&#039;ve been through all of this. This is what we talk about all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So his article was just naive. It was just uninformed. As I was reading it, I&#039;m like, “God, this really would have benefited if he actually spoke to a skeptic at some point who&#039;s been doing this for more than a couple of weeks.” His opinions might have had some depth to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Or a professional science communicator,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: somebody who does this for a living, and who&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: studies outcome effects, and who talks to other science communicators. It was a little bit judgy, this whole thing. What is the quote? Somewhere in here. He&#039;s like, “How often is it that science communications actually listen to the needs of their audience?” And it&#039;s like, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: the number one thing we always say in sci-com is know your audience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s the first thing every science communicator&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: talks about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right, right, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s just so dismissive to act as though we&#039;re ... I think he&#039;s really getting upset at scientists who don&#039;t communicate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Um-hmm, maybe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I don&#039;t know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s frustrating. And also,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Frustrating&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: is it fair to ask, who &#039;&#039;is&#039;&#039; this guy?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Steve chuckles)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Who is he? Really? Richard Grant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I don&#039;t know. I don&#039;t know who he is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: &#039;&#039;(Laughs)&#039;&#039; You know? He works in med – yeah, here it is. “He&#039;s a former biochemist, cell biologist, structural biologist now working in medical communications and founder of the independent blogging network, Occam&#039;s Typewriter.” Okay, so he&#039;s just like one of the many of us. Basically, instead of saying, “Here are the ways that many of us can improve,” he&#039;s saying, “Wow, you guys all suck at this.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Steve, I got the same feeling &#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039; you did. This is very incomplete, way too black and white, not recognizing the broad spectrum where people fall along the lines of science, intelligence, or understanding science. In fact, he breaks it down into – he gives basically two general reasons as to why he arrived at this conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says, “First, in general, people don&#039;t like being told what to do. When the experts tell us how to live our lives, or worse, what to think, something rebels in people, especially when there&#039;s even the merest whiff of controversy or uncertainty.” And then he says, the second point is that on the whole he doesn&#039;t think that people that object to vaccines or GMO&#039;s are at heart anti-science, some are, but most aren&#039;t. People simply want to know that someone is listening, that someone is taking their worry seriously, and that somebody cares for them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I just don&#039;t agree with that. Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: I don&#039;t know where he arrived &#039;&#039;(laughs)&#039;&#039; at that point, or how he got ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I mean,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: that conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: you know, he&#039;s armchair criticizing a community of people that he doesn&#039;t really understand. Again, I&#039;m not gonna play the card, like, “He doesn&#039;t have the cred to have an opinion.” Of course he does. But if you&#039;re going to be judgmental about what other people are doing, you&#039;d better make a good, sincere effort to understand what they&#039;re actually doing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And we do have the advantage here. The SGU is eleven years old. We&#039;ve been doing this for twenty years. This is a very interactive medium. We get dozens, dozens of emails every day. I read dozens of comments to my blog, and comments on our Facebook posts every day. We are interacting with people. We are interacting with a broad audience as well as our community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have a much better idea of what people actually think, and how they actually respond to what we say, than this guy apparently does, you know? He would have benefited tremendously from talking to somebody who&#039;s actually involved in doing this. We just got an email today. I wasn&#039;t planning on reading this, but I&#039;ll just say it&#039;s somebody who&#039;s name is Kim. I won&#039;t give her full name, who basically said, “Hey, I started out as an absolutely true believer, gullible, believed everything.” An impressive list of pseudoscience had dominated her life. Listened to our show, and then over time was totally converted into a skeptic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So he&#039;s just factually wrong, that nobody ever gets converted, because we get these emails all of the time. It&#039;s probably statistically a small number, but you can&#039;t say that it never happens. And in any case, that&#039;s not even the primary goal. The primary goal is informing people who are open to the information, who are not already true believers. So, anyway, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: unfortunately, we encounter a lot of this, this sort of armchair criticism. It is, I agree with you, Cara. It&#039;s just being judgy. He ends -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s judgy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: the way he ends, yeah, it was so terrible. He&#039;s said, “Most science communication isn&#039;t about persuading people, it&#039;s self-affirmation for those already on the inside. Look at us,” it says. “Aren&#039;t we clever? We are exclusive. We are a gang. We are a family. It&#039;s tribalism.” That&#039;s bullshit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I&#039;m not saying there isn&#039;t any of that. Of course there is. People are tribal, we do have our communities. It is a source of identity. But it is so much not that, that is not what dominates science communication and skeptical activism. It is absolutely about persuading people. We are sincerely interested in engaging in the conversation, and persuading as many people as we can; and we&#039;re constantly self-examining, and looking at published research to figure out how to better do it, and we talk about it all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Oh yeah, absolutely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, it&#039;s just, you know – he really, I think, again, as I say, especially in that piece that he was doing, he&#039;s guilty of the exact thing that he&#039;s criticizing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah! He&#039;s also so fatalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s not like he&#039;s really putting forth any better options.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He&#039;s basically, “Well, some minds will never change.” It&#039;s like, “Okay, thanks?” And then he sort of kind of throws a toogawanda under the bus to some extent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He was honestly one of the most, I think, effective and sort of non-controversial&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: medical communicators out there, you know? His writings touch people who are absolutely religious or absolutely magical thinking, and they still can read his things and not feel insulted, and take something from them. He&#039;s just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a very good writer in that way. I don&#039;t know. Everything about it is a little bit like, the worst of what it is to write a blog. You know, I think blogs are incredibly important, and they&#039;re incredibly necessary, and good blogs can be better than bad journalism; but sometimes blogs can be very lazy. There was no reporting done on this. He never spoke to anybody&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: before he wrote this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah, it&#039;s an opinion piece&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: more than anything, and, you know, I don&#039;t know what the Guardian&#039;s all about as far as putting this out as a news article, but&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s a bit annoying, &#039;cause it doesn&#039;t say “opinion,” and it doesn&#039;t say&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: No, it&#039;s not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: “blog.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It says, “Science: Occam&#039;s Corner.” Like, this is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: listed under, “Science.” Obviously, “Occam&#039;s Corner” sounds like it&#039;s his blog that he has on the Guardian, but it&#039;s not really clear that that&#039;s what somebody&#039;s reading. So anybody who comes across this who doesn&#039;t know the difference between good and bad science journalism might look at this and say, “Oh my gosh, well, this is the state of things,” not realizing that he never interviewed a single person, or did any real reporting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Ugh! Anyway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, he also makes ... one last comment on this. He makes this very typical rookie mistake. I think we&#039;ve sort of made this mistake and then fixed it because this is what the evidence shows, is the idea that people are resistant to facts in general, which is not true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Nope&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: What the evidence shows is that if you give people facts, they change their opinion. They change their opinion to meet the facts unless they are already ideologically bound to one position. So people behave differently for emotionally held ideological opinions versus things that they don&#039;t have an emotional stake in. And so you have to deal with people differently in different contexts. But he was nowhere near drilling down to that level of detail in his article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, okay let&#039;s move on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Pew Belief Poll &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(47:05)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =    y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y   &lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
S: Cara, tell us about the latest Pew poll about belief.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lipka, Michael &#039;[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/ Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Fact Tank: News in the Numbers&#039;&#039;. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Sure. So you guys may remember a report last year by Pew that detailed a really sharp decline in Christian affiliation, and a growing number of Americans reporting themselves as quote, “nones.” That was part of a really big study called the 2014 Religious Landscape study that was published in 2015. It included at the time thirty-five thousand seventy-one respondents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what the Pew research group decided to do is a follow up, a recontact study, where they found – or maybe they reached out to more. But they ultimately ended up having I think five thousand individuals who they interviewed more in depth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of those five thousand individuals, one thousand one hundred forty-nine of those define themselves as “nones,” or unaffiliated. So that was broken down into four hundred twenty-six different atheists or agnostics, and seven hundred twenty-three people who indicated that their religion is quote, “nothing in particular.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The real purpose of the recontact study was part of a bigger question about whether or not people choose new churches, when they choose new churches or houses of worship. And so they found a lot of really interesting outcomes on that. How often throughout the lifespan people go to a new church. What are the reasons that motivate them from leaving their former congregation, going to their new congregation. But within that, of course, they had all of these quote, “nones.” And so they found that there were a lot of really interesting things that came out of the nones, and they – N-O-N-E-S, not N-U-N-S – and they &#039;&#039;(Evan chuckles)&#039;&#039; dug a little bit deeper and asked a lot of questions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So again, just to be clear, as part of a big thirty-five thousand people study a few years ago, they recontacted five thousand individuals. But now I&#039;m only gonna be talking about the one thousand one hundred forty-nine individuals within that group who defined themselves as unaffiliated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So here&#039;s some interesting  stuff: The vast majority of these unaffiliated individuals say that they were actually raised as a member of a particular religion before shedding their religious identity in adulthood. So about seventy-eight percent of those people that they interviewed that said that they don&#039;t identify with a religion were raised religious, which to me seems reasonable. I mean, my personal anecdotal experience, and maybe it&#039;s because I grew up in the Bible belt (it&#039;s very rare for me to meet people who had no religion as they were growing up; much more common when I actually met people with similar viewpoints that said they had left a church earlier).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The really, I think, interesting thing here is that what they wanted to do is know why. “Why did you actually leave if you were raised religious?” And they found that there were a &#039;&#039;ton&#039;&#039; of different responses because they actually allowed for open-ended responses. So I&#039;ll read you some quotes in a bit. But there were some themes that sort of clustered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest response, which was about half (actually forty-nine percent of individuals) said that they left because they don&#039;t believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: That&#039;s pretty straight-forward. “I don&#039;t believe, so I&#039;m not gonna go any more.” About twenty percent said that they left because they disliked organized religion. About eighteen percent said that they were just religiously unsure or undecided. And then only ten percent of this group that identified as a none or unaffiliated actually self-defined as an inactive believer, meaning that they still had those beliefs, but they either are non-practicing or they&#039;re too busy to attend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So there is still within that nones group, I think, a little bit of a holdover of what I might not define as a none or an unaffiliated. So that&#039;s kind of interesting to parse it in that way. Under the “Don&#039;t believe” group, we found that many people said that they were disenchanted, and that&#039;s why they no longer believe. Some people said they just are not interested in, or they don&#039;t need religion, or that their views evolved. But that was actually a very small number. And only one percent of the individuals overall said that they went through a crisis of faith.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it does seem like it was less common that something happened in their lives that really changed their opinion. More common that, as we were just talking about, it was a slow, gradual thing that happened through learning and thinking and coming across new evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: And the internet as well, I&#039;m sure has ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, the internet probably had a big part of that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Totally fits with what I would expect. I think just largely generational. I think that they younger generations – it&#039;s funny. A lot of them, it&#039;s not like their atheist, they&#039;re so areligious &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: they&#039;re not even an atheist, you know what I mean? It&#039;s like they just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: It&#039;s not on their radar. Not on their radar.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting that “none” label&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, “None.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think that we&#039;re seeing a lot, or just, “I&#039;m religiously unaffiliated.” There is something interesting though: Remember how I said forty-nine percent of this overall group said that they just don&#039;t believe, and that&#039;s why they left. Interestingly, if they actually broke that down into the people who self-identify as atheist versus agnostic versus quote, “Nothing in particular,” actually eighty-two percent of atheists say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. Sixty-three percent of agnostics say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. And only thirty-seven percent of the “Nothing in particular” group left because they said they don&#039;t believe; which also makes sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Are you surprised by any of these findings?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: No, none of this really stuck out to me too much. I mean, it&#039;s definitely interesting. I think probably what&#039;s more interesting is the overall thing, like, Bob and I were talking about before we were on air, just the overall trends that we&#039;re seeing away from a specific religion or organized religion, and into a kind of personal formulation of spirituality, religion, or lack thereof.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does seem like we&#039;re seeing an individualistic move away from these big groups, and I do kind of find that interesting because we hear about these studies all the time, a lot of nay-sayers will send us these studies and we&#039;ll actually describe them on the show where congregations, church groups, being in a community actually is correlated with positive health benefits. And so it is kind of interesting that we&#039;re seeing more and more people sort of leaving that organized community behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And I think that&#039;s where we&#039;re starting to see some changes, even within the atheistic community. Some people still like the idea that they&#039;re unaffiliated and they don&#039;t want to be part of a group, but you&#039;re starting to see some. Atheist groups meeting and even having kind of their version of a quote, “church,” (which of course is completely secular&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: &#039;&#039;(Chuckles)&#039;&#039; Yeah, right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: but is still a group thing so that they can have that sense of community).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That&#039;s basically what secular humanism is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I do wonder a couple of things when I see these kind of numbers: One is, “Is this a long-term trend?” You know, is this the arc of human history to become less religious over time, or is this cyclical? You know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Wax and wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, you know, it&#039;s hard to get out of your time frame, and to try to look at the big picture. Certainly in the last I would say couple hundred years, it seems like the power that religion has on our society, even in the United States (which is fairly religious for a Western country),&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: it&#039;s definitely been on the wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, for sure, with, understanding evolution, just advances in scientific thinking, that&#039;s been a big thing; and like you guys said, the internet, just being able to meet people who are like-minded that maybe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: don&#039;t live down the street from you, is huge; and feeling more confident in coming out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And the second question I have is (and I think I know the answer to this), but, as religion is on the wane, are people just replacing it with other forms of belief systems? This doesn&#039;t necessarily mean that there are more people who are being rational, or who are rejecting all ideology or all belief systems. It&#039;s more that they&#039;re rejecting traditional organized religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s &#039;&#039;so&#039;&#039; true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Becoming druids? And&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: warlocks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Just new age stuff, yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I know so, in L.A., it is very rare for me to meet people who are religious. I actually forget that that&#039;s a thing. I grew up in a very religious part of the country, the Bible belt. I live in L.A. Most everyone I know is non-religious. Yet,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: But they&#039;re still spiritual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: if you dig deep - oh, they&#039;re crazy spiritual! They have&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a university out here that&#039;s basically a cult. It&#039;s like a spiritual psychology university where people are studying, like, past life interactions and energy transfer,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: and chi. The woo thinking, the medical quackery, and the, yes, quote, “Spiritual,” - and I don&#039;t want to misuse that word. I have a hard time with that word because I think it comes with a lot of baggage. I think that it&#039;s perfectly legitimate for individuals to consider themselves to be spiritual in a sort of zen kind of way; you know, finding perfundity in nature. Carl Sagan even used the term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Sure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think he can talk about spirituality in a way that it is not magical thinking, and then you can talk about spirituality in a way that&#039;s absolutely magical thinking, and we have a lot of those people here on the West Coast. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Why can&#039;t everybody be like us?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Rogues laugh)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Then we wouldn&#039;t have to exist!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aw, how sad!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We would just vanish in a puff of smoke.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If the whole world were skeptical, obviously, you can&#039;t say no to that, but it would be interesting because we would not have to exist at that point. We wouldn&#039;t need a skeptical movement if there wasn&#039;t so much irrationality in the world. I&#039;d still rather have the rational world though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Who&#039;s That Noisy &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(56:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Answer to last week: Space X landing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Membership drive at 59:14)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Absence of Evidence &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:00:16)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science or Fiction &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:09:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- I have difficulty differentiating Bob / Jay / Evan - if there are spots you can help, thanks -bshirley ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Science or Fiction music)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;It&#039;s time for Science or Fiction&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious, and I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Are you guys ready for this week? Three regular news items. &amp;lt;!--- overlapping responses ---&amp;gt; Alright, here we go. These are interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Items===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number one: a new study finds that rat whiskers contain chemical receptors to smell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Morris, Amanda &amp;quot;[http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2016/08/whiskers-help-animals-sense-winds-direction.html Whiskers Help Animals Sense the Direction of the Wind]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;McCormick School of Engineering.&#039;&#039; Northwestern University. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822155920.htm Chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition: Study challenges distinctiveness of human cooperation.]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Science News.&#039;&#039; Emory Health Sciences. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; And,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number three: scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazaro, Sage &amp;quot;[http://observer.com/2016/08/scientists-discovered-how-to-jumpstart-the-brain-of-a-coma-patient Real-Life Awakening: Scientists ‘Jumpstart’ the Brain of a Coma Patient]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Observer.&#039;&#039; Observer.com. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob, go first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Bob&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Alright, the rat whiskers, sure, that makes sense, i mean, would you call it “smell”? I could see that. I could see that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Un, the second, let’s see… chimpanzees choosing cooperation over competition, five to one, that’s… that kinda goes against what I’ve been led to believe about how… if you said bonobos I would absolutely agree with you, but chimpanzees are definitely more on the uncooperative/irascible&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irascible Wiktionary:irascible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; scale.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: …irascible… (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Scientist, let’s see, number three, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultrasound. I just kinda love brain stimulation. I think it, i’ve heard, I know it’s not, you know, it’s not, it doesn’t necessarily do what they’ve been claiming over these years but I think, I still have read some interesting experiments that have surprising effects, so I’ll tentatively go with that one. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um, cooperation over competition, five to one, alright I’m gonna say the &#039;&#039;&#039;chimpanzees is fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Okay. Jay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Jay&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: This one about the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors… what I can’t figure out is how, how is the chemical receptor in the rat whisker communicating back to the brain? There’s no electrical type nerve connection from the organ, the receptor, to the brain. Unless it’s… i don’t know. I just don’t see how that can possibly be. It seems completely BS to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second one here, researchers find chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition. I don’t know about the rate of five to one, but I do agree with that and I think that makes a lot of sense. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And this last one, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating the brain, the thing that Bob has hidden in a drawer next to his bed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Apparently, it’s not hidden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: I just wanted to make sure Cara was awake, that’s all. That’s why I said that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I’m awake. I’m awake.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘’(laughter)’’&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Stimulating the brain brings people from, …minimally conscious to fully conscious with a low power ultra sound. I agree because this reminds me what it’s like when I wake up in the morning, and that’s my coffee. So, sure, this is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I just &#039;&#039;&#039;don’t think the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039; and the chemical receptors, and them helping them smell thing. No. Nope, I don’t agree. That’s fake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: Ok. Evan?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Evan&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: So, the patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious. I suppose those… minimally conscious is a technical state of some sort. Not a coma? Or like…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, it ‘’is’’ a coma, but minimally conscious is pretty self explanatory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Okay. But now, you stimulate the brain with a low powered ulrta sound? So, how did they do that? Or, why does that, why does a low powered ultra sound have that ability to that? I don’t really understand it. This one’s tricky.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next one, the middle one, chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. I think that one will be science. I don’t think there’s any problem with that ratio. It may ‘’seem’’ high, but, you know, chimpanzees are very cool. Very cool. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How closely related in our DNA are we to chimpanzees? Ninety …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: 98 percent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: It depends on how you count it. There’s no one objective answer to that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: yeah, but it’s very high.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhere between 96 and 98 percent is the usual figure that the scientists give.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: alright, fair enough, I think people, although they’re competitive also i think we ‘’do’’ have a lot of cooperation, so I think we kinda mirror that. I think we’re okay there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And the last one is the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors. So, I’m gonna… this one I’m having a problem with because, I’ll go back to what we were talking about before with the logical fallacies &amp;lt;!--- link https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_581#Name_That_Logical_Fallacy:_Absence_of_Evidence_.281:00:16.29 ---&amp;gt;, isn’t this something we would have figured out maybe a ‘’long’’ time ago? You know, rat whiskers. It’s not like some hidden thing that we weren’t able to… what prevented us from determining this a long time ago? So, I think we would have found the evidence for that a while ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, therefore I think I’ll agree with Jay, I think &#039;&#039;&#039;the rat whisker one is gonna turn out to be the fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Alright. And, Cara…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cara&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think I’m torn between rat whiskers and the consciousness situation, so I’ll start with the chimpanzees. It seems reasonable to me. I’ve seen ‘’a lot’’ of primate studies, going all the way down to monkeys, not even apes, that show high rates of competition and of helping get food or share things in order to maximize the benefit for the group. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do rat whiskers contain a chemical receptor that help with sm… well I’ll disagree with jay because that is what a whisker ‘’is’’. It is an organ. It’s a sensory organ that actually helps with probe reception, or it helps them navigate their environment. So, if you cut certain whiskers you can do all kinds of neurological studies where you change some of the representation on the sensory cortex. So there ‘’is’’ a direct connection between whiskers and the brain, but ‘’chemical’’ receptors is interesting to me because I don’t think they have a physical way to bind anything. I mean, that would be what the receptor is. But it would be crazy if they just now found that because rat whiskers… or rats are such a common laboratory animal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And then scientists report a case where a patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious – Okay, so they woke up. – after using low power ultra sound. I think I’ve seen cases where consciousness is kind of sparked with thalamic stimulation. It’d be crazy if you could do this from outside the brain, and usually ultra sound is delivered from outside. So, I mean, I want this one to be true. So maybe – whuah, this is hard – I’m gonna hope that the ultrasound is also science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And that the &#039;&#039;&#039;fiction is the chemical receptors on the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039;. Because I just think they would have found that sooner. That would be my reasoning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 3===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Okay (1:19:45)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, you all agree with the third one, so let’s start there. Scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound. You all think this one is science. And this one is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(many): Yeah, baby.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yay. Wow, that’s so cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob: And Cara, great job. You pretty much nailed a lot of the details there. This was thalamic stimulation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, it was!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: The thalamus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: The thalmus. First of all, I was very careful in how I worded this. This was a single case. And they can’t prove that the stimulation is what did it, just that the patient woke up after they stimulated them. But, the timing ‘’does’’ look good, but they’ll obviously have to replicate it to see how generalizable this effect is, and if the effect is actually real. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, let me throw in some caveats here. First of all, this is a patient who was in a coma because of trauma. Trauma patients have a much better prognosis that patients who, for example, have diffuse anoxic ischemic injury.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Arciniegas, Dr. David B. &amp;quot;[http://www.internationalbrain.org/articles/hypoxicischemic-brain-injury/ Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;International Brain Injury Association&#039;&#039;. InternationalBrain.org. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; So, if your whole brain is injured because of lack of oxygen, these types of things generally don’t work. But if you have trauma to the brain, there may be pieces of the brain which work and other pieces to the brain that don’t work. And this is sort of a classic scenario where probably the cortex was relatively spared, and was still pretty functional, but the cortex just wasn’t being activated by the deeper structures like the thalamus. And so, if you could get the thalamus, if you could kick start or jump start the thalamus–which is what they’re calling it–you can do it with drugs, you can do it with wires, with deep-brain stimulation, if you can get that thalamus to function more it can wake up the rest of the brain, which is actually not that bad off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Isn’t it crazy how tenuous that is? Oh, my god.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, right? These little centers, deep in your brain, alerting your whole cortex, and if they get taken out, you’re in a coma. Your whole brain could be perfectly normal, but you’re essentially permanently asleep, because you don’t have the mechanism to alert or wake up your brain. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in those special cases where that’s the problem, this kind of thing can work. There was also a study where they implanted a chip basically to stimulate the thalamus and the deep structures. That also can be effective. So, eventually that may be the intervention. But, this is now using just an external, low power ultra sound focused on the thalamus to stimulate it. They described the patient being, again, minimally conscious. They would be able to do ‘’some’’ things, but not much. They occasionally would attend to external stimulation. Then after the treatment, they were essentially awake. They would look at the examiner. They did a fist bump, it was reported. One of the doctors as they were walking away they would follow commands, participate in their feeding. Still not neurologically normal. The guy still has brain damage. And was still was minimally verbal. I think would just shake his head yes and no, but would do so appropriately, but wasn’t really speaking. Again, he woke up but was not returned to neurologically intact. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do think we’re gonna see, fairly soon, these types of interventions to treat this one subgroup of patients who have enough brain function to be awake, but their deep structure’s just not working well enough to alert the brain. And all we need to do is stimulate it in order to get them to wake up. And we’re just figuring out the different techniques for doing that. Yeah, but very very cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Very cool. Maybe this could work for…, I know it’s a very specific case, but …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah. Okay, we’ll go backwards, I guess. We’ll go to number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. Bob, you think this one is the fiction, everyone else thinks this is science, and this one… is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Ahh, F-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Sorry, Bob.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: So, this was a little surprising actually, because previous research seemed to indicate that chimpanzees in particular are very competitive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yes!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: They’re greedy. You know, chimpanzees are often described as greedy, like they can’t inhibit their need to take things. They’ll steal. They’ll cheat. They’ll freeload. And they’ll compete against each other for resources. In this study, though, researchers tried to do a more open ended experiment with/in a more natural group environment. So, they had eleven chimpanzees who were involved in this study and essentially they gave them tasks to do that would result in a reward. But the task required either two chimpanzees to cooperate or three chimpanzees to cooperate; one chimpanzee could not get the reward by themselves. And they just observed their behavior. For example, did the chimpanzees work together, and did they police themselves for theft or freeloading or competition. And in fact, they did. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They engaged in a lot of policing behavior or enforcement strategies. For example, they wouldn’t expose the rewards if somebody… if a chimpanzee who had previously freeloaded was hanging around. They would say “nope, not until we get this jerk outta here. We’re not gonna do it.” You know. Sometimes the more alpha males would get involved in policing and punishing and ejecting the previous freeloaders or thieves from the area. They essentially enforced cooperation collectively as a group through punishment and these kind of behaviours. Which is what humans do. That’s essentially our system of justice is largely about, enforcing social norms and living together, cooperating, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And lots of other animals do that too. Birds, lots of birds do this. Birds will, for example, some species of birds will warn each other if predators are coming. But if one bird doesn’t participate in that, then other birds won’t warn them when it’s their turn. So, they use reciprocity as a way of awarding and punishing this behavior. So, even birds do this. So, cooperation’s actually fairly wide spread in the animal kingdom but it is ‘’not’’ unique to humans. Although some researchers have argued that our level of cooperation ‘’is’’ unique to humans. But every time somebody says that, you know, it seems like we find that chimpanzees do it too. And this is a similar case. Chimpanzees were mostly cooperating and engaging in a number of behaviors to enforce that cooperation, on the group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: So that’s nice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aww. That’s really cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That’s pretty cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhat cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 1===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: (laughs) …all this means that… a new study finds that rat whiskers&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskers Whiskers]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Wikipedia&#039;&#039;. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; contain chemical receptors that help them to smell, that is complete and total fiction. And the whiskers that themselves are basically hairs. They don’t have nerves in them. They have nerves at the base of the hair that sense the movement in the whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Yea, where you saying that there were receptors in the whiskers?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, but I made that up. That was wrong. That’s the lie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Okay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: The whiskers are just hairs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: (inaudible)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: They are like vibro- receptors at the base of the whiskers. So, the rat can sense, they get sensory information to their brain that actually helps them map the world when those whiskers move. The new study that inspired this item though was a study showing that rats can use their whiskers to sense the direction of the wind. And that helps them follow odors. So, if they’re smelling something, they need to know what the direction of the wind is blowing in in order to track that odor back to it’s source. And their whiskers help them do that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this study, very quickly, was they had rats enter an arena through a door and there were five fans. One of the fans was on and blowing. The hole at the base of that fan led to food. The hole at the base of the other four fans did not. So, if they couldn’t sense the wind at all, they would have a 20 percent chance of guessing the correct hole out of the gate. But the rats were able to do it 60 percent of the time, not just 20 percent of the time. But in order to show that they were using their whiskers, they then cut off their whiskers to see how they would do. Okay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Aww.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: But they said that the cutting off of the whiskers is painless. It’s like cutting off your hair. And they grow back. So, there’s no permanent harm done. So, they would cut off their whiskers, and then their performance dropped by 20 percent. So, they were still able to do better than chance, because there were other ways to sense the wind. But their performance decreased significantly because they no longer had their whiskers as a sensory organ. This suggests that they were sensing the wind, in part, with their whiskers. That was the study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I looked it up. I couldn’t find any evidence that they sniffed the air with their whiskers at all. I guess they could lick their whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: That’s what I was thinking. It’s exactly what I was licking, uh… thinking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If there’s stuff clinging to the whiskers, they could taste it by licking it. But the whiskers themselves don’t have receptors on them, as far as I could find. They’re just hair. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alright, Evan, give us the quote…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Skeptical Quote of the Week &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:27:14)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And until next week, this is your Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Outro404}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today I Learned: ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Steve states in this episode that Name That Logical Fallacy is a very popular segment that they don&#039;t do often enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Navigation}} &amp;lt;!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- Create category redirect pages for each segment mentioned below - https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Page categories&lt;br /&gt;
|Religion &amp;amp; Faith           = y &amp;lt;!--  Pew Belief Poll (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Pseudoscience        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Science &amp;amp; the Media        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10762</id>
		<title>SGU Episode 581</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10762"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:51:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* Fighting Against Pseudoscience (34:54) */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Editing required&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{InfoBox&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeNum     = 581&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeDate    = August 27&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2016  &amp;lt;!-- broadcast date --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeIcon    = File:Proximab2.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|previous       =                          &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to previous episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|next           =                        &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to next episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|rebecca        =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|bob            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|jay            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|evan           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|cara           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|perry          =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest1         =      &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest2         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no second guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest3         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no third guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|downloadLink   = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2016-08-27.mp3&lt;br /&gt;
|forumLink      = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,47202.0.html&lt;br /&gt;
|qowText        = Our place in the Galaxy nor our Galaxy itself is special. Darwin has further shown that humans are a natural product of evolution by means of natural selection. The discovery of extrasolar life will demonstrate that even that last claim to being special will have to be abandoned&lt;br /&gt;
|qowAuthor      = Mario Livio, astrophysiscist &amp;lt;!-- add author and link --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;You&#039;re listening to the Skeptics&#039; Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Hello, and welcome to The Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, August 24&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2016; and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SGU Going to DragonCon &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(0:27)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What&#039;s the Word &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(3:32)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* {{w|Inquiline}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== News Items ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Proxima Centauri Follow Up &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(7:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, Matt &#039;[http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ Potentially Habitable Exoplanet Confirmed Around Nearest Star!]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Universe Today&#039;&#039;. Fraser Cain. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anthropocene &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(15:01)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Yirka, Bob &#039;[http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Phys.org&#039;&#039;. Omicron Technology Limited. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene Anthropocene] on Wikipedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(New era is based on all the environmental effects humans are having on the Earth)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== World Wide Web Turns 25 &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(26:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
*  http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832 1st website ever restored to its 1992 glory: CERN&#039;s ancient page describes the &amp;quot;W3&amp;quot; project]&#039;. &#039;&#039;CBC News: Technology and Science&#039;&#039;. CBC/Radio-Canada. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Commercial at 33:33)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- reference added as convenience for transcriber. raw link can be removed if desired. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fighting Against Pseudoscience &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(34:54)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =    y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: All right, Evan, there was this article&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Grant, Richard P &#039;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2016/aug/23/scientists-losing-science-communication-skeptic-cox Why scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Science - Occam&#039;s Corner&#039;&#039;. The Guardian News. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; published recently about science communication and fighting against pseudoscience that is interesting, although I don&#039;t totally agree with it. But let&#039;s talk about it. Tell us about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah. It appeared in the Guardian, it was written by a former biologist. He turned blogger. His name is Richard Grant. And the title of his article is, “Why Scientists Are Losing the Fight to Communicate Science to the Public.” So I&#039;ll read a few things directly from the article, and then we can sort of comment on it as we go.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says that, “Scientists and science-communicators are engaged in a constant battle with ignorance. But that&#039;s an approach doomed to failure.” Okay. He says that, &amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;“A video did the rounds a couple of years ago of some self-styled skeptic disagreeing (robustly, shall we say) with an anti-vaxxer. The speaker was roundly cheered by everyone for sharing the video. He sure put that idiot in their place! Scientists love to argue, cutting through bullshit and getting to the truth of the matter is pretty much the job description.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I kinda don&#039;t necessarily fully agree with that. But he goes on to say,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;”It&#039;s not really surprising scientists and science supporters frequently take on those who dabble in homeopathy or deny anthropogenic climate change, or who oppose vaccinations or genetically modified food. Brian Cox was at it last week performing a smack down on a climate change denier on the ABC&#039;s Q&amp;amp;A discussion program. He brought graphs (knock-out blow) and yet it leaves me cold. Is this really what science communication is about? Is this informing and changing minds, winning people over to a better, brighter future? I doubt it somehow.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I had a lot of problems with this article. So I think the core point that he&#039;s making, that you can&#039;t just oppose belief in pseudoscience with facts; you have to understand the psychological motivation why people are believing that pseudoscience – sure. That&#039;s absolutely valid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, but that&#039;s also not ... new.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We all know that it&#039;s not a deficit problem. Sci-com, the reason it&#039;s not as effective as we&#039;d like to be is not because there&#039;s just not enough knowledge out there. We know that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, my problem was he&#039;s writing to science communicators, and he is about twenty years behind on the conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s how I felt. It&#039;s like, “Where have you been?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, this is like, I remember having this conversation literally twenty years ago ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: when we were really getting involved with this. And there&#039;s so much more nuance, there&#039;s so much more involved with this. I just briefly put this up on our Facebook page and said that he&#039;s actually committing the problem that he&#039;s criticizing. He&#039;s sort of talking at us and not to us, and not really addressing the issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So like, for example, he&#039;s talking as if there is only true believers, but that&#039;s not true. There&#039;s not only true believers. First of all, there are a lot of people who are in the middle, or are just undecided, or just don&#039;t really know about whatever the topic is, like vaccines. Like, hey, there are a lot of parents who are, they hear concerning things about vaccines, but they&#039;re not anti-vaxxers. And so just putting the correct information out there and opposing the anti-vaxxers has a dramatic effect on the public conversation. It&#039;s an incredibly valuable resource to people who just want to know what the facts are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And it absolutely does prevent people, I think, from going down that rabbit hole and becoming a conspiracy theorist or an anti-science denier or whatever. And also, there are con artists out there as well. That&#039;s another group. There are people who are exploiting the true believers, are exploiting the community, exploiting the beliefs, the conspiracies, whatever, just to make money, just to sell their wares, to sell their snake oil; and they absolutely need to be deconstructed and taken apart. Their claims need to be vigorously opposed. They need to be corrected. We need to have the correct factual information out there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, when dealing with groups of people who believe things for ideological, emotional, political, sociological reasons, we need to address them in the context of the reason for their belief; and we know that there&#039;s a back-fire effect. People could dig their heels in if you make them defend their ideology. Yeah, we&#039;ve been through all of this. This is what we talk about all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So his article was just naive. It was just uninformed. As I was reading it, I&#039;m like, “God, this really would have benefited if he actually spoke to a skeptic at some point who&#039;s been doing this for more than a couple of weeks.” His opinions might have had some depth to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Or a professional science communicator,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: somebody who does this for a living, and who&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: studies outcome effects, and who talks to other science communicators. It was a little bit judgy, this whole thing. What is the quote? Somewhere in here. He&#039;s like, “How often is it that science communications actually listen to the needs of their audience?” And it&#039;s like, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: the number one thing we always say in sci-com is know your audience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s the first thing every science communicator&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: talks about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right, right, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s just so dismissive to act as though we&#039;re ... I think he&#039;s really getting upset at scientists who don&#039;t communicate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Um-hmm, maybe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I don&#039;t know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s frustrating. And also,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Frustrating&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: is it fair to ask, who &#039;&#039;is&#039;&#039; this guy?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Steve chuckles)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Who is he? Really? Richard Grant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I don&#039;t know. I don&#039;t know who he is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: &#039;&#039;(Laughs)&#039;&#039; You know? He works in med – yeah, here it is. “He&#039;s a former biochemist, cell biologist, structural biologist now working in medical communications and founder of the independent blogging network, Occam&#039;s Typewriter.” Okay, so he&#039;s just like one of the many of us. Basically, instead of saying, “Here are the ways that many of us can improve,” he&#039;s saying, “Wow, you guys all suck at this.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Steve, I got the same feeling &#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039; you did. This is very incomplete, way too black and white, not recognizing the broad spectrum where people fall along the lines of science, intelligence, or understanding science. In fact, he breaks it down into – he gives basically two general reasons as to why he arrived at this conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says, “First, in general, people don&#039;t like being told what to do. When the experts tell us how to live our lives, or worse, what to think, something rebels in people, especially when there&#039;s even the merest whiff of controversy or uncertainty.” And then he says, the second point is that on the whole he doesn&#039;t think that people that object to vaccines or GMO&#039;s are at heart anti-science, some are, but most aren&#039;t. People simply want to know that someone is listening, that someone is taking their worry seriously, and that somebody cares for them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I just don&#039;t agree with that. Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: I don&#039;t know where he arrived &#039;&#039;(laughs)&#039;&#039; at that point, or how he got ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I mean,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: that conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: you know, he&#039;s armchair criticizing a community of people that he doesn&#039;t really understand. Again, I&#039;m not gonna play the card, like, “He doesn&#039;t have the cred to have an opinion.” Of course he does. But if you&#039;re going to be judgmental about what other people are doing, you&#039;d better make a good, sincere effort to understand what they&#039;re actually doing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And we do have the advantage here. The SGU is eleven years old. We&#039;ve been doing this for twenty years. This is a very interactive medium. We get dozens, dozens of emails every day. I read dozens of comments to my blog, and comments on our Facebook posts every day. We are interacting with people. We are interacting with a broad audience as well as our community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have a much better idea of what people actually think, and how they actually respond to what we say, than this guy apparently does, you know? He would have benefited tremendously from talking to somebody who&#039;s actually involved in doing this. We just got an email today. I wasn&#039;t planning on reading this, but I&#039;ll just say it&#039;s somebody who&#039;s name is Kim. I won&#039;t give her full name, who basically said, “Hey, I started out as an absolutely true believer, gullible, believed everything.” An impressive list of pseudoscience had dominated her life. Listened to our show, and then over time was totally converted into a skeptic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So he&#039;s just factually wrong, that nobody ever gets converted, because we get these emails all of the time. It&#039;s probably statistically a small number, but you can&#039;t say that it never happens. And in any case, that&#039;s not even the primary goal. The primary goal is informing people who are open to the information, who are not already true believers. So, anyway, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: unfortunately, we encounter a lot of this, this sort of armchair criticism. It is, I agree with you, Cara. It&#039;s just being judgy. He ends -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s judgy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: the way he ends, yeah, it was so terrible. He&#039;s said, “Most science communication isn&#039;t about persuading people, it&#039;s self-affirmation for those already on the inside. Look at us,” it says. “Aren&#039;t we clever? We are exclusive. We are a gang. We are a family. It&#039;s tribalism.” That&#039;s bullshit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I&#039;m not saying there isn&#039;t any of that. Of course there is. People are tribal, we do have our communities. It is a source of identity. But it is so much not that, that is not what dominates science communication and skeptical activism. It is absolutely about persuading people. We are sincerely interested in engaging in the conversation, and persuading as many people as we can; and we&#039;re constantly self-examining, and looking at published research to figure out how to better do it, and we talk about it all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Oh yeah, absolutely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, it&#039;s just, you know – he really, I think, again, as I say, especially in that piece that he was doing, he&#039;s guilty of the exact thing that he&#039;s criticizing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah! He&#039;s also so fatalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s not like he&#039;s really putting forth any better options.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He&#039;s basically, “Well, some minds will never change.” It&#039;s like, “Okay, thanks?” And then he sort of kind of throws a toogawanda under the bus to some extent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He was honestly one of the most, I think, effective and sort of non-controversial&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: medical communicators out there, you know? His writings touch people who are absolutely religious or absolutely magical thinking, and they still can read his things and not feel insulted, and take something from them. He&#039;s just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a very good writer in that way. I don&#039;t know. Everything about it is a little bit like, the worst of what it is to write a blog. You know, I think blogs are incredibly important, and they&#039;re incredibly necessary, and good blogs can be better than bad journalism; but sometimes blogs can be very lazy. There was no reporting done on this. He never spoke to anybody&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: before he wrote this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah, it&#039;s an opinion piece&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: more than anything, and, you know, I don&#039;t know what the Guardian&#039;s all about as far as putting this out as a news article, but&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s a bit annoying, &#039;cause it doesn&#039;t say “opinion,” and it doesn&#039;t say&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: No, it&#039;s not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: “blog.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It says, “Science: Occam&#039;s Corner.” Like, this is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: listed under, “Science.” Obviously, “Occam&#039;s Corner” sounds like it&#039;s his blog that he has on the Guardian, but it&#039;s not really clear that that&#039;s what somebody&#039;s reading. So anybody who comes across this who doesn&#039;t know the difference between good and bad science journalism might look at this and say, “Oh my gosh, well, this is the state of things,” not realizing that he never interviewed a single person, or did any real reporting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Ugh! Anyway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, he also makes ... one last comment on this. He makes this very typical rookie mistake. I think we&#039;ve sort of made this mistake and then fixed it because this is what the evidence shows, is the idea that people are resistant to facts in general, which is not true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Nope&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: What the evidence shows is that if you give people facts, they change their opinion. They change their opinion to meet the facts unless they are already ideologically bound to one position. So people behave differently for emotionally held ideological opinions versus things that they don&#039;t have an emotional stake in. And so you have to deal with people differently in different contexts. But he was nowhere near drilling down to that level of detail in his article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, okay let&#039;s move on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Pew Belief Poll &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(47:05)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Cara, tell us about the latest Pew poll about belief.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lipka, Michael &#039;[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/ Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Fact Tank: News in the Numbers&#039;&#039;. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Sure. So you guys may remember a report last year by Pew that detailed a really sharp decline in Christian affiliation, and a growing number of Americans reporting themselves as quote, “nones.” That was part of a really big study called the 2014 Religious Landscape study that was published in 2015. It included at the time thirty-five thousand seventy-one respondents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what the Pew research group decided to do is a follow up, a recontact study, where they found – or maybe they reached out to more. But they ultimately ended up having I think five thousand individuals who they interviewed more in depth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of those five thousand individuals, one thousand one hundred forty-nine of those define themselves as “nones,” or unaffiliated. So that was broken down into four hundred twenty-six different atheists or agnostics, and seven hundred twenty-three people who indicated that their religion is quote, “nothing in particular.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The real purpose of the recontact study was part of a bigger question about whether or not people choose new churches, when they choose new churches or houses of worship. And so they found a lot of really interesting outcomes on that. How often throughout the lifespan people go to a new church. What are the reasons that motivate them from leaving their former congregation, going to their new congregation. But within that, of course, they had all of these quote, “nones.” And so they found that there were a lot of really interesting things that came out of the nones, and they – N-O-N-E-S, not N-U-N-S – and they &#039;&#039;(Evan chuckles)&#039;&#039; dug a little bit deeper and asked a lot of questions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So again, just to be clear, as part of a big thirty-five thousand people study a few years ago, they recontacted five thousand individuals. But now I&#039;m only gonna be talking about the one thousand one hundred forty-nine individuals within that group who defined themselves as unaffiliated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So here&#039;s some interesting  stuff: The vast majority of these unaffiliated individuals say that they were actually raised as a member of a particular religion before shedding their religious identity in adulthood. So about seventy-eight percent of those people that they interviewed that said that they don&#039;t identify with a religion were raised religious, which to me seems reasonable. I mean, my personal anecdotal experience, and maybe it&#039;s because I grew up in the Bible belt (it&#039;s very rare for me to meet people who had no religion as they were growing up; much more common when I actually met people with similar viewpoints that said they had left a church earlier).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The really, I think, interesting thing here is that what they wanted to do is know why. “Why did you actually leave if you were raised religious?” And they found that there were a &#039;&#039;ton&#039;&#039; of different responses because they actually allowed for open-ended responses. So I&#039;ll read you some quotes in a bit. But there were some themes that sort of clustered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest response, which was about half (actually forty-nine percent of individuals) said that they left because they don&#039;t believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: That&#039;s pretty straight-forward. “I don&#039;t believe, so I&#039;m not gonna go any more.” About twenty percent said that they left because they disliked organized religion. About eighteen percent said that they were just religiously unsure or undecided. And then only ten percent of this group that identified as a none or unaffiliated actually self-defined as an inactive believer, meaning that they still had those beliefs, but they either are non-practicing or they&#039;re too busy to attend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So there is still within that nones group, I think, a little bit of a holdover of what I might not define as a none or an unaffiliated. So that&#039;s kind of interesting to parse it in that way. Under the “Don&#039;t believe” group, we found that many people said that they were disenchanted, and that&#039;s why they no longer believe. Some people said they just are not interested in, or they don&#039;t need religion, or that their views evolved. But that was actually a very small number. And only one percent of the individuals overall said that they went through a crisis of faith.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it does seem like it was less common that something happened in their lives that really changed their opinion. More common that, as we were just talking about, it was a slow, gradual thing that happened through learning and thinking and coming across new evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: And the internet as well, I&#039;m sure has ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, the internet probably had a big part of that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Totally fits with what I would expect. I think just largely generational. I think that they younger generations – it&#039;s funny. A lot of them, it&#039;s not like their atheist, they&#039;re so areligious &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: they&#039;re not even an atheist, you know what I mean? It&#039;s like they just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: It&#039;s not on their radar. Not on their radar.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting that “none” label&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, “None.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think that we&#039;re seeing a lot, or just, “I&#039;m religiously unaffiliated.” There is something interesting though: Remember how I said forty-nine percent of this overall group said that they just don&#039;t believe, and that&#039;s why they left. Interestingly, if they actually broke that down into the people who self-identify as atheist versus agnostic versus quote, “Nothing in particular,” actually eighty-two percent of atheists say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. Sixty-three percent of agnostics say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. And only thirty-seven percent of the “Nothing in particular” group left because they said they don&#039;t believe; which also makes sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Are you surprised by any of these findings?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: No, none of this really stuck out to me too much. I mean, it&#039;s definitely interesting. I think probably what&#039;s more interesting is the overall thing, like, Bob and I were talking about before we were on air, just the overall trends that we&#039;re seeing away from a specific religion or organized religion, and into a kind of personal formulation of spirituality, religion, or lack thereof.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does seem like we&#039;re seeing an individualistic move away from these big groups, and I do kind of find that interesting because we hear about these studies all the time, a lot of nay-sayers will send us these studies and we&#039;ll actually describe them on the show where congregations, church groups, being in a community actually is correlated with positive health benefits. And so it is kind of interesting that we&#039;re seeing more and more people sort of leaving that organized community behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And I think that&#039;s where we&#039;re starting to see some changes, even within the atheistic community. Some people still like the idea that they&#039;re unaffiliated and they don&#039;t want to be part of a group, but you&#039;re starting to see some. Atheist groups meeting and even having kind of their version of a quote, “church,” (which of course is completely secular&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: &#039;&#039;(Chuckles)&#039;&#039; Yeah, right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: but is still a group thing so that they can have that sense of community).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That&#039;s basically what secular humanism is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I do wonder a couple of things when I see these kind of numbers: One is, “Is this a long-term trend?” You know, is this the arc of human history to become less religious over time, or is this cyclical? You know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Wax and wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, you know, it&#039;s hard to get out of your time frame, and to try to look at the big picture. Certainly in the last I would say couple hundred years, it seems like the power that religion has on our society, even in the United States (which is fairly religious for a Western country),&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: it&#039;s definitely been on the wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, for sure, with, understanding evolution, just advances in scientific thinking, that&#039;s been a big thing; and like you guys said, the internet, just being able to meet people who are like-minded that maybe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: don&#039;t live down the street from you, is huge; and feeling more confident in coming out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And the second question I have is (and I think I know the answer to this), but, as religion is on the wane, are people just replacing it with other forms of belief systems? This doesn&#039;t necessarily mean that there are more people who are being rational, or who are rejecting all ideology or all belief systems. It&#039;s more that they&#039;re rejecting traditional organized religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s &#039;&#039;so&#039;&#039; true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Becoming druids? And&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: warlocks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Just new age stuff, yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I know so, in L.A., it is very rare for me to meet people who are religious. I actually forget that that&#039;s a thing. I grew up in a very religious part of the country, the Bible belt. I live in L.A. Most everyone I know is non-religious. Yet,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: But they&#039;re still spiritual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: if you dig deep - oh, they&#039;re crazy spiritual! They have&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a university out here that&#039;s basically a cult. It&#039;s like a spiritual psychology university where people are studying, like, past life interactions and energy transfer,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: and chi. The woo thinking, the medical quackery, and the, yes, quote, “Spiritual,” - and I don&#039;t want to misuse that word. I have a hard time with that word because I think it comes with a lot of baggage. I think that it&#039;s perfectly legitimate for individuals to consider themselves to be spiritual in a sort of zen kind of way; you know, finding perfundity in nature. Carl Sagan even used the term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Sure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think he can talk about spirituality in a way that it is not magical thinking, and then you can talk about spirituality in a way that&#039;s absolutely magical thinking, and we have a lot of those people here on the West Coast. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Why can&#039;t everybody be like us?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Rogues laugh)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Then we wouldn&#039;t have to exist!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aw, how sad!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We would just vanish in a puff of smoke.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If the whole world were skeptical, obviously, you can&#039;t say no to that, but it would be interesting because we would not have to exist at that point. We wouldn&#039;t need a skeptical movement if there wasn&#039;t so much irrationality in the world. I&#039;d still rather have the rational world though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Who&#039;s That Noisy &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(56:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Answer to last week: Space X landing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Membership drive at 59:14)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Absence of Evidence &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:00:16)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science or Fiction &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:09:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- I have difficulty differentiating Bob / Jay / Evan - if there are spots you can help, thanks -bshirley ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Science or Fiction music)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;It&#039;s time for Science or Fiction&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious, and I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Are you guys ready for this week? Three regular news items. &amp;lt;!--- overlapping responses ---&amp;gt; Alright, here we go. These are interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Items===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number one: a new study finds that rat whiskers contain chemical receptors to smell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Morris, Amanda &amp;quot;[http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2016/08/whiskers-help-animals-sense-winds-direction.html Whiskers Help Animals Sense the Direction of the Wind]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;McCormick School of Engineering.&#039;&#039; Northwestern University. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822155920.htm Chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition: Study challenges distinctiveness of human cooperation.]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Science News.&#039;&#039; Emory Health Sciences. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; And,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number three: scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazaro, Sage &amp;quot;[http://observer.com/2016/08/scientists-discovered-how-to-jumpstart-the-brain-of-a-coma-patient Real-Life Awakening: Scientists ‘Jumpstart’ the Brain of a Coma Patient]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Observer.&#039;&#039; Observer.com. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob, go first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Bob&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Alright, the rat whiskers, sure, that makes sense, i mean, would you call it “smell”? I could see that. I could see that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Un, the second, let’s see… chimpanzees choosing cooperation over competition, five to one, that’s… that kinda goes against what I’ve been led to believe about how… if you said bonobos I would absolutely agree with you, but chimpanzees are definitely more on the uncooperative/irascible&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irascible Wiktionary:irascible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; scale.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: …irascible… (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Scientist, let’s see, number three, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultrasound. I just kinda love brain stimulation. I think it, i’ve heard, I know it’s not, you know, it’s not, it doesn’t necessarily do what they’ve been claiming over these years but I think, I still have read some interesting experiments that have surprising effects, so I’ll tentatively go with that one. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um, cooperation over competition, five to one, alright I’m gonna say the &#039;&#039;&#039;chimpanzees is fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Okay. Jay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Jay&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: This one about the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors… what I can’t figure out is how, how is the chemical receptor in the rat whisker communicating back to the brain? There’s no electrical type nerve connection from the organ, the receptor, to the brain. Unless it’s… i don’t know. I just don’t see how that can possibly be. It seems completely BS to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second one here, researchers find chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition. I don’t know about the rate of five to one, but I do agree with that and I think that makes a lot of sense. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And this last one, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating the brain, the thing that Bob has hidden in a drawer next to his bed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Apparently, it’s not hidden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: I just wanted to make sure Cara was awake, that’s all. That’s why I said that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I’m awake. I’m awake.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘’(laughter)’’&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Stimulating the brain brings people from, …minimally conscious to fully conscious with a low power ultra sound. I agree because this reminds me what it’s like when I wake up in the morning, and that’s my coffee. So, sure, this is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I just &#039;&#039;&#039;don’t think the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039; and the chemical receptors, and them helping them smell thing. No. Nope, I don’t agree. That’s fake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: Ok. Evan?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Evan&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: So, the patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious. I suppose those… minimally conscious is a technical state of some sort. Not a coma? Or like…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, it ‘’is’’ a coma, but minimally conscious is pretty self explanatory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Okay. But now, you stimulate the brain with a low powered ulrta sound? So, how did they do that? Or, why does that, why does a low powered ultra sound have that ability to that? I don’t really understand it. This one’s tricky.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next one, the middle one, chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. I think that one will be science. I don’t think there’s any problem with that ratio. It may ‘’seem’’ high, but, you know, chimpanzees are very cool. Very cool. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How closely related in our DNA are we to chimpanzees? Ninety …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: 98 percent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: It depends on how you count it. There’s no one objective answer to that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: yeah, but it’s very high.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhere between 96 and 98 percent is the usual figure that the scientists give.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: alright, fair enough, I think people, although they’re competitive also i think we ‘’do’’ have a lot of cooperation, so I think we kinda mirror that. I think we’re okay there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And the last one is the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors. So, I’m gonna… this one I’m having a problem with because, I’ll go back to what we were talking about before with the logical fallacies &amp;lt;!--- link https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_581#Name_That_Logical_Fallacy:_Absence_of_Evidence_.281:00:16.29 ---&amp;gt;, isn’t this something we would have figured out maybe a ‘’long’’ time ago? You know, rat whiskers. It’s not like some hidden thing that we weren’t able to… what prevented us from determining this a long time ago? So, I think we would have found the evidence for that a while ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, therefore I think I’ll agree with Jay, I think &#039;&#039;&#039;the rat whisker one is gonna turn out to be the fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Alright. And, Cara…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cara&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think I’m torn between rat whiskers and the consciousness situation, so I’ll start with the chimpanzees. It seems reasonable to me. I’ve seen ‘’a lot’’ of primate studies, going all the way down to monkeys, not even apes, that show high rates of competition and of helping get food or share things in order to maximize the benefit for the group. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do rat whiskers contain a chemical receptor that help with sm… well I’ll disagree with jay because that is what a whisker ‘’is’’. It is an organ. It’s a sensory organ that actually helps with probe reception, or it helps them navigate their environment. So, if you cut certain whiskers you can do all kinds of neurological studies where you change some of the representation on the sensory cortex. So there ‘’is’’ a direct connection between whiskers and the brain, but ‘’chemical’’ receptors is interesting to me because I don’t think they have a physical way to bind anything. I mean, that would be what the receptor is. But it would be crazy if they just now found that because rat whiskers… or rats are such a common laboratory animal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And then scientists report a case where a patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious – Okay, so they woke up. – after using low power ultra sound. I think I’ve seen cases where consciousness is kind of sparked with thalamic stimulation. It’d be crazy if you could do this from outside the brain, and usually ultra sound is delivered from outside. So, I mean, I want this one to be true. So maybe – whuah, this is hard – I’m gonna hope that the ultrasound is also science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And that the &#039;&#039;&#039;fiction is the chemical receptors on the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039;. Because I just think they would have found that sooner. That would be my reasoning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 3===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Okay (1:19:45)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, you all agree with the third one, so let’s start there. Scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound. You all think this one is science. And this one is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(many): Yeah, baby.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yay. Wow, that’s so cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob: And Cara, great job. You pretty much nailed a lot of the details there. This was thalamic stimulation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, it was!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: The thalamus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: The thalmus. First of all, I was very careful in how I worded this. This was a single case. And they can’t prove that the stimulation is what did it, just that the patient woke up after they stimulated them. But, the timing ‘’does’’ look good, but they’ll obviously have to replicate it to see how generalizable this effect is, and if the effect is actually real. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, let me throw in some caveats here. First of all, this is a patient who was in a coma because of trauma. Trauma patients have a much better prognosis that patients who, for example, have diffuse anoxic ischemic injury.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Arciniegas, Dr. David B. &amp;quot;[http://www.internationalbrain.org/articles/hypoxicischemic-brain-injury/ Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;International Brain Injury Association&#039;&#039;. InternationalBrain.org. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; So, if your whole brain is injured because of lack of oxygen, these types of things generally don’t work. But if you have trauma to the brain, there may be pieces of the brain which work and other pieces to the brain that don’t work. And this is sort of a classic scenario where probably the cortex was relatively spared, and was still pretty functional, but the cortex just wasn’t being activated by the deeper structures like the thalamus. And so, if you could get the thalamus, if you could kick start or jump start the thalamus–which is what they’re calling it–you can do it with drugs, you can do it with wires, with deep-brain stimulation, if you can get that thalamus to function more it can wake up the rest of the brain, which is actually not that bad off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Isn’t it crazy how tenuous that is? Oh, my god.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, right? These little centers, deep in your brain, alerting your whole cortex, and if they get taken out, you’re in a coma. Your whole brain could be perfectly normal, but you’re essentially permanently asleep, because you don’t have the mechanism to alert or wake up your brain. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in those special cases where that’s the problem, this kind of thing can work. There was also a study where they implanted a chip basically to stimulate the thalamus and the deep structures. That also can be effective. So, eventually that may be the intervention. But, this is now using just an external, low power ultra sound focused on the thalamus to stimulate it. They described the patient being, again, minimally conscious. They would be able to do ‘’some’’ things, but not much. They occasionally would attend to external stimulation. Then after the treatment, they were essentially awake. They would look at the examiner. They did a fist bump, it was reported. One of the doctors as they were walking away they would follow commands, participate in their feeding. Still not neurologically normal. The guy still has brain damage. And was still was minimally verbal. I think would just shake his head yes and no, but would do so appropriately, but wasn’t really speaking. Again, he woke up but was not returned to neurologically intact. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do think we’re gonna see, fairly soon, these types of interventions to treat this one subgroup of patients who have enough brain function to be awake, but their deep structure’s just not working well enough to alert the brain. And all we need to do is stimulate it in order to get them to wake up. And we’re just figuring out the different techniques for doing that. Yeah, but very very cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Very cool. Maybe this could work for…, I know it’s a very specific case, but …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah. Okay, we’ll go backwards, I guess. We’ll go to number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. Bob, you think this one is the fiction, everyone else thinks this is science, and this one… is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Ahh, F-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Sorry, Bob.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: So, this was a little surprising actually, because previous research seemed to indicate that chimpanzees in particular are very competitive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yes!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: They’re greedy. You know, chimpanzees are often described as greedy, like they can’t inhibit their need to take things. They’ll steal. They’ll cheat. They’ll freeload. And they’ll compete against each other for resources. In this study, though, researchers tried to do a more open ended experiment with/in a more natural group environment. So, they had eleven chimpanzees who were involved in this study and essentially they gave them tasks to do that would result in a reward. But the task required either two chimpanzees to cooperate or three chimpanzees to cooperate; one chimpanzee could not get the reward by themselves. And they just observed their behavior. For example, did the chimpanzees work together, and did they police themselves for theft or freeloading or competition. And in fact, they did. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They engaged in a lot of policing behavior or enforcement strategies. For example, they wouldn’t expose the rewards if somebody… if a chimpanzee who had previously freeloaded was hanging around. They would say “nope, not until we get this jerk outta here. We’re not gonna do it.” You know. Sometimes the more alpha males would get involved in policing and punishing and ejecting the previous freeloaders or thieves from the area. They essentially enforced cooperation collectively as a group through punishment and these kind of behaviours. Which is what humans do. That’s essentially our system of justice is largely about, enforcing social norms and living together, cooperating, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And lots of other animals do that too. Birds, lots of birds do this. Birds will, for example, some species of birds will warn each other if predators are coming. But if one bird doesn’t participate in that, then other birds won’t warn them when it’s their turn. So, they use reciprocity as a way of awarding and punishing this behavior. So, even birds do this. So, cooperation’s actually fairly wide spread in the animal kingdom but it is ‘’not’’ unique to humans. Although some researchers have argued that our level of cooperation ‘’is’’ unique to humans. But every time somebody says that, you know, it seems like we find that chimpanzees do it too. And this is a similar case. Chimpanzees were mostly cooperating and engaging in a number of behaviors to enforce that cooperation, on the group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: So that’s nice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aww. That’s really cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That’s pretty cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhat cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 1===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: (laughs) …all this means that… a new study finds that rat whiskers&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskers Whiskers]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Wikipedia&#039;&#039;. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; contain chemical receptors that help them to smell, that is complete and total fiction. And the whiskers that themselves are basically hairs. They don’t have nerves in them. They have nerves at the base of the hair that sense the movement in the whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Yea, where you saying that there were receptors in the whiskers?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, but I made that up. That was wrong. That’s the lie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Okay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: The whiskers are just hairs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: (inaudible)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: They are like vibro- receptors at the base of the whiskers. So, the rat can sense, they get sensory information to their brain that actually helps them map the world when those whiskers move. The new study that inspired this item though was a study showing that rats can use their whiskers to sense the direction of the wind. And that helps them follow odors. So, if they’re smelling something, they need to know what the direction of the wind is blowing in in order to track that odor back to it’s source. And their whiskers help them do that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this study, very quickly, was they had rats enter an arena through a door and there were five fans. One of the fans was on and blowing. The hole at the base of that fan led to food. The hole at the base of the other four fans did not. So, if they couldn’t sense the wind at all, they would have a 20 percent chance of guessing the correct hole out of the gate. But the rats were able to do it 60 percent of the time, not just 20 percent of the time. But in order to show that they were using their whiskers, they then cut off their whiskers to see how they would do. Okay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Aww.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: But they said that the cutting off of the whiskers is painless. It’s like cutting off your hair. And they grow back. So, there’s no permanent harm done. So, they would cut off their whiskers, and then their performance dropped by 20 percent. So, they were still able to do better than chance, because there were other ways to sense the wind. But their performance decreased significantly because they no longer had their whiskers as a sensory organ. This suggests that they were sensing the wind, in part, with their whiskers. That was the study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I looked it up. I couldn’t find any evidence that they sniffed the air with their whiskers at all. I guess they could lick their whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: That’s what I was thinking. It’s exactly what I was licking, uh… thinking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If there’s stuff clinging to the whiskers, they could taste it by licking it. But the whiskers themselves don’t have receptors on them, as far as I could find. They’re just hair. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alright, Evan, give us the quote…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Skeptical Quote of the Week &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:27:14)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And until next week, this is your Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Outro404}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today I Learned: ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Steve states in this episode that Name That Logical Fallacy is a very popular segment that they don&#039;t do often enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Navigation}} &amp;lt;!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- Create category redirect pages for each segment mentioned below - https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Page categories&lt;br /&gt;
|Religion &amp;amp; Faith           = y &amp;lt;!--  Pew Belief Poll (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Pseudoscience        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Science &amp;amp; the Media        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10761</id>
		<title>Template:SectionChecklist</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10761"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:48:52Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{|style=&amp;quot;background-color: #FFFFF0; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 1 1px; border: 1px solid #F4A460; float:{{{float|right}}};&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
! width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|[[File:Emblem-pen-orange.png|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=5, align=center|This {{{section|section}}} needs the following help. Each effort has a link for more details.&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=#ffff44, align=center|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;IN PROGRESS&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! transcription&lt;br /&gt;
! proof reading&lt;br /&gt;
! time stamps&lt;br /&gt;
! formatting&lt;br /&gt;
! links&lt;br /&gt;
! categories&lt;br /&gt;
! redirect&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{transcription|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Transcription|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{proof-reading|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Proof-reading|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
  {{#if: {{{transcription|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
  }} |&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{time-stamps|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Time-stamps|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{formatting|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Formatting|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{links|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Links|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{categories|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{segment redirects|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categorized_segment_redirects|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=7, align=center | &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Once all the sections are completed for this section, this template can be removed.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Please include this template at the top of sections that require attention. This not only shows what&#039;s needed, but also provides links to help sections on what that work involves&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: there is no &amp;quot;today I learned&amp;quot; checklist for the section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =  &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
When a file is first created and nothing has been done, you can use this template to place in each section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once you feel each item has been taken care of, set the value of it to be empty indicating that work is no longer needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription = &amp;lt;!--- username transcribed ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!--- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;proof-reading&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; parameter should only be set after the transcription has occurred.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the section is basically empty, and in need of transcription, you will likely want to turn the &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;float&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; off to keep the page from cluttering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription = &amp;lt;!--- username transcribed ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!--- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading  = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
The values of the parameters can be any non-empty value, so leave a message for the next editor if you wish.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 {{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Maintenance templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10760</id>
		<title>Template:SectionChecklist</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10760"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:47:24Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* Usage */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{|style=&amp;quot;background-color: #FFFFF0; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 1 1px; border: 1px solid #F4A460; float:{{{float|right}}};&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
! width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|[[File:Emblem-pen-orange.png|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=5, align=center|This {{{section|section}}} needs the following help. Each effort has a link for more details.&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=#ffff44, align=center|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;IN PROGRESS&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! transcription&lt;br /&gt;
! proof reading&lt;br /&gt;
! time stamps&lt;br /&gt;
! formatting&lt;br /&gt;
! links&lt;br /&gt;
! categories&lt;br /&gt;
! redirect&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{transcription|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Transcription|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{proof-reading|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Proof-reading|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
  {{#if: {{{transcription|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
  }} |&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{time-stamps|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Time-stamps|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{formatting|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Formatting|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{links|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Links|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{categories|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{segment redirects|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categorized_segment_redirects|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=7, align=center | &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Once all the sections are completed for this section, this template can be removed.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rename request: SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please include this template at the top of pages that require attention. This not only shows what&#039;s needed, but also adds the page to the &#039;[[:Category:Needs attention|Needs attention]]&#039; category and its sub-categories for other contributors to see lists of pages needing work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: there is no &amp;quot;today I learned&amp;quot; checklist for the section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =  &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
When a file is first created and nothing has been done, you can use this template to place in each section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once you feel each item has been taken care of, set the value of it to be empty indicating that work is no longer needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription = &amp;lt;!--- username transcribed ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!--- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;proof-reading&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; parameter should only be set after the transcription has occurred.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the section is basically empty, and in need of transcription, you will likely want to turn the &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;float&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; off to keep the page from cluttering.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription = &amp;lt;!--- username transcribed ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!--- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading  = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
The values of the parameters can be any non-empty value, so leave a message for the next editor if you wish.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 {{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Maintenance templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10759</id>
		<title>SGU Episode 581</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10759"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:44:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* World Wide Web Turns 25 (26:38) */ section checklist&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Editing required&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{InfoBox&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeNum     = 581&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeDate    = August 27&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2016  &amp;lt;!-- broadcast date --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeIcon    = File:Proximab2.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|previous       =                          &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to previous episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|next           =                        &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to next episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|rebecca        =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|bob            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|jay            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|evan           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|cara           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|perry          =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest1         =      &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest2         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no second guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest3         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no third guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|downloadLink   = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2016-08-27.mp3&lt;br /&gt;
|forumLink      = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,47202.0.html&lt;br /&gt;
|qowText        = Our place in the Galaxy nor our Galaxy itself is special. Darwin has further shown that humans are a natural product of evolution by means of natural selection. The discovery of extrasolar life will demonstrate that even that last claim to being special will have to be abandoned&lt;br /&gt;
|qowAuthor      = Mario Livio, astrophysiscist &amp;lt;!-- add author and link --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;You&#039;re listening to the Skeptics&#039; Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Hello, and welcome to The Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, August 24&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2016; and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SGU Going to DragonCon &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(0:27)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What&#039;s the Word &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(3:32)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* {{w|Inquiline}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== News Items ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Proxima Centauri Follow Up &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(7:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, Matt &#039;[http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ Potentially Habitable Exoplanet Confirmed Around Nearest Star!]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Universe Today&#039;&#039;. Fraser Cain. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anthropocene &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(15:01)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Yirka, Bob &#039;[http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Phys.org&#039;&#039;. Omicron Technology Limited. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene Anthropocene] on Wikipedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(New era is based on all the environmental effects humans are having on the Earth)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== World Wide Web Turns 25 &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(26:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
*  http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832 1st website ever restored to its 1992 glory: CERN&#039;s ancient page describes the &amp;quot;W3&amp;quot; project]&#039;. &#039;&#039;CBC News: Technology and Science&#039;&#039;. CBC/Radio-Canada. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Commercial at 33:33)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- reference added as convenience for transcriber. raw link can be removed if desired. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fighting Against Pseudoscience &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(34:54)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: All right, Evan, there was this article&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Grant, Richard P &#039;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2016/aug/23/scientists-losing-science-communication-skeptic-cox Why scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Science - Occam&#039;s Corner&#039;&#039;. The Guardian News. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; published recently about science communication and fighting against pseudoscience that is interesting, although I don&#039;t totally agree with it. But let&#039;s talk about it. Tell us about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah. It appeared in the Guardian, it was written by a former biologist. He turned blogger. His name is Richard Grant. And the title of his article is, “Why Scientists Are Losing the Fight to Communicate Science to the Public.” So I&#039;ll read a few things directly from the article, and then we can sort of comment on it as we go.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says that, “Scientists and science-communicators are engaged in a constant battle with ignorance. But that&#039;s an approach doomed to failure.” Okay. He says that, &amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;“A video did the rounds a couple of years ago of some self-styled skeptic disagreeing (robustly, shall we say) with an anti-vaxxer. The speaker was roundly cheered by everyone for sharing the video. He sure put that idiot in their place! Scientists love to argue, cutting through bullshit and getting to the truth of the matter is pretty much the job description.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I kinda don&#039;t necessarily fully agree with that. But he goes on to say,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;”It&#039;s not really surprising scientists and science supporters frequently take on those who dabble in homeopathy or deny anthropogenic climate change, or who oppose vaccinations or genetically modified food. Brian Cox was at it last week performing a smack down on a climate change denier on the ABC&#039;s Q&amp;amp;A discussion program. He brought graphs (knock-out blow) and yet it leaves me cold. Is this really what science communication is about? Is this informing and changing minds, winning people over to a better, brighter future? I doubt it somehow.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I had a lot of problems with this article. So I think the core point that he&#039;s making, that you can&#039;t just oppose belief in pseudoscience with facts; you have to understand the psychological motivation why people are believing that pseudoscience – sure. That&#039;s absolutely valid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, but that&#039;s also not ... new.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We all know that it&#039;s not a deficit problem. Sci-com, the reason it&#039;s not as effective as we&#039;d like to be is not because there&#039;s just not enough knowledge out there. We know that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, my problem was he&#039;s writing to science communicators, and he is about twenty years behind on the conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s how I felt. It&#039;s like, “Where have you been?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, this is like, I remember having this conversation literally twenty years ago ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: when we were really getting involved with this. And there&#039;s so much more nuance, there&#039;s so much more involved with this. I just briefly put this up on our Facebook page and said that he&#039;s actually committing the problem that he&#039;s criticizing. He&#039;s sort of talking at us and not to us, and not really addressing the issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So like, for example, he&#039;s talking as if there is only true believers, but that&#039;s not true. There&#039;s not only true believers. First of all, there are a lot of people who are in the middle, or are just undecided, or just don&#039;t really know about whatever the topic is, like vaccines. Like, hey, there are a lot of parents who are, they hear concerning things about vaccines, but they&#039;re not anti-vaxxers. And so just putting the correct information out there and opposing the anti-vaxxers has a dramatic effect on the public conversation. It&#039;s an incredibly valuable resource to people who just want to know what the facts are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And it absolutely does prevent people, I think, from going down that rabbit hole and becoming a conspiracy theorist or an anti-science denier or whatever. And also, there are con artists out there as well. That&#039;s another group. There are people who are exploiting the true believers, are exploiting the community, exploiting the beliefs, the conspiracies, whatever, just to make money, just to sell their wares, to sell their snake oil; and they absolutely need to be deconstructed and taken apart. Their claims need to be vigorously opposed. They need to be corrected. We need to have the correct factual information out there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, when dealing with groups of people who believe things for ideological, emotional, political, sociological reasons, we need to address them in the context of the reason for their belief; and we know that there&#039;s a back-fire effect. People could dig their heels in if you make them defend their ideology. Yeah, we&#039;ve been through all of this. This is what we talk about all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So his article was just naive. It was just uninformed. As I was reading it, I&#039;m like, “God, this really would have benefited if he actually spoke to a skeptic at some point who&#039;s been doing this for more than a couple of weeks.” His opinions might have had some depth to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Or a professional science communicator,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: somebody who does this for a living, and who&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: studies outcome effects, and who talks to other science communicators. It was a little bit judgy, this whole thing. What is the quote? Somewhere in here. He&#039;s like, “How often is it that science communications actually listen to the needs of their audience?” And it&#039;s like, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: the number one thing we always say in sci-com is know your audience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s the first thing every science communicator&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: talks about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right, right, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s just so dismissive to act as though we&#039;re ... I think he&#039;s really getting upset at scientists who don&#039;t communicate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Um-hmm, maybe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I don&#039;t know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s frustrating. And also,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Frustrating&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: is it fair to ask, who &#039;&#039;is&#039;&#039; this guy?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Steve chuckles)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Who is he? Really? Richard Grant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I don&#039;t know. I don&#039;t know who he is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: &#039;&#039;(Laughs)&#039;&#039; You know? He works in med – yeah, here it is. “He&#039;s a former biochemist, cell biologist, structural biologist now working in medical communications and founder of the independent blogging network, Occam&#039;s Typewriter.” Okay, so he&#039;s just like one of the many of us. Basically, instead of saying, “Here are the ways that many of us can improve,” he&#039;s saying, “Wow, you guys all suck at this.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Steve, I got the same feeling &#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039; you did. This is very incomplete, way too black and white, not recognizing the broad spectrum where people fall along the lines of science, intelligence, or understanding science. In fact, he breaks it down into – he gives basically two general reasons as to why he arrived at this conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says, “First, in general, people don&#039;t like being told what to do. When the experts tell us how to live our lives, or worse, what to think, something rebels in people, especially when there&#039;s even the merest whiff of controversy or uncertainty.” And then he says, the second point is that on the whole he doesn&#039;t think that people that object to vaccines or GMO&#039;s are at heart anti-science, some are, but most aren&#039;t. People simply want to know that someone is listening, that someone is taking their worry seriously, and that somebody cares for them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I just don&#039;t agree with that. Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: I don&#039;t know where he arrived &#039;&#039;(laughs)&#039;&#039; at that point, or how he got ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I mean,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: that conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: you know, he&#039;s armchair criticizing a community of people that he doesn&#039;t really understand. Again, I&#039;m not gonna play the card, like, “He doesn&#039;t have the cred to have an opinion.” Of course he does. But if you&#039;re going to be judgmental about what other people are doing, you&#039;d better make a good, sincere effort to understand what they&#039;re actually doing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And we do have the advantage here. The SGU is eleven years old. We&#039;ve been doing this for twenty years. This is a very interactive medium. We get dozens, dozens of emails every day. I read dozens of comments to my blog, and comments on our Facebook posts every day. We are interacting with people. We are interacting with a broad audience as well as our community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have a much better idea of what people actually think, and how they actually respond to what we say, than this guy apparently does, you know? He would have benefited tremendously from talking to somebody who&#039;s actually involved in doing this. We just got an email today. I wasn&#039;t planning on reading this, but I&#039;ll just say it&#039;s somebody who&#039;s name is Kim. I won&#039;t give her full name, who basically said, “Hey, I started out as an absolutely true believer, gullible, believed everything.” An impressive list of pseudoscience had dominated her life. Listened to our show, and then over time was totally converted into a skeptic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So he&#039;s just factually wrong, that nobody ever gets converted, because we get these emails all of the time. It&#039;s probably statistically a small number, but you can&#039;t say that it never happens. And in any case, that&#039;s not even the primary goal. The primary goal is informing people who are open to the information, who are not already true believers. So, anyway, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: unfortunately, we encounter a lot of this, this sort of armchair criticism. It is, I agree with you, Cara. It&#039;s just being judgy. He ends -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s judgy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: the way he ends, yeah, it was so terrible. He&#039;s said, “Most science communication isn&#039;t about persuading people, it&#039;s self-affirmation for those already on the inside. Look at us,” it says. “Aren&#039;t we clever? We are exclusive. We are a gang. We are a family. It&#039;s tribalism.” That&#039;s bullshit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I&#039;m not saying there isn&#039;t any of that. Of course there is. People are tribal, we do have our communities. It is a source of identity. But it is so much not that, that is not what dominates science communication and skeptical activism. It is absolutely about persuading people. We are sincerely interested in engaging in the conversation, and persuading as many people as we can; and we&#039;re constantly self-examining, and looking at published research to figure out how to better do it, and we talk about it all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Oh yeah, absolutely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, it&#039;s just, you know – he really, I think, again, as I say, especially in that piece that he was doing, he&#039;s guilty of the exact thing that he&#039;s criticizing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah! He&#039;s also so fatalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s not like he&#039;s really putting forth any better options.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He&#039;s basically, “Well, some minds will never change.” It&#039;s like, “Okay, thanks?” And then he sort of kind of throws a toogawanda under the bus to some extent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He was honestly one of the most, I think, effective and sort of non-controversial&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: medical communicators out there, you know? His writings touch people who are absolutely religious or absolutely magical thinking, and they still can read his things and not feel insulted, and take something from them. He&#039;s just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a very good writer in that way. I don&#039;t know. Everything about it is a little bit like, the worst of what it is to write a blog. You know, I think blogs are incredibly important, and they&#039;re incredibly necessary, and good blogs can be better than bad journalism; but sometimes blogs can be very lazy. There was no reporting done on this. He never spoke to anybody&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: before he wrote this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah, it&#039;s an opinion piece&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: more than anything, and, you know, I don&#039;t know what the Guardian&#039;s all about as far as putting this out as a news article, but&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s a bit annoying, &#039;cause it doesn&#039;t say “opinion,” and it doesn&#039;t say&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: No, it&#039;s not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: “blog.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It says, “Science: Occam&#039;s Corner.” Like, this is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: listed under, “Science.” Obviously, “Occam&#039;s Corner” sounds like it&#039;s his blog that he has on the Guardian, but it&#039;s not really clear that that&#039;s what somebody&#039;s reading. So anybody who comes across this who doesn&#039;t know the difference between good and bad science journalism might look at this and say, “Oh my gosh, well, this is the state of things,” not realizing that he never interviewed a single person, or did any real reporting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Ugh! Anyway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, he also makes ... one last comment on this. He makes this very typical rookie mistake. I think we&#039;ve sort of made this mistake and then fixed it because this is what the evidence shows, is the idea that people are resistant to facts in general, which is not true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Nope&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: What the evidence shows is that if you give people facts, they change their opinion. They change their opinion to meet the facts unless they are already ideologically bound to one position. So people behave differently for emotionally held ideological opinions versus things that they don&#039;t have an emotional stake in. And so you have to deal with people differently in different contexts. But he was nowhere near drilling down to that level of detail in his article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, okay let&#039;s move on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Pew Belief Poll &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(47:05)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Cara, tell us about the latest Pew poll about belief.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lipka, Michael &#039;[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/ Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Fact Tank: News in the Numbers&#039;&#039;. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Sure. So you guys may remember a report last year by Pew that detailed a really sharp decline in Christian affiliation, and a growing number of Americans reporting themselves as quote, “nones.” That was part of a really big study called the 2014 Religious Landscape study that was published in 2015. It included at the time thirty-five thousand seventy-one respondents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what the Pew research group decided to do is a follow up, a recontact study, where they found – or maybe they reached out to more. But they ultimately ended up having I think five thousand individuals who they interviewed more in depth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of those five thousand individuals, one thousand one hundred forty-nine of those define themselves as “nones,” or unaffiliated. So that was broken down into four hundred twenty-six different atheists or agnostics, and seven hundred twenty-three people who indicated that their religion is quote, “nothing in particular.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The real purpose of the recontact study was part of a bigger question about whether or not people choose new churches, when they choose new churches or houses of worship. And so they found a lot of really interesting outcomes on that. How often throughout the lifespan people go to a new church. What are the reasons that motivate them from leaving their former congregation, going to their new congregation. But within that, of course, they had all of these quote, “nones.” And so they found that there were a lot of really interesting things that came out of the nones, and they – N-O-N-E-S, not N-U-N-S – and they &#039;&#039;(Evan chuckles)&#039;&#039; dug a little bit deeper and asked a lot of questions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So again, just to be clear, as part of a big thirty-five thousand people study a few years ago, they recontacted five thousand individuals. But now I&#039;m only gonna be talking about the one thousand one hundred forty-nine individuals within that group who defined themselves as unaffiliated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So here&#039;s some interesting  stuff: The vast majority of these unaffiliated individuals say that they were actually raised as a member of a particular religion before shedding their religious identity in adulthood. So about seventy-eight percent of those people that they interviewed that said that they don&#039;t identify with a religion were raised religious, which to me seems reasonable. I mean, my personal anecdotal experience, and maybe it&#039;s because I grew up in the Bible belt (it&#039;s very rare for me to meet people who had no religion as they were growing up; much more common when I actually met people with similar viewpoints that said they had left a church earlier).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The really, I think, interesting thing here is that what they wanted to do is know why. “Why did you actually leave if you were raised religious?” And they found that there were a &#039;&#039;ton&#039;&#039; of different responses because they actually allowed for open-ended responses. So I&#039;ll read you some quotes in a bit. But there were some themes that sort of clustered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest response, which was about half (actually forty-nine percent of individuals) said that they left because they don&#039;t believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: That&#039;s pretty straight-forward. “I don&#039;t believe, so I&#039;m not gonna go any more.” About twenty percent said that they left because they disliked organized religion. About eighteen percent said that they were just religiously unsure or undecided. And then only ten percent of this group that identified as a none or unaffiliated actually self-defined as an inactive believer, meaning that they still had those beliefs, but they either are non-practicing or they&#039;re too busy to attend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So there is still within that nones group, I think, a little bit of a holdover of what I might not define as a none or an unaffiliated. So that&#039;s kind of interesting to parse it in that way. Under the “Don&#039;t believe” group, we found that many people said that they were disenchanted, and that&#039;s why they no longer believe. Some people said they just are not interested in, or they don&#039;t need religion, or that their views evolved. But that was actually a very small number. And only one percent of the individuals overall said that they went through a crisis of faith.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it does seem like it was less common that something happened in their lives that really changed their opinion. More common that, as we were just talking about, it was a slow, gradual thing that happened through learning and thinking and coming across new evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: And the internet as well, I&#039;m sure has ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, the internet probably had a big part of that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Totally fits with what I would expect. I think just largely generational. I think that they younger generations – it&#039;s funny. A lot of them, it&#039;s not like their atheist, they&#039;re so areligious &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: they&#039;re not even an atheist, you know what I mean? It&#039;s like they just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: It&#039;s not on their radar. Not on their radar.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting that “none” label&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, “None.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think that we&#039;re seeing a lot, or just, “I&#039;m religiously unaffiliated.” There is something interesting though: Remember how I said forty-nine percent of this overall group said that they just don&#039;t believe, and that&#039;s why they left. Interestingly, if they actually broke that down into the people who self-identify as atheist versus agnostic versus quote, “Nothing in particular,” actually eighty-two percent of atheists say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. Sixty-three percent of agnostics say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. And only thirty-seven percent of the “Nothing in particular” group left because they said they don&#039;t believe; which also makes sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Are you surprised by any of these findings?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: No, none of this really stuck out to me too much. I mean, it&#039;s definitely interesting. I think probably what&#039;s more interesting is the overall thing, like, Bob and I were talking about before we were on air, just the overall trends that we&#039;re seeing away from a specific religion or organized religion, and into a kind of personal formulation of spirituality, religion, or lack thereof.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does seem like we&#039;re seeing an individualistic move away from these big groups, and I do kind of find that interesting because we hear about these studies all the time, a lot of nay-sayers will send us these studies and we&#039;ll actually describe them on the show where congregations, church groups, being in a community actually is correlated with positive health benefits. And so it is kind of interesting that we&#039;re seeing more and more people sort of leaving that organized community behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And I think that&#039;s where we&#039;re starting to see some changes, even within the atheistic community. Some people still like the idea that they&#039;re unaffiliated and they don&#039;t want to be part of a group, but you&#039;re starting to see some. Atheist groups meeting and even having kind of their version of a quote, “church,” (which of course is completely secular&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: &#039;&#039;(Chuckles)&#039;&#039; Yeah, right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: but is still a group thing so that they can have that sense of community).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That&#039;s basically what secular humanism is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I do wonder a couple of things when I see these kind of numbers: One is, “Is this a long-term trend?” You know, is this the arc of human history to become less religious over time, or is this cyclical? You know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Wax and wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, you know, it&#039;s hard to get out of your time frame, and to try to look at the big picture. Certainly in the last I would say couple hundred years, it seems like the power that religion has on our society, even in the United States (which is fairly religious for a Western country),&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: it&#039;s definitely been on the wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, for sure, with, understanding evolution, just advances in scientific thinking, that&#039;s been a big thing; and like you guys said, the internet, just being able to meet people who are like-minded that maybe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: don&#039;t live down the street from you, is huge; and feeling more confident in coming out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And the second question I have is (and I think I know the answer to this), but, as religion is on the wane, are people just replacing it with other forms of belief systems? This doesn&#039;t necessarily mean that there are more people who are being rational, or who are rejecting all ideology or all belief systems. It&#039;s more that they&#039;re rejecting traditional organized religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s &#039;&#039;so&#039;&#039; true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Becoming druids? And&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: warlocks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Just new age stuff, yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I know so, in L.A., it is very rare for me to meet people who are religious. I actually forget that that&#039;s a thing. I grew up in a very religious part of the country, the Bible belt. I live in L.A. Most everyone I know is non-religious. Yet,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: But they&#039;re still spiritual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: if you dig deep - oh, they&#039;re crazy spiritual! They have&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a university out here that&#039;s basically a cult. It&#039;s like a spiritual psychology university where people are studying, like, past life interactions and energy transfer,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: and chi. The woo thinking, the medical quackery, and the, yes, quote, “Spiritual,” - and I don&#039;t want to misuse that word. I have a hard time with that word because I think it comes with a lot of baggage. I think that it&#039;s perfectly legitimate for individuals to consider themselves to be spiritual in a sort of zen kind of way; you know, finding perfundity in nature. Carl Sagan even used the term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Sure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think he can talk about spirituality in a way that it is not magical thinking, and then you can talk about spirituality in a way that&#039;s absolutely magical thinking, and we have a lot of those people here on the West Coast. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Why can&#039;t everybody be like us?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Rogues laugh)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Then we wouldn&#039;t have to exist!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aw, how sad!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We would just vanish in a puff of smoke.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If the whole world were skeptical, obviously, you can&#039;t say no to that, but it would be interesting because we would not have to exist at that point. We wouldn&#039;t need a skeptical movement if there wasn&#039;t so much irrationality in the world. I&#039;d still rather have the rational world though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Who&#039;s That Noisy &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(56:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Answer to last week: Space X landing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Membership drive at 59:14)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Absence of Evidence &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:00:16)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science or Fiction &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:09:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- I have difficulty differentiating Bob / Jay / Evan - if there are spots you can help, thanks -bshirley ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Science or Fiction music)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;It&#039;s time for Science or Fiction&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious, and I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Are you guys ready for this week? Three regular news items. &amp;lt;!--- overlapping responses ---&amp;gt; Alright, here we go. These are interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Items===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number one: a new study finds that rat whiskers contain chemical receptors to smell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Morris, Amanda &amp;quot;[http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2016/08/whiskers-help-animals-sense-winds-direction.html Whiskers Help Animals Sense the Direction of the Wind]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;McCormick School of Engineering.&#039;&#039; Northwestern University. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822155920.htm Chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition: Study challenges distinctiveness of human cooperation.]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Science News.&#039;&#039; Emory Health Sciences. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; And,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number three: scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazaro, Sage &amp;quot;[http://observer.com/2016/08/scientists-discovered-how-to-jumpstart-the-brain-of-a-coma-patient Real-Life Awakening: Scientists ‘Jumpstart’ the Brain of a Coma Patient]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Observer.&#039;&#039; Observer.com. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob, go first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Bob&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Alright, the rat whiskers, sure, that makes sense, i mean, would you call it “smell”? I could see that. I could see that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Un, the second, let’s see… chimpanzees choosing cooperation over competition, five to one, that’s… that kinda goes against what I’ve been led to believe about how… if you said bonobos I would absolutely agree with you, but chimpanzees are definitely more on the uncooperative/irascible&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irascible Wiktionary:irascible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; scale.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: …irascible… (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Scientist, let’s see, number three, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultrasound. I just kinda love brain stimulation. I think it, i’ve heard, I know it’s not, you know, it’s not, it doesn’t necessarily do what they’ve been claiming over these years but I think, I still have read some interesting experiments that have surprising effects, so I’ll tentatively go with that one. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um, cooperation over competition, five to one, alright I’m gonna say the &#039;&#039;&#039;chimpanzees is fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Okay. Jay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Jay&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: This one about the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors… what I can’t figure out is how, how is the chemical receptor in the rat whisker communicating back to the brain? There’s no electrical type nerve connection from the organ, the receptor, to the brain. Unless it’s… i don’t know. I just don’t see how that can possibly be. It seems completely BS to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second one here, researchers find chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition. I don’t know about the rate of five to one, but I do agree with that and I think that makes a lot of sense. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And this last one, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating the brain, the thing that Bob has hidden in a drawer next to his bed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Apparently, it’s not hidden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: I just wanted to make sure Cara was awake, that’s all. That’s why I said that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I’m awake. I’m awake.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘’(laughter)’’&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Stimulating the brain brings people from, …minimally conscious to fully conscious with a low power ultra sound. I agree because this reminds me what it’s like when I wake up in the morning, and that’s my coffee. So, sure, this is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I just &#039;&#039;&#039;don’t think the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039; and the chemical receptors, and them helping them smell thing. No. Nope, I don’t agree. That’s fake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: Ok. Evan?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Evan&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: So, the patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious. I suppose those… minimally conscious is a technical state of some sort. Not a coma? Or like…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, it ‘’is’’ a coma, but minimally conscious is pretty self explanatory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Okay. But now, you stimulate the brain with a low powered ulrta sound? So, how did they do that? Or, why does that, why does a low powered ultra sound have that ability to that? I don’t really understand it. This one’s tricky.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next one, the middle one, chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. I think that one will be science. I don’t think there’s any problem with that ratio. It may ‘’seem’’ high, but, you know, chimpanzees are very cool. Very cool. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How closely related in our DNA are we to chimpanzees? Ninety …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: 98 percent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: It depends on how you count it. There’s no one objective answer to that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: yeah, but it’s very high.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhere between 96 and 98 percent is the usual figure that the scientists give.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: alright, fair enough, I think people, although they’re competitive also i think we ‘’do’’ have a lot of cooperation, so I think we kinda mirror that. I think we’re okay there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And the last one is the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors. So, I’m gonna… this one I’m having a problem with because, I’ll go back to what we were talking about before with the logical fallacies &amp;lt;!--- link https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_581#Name_That_Logical_Fallacy:_Absence_of_Evidence_.281:00:16.29 ---&amp;gt;, isn’t this something we would have figured out maybe a ‘’long’’ time ago? You know, rat whiskers. It’s not like some hidden thing that we weren’t able to… what prevented us from determining this a long time ago? So, I think we would have found the evidence for that a while ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, therefore I think I’ll agree with Jay, I think &#039;&#039;&#039;the rat whisker one is gonna turn out to be the fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Alright. And, Cara…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cara&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think I’m torn between rat whiskers and the consciousness situation, so I’ll start with the chimpanzees. It seems reasonable to me. I’ve seen ‘’a lot’’ of primate studies, going all the way down to monkeys, not even apes, that show high rates of competition and of helping get food or share things in order to maximize the benefit for the group. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do rat whiskers contain a chemical receptor that help with sm… well I’ll disagree with jay because that is what a whisker ‘’is’’. It is an organ. It’s a sensory organ that actually helps with probe reception, or it helps them navigate their environment. So, if you cut certain whiskers you can do all kinds of neurological studies where you change some of the representation on the sensory cortex. So there ‘’is’’ a direct connection between whiskers and the brain, but ‘’chemical’’ receptors is interesting to me because I don’t think they have a physical way to bind anything. I mean, that would be what the receptor is. But it would be crazy if they just now found that because rat whiskers… or rats are such a common laboratory animal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And then scientists report a case where a patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious – Okay, so they woke up. – after using low power ultra sound. I think I’ve seen cases where consciousness is kind of sparked with thalamic stimulation. It’d be crazy if you could do this from outside the brain, and usually ultra sound is delivered from outside. So, I mean, I want this one to be true. So maybe – whuah, this is hard – I’m gonna hope that the ultrasound is also science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And that the &#039;&#039;&#039;fiction is the chemical receptors on the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039;. Because I just think they would have found that sooner. That would be my reasoning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 3===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Okay (1:19:45)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, you all agree with the third one, so let’s start there. Scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound. You all think this one is science. And this one is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(many): Yeah, baby.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yay. Wow, that’s so cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob: And Cara, great job. You pretty much nailed a lot of the details there. This was thalamic stimulation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, it was!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: The thalamus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: The thalmus. First of all, I was very careful in how I worded this. This was a single case. And they can’t prove that the stimulation is what did it, just that the patient woke up after they stimulated them. But, the timing ‘’does’’ look good, but they’ll obviously have to replicate it to see how generalizable this effect is, and if the effect is actually real. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, let me throw in some caveats here. First of all, this is a patient who was in a coma because of trauma. Trauma patients have a much better prognosis that patients who, for example, have diffuse anoxic ischemic injury.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Arciniegas, Dr. David B. &amp;quot;[http://www.internationalbrain.org/articles/hypoxicischemic-brain-injury/ Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;International Brain Injury Association&#039;&#039;. InternationalBrain.org. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; So, if your whole brain is injured because of lack of oxygen, these types of things generally don’t work. But if you have trauma to the brain, there may be pieces of the brain which work and other pieces to the brain that don’t work. And this is sort of a classic scenario where probably the cortex was relatively spared, and was still pretty functional, but the cortex just wasn’t being activated by the deeper structures like the thalamus. And so, if you could get the thalamus, if you could kick start or jump start the thalamus–which is what they’re calling it–you can do it with drugs, you can do it with wires, with deep-brain stimulation, if you can get that thalamus to function more it can wake up the rest of the brain, which is actually not that bad off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Isn’t it crazy how tenuous that is? Oh, my god.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, right? These little centers, deep in your brain, alerting your whole cortex, and if they get taken out, you’re in a coma. Your whole brain could be perfectly normal, but you’re essentially permanently asleep, because you don’t have the mechanism to alert or wake up your brain. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in those special cases where that’s the problem, this kind of thing can work. There was also a study where they implanted a chip basically to stimulate the thalamus and the deep structures. That also can be effective. So, eventually that may be the intervention. But, this is now using just an external, low power ultra sound focused on the thalamus to stimulate it. They described the patient being, again, minimally conscious. They would be able to do ‘’some’’ things, but not much. They occasionally would attend to external stimulation. Then after the treatment, they were essentially awake. They would look at the examiner. They did a fist bump, it was reported. One of the doctors as they were walking away they would follow commands, participate in their feeding. Still not neurologically normal. The guy still has brain damage. And was still was minimally verbal. I think would just shake his head yes and no, but would do so appropriately, but wasn’t really speaking. Again, he woke up but was not returned to neurologically intact. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do think we’re gonna see, fairly soon, these types of interventions to treat this one subgroup of patients who have enough brain function to be awake, but their deep structure’s just not working well enough to alert the brain. And all we need to do is stimulate it in order to get them to wake up. And we’re just figuring out the different techniques for doing that. Yeah, but very very cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Very cool. Maybe this could work for…, I know it’s a very specific case, but …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah. Okay, we’ll go backwards, I guess. We’ll go to number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. Bob, you think this one is the fiction, everyone else thinks this is science, and this one… is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Ahh, F-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Sorry, Bob.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: So, this was a little surprising actually, because previous research seemed to indicate that chimpanzees in particular are very competitive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yes!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: They’re greedy. You know, chimpanzees are often described as greedy, like they can’t inhibit their need to take things. They’ll steal. They’ll cheat. They’ll freeload. And they’ll compete against each other for resources. In this study, though, researchers tried to do a more open ended experiment with/in a more natural group environment. So, they had eleven chimpanzees who were involved in this study and essentially they gave them tasks to do that would result in a reward. But the task required either two chimpanzees to cooperate or three chimpanzees to cooperate; one chimpanzee could not get the reward by themselves. And they just observed their behavior. For example, did the chimpanzees work together, and did they police themselves for theft or freeloading or competition. And in fact, they did. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They engaged in a lot of policing behavior or enforcement strategies. For example, they wouldn’t expose the rewards if somebody… if a chimpanzee who had previously freeloaded was hanging around. They would say “nope, not until we get this jerk outta here. We’re not gonna do it.” You know. Sometimes the more alpha males would get involved in policing and punishing and ejecting the previous freeloaders or thieves from the area. They essentially enforced cooperation collectively as a group through punishment and these kind of behaviours. Which is what humans do. That’s essentially our system of justice is largely about, enforcing social norms and living together, cooperating, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And lots of other animals do that too. Birds, lots of birds do this. Birds will, for example, some species of birds will warn each other if predators are coming. But if one bird doesn’t participate in that, then other birds won’t warn them when it’s their turn. So, they use reciprocity as a way of awarding and punishing this behavior. So, even birds do this. So, cooperation’s actually fairly wide spread in the animal kingdom but it is ‘’not’’ unique to humans. Although some researchers have argued that our level of cooperation ‘’is’’ unique to humans. But every time somebody says that, you know, it seems like we find that chimpanzees do it too. And this is a similar case. Chimpanzees were mostly cooperating and engaging in a number of behaviors to enforce that cooperation, on the group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: So that’s nice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aww. That’s really cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That’s pretty cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhat cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 1===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: (laughs) …all this means that… a new study finds that rat whiskers&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskers Whiskers]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Wikipedia&#039;&#039;. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; contain chemical receptors that help them to smell, that is complete and total fiction. And the whiskers that themselves are basically hairs. They don’t have nerves in them. They have nerves at the base of the hair that sense the movement in the whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Yea, where you saying that there were receptors in the whiskers?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, but I made that up. That was wrong. That’s the lie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Okay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: The whiskers are just hairs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: (inaudible)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: They are like vibro- receptors at the base of the whiskers. So, the rat can sense, they get sensory information to their brain that actually helps them map the world when those whiskers move. The new study that inspired this item though was a study showing that rats can use their whiskers to sense the direction of the wind. And that helps them follow odors. So, if they’re smelling something, they need to know what the direction of the wind is blowing in in order to track that odor back to it’s source. And their whiskers help them do that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this study, very quickly, was they had rats enter an arena through a door and there were five fans. One of the fans was on and blowing. The hole at the base of that fan led to food. The hole at the base of the other four fans did not. So, if they couldn’t sense the wind at all, they would have a 20 percent chance of guessing the correct hole out of the gate. But the rats were able to do it 60 percent of the time, not just 20 percent of the time. But in order to show that they were using their whiskers, they then cut off their whiskers to see how they would do. Okay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Aww.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: But they said that the cutting off of the whiskers is painless. It’s like cutting off your hair. And they grow back. So, there’s no permanent harm done. So, they would cut off their whiskers, and then their performance dropped by 20 percent. So, they were still able to do better than chance, because there were other ways to sense the wind. But their performance decreased significantly because they no longer had their whiskers as a sensory organ. This suggests that they were sensing the wind, in part, with their whiskers. That was the study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I looked it up. I couldn’t find any evidence that they sniffed the air with their whiskers at all. I guess they could lick their whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: That’s what I was thinking. It’s exactly what I was licking, uh… thinking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If there’s stuff clinging to the whiskers, they could taste it by licking it. But the whiskers themselves don’t have receptors on them, as far as I could find. They’re just hair. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alright, Evan, give us the quote…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Skeptical Quote of the Week &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:27:14)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And until next week, this is your Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Outro404}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today I Learned: ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Steve states in this episode that Name That Logical Fallacy is a very popular segment that they don&#039;t do often enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Navigation}} &amp;lt;!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- Create category redirect pages for each segment mentioned below - https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Page categories&lt;br /&gt;
|Religion &amp;amp; Faith           = y &amp;lt;!--  Pew Belief Poll (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Pseudoscience        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Science &amp;amp; the Media        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10758</id>
		<title>SGU Episode 581</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10758"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:43:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* Anthropocene (15:01) */ added section checklist&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Editing required&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{InfoBox&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeNum     = 581&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeDate    = August 27&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2016  &amp;lt;!-- broadcast date --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeIcon    = File:Proximab2.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|previous       =                          &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to previous episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|next           =                        &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to next episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|rebecca        =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|bob            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|jay            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|evan           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|cara           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|perry          =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest1         =      &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest2         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no second guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest3         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no third guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|downloadLink   = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2016-08-27.mp3&lt;br /&gt;
|forumLink      = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,47202.0.html&lt;br /&gt;
|qowText        = Our place in the Galaxy nor our Galaxy itself is special. Darwin has further shown that humans are a natural product of evolution by means of natural selection. The discovery of extrasolar life will demonstrate that even that last claim to being special will have to be abandoned&lt;br /&gt;
|qowAuthor      = Mario Livio, astrophysiscist &amp;lt;!-- add author and link --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;You&#039;re listening to the Skeptics&#039; Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Hello, and welcome to The Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, August 24&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2016; and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SGU Going to DragonCon &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(0:27)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What&#039;s the Word &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(3:32)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* {{w|Inquiline}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== News Items ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Proxima Centauri Follow Up &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(7:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, Matt &#039;[http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ Potentially Habitable Exoplanet Confirmed Around Nearest Star!]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Universe Today&#039;&#039;. Fraser Cain. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anthropocene &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(15:01)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Yirka, Bob &#039;[http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Phys.org&#039;&#039;. Omicron Technology Limited. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene Anthropocene] on Wikipedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(New era is based on all the environmental effects humans are having on the Earth)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== World Wide Web Turns 25 &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(26:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
*  http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832 1st website ever restored to its 1992 glory: CERN&#039;s ancient page describes the &amp;quot;W3&amp;quot; project]&#039;. &#039;&#039;CBC News: Technology and Science&#039;&#039;. CBC/Radio-Canada. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Commercial at 33:33)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- reference added as convenience for transcriber. raw link can be removed if desired. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fighting Against Pseudoscience &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(34:54)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: All right, Evan, there was this article&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Grant, Richard P &#039;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2016/aug/23/scientists-losing-science-communication-skeptic-cox Why scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Science - Occam&#039;s Corner&#039;&#039;. The Guardian News. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; published recently about science communication and fighting against pseudoscience that is interesting, although I don&#039;t totally agree with it. But let&#039;s talk about it. Tell us about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah. It appeared in the Guardian, it was written by a former biologist. He turned blogger. His name is Richard Grant. And the title of his article is, “Why Scientists Are Losing the Fight to Communicate Science to the Public.” So I&#039;ll read a few things directly from the article, and then we can sort of comment on it as we go.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says that, “Scientists and science-communicators are engaged in a constant battle with ignorance. But that&#039;s an approach doomed to failure.” Okay. He says that, &amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;“A video did the rounds a couple of years ago of some self-styled skeptic disagreeing (robustly, shall we say) with an anti-vaxxer. The speaker was roundly cheered by everyone for sharing the video. He sure put that idiot in their place! Scientists love to argue, cutting through bullshit and getting to the truth of the matter is pretty much the job description.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I kinda don&#039;t necessarily fully agree with that. But he goes on to say,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;”It&#039;s not really surprising scientists and science supporters frequently take on those who dabble in homeopathy or deny anthropogenic climate change, or who oppose vaccinations or genetically modified food. Brian Cox was at it last week performing a smack down on a climate change denier on the ABC&#039;s Q&amp;amp;A discussion program. He brought graphs (knock-out blow) and yet it leaves me cold. Is this really what science communication is about? Is this informing and changing minds, winning people over to a better, brighter future? I doubt it somehow.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I had a lot of problems with this article. So I think the core point that he&#039;s making, that you can&#039;t just oppose belief in pseudoscience with facts; you have to understand the psychological motivation why people are believing that pseudoscience – sure. That&#039;s absolutely valid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, but that&#039;s also not ... new.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We all know that it&#039;s not a deficit problem. Sci-com, the reason it&#039;s not as effective as we&#039;d like to be is not because there&#039;s just not enough knowledge out there. We know that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, my problem was he&#039;s writing to science communicators, and he is about twenty years behind on the conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s how I felt. It&#039;s like, “Where have you been?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, this is like, I remember having this conversation literally twenty years ago ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: when we were really getting involved with this. And there&#039;s so much more nuance, there&#039;s so much more involved with this. I just briefly put this up on our Facebook page and said that he&#039;s actually committing the problem that he&#039;s criticizing. He&#039;s sort of talking at us and not to us, and not really addressing the issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So like, for example, he&#039;s talking as if there is only true believers, but that&#039;s not true. There&#039;s not only true believers. First of all, there are a lot of people who are in the middle, or are just undecided, or just don&#039;t really know about whatever the topic is, like vaccines. Like, hey, there are a lot of parents who are, they hear concerning things about vaccines, but they&#039;re not anti-vaxxers. And so just putting the correct information out there and opposing the anti-vaxxers has a dramatic effect on the public conversation. It&#039;s an incredibly valuable resource to people who just want to know what the facts are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And it absolutely does prevent people, I think, from going down that rabbit hole and becoming a conspiracy theorist or an anti-science denier or whatever. And also, there are con artists out there as well. That&#039;s another group. There are people who are exploiting the true believers, are exploiting the community, exploiting the beliefs, the conspiracies, whatever, just to make money, just to sell their wares, to sell their snake oil; and they absolutely need to be deconstructed and taken apart. Their claims need to be vigorously opposed. They need to be corrected. We need to have the correct factual information out there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, when dealing with groups of people who believe things for ideological, emotional, political, sociological reasons, we need to address them in the context of the reason for their belief; and we know that there&#039;s a back-fire effect. People could dig their heels in if you make them defend their ideology. Yeah, we&#039;ve been through all of this. This is what we talk about all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So his article was just naive. It was just uninformed. As I was reading it, I&#039;m like, “God, this really would have benefited if he actually spoke to a skeptic at some point who&#039;s been doing this for more than a couple of weeks.” His opinions might have had some depth to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Or a professional science communicator,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: somebody who does this for a living, and who&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: studies outcome effects, and who talks to other science communicators. It was a little bit judgy, this whole thing. What is the quote? Somewhere in here. He&#039;s like, “How often is it that science communications actually listen to the needs of their audience?” And it&#039;s like, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: the number one thing we always say in sci-com is know your audience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s the first thing every science communicator&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: talks about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right, right, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s just so dismissive to act as though we&#039;re ... I think he&#039;s really getting upset at scientists who don&#039;t communicate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Um-hmm, maybe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I don&#039;t know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s frustrating. And also,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Frustrating&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: is it fair to ask, who &#039;&#039;is&#039;&#039; this guy?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Steve chuckles)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Who is he? Really? Richard Grant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I don&#039;t know. I don&#039;t know who he is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: &#039;&#039;(Laughs)&#039;&#039; You know? He works in med – yeah, here it is. “He&#039;s a former biochemist, cell biologist, structural biologist now working in medical communications and founder of the independent blogging network, Occam&#039;s Typewriter.” Okay, so he&#039;s just like one of the many of us. Basically, instead of saying, “Here are the ways that many of us can improve,” he&#039;s saying, “Wow, you guys all suck at this.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Steve, I got the same feeling &#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039; you did. This is very incomplete, way too black and white, not recognizing the broad spectrum where people fall along the lines of science, intelligence, or understanding science. In fact, he breaks it down into – he gives basically two general reasons as to why he arrived at this conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says, “First, in general, people don&#039;t like being told what to do. When the experts tell us how to live our lives, or worse, what to think, something rebels in people, especially when there&#039;s even the merest whiff of controversy or uncertainty.” And then he says, the second point is that on the whole he doesn&#039;t think that people that object to vaccines or GMO&#039;s are at heart anti-science, some are, but most aren&#039;t. People simply want to know that someone is listening, that someone is taking their worry seriously, and that somebody cares for them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I just don&#039;t agree with that. Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: I don&#039;t know where he arrived &#039;&#039;(laughs)&#039;&#039; at that point, or how he got ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I mean,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: that conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: you know, he&#039;s armchair criticizing a community of people that he doesn&#039;t really understand. Again, I&#039;m not gonna play the card, like, “He doesn&#039;t have the cred to have an opinion.” Of course he does. But if you&#039;re going to be judgmental about what other people are doing, you&#039;d better make a good, sincere effort to understand what they&#039;re actually doing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And we do have the advantage here. The SGU is eleven years old. We&#039;ve been doing this for twenty years. This is a very interactive medium. We get dozens, dozens of emails every day. I read dozens of comments to my blog, and comments on our Facebook posts every day. We are interacting with people. We are interacting with a broad audience as well as our community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have a much better idea of what people actually think, and how they actually respond to what we say, than this guy apparently does, you know? He would have benefited tremendously from talking to somebody who&#039;s actually involved in doing this. We just got an email today. I wasn&#039;t planning on reading this, but I&#039;ll just say it&#039;s somebody who&#039;s name is Kim. I won&#039;t give her full name, who basically said, “Hey, I started out as an absolutely true believer, gullible, believed everything.” An impressive list of pseudoscience had dominated her life. Listened to our show, and then over time was totally converted into a skeptic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So he&#039;s just factually wrong, that nobody ever gets converted, because we get these emails all of the time. It&#039;s probably statistically a small number, but you can&#039;t say that it never happens. And in any case, that&#039;s not even the primary goal. The primary goal is informing people who are open to the information, who are not already true believers. So, anyway, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: unfortunately, we encounter a lot of this, this sort of armchair criticism. It is, I agree with you, Cara. It&#039;s just being judgy. He ends -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s judgy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: the way he ends, yeah, it was so terrible. He&#039;s said, “Most science communication isn&#039;t about persuading people, it&#039;s self-affirmation for those already on the inside. Look at us,” it says. “Aren&#039;t we clever? We are exclusive. We are a gang. We are a family. It&#039;s tribalism.” That&#039;s bullshit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I&#039;m not saying there isn&#039;t any of that. Of course there is. People are tribal, we do have our communities. It is a source of identity. But it is so much not that, that is not what dominates science communication and skeptical activism. It is absolutely about persuading people. We are sincerely interested in engaging in the conversation, and persuading as many people as we can; and we&#039;re constantly self-examining, and looking at published research to figure out how to better do it, and we talk about it all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Oh yeah, absolutely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, it&#039;s just, you know – he really, I think, again, as I say, especially in that piece that he was doing, he&#039;s guilty of the exact thing that he&#039;s criticizing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah! He&#039;s also so fatalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s not like he&#039;s really putting forth any better options.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He&#039;s basically, “Well, some minds will never change.” It&#039;s like, “Okay, thanks?” And then he sort of kind of throws a toogawanda under the bus to some extent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He was honestly one of the most, I think, effective and sort of non-controversial&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: medical communicators out there, you know? His writings touch people who are absolutely religious or absolutely magical thinking, and they still can read his things and not feel insulted, and take something from them. He&#039;s just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a very good writer in that way. I don&#039;t know. Everything about it is a little bit like, the worst of what it is to write a blog. You know, I think blogs are incredibly important, and they&#039;re incredibly necessary, and good blogs can be better than bad journalism; but sometimes blogs can be very lazy. There was no reporting done on this. He never spoke to anybody&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: before he wrote this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah, it&#039;s an opinion piece&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: more than anything, and, you know, I don&#039;t know what the Guardian&#039;s all about as far as putting this out as a news article, but&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s a bit annoying, &#039;cause it doesn&#039;t say “opinion,” and it doesn&#039;t say&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: No, it&#039;s not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: “blog.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It says, “Science: Occam&#039;s Corner.” Like, this is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: listed under, “Science.” Obviously, “Occam&#039;s Corner” sounds like it&#039;s his blog that he has on the Guardian, but it&#039;s not really clear that that&#039;s what somebody&#039;s reading. So anybody who comes across this who doesn&#039;t know the difference between good and bad science journalism might look at this and say, “Oh my gosh, well, this is the state of things,” not realizing that he never interviewed a single person, or did any real reporting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Ugh! Anyway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, he also makes ... one last comment on this. He makes this very typical rookie mistake. I think we&#039;ve sort of made this mistake and then fixed it because this is what the evidence shows, is the idea that people are resistant to facts in general, which is not true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Nope&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: What the evidence shows is that if you give people facts, they change their opinion. They change their opinion to meet the facts unless they are already ideologically bound to one position. So people behave differently for emotionally held ideological opinions versus things that they don&#039;t have an emotional stake in. And so you have to deal with people differently in different contexts. But he was nowhere near drilling down to that level of detail in his article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, okay let&#039;s move on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Pew Belief Poll &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(47:05)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Cara, tell us about the latest Pew poll about belief.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lipka, Michael &#039;[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/ Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Fact Tank: News in the Numbers&#039;&#039;. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Sure. So you guys may remember a report last year by Pew that detailed a really sharp decline in Christian affiliation, and a growing number of Americans reporting themselves as quote, “nones.” That was part of a really big study called the 2014 Religious Landscape study that was published in 2015. It included at the time thirty-five thousand seventy-one respondents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what the Pew research group decided to do is a follow up, a recontact study, where they found – or maybe they reached out to more. But they ultimately ended up having I think five thousand individuals who they interviewed more in depth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of those five thousand individuals, one thousand one hundred forty-nine of those define themselves as “nones,” or unaffiliated. So that was broken down into four hundred twenty-six different atheists or agnostics, and seven hundred twenty-three people who indicated that their religion is quote, “nothing in particular.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The real purpose of the recontact study was part of a bigger question about whether or not people choose new churches, when they choose new churches or houses of worship. And so they found a lot of really interesting outcomes on that. How often throughout the lifespan people go to a new church. What are the reasons that motivate them from leaving their former congregation, going to their new congregation. But within that, of course, they had all of these quote, “nones.” And so they found that there were a lot of really interesting things that came out of the nones, and they – N-O-N-E-S, not N-U-N-S – and they &#039;&#039;(Evan chuckles)&#039;&#039; dug a little bit deeper and asked a lot of questions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So again, just to be clear, as part of a big thirty-five thousand people study a few years ago, they recontacted five thousand individuals. But now I&#039;m only gonna be talking about the one thousand one hundred forty-nine individuals within that group who defined themselves as unaffiliated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So here&#039;s some interesting  stuff: The vast majority of these unaffiliated individuals say that they were actually raised as a member of a particular religion before shedding their religious identity in adulthood. So about seventy-eight percent of those people that they interviewed that said that they don&#039;t identify with a religion were raised religious, which to me seems reasonable. I mean, my personal anecdotal experience, and maybe it&#039;s because I grew up in the Bible belt (it&#039;s very rare for me to meet people who had no religion as they were growing up; much more common when I actually met people with similar viewpoints that said they had left a church earlier).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The really, I think, interesting thing here is that what they wanted to do is know why. “Why did you actually leave if you were raised religious?” And they found that there were a &#039;&#039;ton&#039;&#039; of different responses because they actually allowed for open-ended responses. So I&#039;ll read you some quotes in a bit. But there were some themes that sort of clustered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest response, which was about half (actually forty-nine percent of individuals) said that they left because they don&#039;t believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: That&#039;s pretty straight-forward. “I don&#039;t believe, so I&#039;m not gonna go any more.” About twenty percent said that they left because they disliked organized religion. About eighteen percent said that they were just religiously unsure or undecided. And then only ten percent of this group that identified as a none or unaffiliated actually self-defined as an inactive believer, meaning that they still had those beliefs, but they either are non-practicing or they&#039;re too busy to attend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So there is still within that nones group, I think, a little bit of a holdover of what I might not define as a none or an unaffiliated. So that&#039;s kind of interesting to parse it in that way. Under the “Don&#039;t believe” group, we found that many people said that they were disenchanted, and that&#039;s why they no longer believe. Some people said they just are not interested in, or they don&#039;t need religion, or that their views evolved. But that was actually a very small number. And only one percent of the individuals overall said that they went through a crisis of faith.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it does seem like it was less common that something happened in their lives that really changed their opinion. More common that, as we were just talking about, it was a slow, gradual thing that happened through learning and thinking and coming across new evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: And the internet as well, I&#039;m sure has ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, the internet probably had a big part of that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Totally fits with what I would expect. I think just largely generational. I think that they younger generations – it&#039;s funny. A lot of them, it&#039;s not like their atheist, they&#039;re so areligious &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: they&#039;re not even an atheist, you know what I mean? It&#039;s like they just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: It&#039;s not on their radar. Not on their radar.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting that “none” label&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, “None.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think that we&#039;re seeing a lot, or just, “I&#039;m religiously unaffiliated.” There is something interesting though: Remember how I said forty-nine percent of this overall group said that they just don&#039;t believe, and that&#039;s why they left. Interestingly, if they actually broke that down into the people who self-identify as atheist versus agnostic versus quote, “Nothing in particular,” actually eighty-two percent of atheists say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. Sixty-three percent of agnostics say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. And only thirty-seven percent of the “Nothing in particular” group left because they said they don&#039;t believe; which also makes sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Are you surprised by any of these findings?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: No, none of this really stuck out to me too much. I mean, it&#039;s definitely interesting. I think probably what&#039;s more interesting is the overall thing, like, Bob and I were talking about before we were on air, just the overall trends that we&#039;re seeing away from a specific religion or organized religion, and into a kind of personal formulation of spirituality, religion, or lack thereof.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does seem like we&#039;re seeing an individualistic move away from these big groups, and I do kind of find that interesting because we hear about these studies all the time, a lot of nay-sayers will send us these studies and we&#039;ll actually describe them on the show where congregations, church groups, being in a community actually is correlated with positive health benefits. And so it is kind of interesting that we&#039;re seeing more and more people sort of leaving that organized community behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And I think that&#039;s where we&#039;re starting to see some changes, even within the atheistic community. Some people still like the idea that they&#039;re unaffiliated and they don&#039;t want to be part of a group, but you&#039;re starting to see some. Atheist groups meeting and even having kind of their version of a quote, “church,” (which of course is completely secular&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: &#039;&#039;(Chuckles)&#039;&#039; Yeah, right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: but is still a group thing so that they can have that sense of community).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That&#039;s basically what secular humanism is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I do wonder a couple of things when I see these kind of numbers: One is, “Is this a long-term trend?” You know, is this the arc of human history to become less religious over time, or is this cyclical? You know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Wax and wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, you know, it&#039;s hard to get out of your time frame, and to try to look at the big picture. Certainly in the last I would say couple hundred years, it seems like the power that religion has on our society, even in the United States (which is fairly religious for a Western country),&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: it&#039;s definitely been on the wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, for sure, with, understanding evolution, just advances in scientific thinking, that&#039;s been a big thing; and like you guys said, the internet, just being able to meet people who are like-minded that maybe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: don&#039;t live down the street from you, is huge; and feeling more confident in coming out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And the second question I have is (and I think I know the answer to this), but, as religion is on the wane, are people just replacing it with other forms of belief systems? This doesn&#039;t necessarily mean that there are more people who are being rational, or who are rejecting all ideology or all belief systems. It&#039;s more that they&#039;re rejecting traditional organized religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s &#039;&#039;so&#039;&#039; true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Becoming druids? And&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: warlocks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Just new age stuff, yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I know so, in L.A., it is very rare for me to meet people who are religious. I actually forget that that&#039;s a thing. I grew up in a very religious part of the country, the Bible belt. I live in L.A. Most everyone I know is non-religious. Yet,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: But they&#039;re still spiritual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: if you dig deep - oh, they&#039;re crazy spiritual! They have&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a university out here that&#039;s basically a cult. It&#039;s like a spiritual psychology university where people are studying, like, past life interactions and energy transfer,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: and chi. The woo thinking, the medical quackery, and the, yes, quote, “Spiritual,” - and I don&#039;t want to misuse that word. I have a hard time with that word because I think it comes with a lot of baggage. I think that it&#039;s perfectly legitimate for individuals to consider themselves to be spiritual in a sort of zen kind of way; you know, finding perfundity in nature. Carl Sagan even used the term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Sure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think he can talk about spirituality in a way that it is not magical thinking, and then you can talk about spirituality in a way that&#039;s absolutely magical thinking, and we have a lot of those people here on the West Coast. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Why can&#039;t everybody be like us?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Rogues laugh)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Then we wouldn&#039;t have to exist!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aw, how sad!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We would just vanish in a puff of smoke.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If the whole world were skeptical, obviously, you can&#039;t say no to that, but it would be interesting because we would not have to exist at that point. We wouldn&#039;t need a skeptical movement if there wasn&#039;t so much irrationality in the world. I&#039;d still rather have the rational world though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Who&#039;s That Noisy &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(56:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Answer to last week: Space X landing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Membership drive at 59:14)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Absence of Evidence &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:00:16)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science or Fiction &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:09:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- I have difficulty differentiating Bob / Jay / Evan - if there are spots you can help, thanks -bshirley ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Science or Fiction music)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;It&#039;s time for Science or Fiction&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious, and I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Are you guys ready for this week? Three regular news items. &amp;lt;!--- overlapping responses ---&amp;gt; Alright, here we go. These are interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Items===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number one: a new study finds that rat whiskers contain chemical receptors to smell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Morris, Amanda &amp;quot;[http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2016/08/whiskers-help-animals-sense-winds-direction.html Whiskers Help Animals Sense the Direction of the Wind]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;McCormick School of Engineering.&#039;&#039; Northwestern University. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822155920.htm Chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition: Study challenges distinctiveness of human cooperation.]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Science News.&#039;&#039; Emory Health Sciences. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; And,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number three: scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazaro, Sage &amp;quot;[http://observer.com/2016/08/scientists-discovered-how-to-jumpstart-the-brain-of-a-coma-patient Real-Life Awakening: Scientists ‘Jumpstart’ the Brain of a Coma Patient]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Observer.&#039;&#039; Observer.com. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob, go first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Bob&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Alright, the rat whiskers, sure, that makes sense, i mean, would you call it “smell”? I could see that. I could see that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Un, the second, let’s see… chimpanzees choosing cooperation over competition, five to one, that’s… that kinda goes against what I’ve been led to believe about how… if you said bonobos I would absolutely agree with you, but chimpanzees are definitely more on the uncooperative/irascible&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irascible Wiktionary:irascible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; scale.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: …irascible… (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Scientist, let’s see, number three, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultrasound. I just kinda love brain stimulation. I think it, i’ve heard, I know it’s not, you know, it’s not, it doesn’t necessarily do what they’ve been claiming over these years but I think, I still have read some interesting experiments that have surprising effects, so I’ll tentatively go with that one. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um, cooperation over competition, five to one, alright I’m gonna say the &#039;&#039;&#039;chimpanzees is fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Okay. Jay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Jay&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: This one about the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors… what I can’t figure out is how, how is the chemical receptor in the rat whisker communicating back to the brain? There’s no electrical type nerve connection from the organ, the receptor, to the brain. Unless it’s… i don’t know. I just don’t see how that can possibly be. It seems completely BS to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second one here, researchers find chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition. I don’t know about the rate of five to one, but I do agree with that and I think that makes a lot of sense. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And this last one, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating the brain, the thing that Bob has hidden in a drawer next to his bed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Apparently, it’s not hidden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: I just wanted to make sure Cara was awake, that’s all. That’s why I said that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I’m awake. I’m awake.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘’(laughter)’’&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Stimulating the brain brings people from, …minimally conscious to fully conscious with a low power ultra sound. I agree because this reminds me what it’s like when I wake up in the morning, and that’s my coffee. So, sure, this is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I just &#039;&#039;&#039;don’t think the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039; and the chemical receptors, and them helping them smell thing. No. Nope, I don’t agree. That’s fake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: Ok. Evan?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Evan&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: So, the patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious. I suppose those… minimally conscious is a technical state of some sort. Not a coma? Or like…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, it ‘’is’’ a coma, but minimally conscious is pretty self explanatory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Okay. But now, you stimulate the brain with a low powered ulrta sound? So, how did they do that? Or, why does that, why does a low powered ultra sound have that ability to that? I don’t really understand it. This one’s tricky.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next one, the middle one, chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. I think that one will be science. I don’t think there’s any problem with that ratio. It may ‘’seem’’ high, but, you know, chimpanzees are very cool. Very cool. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How closely related in our DNA are we to chimpanzees? Ninety …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: 98 percent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: It depends on how you count it. There’s no one objective answer to that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: yeah, but it’s very high.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhere between 96 and 98 percent is the usual figure that the scientists give.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: alright, fair enough, I think people, although they’re competitive also i think we ‘’do’’ have a lot of cooperation, so I think we kinda mirror that. I think we’re okay there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And the last one is the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors. So, I’m gonna… this one I’m having a problem with because, I’ll go back to what we were talking about before with the logical fallacies &amp;lt;!--- link https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_581#Name_That_Logical_Fallacy:_Absence_of_Evidence_.281:00:16.29 ---&amp;gt;, isn’t this something we would have figured out maybe a ‘’long’’ time ago? You know, rat whiskers. It’s not like some hidden thing that we weren’t able to… what prevented us from determining this a long time ago? So, I think we would have found the evidence for that a while ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, therefore I think I’ll agree with Jay, I think &#039;&#039;&#039;the rat whisker one is gonna turn out to be the fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Alright. And, Cara…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cara&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think I’m torn between rat whiskers and the consciousness situation, so I’ll start with the chimpanzees. It seems reasonable to me. I’ve seen ‘’a lot’’ of primate studies, going all the way down to monkeys, not even apes, that show high rates of competition and of helping get food or share things in order to maximize the benefit for the group. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do rat whiskers contain a chemical receptor that help with sm… well I’ll disagree with jay because that is what a whisker ‘’is’’. It is an organ. It’s a sensory organ that actually helps with probe reception, or it helps them navigate their environment. So, if you cut certain whiskers you can do all kinds of neurological studies where you change some of the representation on the sensory cortex. So there ‘’is’’ a direct connection between whiskers and the brain, but ‘’chemical’’ receptors is interesting to me because I don’t think they have a physical way to bind anything. I mean, that would be what the receptor is. But it would be crazy if they just now found that because rat whiskers… or rats are such a common laboratory animal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And then scientists report a case where a patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious – Okay, so they woke up. – after using low power ultra sound. I think I’ve seen cases where consciousness is kind of sparked with thalamic stimulation. It’d be crazy if you could do this from outside the brain, and usually ultra sound is delivered from outside. So, I mean, I want this one to be true. So maybe – whuah, this is hard – I’m gonna hope that the ultrasound is also science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And that the &#039;&#039;&#039;fiction is the chemical receptors on the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039;. Because I just think they would have found that sooner. That would be my reasoning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 3===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Okay (1:19:45)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, you all agree with the third one, so let’s start there. Scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound. You all think this one is science. And this one is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(many): Yeah, baby.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yay. Wow, that’s so cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob: And Cara, great job. You pretty much nailed a lot of the details there. This was thalamic stimulation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, it was!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: The thalamus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: The thalmus. First of all, I was very careful in how I worded this. This was a single case. And they can’t prove that the stimulation is what did it, just that the patient woke up after they stimulated them. But, the timing ‘’does’’ look good, but they’ll obviously have to replicate it to see how generalizable this effect is, and if the effect is actually real. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, let me throw in some caveats here. First of all, this is a patient who was in a coma because of trauma. Trauma patients have a much better prognosis that patients who, for example, have diffuse anoxic ischemic injury.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Arciniegas, Dr. David B. &amp;quot;[http://www.internationalbrain.org/articles/hypoxicischemic-brain-injury/ Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;International Brain Injury Association&#039;&#039;. InternationalBrain.org. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; So, if your whole brain is injured because of lack of oxygen, these types of things generally don’t work. But if you have trauma to the brain, there may be pieces of the brain which work and other pieces to the brain that don’t work. And this is sort of a classic scenario where probably the cortex was relatively spared, and was still pretty functional, but the cortex just wasn’t being activated by the deeper structures like the thalamus. And so, if you could get the thalamus, if you could kick start or jump start the thalamus–which is what they’re calling it–you can do it with drugs, you can do it with wires, with deep-brain stimulation, if you can get that thalamus to function more it can wake up the rest of the brain, which is actually not that bad off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Isn’t it crazy how tenuous that is? Oh, my god.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, right? These little centers, deep in your brain, alerting your whole cortex, and if they get taken out, you’re in a coma. Your whole brain could be perfectly normal, but you’re essentially permanently asleep, because you don’t have the mechanism to alert or wake up your brain. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in those special cases where that’s the problem, this kind of thing can work. There was also a study where they implanted a chip basically to stimulate the thalamus and the deep structures. That also can be effective. So, eventually that may be the intervention. But, this is now using just an external, low power ultra sound focused on the thalamus to stimulate it. They described the patient being, again, minimally conscious. They would be able to do ‘’some’’ things, but not much. They occasionally would attend to external stimulation. Then after the treatment, they were essentially awake. They would look at the examiner. They did a fist bump, it was reported. One of the doctors as they were walking away they would follow commands, participate in their feeding. Still not neurologically normal. The guy still has brain damage. And was still was minimally verbal. I think would just shake his head yes and no, but would do so appropriately, but wasn’t really speaking. Again, he woke up but was not returned to neurologically intact. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do think we’re gonna see, fairly soon, these types of interventions to treat this one subgroup of patients who have enough brain function to be awake, but their deep structure’s just not working well enough to alert the brain. And all we need to do is stimulate it in order to get them to wake up. And we’re just figuring out the different techniques for doing that. Yeah, but very very cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Very cool. Maybe this could work for…, I know it’s a very specific case, but …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah. Okay, we’ll go backwards, I guess. We’ll go to number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. Bob, you think this one is the fiction, everyone else thinks this is science, and this one… is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Ahh, F-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Sorry, Bob.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: So, this was a little surprising actually, because previous research seemed to indicate that chimpanzees in particular are very competitive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yes!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: They’re greedy. You know, chimpanzees are often described as greedy, like they can’t inhibit their need to take things. They’ll steal. They’ll cheat. They’ll freeload. And they’ll compete against each other for resources. In this study, though, researchers tried to do a more open ended experiment with/in a more natural group environment. So, they had eleven chimpanzees who were involved in this study and essentially they gave them tasks to do that would result in a reward. But the task required either two chimpanzees to cooperate or three chimpanzees to cooperate; one chimpanzee could not get the reward by themselves. And they just observed their behavior. For example, did the chimpanzees work together, and did they police themselves for theft or freeloading or competition. And in fact, they did. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They engaged in a lot of policing behavior or enforcement strategies. For example, they wouldn’t expose the rewards if somebody… if a chimpanzee who had previously freeloaded was hanging around. They would say “nope, not until we get this jerk outta here. We’re not gonna do it.” You know. Sometimes the more alpha males would get involved in policing and punishing and ejecting the previous freeloaders or thieves from the area. They essentially enforced cooperation collectively as a group through punishment and these kind of behaviours. Which is what humans do. That’s essentially our system of justice is largely about, enforcing social norms and living together, cooperating, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And lots of other animals do that too. Birds, lots of birds do this. Birds will, for example, some species of birds will warn each other if predators are coming. But if one bird doesn’t participate in that, then other birds won’t warn them when it’s their turn. So, they use reciprocity as a way of awarding and punishing this behavior. So, even birds do this. So, cooperation’s actually fairly wide spread in the animal kingdom but it is ‘’not’’ unique to humans. Although some researchers have argued that our level of cooperation ‘’is’’ unique to humans. But every time somebody says that, you know, it seems like we find that chimpanzees do it too. And this is a similar case. Chimpanzees were mostly cooperating and engaging in a number of behaviors to enforce that cooperation, on the group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: So that’s nice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aww. That’s really cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That’s pretty cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhat cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 1===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: (laughs) …all this means that… a new study finds that rat whiskers&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskers Whiskers]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Wikipedia&#039;&#039;. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; contain chemical receptors that help them to smell, that is complete and total fiction. And the whiskers that themselves are basically hairs. They don’t have nerves in them. They have nerves at the base of the hair that sense the movement in the whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Yea, where you saying that there were receptors in the whiskers?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, but I made that up. That was wrong. That’s the lie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Okay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: The whiskers are just hairs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: (inaudible)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: They are like vibro- receptors at the base of the whiskers. So, the rat can sense, they get sensory information to their brain that actually helps them map the world when those whiskers move. The new study that inspired this item though was a study showing that rats can use their whiskers to sense the direction of the wind. And that helps them follow odors. So, if they’re smelling something, they need to know what the direction of the wind is blowing in in order to track that odor back to it’s source. And their whiskers help them do that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this study, very quickly, was they had rats enter an arena through a door and there were five fans. One of the fans was on and blowing. The hole at the base of that fan led to food. The hole at the base of the other four fans did not. So, if they couldn’t sense the wind at all, they would have a 20 percent chance of guessing the correct hole out of the gate. But the rats were able to do it 60 percent of the time, not just 20 percent of the time. But in order to show that they were using their whiskers, they then cut off their whiskers to see how they would do. Okay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Aww.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: But they said that the cutting off of the whiskers is painless. It’s like cutting off your hair. And they grow back. So, there’s no permanent harm done. So, they would cut off their whiskers, and then their performance dropped by 20 percent. So, they were still able to do better than chance, because there were other ways to sense the wind. But their performance decreased significantly because they no longer had their whiskers as a sensory organ. This suggests that they were sensing the wind, in part, with their whiskers. That was the study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I looked it up. I couldn’t find any evidence that they sniffed the air with their whiskers at all. I guess they could lick their whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: That’s what I was thinking. It’s exactly what I was licking, uh… thinking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If there’s stuff clinging to the whiskers, they could taste it by licking it. But the whiskers themselves don’t have receptors on them, as far as I could find. They’re just hair. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alright, Evan, give us the quote…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Skeptical Quote of the Week &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:27:14)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And until next week, this is your Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Outro404}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today I Learned: ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Steve states in this episode that Name That Logical Fallacy is a very popular segment that they don&#039;t do often enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Navigation}} &amp;lt;!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- Create category redirect pages for each segment mentioned below - https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Page categories&lt;br /&gt;
|Religion &amp;amp; Faith           = y &amp;lt;!--  Pew Belief Poll (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Pseudoscience        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Science &amp;amp; the Media        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10757</id>
		<title>SGU Episode 581</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10757"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:40:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* What&amp;#039;s the Word (3:32) */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Editing required&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{InfoBox&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeNum     = 581&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeDate    = August 27&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2016  &amp;lt;!-- broadcast date --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeIcon    = File:Proximab2.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|previous       =                          &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to previous episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|next           =                        &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to next episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|rebecca        =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|bob            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|jay            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|evan           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|cara           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|perry          =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest1         =      &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest2         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no second guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest3         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no third guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|downloadLink   = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2016-08-27.mp3&lt;br /&gt;
|forumLink      = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,47202.0.html&lt;br /&gt;
|qowText        = Our place in the Galaxy nor our Galaxy itself is special. Darwin has further shown that humans are a natural product of evolution by means of natural selection. The discovery of extrasolar life will demonstrate that even that last claim to being special will have to be abandoned&lt;br /&gt;
|qowAuthor      = Mario Livio, astrophysiscist &amp;lt;!-- add author and link --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;You&#039;re listening to the Skeptics&#039; Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Hello, and welcome to The Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, August 24&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2016; and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SGU Going to DragonCon &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(0:27)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What&#039;s the Word &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(3:32)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* {{w|Inquiline}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== News Items ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Proxima Centauri Follow Up &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(7:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, Matt &#039;[http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ Potentially Habitable Exoplanet Confirmed Around Nearest Star!]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Universe Today&#039;&#039;. Fraser Cain. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anthropocene &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(15:01)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Yirka, Bob &#039;[http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Phys.org&#039;&#039;. Omicron Technology Limited. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene Anthropocene] on Wikipedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(New era is based on all the environmental effects humans are having on the Earth)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== World Wide Web Turns 25 &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(26:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
*  http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832 1st website ever restored to its 1992 glory: CERN&#039;s ancient page describes the &amp;quot;W3&amp;quot; project]&#039;. &#039;&#039;CBC News: Technology and Science&#039;&#039;. CBC/Radio-Canada. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Commercial at 33:33)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- reference added as convenience for transcriber. raw link can be removed if desired. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fighting Against Pseudoscience &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(34:54)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: All right, Evan, there was this article&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Grant, Richard P &#039;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2016/aug/23/scientists-losing-science-communication-skeptic-cox Why scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Science - Occam&#039;s Corner&#039;&#039;. The Guardian News. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; published recently about science communication and fighting against pseudoscience that is interesting, although I don&#039;t totally agree with it. But let&#039;s talk about it. Tell us about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah. It appeared in the Guardian, it was written by a former biologist. He turned blogger. His name is Richard Grant. And the title of his article is, “Why Scientists Are Losing the Fight to Communicate Science to the Public.” So I&#039;ll read a few things directly from the article, and then we can sort of comment on it as we go.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says that, “Scientists and science-communicators are engaged in a constant battle with ignorance. But that&#039;s an approach doomed to failure.” Okay. He says that, &amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;“A video did the rounds a couple of years ago of some self-styled skeptic disagreeing (robustly, shall we say) with an anti-vaxxer. The speaker was roundly cheered by everyone for sharing the video. He sure put that idiot in their place! Scientists love to argue, cutting through bullshit and getting to the truth of the matter is pretty much the job description.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I kinda don&#039;t necessarily fully agree with that. But he goes on to say,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;”It&#039;s not really surprising scientists and science supporters frequently take on those who dabble in homeopathy or deny anthropogenic climate change, or who oppose vaccinations or genetically modified food. Brian Cox was at it last week performing a smack down on a climate change denier on the ABC&#039;s Q&amp;amp;A discussion program. He brought graphs (knock-out blow) and yet it leaves me cold. Is this really what science communication is about? Is this informing and changing minds, winning people over to a better, brighter future? I doubt it somehow.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I had a lot of problems with this article. So I think the core point that he&#039;s making, that you can&#039;t just oppose belief in pseudoscience with facts; you have to understand the psychological motivation why people are believing that pseudoscience – sure. That&#039;s absolutely valid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, but that&#039;s also not ... new.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We all know that it&#039;s not a deficit problem. Sci-com, the reason it&#039;s not as effective as we&#039;d like to be is not because there&#039;s just not enough knowledge out there. We know that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, my problem was he&#039;s writing to science communicators, and he is about twenty years behind on the conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s how I felt. It&#039;s like, “Where have you been?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, this is like, I remember having this conversation literally twenty years ago ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: when we were really getting involved with this. And there&#039;s so much more nuance, there&#039;s so much more involved with this. I just briefly put this up on our Facebook page and said that he&#039;s actually committing the problem that he&#039;s criticizing. He&#039;s sort of talking at us and not to us, and not really addressing the issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So like, for example, he&#039;s talking as if there is only true believers, but that&#039;s not true. There&#039;s not only true believers. First of all, there are a lot of people who are in the middle, or are just undecided, or just don&#039;t really know about whatever the topic is, like vaccines. Like, hey, there are a lot of parents who are, they hear concerning things about vaccines, but they&#039;re not anti-vaxxers. And so just putting the correct information out there and opposing the anti-vaxxers has a dramatic effect on the public conversation. It&#039;s an incredibly valuable resource to people who just want to know what the facts are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And it absolutely does prevent people, I think, from going down that rabbit hole and becoming a conspiracy theorist or an anti-science denier or whatever. And also, there are con artists out there as well. That&#039;s another group. There are people who are exploiting the true believers, are exploiting the community, exploiting the beliefs, the conspiracies, whatever, just to make money, just to sell their wares, to sell their snake oil; and they absolutely need to be deconstructed and taken apart. Their claims need to be vigorously opposed. They need to be corrected. We need to have the correct factual information out there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, when dealing with groups of people who believe things for ideological, emotional, political, sociological reasons, we need to address them in the context of the reason for their belief; and we know that there&#039;s a back-fire effect. People could dig their heels in if you make them defend their ideology. Yeah, we&#039;ve been through all of this. This is what we talk about all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So his article was just naive. It was just uninformed. As I was reading it, I&#039;m like, “God, this really would have benefited if he actually spoke to a skeptic at some point who&#039;s been doing this for more than a couple of weeks.” His opinions might have had some depth to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Or a professional science communicator,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: somebody who does this for a living, and who&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: studies outcome effects, and who talks to other science communicators. It was a little bit judgy, this whole thing. What is the quote? Somewhere in here. He&#039;s like, “How often is it that science communications actually listen to the needs of their audience?” And it&#039;s like, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: the number one thing we always say in sci-com is know your audience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s the first thing every science communicator&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: talks about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right, right, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s just so dismissive to act as though we&#039;re ... I think he&#039;s really getting upset at scientists who don&#039;t communicate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Um-hmm, maybe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I don&#039;t know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s frustrating. And also,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Frustrating&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: is it fair to ask, who &#039;&#039;is&#039;&#039; this guy?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Steve chuckles)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Who is he? Really? Richard Grant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I don&#039;t know. I don&#039;t know who he is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: &#039;&#039;(Laughs)&#039;&#039; You know? He works in med – yeah, here it is. “He&#039;s a former biochemist, cell biologist, structural biologist now working in medical communications and founder of the independent blogging network, Occam&#039;s Typewriter.” Okay, so he&#039;s just like one of the many of us. Basically, instead of saying, “Here are the ways that many of us can improve,” he&#039;s saying, “Wow, you guys all suck at this.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Steve, I got the same feeling &#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039; you did. This is very incomplete, way too black and white, not recognizing the broad spectrum where people fall along the lines of science, intelligence, or understanding science. In fact, he breaks it down into – he gives basically two general reasons as to why he arrived at this conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says, “First, in general, people don&#039;t like being told what to do. When the experts tell us how to live our lives, or worse, what to think, something rebels in people, especially when there&#039;s even the merest whiff of controversy or uncertainty.” And then he says, the second point is that on the whole he doesn&#039;t think that people that object to vaccines or GMO&#039;s are at heart anti-science, some are, but most aren&#039;t. People simply want to know that someone is listening, that someone is taking their worry seriously, and that somebody cares for them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I just don&#039;t agree with that. Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: I don&#039;t know where he arrived &#039;&#039;(laughs)&#039;&#039; at that point, or how he got ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I mean,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: that conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: you know, he&#039;s armchair criticizing a community of people that he doesn&#039;t really understand. Again, I&#039;m not gonna play the card, like, “He doesn&#039;t have the cred to have an opinion.” Of course he does. But if you&#039;re going to be judgmental about what other people are doing, you&#039;d better make a good, sincere effort to understand what they&#039;re actually doing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And we do have the advantage here. The SGU is eleven years old. We&#039;ve been doing this for twenty years. This is a very interactive medium. We get dozens, dozens of emails every day. I read dozens of comments to my blog, and comments on our Facebook posts every day. We are interacting with people. We are interacting with a broad audience as well as our community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have a much better idea of what people actually think, and how they actually respond to what we say, than this guy apparently does, you know? He would have benefited tremendously from talking to somebody who&#039;s actually involved in doing this. We just got an email today. I wasn&#039;t planning on reading this, but I&#039;ll just say it&#039;s somebody who&#039;s name is Kim. I won&#039;t give her full name, who basically said, “Hey, I started out as an absolutely true believer, gullible, believed everything.” An impressive list of pseudoscience had dominated her life. Listened to our show, and then over time was totally converted into a skeptic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So he&#039;s just factually wrong, that nobody ever gets converted, because we get these emails all of the time. It&#039;s probably statistically a small number, but you can&#039;t say that it never happens. And in any case, that&#039;s not even the primary goal. The primary goal is informing people who are open to the information, who are not already true believers. So, anyway, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: unfortunately, we encounter a lot of this, this sort of armchair criticism. It is, I agree with you, Cara. It&#039;s just being judgy. He ends -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s judgy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: the way he ends, yeah, it was so terrible. He&#039;s said, “Most science communication isn&#039;t about persuading people, it&#039;s self-affirmation for those already on the inside. Look at us,” it says. “Aren&#039;t we clever? We are exclusive. We are a gang. We are a family. It&#039;s tribalism.” That&#039;s bullshit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I&#039;m not saying there isn&#039;t any of that. Of course there is. People are tribal, we do have our communities. It is a source of identity. But it is so much not that, that is not what dominates science communication and skeptical activism. It is absolutely about persuading people. We are sincerely interested in engaging in the conversation, and persuading as many people as we can; and we&#039;re constantly self-examining, and looking at published research to figure out how to better do it, and we talk about it all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Oh yeah, absolutely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, it&#039;s just, you know – he really, I think, again, as I say, especially in that piece that he was doing, he&#039;s guilty of the exact thing that he&#039;s criticizing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah! He&#039;s also so fatalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s not like he&#039;s really putting forth any better options.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He&#039;s basically, “Well, some minds will never change.” It&#039;s like, “Okay, thanks?” And then he sort of kind of throws a toogawanda under the bus to some extent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He was honestly one of the most, I think, effective and sort of non-controversial&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: medical communicators out there, you know? His writings touch people who are absolutely religious or absolutely magical thinking, and they still can read his things and not feel insulted, and take something from them. He&#039;s just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a very good writer in that way. I don&#039;t know. Everything about it is a little bit like, the worst of what it is to write a blog. You know, I think blogs are incredibly important, and they&#039;re incredibly necessary, and good blogs can be better than bad journalism; but sometimes blogs can be very lazy. There was no reporting done on this. He never spoke to anybody&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: before he wrote this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah, it&#039;s an opinion piece&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: more than anything, and, you know, I don&#039;t know what the Guardian&#039;s all about as far as putting this out as a news article, but&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s a bit annoying, &#039;cause it doesn&#039;t say “opinion,” and it doesn&#039;t say&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: No, it&#039;s not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: “blog.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It says, “Science: Occam&#039;s Corner.” Like, this is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: listed under, “Science.” Obviously, “Occam&#039;s Corner” sounds like it&#039;s his blog that he has on the Guardian, but it&#039;s not really clear that that&#039;s what somebody&#039;s reading. So anybody who comes across this who doesn&#039;t know the difference between good and bad science journalism might look at this and say, “Oh my gosh, well, this is the state of things,” not realizing that he never interviewed a single person, or did any real reporting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Ugh! Anyway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, he also makes ... one last comment on this. He makes this very typical rookie mistake. I think we&#039;ve sort of made this mistake and then fixed it because this is what the evidence shows, is the idea that people are resistant to facts in general, which is not true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Nope&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: What the evidence shows is that if you give people facts, they change their opinion. They change their opinion to meet the facts unless they are already ideologically bound to one position. So people behave differently for emotionally held ideological opinions versus things that they don&#039;t have an emotional stake in. And so you have to deal with people differently in different contexts. But he was nowhere near drilling down to that level of detail in his article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, okay let&#039;s move on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Pew Belief Poll &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(47:05)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Cara, tell us about the latest Pew poll about belief.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lipka, Michael &#039;[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/ Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Fact Tank: News in the Numbers&#039;&#039;. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Sure. So you guys may remember a report last year by Pew that detailed a really sharp decline in Christian affiliation, and a growing number of Americans reporting themselves as quote, “nones.” That was part of a really big study called the 2014 Religious Landscape study that was published in 2015. It included at the time thirty-five thousand seventy-one respondents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what the Pew research group decided to do is a follow up, a recontact study, where they found – or maybe they reached out to more. But they ultimately ended up having I think five thousand individuals who they interviewed more in depth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of those five thousand individuals, one thousand one hundred forty-nine of those define themselves as “nones,” or unaffiliated. So that was broken down into four hundred twenty-six different atheists or agnostics, and seven hundred twenty-three people who indicated that their religion is quote, “nothing in particular.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The real purpose of the recontact study was part of a bigger question about whether or not people choose new churches, when they choose new churches or houses of worship. And so they found a lot of really interesting outcomes on that. How often throughout the lifespan people go to a new church. What are the reasons that motivate them from leaving their former congregation, going to their new congregation. But within that, of course, they had all of these quote, “nones.” And so they found that there were a lot of really interesting things that came out of the nones, and they – N-O-N-E-S, not N-U-N-S – and they &#039;&#039;(Evan chuckles)&#039;&#039; dug a little bit deeper and asked a lot of questions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So again, just to be clear, as part of a big thirty-five thousand people study a few years ago, they recontacted five thousand individuals. But now I&#039;m only gonna be talking about the one thousand one hundred forty-nine individuals within that group who defined themselves as unaffiliated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So here&#039;s some interesting  stuff: The vast majority of these unaffiliated individuals say that they were actually raised as a member of a particular religion before shedding their religious identity in adulthood. So about seventy-eight percent of those people that they interviewed that said that they don&#039;t identify with a religion were raised religious, which to me seems reasonable. I mean, my personal anecdotal experience, and maybe it&#039;s because I grew up in the Bible belt (it&#039;s very rare for me to meet people who had no religion as they were growing up; much more common when I actually met people with similar viewpoints that said they had left a church earlier).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The really, I think, interesting thing here is that what they wanted to do is know why. “Why did you actually leave if you were raised religious?” And they found that there were a &#039;&#039;ton&#039;&#039; of different responses because they actually allowed for open-ended responses. So I&#039;ll read you some quotes in a bit. But there were some themes that sort of clustered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest response, which was about half (actually forty-nine percent of individuals) said that they left because they don&#039;t believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: That&#039;s pretty straight-forward. “I don&#039;t believe, so I&#039;m not gonna go any more.” About twenty percent said that they left because they disliked organized religion. About eighteen percent said that they were just religiously unsure or undecided. And then only ten percent of this group that identified as a none or unaffiliated actually self-defined as an inactive believer, meaning that they still had those beliefs, but they either are non-practicing or they&#039;re too busy to attend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So there is still within that nones group, I think, a little bit of a holdover of what I might not define as a none or an unaffiliated. So that&#039;s kind of interesting to parse it in that way. Under the “Don&#039;t believe” group, we found that many people said that they were disenchanted, and that&#039;s why they no longer believe. Some people said they just are not interested in, or they don&#039;t need religion, or that their views evolved. But that was actually a very small number. And only one percent of the individuals overall said that they went through a crisis of faith.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it does seem like it was less common that something happened in their lives that really changed their opinion. More common that, as we were just talking about, it was a slow, gradual thing that happened through learning and thinking and coming across new evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: And the internet as well, I&#039;m sure has ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, the internet probably had a big part of that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Totally fits with what I would expect. I think just largely generational. I think that they younger generations – it&#039;s funny. A lot of them, it&#039;s not like their atheist, they&#039;re so areligious &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: they&#039;re not even an atheist, you know what I mean? It&#039;s like they just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: It&#039;s not on their radar. Not on their radar.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting that “none” label&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, “None.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think that we&#039;re seeing a lot, or just, “I&#039;m religiously unaffiliated.” There is something interesting though: Remember how I said forty-nine percent of this overall group said that they just don&#039;t believe, and that&#039;s why they left. Interestingly, if they actually broke that down into the people who self-identify as atheist versus agnostic versus quote, “Nothing in particular,” actually eighty-two percent of atheists say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. Sixty-three percent of agnostics say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. And only thirty-seven percent of the “Nothing in particular” group left because they said they don&#039;t believe; which also makes sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Are you surprised by any of these findings?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: No, none of this really stuck out to me too much. I mean, it&#039;s definitely interesting. I think probably what&#039;s more interesting is the overall thing, like, Bob and I were talking about before we were on air, just the overall trends that we&#039;re seeing away from a specific religion or organized religion, and into a kind of personal formulation of spirituality, religion, or lack thereof.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does seem like we&#039;re seeing an individualistic move away from these big groups, and I do kind of find that interesting because we hear about these studies all the time, a lot of nay-sayers will send us these studies and we&#039;ll actually describe them on the show where congregations, church groups, being in a community actually is correlated with positive health benefits. And so it is kind of interesting that we&#039;re seeing more and more people sort of leaving that organized community behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And I think that&#039;s where we&#039;re starting to see some changes, even within the atheistic community. Some people still like the idea that they&#039;re unaffiliated and they don&#039;t want to be part of a group, but you&#039;re starting to see some. Atheist groups meeting and even having kind of their version of a quote, “church,” (which of course is completely secular&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: &#039;&#039;(Chuckles)&#039;&#039; Yeah, right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: but is still a group thing so that they can have that sense of community).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That&#039;s basically what secular humanism is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I do wonder a couple of things when I see these kind of numbers: One is, “Is this a long-term trend?” You know, is this the arc of human history to become less religious over time, or is this cyclical? You know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Wax and wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, you know, it&#039;s hard to get out of your time frame, and to try to look at the big picture. Certainly in the last I would say couple hundred years, it seems like the power that religion has on our society, even in the United States (which is fairly religious for a Western country),&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: it&#039;s definitely been on the wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, for sure, with, understanding evolution, just advances in scientific thinking, that&#039;s been a big thing; and like you guys said, the internet, just being able to meet people who are like-minded that maybe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: don&#039;t live down the street from you, is huge; and feeling more confident in coming out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And the second question I have is (and I think I know the answer to this), but, as religion is on the wane, are people just replacing it with other forms of belief systems? This doesn&#039;t necessarily mean that there are more people who are being rational, or who are rejecting all ideology or all belief systems. It&#039;s more that they&#039;re rejecting traditional organized religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s &#039;&#039;so&#039;&#039; true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Becoming druids? And&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: warlocks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Just new age stuff, yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I know so, in L.A., it is very rare for me to meet people who are religious. I actually forget that that&#039;s a thing. I grew up in a very religious part of the country, the Bible belt. I live in L.A. Most everyone I know is non-religious. Yet,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: But they&#039;re still spiritual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: if you dig deep - oh, they&#039;re crazy spiritual! They have&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a university out here that&#039;s basically a cult. It&#039;s like a spiritual psychology university where people are studying, like, past life interactions and energy transfer,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: and chi. The woo thinking, the medical quackery, and the, yes, quote, “Spiritual,” - and I don&#039;t want to misuse that word. I have a hard time with that word because I think it comes with a lot of baggage. I think that it&#039;s perfectly legitimate for individuals to consider themselves to be spiritual in a sort of zen kind of way; you know, finding perfundity in nature. Carl Sagan even used the term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Sure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think he can talk about spirituality in a way that it is not magical thinking, and then you can talk about spirituality in a way that&#039;s absolutely magical thinking, and we have a lot of those people here on the West Coast. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Why can&#039;t everybody be like us?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Rogues laugh)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Then we wouldn&#039;t have to exist!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aw, how sad!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We would just vanish in a puff of smoke.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If the whole world were skeptical, obviously, you can&#039;t say no to that, but it would be interesting because we would not have to exist at that point. We wouldn&#039;t need a skeptical movement if there wasn&#039;t so much irrationality in the world. I&#039;d still rather have the rational world though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Who&#039;s That Noisy &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(56:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Answer to last week: Space X landing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Membership drive at 59:14)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Absence of Evidence &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:00:16)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science or Fiction &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:09:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- I have difficulty differentiating Bob / Jay / Evan - if there are spots you can help, thanks -bshirley ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Science or Fiction music)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;It&#039;s time for Science or Fiction&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious, and I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Are you guys ready for this week? Three regular news items. &amp;lt;!--- overlapping responses ---&amp;gt; Alright, here we go. These are interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Items===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number one: a new study finds that rat whiskers contain chemical receptors to smell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Morris, Amanda &amp;quot;[http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2016/08/whiskers-help-animals-sense-winds-direction.html Whiskers Help Animals Sense the Direction of the Wind]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;McCormick School of Engineering.&#039;&#039; Northwestern University. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822155920.htm Chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition: Study challenges distinctiveness of human cooperation.]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Science News.&#039;&#039; Emory Health Sciences. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; And,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number three: scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazaro, Sage &amp;quot;[http://observer.com/2016/08/scientists-discovered-how-to-jumpstart-the-brain-of-a-coma-patient Real-Life Awakening: Scientists ‘Jumpstart’ the Brain of a Coma Patient]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Observer.&#039;&#039; Observer.com. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob, go first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Bob&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Alright, the rat whiskers, sure, that makes sense, i mean, would you call it “smell”? I could see that. I could see that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Un, the second, let’s see… chimpanzees choosing cooperation over competition, five to one, that’s… that kinda goes against what I’ve been led to believe about how… if you said bonobos I would absolutely agree with you, but chimpanzees are definitely more on the uncooperative/irascible&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irascible Wiktionary:irascible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; scale.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: …irascible… (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Scientist, let’s see, number three, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultrasound. I just kinda love brain stimulation. I think it, i’ve heard, I know it’s not, you know, it’s not, it doesn’t necessarily do what they’ve been claiming over these years but I think, I still have read some interesting experiments that have surprising effects, so I’ll tentatively go with that one. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um, cooperation over competition, five to one, alright I’m gonna say the &#039;&#039;&#039;chimpanzees is fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Okay. Jay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Jay&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: This one about the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors… what I can’t figure out is how, how is the chemical receptor in the rat whisker communicating back to the brain? There’s no electrical type nerve connection from the organ, the receptor, to the brain. Unless it’s… i don’t know. I just don’t see how that can possibly be. It seems completely BS to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second one here, researchers find chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition. I don’t know about the rate of five to one, but I do agree with that and I think that makes a lot of sense. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And this last one, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating the brain, the thing that Bob has hidden in a drawer next to his bed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Apparently, it’s not hidden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: I just wanted to make sure Cara was awake, that’s all. That’s why I said that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I’m awake. I’m awake.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘’(laughter)’’&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Stimulating the brain brings people from, …minimally conscious to fully conscious with a low power ultra sound. I agree because this reminds me what it’s like when I wake up in the morning, and that’s my coffee. So, sure, this is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I just &#039;&#039;&#039;don’t think the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039; and the chemical receptors, and them helping them smell thing. No. Nope, I don’t agree. That’s fake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: Ok. Evan?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Evan&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: So, the patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious. I suppose those… minimally conscious is a technical state of some sort. Not a coma? Or like…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, it ‘’is’’ a coma, but minimally conscious is pretty self explanatory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Okay. But now, you stimulate the brain with a low powered ulrta sound? So, how did they do that? Or, why does that, why does a low powered ultra sound have that ability to that? I don’t really understand it. This one’s tricky.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next one, the middle one, chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. I think that one will be science. I don’t think there’s any problem with that ratio. It may ‘’seem’’ high, but, you know, chimpanzees are very cool. Very cool. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How closely related in our DNA are we to chimpanzees? Ninety …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: 98 percent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: It depends on how you count it. There’s no one objective answer to that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: yeah, but it’s very high.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhere between 96 and 98 percent is the usual figure that the scientists give.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: alright, fair enough, I think people, although they’re competitive also i think we ‘’do’’ have a lot of cooperation, so I think we kinda mirror that. I think we’re okay there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And the last one is the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors. So, I’m gonna… this one I’m having a problem with because, I’ll go back to what we were talking about before with the logical fallacies &amp;lt;!--- link https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_581#Name_That_Logical_Fallacy:_Absence_of_Evidence_.281:00:16.29 ---&amp;gt;, isn’t this something we would have figured out maybe a ‘’long’’ time ago? You know, rat whiskers. It’s not like some hidden thing that we weren’t able to… what prevented us from determining this a long time ago? So, I think we would have found the evidence for that a while ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, therefore I think I’ll agree with Jay, I think &#039;&#039;&#039;the rat whisker one is gonna turn out to be the fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Alright. And, Cara…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cara&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think I’m torn between rat whiskers and the consciousness situation, so I’ll start with the chimpanzees. It seems reasonable to me. I’ve seen ‘’a lot’’ of primate studies, going all the way down to monkeys, not even apes, that show high rates of competition and of helping get food or share things in order to maximize the benefit for the group. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do rat whiskers contain a chemical receptor that help with sm… well I’ll disagree with jay because that is what a whisker ‘’is’’. It is an organ. It’s a sensory organ that actually helps with probe reception, or it helps them navigate their environment. So, if you cut certain whiskers you can do all kinds of neurological studies where you change some of the representation on the sensory cortex. So there ‘’is’’ a direct connection between whiskers and the brain, but ‘’chemical’’ receptors is interesting to me because I don’t think they have a physical way to bind anything. I mean, that would be what the receptor is. But it would be crazy if they just now found that because rat whiskers… or rats are such a common laboratory animal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And then scientists report a case where a patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious – Okay, so they woke up. – after using low power ultra sound. I think I’ve seen cases where consciousness is kind of sparked with thalamic stimulation. It’d be crazy if you could do this from outside the brain, and usually ultra sound is delivered from outside. So, I mean, I want this one to be true. So maybe – whuah, this is hard – I’m gonna hope that the ultrasound is also science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And that the &#039;&#039;&#039;fiction is the chemical receptors on the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039;. Because I just think they would have found that sooner. That would be my reasoning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 3===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Okay (1:19:45)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, you all agree with the third one, so let’s start there. Scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound. You all think this one is science. And this one is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(many): Yeah, baby.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yay. Wow, that’s so cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob: And Cara, great job. You pretty much nailed a lot of the details there. This was thalamic stimulation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, it was!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: The thalamus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: The thalmus. First of all, I was very careful in how I worded this. This was a single case. And they can’t prove that the stimulation is what did it, just that the patient woke up after they stimulated them. But, the timing ‘’does’’ look good, but they’ll obviously have to replicate it to see how generalizable this effect is, and if the effect is actually real. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, let me throw in some caveats here. First of all, this is a patient who was in a coma because of trauma. Trauma patients have a much better prognosis that patients who, for example, have diffuse anoxic ischemic injury.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Arciniegas, Dr. David B. &amp;quot;[http://www.internationalbrain.org/articles/hypoxicischemic-brain-injury/ Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;International Brain Injury Association&#039;&#039;. InternationalBrain.org. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; So, if your whole brain is injured because of lack of oxygen, these types of things generally don’t work. But if you have trauma to the brain, there may be pieces of the brain which work and other pieces to the brain that don’t work. And this is sort of a classic scenario where probably the cortex was relatively spared, and was still pretty functional, but the cortex just wasn’t being activated by the deeper structures like the thalamus. And so, if you could get the thalamus, if you could kick start or jump start the thalamus–which is what they’re calling it–you can do it with drugs, you can do it with wires, with deep-brain stimulation, if you can get that thalamus to function more it can wake up the rest of the brain, which is actually not that bad off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Isn’t it crazy how tenuous that is? Oh, my god.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, right? These little centers, deep in your brain, alerting your whole cortex, and if they get taken out, you’re in a coma. Your whole brain could be perfectly normal, but you’re essentially permanently asleep, because you don’t have the mechanism to alert or wake up your brain. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in those special cases where that’s the problem, this kind of thing can work. There was also a study where they implanted a chip basically to stimulate the thalamus and the deep structures. That also can be effective. So, eventually that may be the intervention. But, this is now using just an external, low power ultra sound focused on the thalamus to stimulate it. They described the patient being, again, minimally conscious. They would be able to do ‘’some’’ things, but not much. They occasionally would attend to external stimulation. Then after the treatment, they were essentially awake. They would look at the examiner. They did a fist bump, it was reported. One of the doctors as they were walking away they would follow commands, participate in their feeding. Still not neurologically normal. The guy still has brain damage. And was still was minimally verbal. I think would just shake his head yes and no, but would do so appropriately, but wasn’t really speaking. Again, he woke up but was not returned to neurologically intact. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do think we’re gonna see, fairly soon, these types of interventions to treat this one subgroup of patients who have enough brain function to be awake, but their deep structure’s just not working well enough to alert the brain. And all we need to do is stimulate it in order to get them to wake up. And we’re just figuring out the different techniques for doing that. Yeah, but very very cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Very cool. Maybe this could work for…, I know it’s a very specific case, but …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah. Okay, we’ll go backwards, I guess. We’ll go to number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. Bob, you think this one is the fiction, everyone else thinks this is science, and this one… is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Ahh, F-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Sorry, Bob.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: So, this was a little surprising actually, because previous research seemed to indicate that chimpanzees in particular are very competitive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yes!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: They’re greedy. You know, chimpanzees are often described as greedy, like they can’t inhibit their need to take things. They’ll steal. They’ll cheat. They’ll freeload. And they’ll compete against each other for resources. In this study, though, researchers tried to do a more open ended experiment with/in a more natural group environment. So, they had eleven chimpanzees who were involved in this study and essentially they gave them tasks to do that would result in a reward. But the task required either two chimpanzees to cooperate or three chimpanzees to cooperate; one chimpanzee could not get the reward by themselves. And they just observed their behavior. For example, did the chimpanzees work together, and did they police themselves for theft or freeloading or competition. And in fact, they did. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They engaged in a lot of policing behavior or enforcement strategies. For example, they wouldn’t expose the rewards if somebody… if a chimpanzee who had previously freeloaded was hanging around. They would say “nope, not until we get this jerk outta here. We’re not gonna do it.” You know. Sometimes the more alpha males would get involved in policing and punishing and ejecting the previous freeloaders or thieves from the area. They essentially enforced cooperation collectively as a group through punishment and these kind of behaviours. Which is what humans do. That’s essentially our system of justice is largely about, enforcing social norms and living together, cooperating, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And lots of other animals do that too. Birds, lots of birds do this. Birds will, for example, some species of birds will warn each other if predators are coming. But if one bird doesn’t participate in that, then other birds won’t warn them when it’s their turn. So, they use reciprocity as a way of awarding and punishing this behavior. So, even birds do this. So, cooperation’s actually fairly wide spread in the animal kingdom but it is ‘’not’’ unique to humans. Although some researchers have argued that our level of cooperation ‘’is’’ unique to humans. But every time somebody says that, you know, it seems like we find that chimpanzees do it too. And this is a similar case. Chimpanzees were mostly cooperating and engaging in a number of behaviors to enforce that cooperation, on the group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: So that’s nice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aww. That’s really cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That’s pretty cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhat cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 1===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: (laughs) …all this means that… a new study finds that rat whiskers&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskers Whiskers]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Wikipedia&#039;&#039;. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; contain chemical receptors that help them to smell, that is complete and total fiction. And the whiskers that themselves are basically hairs. They don’t have nerves in them. They have nerves at the base of the hair that sense the movement in the whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Yea, where you saying that there were receptors in the whiskers?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, but I made that up. That was wrong. That’s the lie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Okay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: The whiskers are just hairs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: (inaudible)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: They are like vibro- receptors at the base of the whiskers. So, the rat can sense, they get sensory information to their brain that actually helps them map the world when those whiskers move. The new study that inspired this item though was a study showing that rats can use their whiskers to sense the direction of the wind. And that helps them follow odors. So, if they’re smelling something, they need to know what the direction of the wind is blowing in in order to track that odor back to it’s source. And their whiskers help them do that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this study, very quickly, was they had rats enter an arena through a door and there were five fans. One of the fans was on and blowing. The hole at the base of that fan led to food. The hole at the base of the other four fans did not. So, if they couldn’t sense the wind at all, they would have a 20 percent chance of guessing the correct hole out of the gate. But the rats were able to do it 60 percent of the time, not just 20 percent of the time. But in order to show that they were using their whiskers, they then cut off their whiskers to see how they would do. Okay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Aww.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: But they said that the cutting off of the whiskers is painless. It’s like cutting off your hair. And they grow back. So, there’s no permanent harm done. So, they would cut off their whiskers, and then their performance dropped by 20 percent. So, they were still able to do better than chance, because there were other ways to sense the wind. But their performance decreased significantly because they no longer had their whiskers as a sensory organ. This suggests that they were sensing the wind, in part, with their whiskers. That was the study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I looked it up. I couldn’t find any evidence that they sniffed the air with their whiskers at all. I guess they could lick their whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: That’s what I was thinking. It’s exactly what I was licking, uh… thinking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If there’s stuff clinging to the whiskers, they could taste it by licking it. But the whiskers themselves don’t have receptors on them, as far as I could find. They’re just hair. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alright, Evan, give us the quote…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Skeptical Quote of the Week &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:27:14)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And until next week, this is your Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Outro404}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today I Learned: ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Steve states in this episode that Name That Logical Fallacy is a very popular segment that they don&#039;t do often enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Navigation}} &amp;lt;!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- Create category redirect pages for each segment mentioned below - https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Page categories&lt;br /&gt;
|Religion &amp;amp; Faith           = y &amp;lt;!--  Pew Belief Poll (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Pseudoscience        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Science &amp;amp; the Media        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10756</id>
		<title>Template:SectionChecklist</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10756"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:40:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: fixed proof-reading if/else bug&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{|style=&amp;quot;background-color: #FFFFF0; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 1 1px; border: 1px solid #F4A460; float:{{{float|right}}};&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
! width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|[[File:Emblem-pen-orange.png|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=5, align=center|This {{{section|section}}} needs the following help. Each effort has a link for more details.&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=#ffff44, align=center|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;IN PROGRESS&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! transcription&lt;br /&gt;
! proof reading&lt;br /&gt;
! time stamps&lt;br /&gt;
! formatting&lt;br /&gt;
! links&lt;br /&gt;
! categories&lt;br /&gt;
! redirect&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{transcription|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Transcription|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{proof-reading|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Proof-reading|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
  {{#if: {{{transcription|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
  }} |&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{time-stamps|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Time-stamps|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{formatting|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Formatting|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{links|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Links|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{categories|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{segment redirects|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categorized_segment_redirects|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=7, align=center | &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Once all the sections are completed for this section, this template can be removed.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rename request: SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please include this template at the top of pages that require attention. This not only shows what&#039;s needed, but also adds the page to the &#039;[[:Category:Needs attention|Needs attention]]&#039; category and its sub-categories for other contributors to see lists of pages needing work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: there is no &amp;quot;today I learned&amp;quot; checklist for the section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- episode is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =  &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
When a file is first created and nothing has been done, you can use this template to place in each section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once you feel each item has been taken care of, set the value of it to be empty indicating that work is no longer needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription = &amp;lt;!--- username transcribed ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!--- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;proof-reading&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; parameter should only be set after the transcription has occurred.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription = &amp;lt;!--- username transcribed ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!--- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading  = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
The values of the parameters can be any non-empty value, so leave a message for the next editor if you wish.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 {{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Maintenance templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10755</id>
		<title>SGU Episode 581</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10755"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:38:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* Proxima Centauri Follow Up (7:39) */ added checklist&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Editing required&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{InfoBox&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeNum     = 581&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeDate    = August 27&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2016  &amp;lt;!-- broadcast date --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeIcon    = File:Proximab2.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|previous       =                          &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to previous episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|next           =                        &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to next episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|rebecca        =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|bob            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|jay            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|evan           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|cara           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|perry          =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest1         =      &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest2         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no second guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest3         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no third guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|downloadLink   = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2016-08-27.mp3&lt;br /&gt;
|forumLink      = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,47202.0.html&lt;br /&gt;
|qowText        = Our place in the Galaxy nor our Galaxy itself is special. Darwin has further shown that humans are a natural product of evolution by means of natural selection. The discovery of extrasolar life will demonstrate that even that last claim to being special will have to be abandoned&lt;br /&gt;
|qowAuthor      = Mario Livio, astrophysiscist &amp;lt;!-- add author and link --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;You&#039;re listening to the Skeptics&#039; Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Hello, and welcome to The Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, August 24&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2016; and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SGU Going to DragonCon &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(0:27)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What&#039;s the Word &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(3:32)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* {{w|Inquiline}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== News Items ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Proxima Centauri Follow Up &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(7:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, Matt &#039;[http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ Potentially Habitable Exoplanet Confirmed Around Nearest Star!]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Universe Today&#039;&#039;. Fraser Cain. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anthropocene &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(15:01)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Yirka, Bob &#039;[http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Phys.org&#039;&#039;. Omicron Technology Limited. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene Anthropocene] on Wikipedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(New era is based on all the environmental effects humans are having on the Earth)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== World Wide Web Turns 25 &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(26:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
*  http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832 1st website ever restored to its 1992 glory: CERN&#039;s ancient page describes the &amp;quot;W3&amp;quot; project]&#039;. &#039;&#039;CBC News: Technology and Science&#039;&#039;. CBC/Radio-Canada. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Commercial at 33:33)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- reference added as convenience for transcriber. raw link can be removed if desired. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fighting Against Pseudoscience &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(34:54)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: All right, Evan, there was this article&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Grant, Richard P &#039;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2016/aug/23/scientists-losing-science-communication-skeptic-cox Why scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Science - Occam&#039;s Corner&#039;&#039;. The Guardian News. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; published recently about science communication and fighting against pseudoscience that is interesting, although I don&#039;t totally agree with it. But let&#039;s talk about it. Tell us about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah. It appeared in the Guardian, it was written by a former biologist. He turned blogger. His name is Richard Grant. And the title of his article is, “Why Scientists Are Losing the Fight to Communicate Science to the Public.” So I&#039;ll read a few things directly from the article, and then we can sort of comment on it as we go.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says that, “Scientists and science-communicators are engaged in a constant battle with ignorance. But that&#039;s an approach doomed to failure.” Okay. He says that, &amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;“A video did the rounds a couple of years ago of some self-styled skeptic disagreeing (robustly, shall we say) with an anti-vaxxer. The speaker was roundly cheered by everyone for sharing the video. He sure put that idiot in their place! Scientists love to argue, cutting through bullshit and getting to the truth of the matter is pretty much the job description.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I kinda don&#039;t necessarily fully agree with that. But he goes on to say,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;”It&#039;s not really surprising scientists and science supporters frequently take on those who dabble in homeopathy or deny anthropogenic climate change, or who oppose vaccinations or genetically modified food. Brian Cox was at it last week performing a smack down on a climate change denier on the ABC&#039;s Q&amp;amp;A discussion program. He brought graphs (knock-out blow) and yet it leaves me cold. Is this really what science communication is about? Is this informing and changing minds, winning people over to a better, brighter future? I doubt it somehow.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I had a lot of problems with this article. So I think the core point that he&#039;s making, that you can&#039;t just oppose belief in pseudoscience with facts; you have to understand the psychological motivation why people are believing that pseudoscience – sure. That&#039;s absolutely valid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, but that&#039;s also not ... new.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We all know that it&#039;s not a deficit problem. Sci-com, the reason it&#039;s not as effective as we&#039;d like to be is not because there&#039;s just not enough knowledge out there. We know that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, my problem was he&#039;s writing to science communicators, and he is about twenty years behind on the conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s how I felt. It&#039;s like, “Where have you been?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, this is like, I remember having this conversation literally twenty years ago ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: when we were really getting involved with this. And there&#039;s so much more nuance, there&#039;s so much more involved with this. I just briefly put this up on our Facebook page and said that he&#039;s actually committing the problem that he&#039;s criticizing. He&#039;s sort of talking at us and not to us, and not really addressing the issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So like, for example, he&#039;s talking as if there is only true believers, but that&#039;s not true. There&#039;s not only true believers. First of all, there are a lot of people who are in the middle, or are just undecided, or just don&#039;t really know about whatever the topic is, like vaccines. Like, hey, there are a lot of parents who are, they hear concerning things about vaccines, but they&#039;re not anti-vaxxers. And so just putting the correct information out there and opposing the anti-vaxxers has a dramatic effect on the public conversation. It&#039;s an incredibly valuable resource to people who just want to know what the facts are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And it absolutely does prevent people, I think, from going down that rabbit hole and becoming a conspiracy theorist or an anti-science denier or whatever. And also, there are con artists out there as well. That&#039;s another group. There are people who are exploiting the true believers, are exploiting the community, exploiting the beliefs, the conspiracies, whatever, just to make money, just to sell their wares, to sell their snake oil; and they absolutely need to be deconstructed and taken apart. Their claims need to be vigorously opposed. They need to be corrected. We need to have the correct factual information out there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, when dealing with groups of people who believe things for ideological, emotional, political, sociological reasons, we need to address them in the context of the reason for their belief; and we know that there&#039;s a back-fire effect. People could dig their heels in if you make them defend their ideology. Yeah, we&#039;ve been through all of this. This is what we talk about all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So his article was just naive. It was just uninformed. As I was reading it, I&#039;m like, “God, this really would have benefited if he actually spoke to a skeptic at some point who&#039;s been doing this for more than a couple of weeks.” His opinions might have had some depth to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Or a professional science communicator,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: somebody who does this for a living, and who&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: studies outcome effects, and who talks to other science communicators. It was a little bit judgy, this whole thing. What is the quote? Somewhere in here. He&#039;s like, “How often is it that science communications actually listen to the needs of their audience?” And it&#039;s like, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: the number one thing we always say in sci-com is know your audience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s the first thing every science communicator&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: talks about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right, right, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s just so dismissive to act as though we&#039;re ... I think he&#039;s really getting upset at scientists who don&#039;t communicate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Um-hmm, maybe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I don&#039;t know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s frustrating. And also,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Frustrating&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: is it fair to ask, who &#039;&#039;is&#039;&#039; this guy?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Steve chuckles)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Who is he? Really? Richard Grant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I don&#039;t know. I don&#039;t know who he is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: &#039;&#039;(Laughs)&#039;&#039; You know? He works in med – yeah, here it is. “He&#039;s a former biochemist, cell biologist, structural biologist now working in medical communications and founder of the independent blogging network, Occam&#039;s Typewriter.” Okay, so he&#039;s just like one of the many of us. Basically, instead of saying, “Here are the ways that many of us can improve,” he&#039;s saying, “Wow, you guys all suck at this.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Steve, I got the same feeling &#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039; you did. This is very incomplete, way too black and white, not recognizing the broad spectrum where people fall along the lines of science, intelligence, or understanding science. In fact, he breaks it down into – he gives basically two general reasons as to why he arrived at this conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says, “First, in general, people don&#039;t like being told what to do. When the experts tell us how to live our lives, or worse, what to think, something rebels in people, especially when there&#039;s even the merest whiff of controversy or uncertainty.” And then he says, the second point is that on the whole he doesn&#039;t think that people that object to vaccines or GMO&#039;s are at heart anti-science, some are, but most aren&#039;t. People simply want to know that someone is listening, that someone is taking their worry seriously, and that somebody cares for them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I just don&#039;t agree with that. Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: I don&#039;t know where he arrived &#039;&#039;(laughs)&#039;&#039; at that point, or how he got ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I mean,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: that conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: you know, he&#039;s armchair criticizing a community of people that he doesn&#039;t really understand. Again, I&#039;m not gonna play the card, like, “He doesn&#039;t have the cred to have an opinion.” Of course he does. But if you&#039;re going to be judgmental about what other people are doing, you&#039;d better make a good, sincere effort to understand what they&#039;re actually doing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And we do have the advantage here. The SGU is eleven years old. We&#039;ve been doing this for twenty years. This is a very interactive medium. We get dozens, dozens of emails every day. I read dozens of comments to my blog, and comments on our Facebook posts every day. We are interacting with people. We are interacting with a broad audience as well as our community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have a much better idea of what people actually think, and how they actually respond to what we say, than this guy apparently does, you know? He would have benefited tremendously from talking to somebody who&#039;s actually involved in doing this. We just got an email today. I wasn&#039;t planning on reading this, but I&#039;ll just say it&#039;s somebody who&#039;s name is Kim. I won&#039;t give her full name, who basically said, “Hey, I started out as an absolutely true believer, gullible, believed everything.” An impressive list of pseudoscience had dominated her life. Listened to our show, and then over time was totally converted into a skeptic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So he&#039;s just factually wrong, that nobody ever gets converted, because we get these emails all of the time. It&#039;s probably statistically a small number, but you can&#039;t say that it never happens. And in any case, that&#039;s not even the primary goal. The primary goal is informing people who are open to the information, who are not already true believers. So, anyway, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: unfortunately, we encounter a lot of this, this sort of armchair criticism. It is, I agree with you, Cara. It&#039;s just being judgy. He ends -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s judgy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: the way he ends, yeah, it was so terrible. He&#039;s said, “Most science communication isn&#039;t about persuading people, it&#039;s self-affirmation for those already on the inside. Look at us,” it says. “Aren&#039;t we clever? We are exclusive. We are a gang. We are a family. It&#039;s tribalism.” That&#039;s bullshit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I&#039;m not saying there isn&#039;t any of that. Of course there is. People are tribal, we do have our communities. It is a source of identity. But it is so much not that, that is not what dominates science communication and skeptical activism. It is absolutely about persuading people. We are sincerely interested in engaging in the conversation, and persuading as many people as we can; and we&#039;re constantly self-examining, and looking at published research to figure out how to better do it, and we talk about it all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Oh yeah, absolutely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, it&#039;s just, you know – he really, I think, again, as I say, especially in that piece that he was doing, he&#039;s guilty of the exact thing that he&#039;s criticizing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah! He&#039;s also so fatalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s not like he&#039;s really putting forth any better options.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He&#039;s basically, “Well, some minds will never change.” It&#039;s like, “Okay, thanks?” And then he sort of kind of throws a toogawanda under the bus to some extent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He was honestly one of the most, I think, effective and sort of non-controversial&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: medical communicators out there, you know? His writings touch people who are absolutely religious or absolutely magical thinking, and they still can read his things and not feel insulted, and take something from them. He&#039;s just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a very good writer in that way. I don&#039;t know. Everything about it is a little bit like, the worst of what it is to write a blog. You know, I think blogs are incredibly important, and they&#039;re incredibly necessary, and good blogs can be better than bad journalism; but sometimes blogs can be very lazy. There was no reporting done on this. He never spoke to anybody&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: before he wrote this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah, it&#039;s an opinion piece&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: more than anything, and, you know, I don&#039;t know what the Guardian&#039;s all about as far as putting this out as a news article, but&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s a bit annoying, &#039;cause it doesn&#039;t say “opinion,” and it doesn&#039;t say&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: No, it&#039;s not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: “blog.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It says, “Science: Occam&#039;s Corner.” Like, this is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: listed under, “Science.” Obviously, “Occam&#039;s Corner” sounds like it&#039;s his blog that he has on the Guardian, but it&#039;s not really clear that that&#039;s what somebody&#039;s reading. So anybody who comes across this who doesn&#039;t know the difference between good and bad science journalism might look at this and say, “Oh my gosh, well, this is the state of things,” not realizing that he never interviewed a single person, or did any real reporting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Ugh! Anyway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, he also makes ... one last comment on this. He makes this very typical rookie mistake. I think we&#039;ve sort of made this mistake and then fixed it because this is what the evidence shows, is the idea that people are resistant to facts in general, which is not true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Nope&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: What the evidence shows is that if you give people facts, they change their opinion. They change their opinion to meet the facts unless they are already ideologically bound to one position. So people behave differently for emotionally held ideological opinions versus things that they don&#039;t have an emotional stake in. And so you have to deal with people differently in different contexts. But he was nowhere near drilling down to that level of detail in his article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, okay let&#039;s move on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Pew Belief Poll &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(47:05)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Cara, tell us about the latest Pew poll about belief.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lipka, Michael &#039;[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/ Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Fact Tank: News in the Numbers&#039;&#039;. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Sure. So you guys may remember a report last year by Pew that detailed a really sharp decline in Christian affiliation, and a growing number of Americans reporting themselves as quote, “nones.” That was part of a really big study called the 2014 Religious Landscape study that was published in 2015. It included at the time thirty-five thousand seventy-one respondents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what the Pew research group decided to do is a follow up, a recontact study, where they found – or maybe they reached out to more. But they ultimately ended up having I think five thousand individuals who they interviewed more in depth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of those five thousand individuals, one thousand one hundred forty-nine of those define themselves as “nones,” or unaffiliated. So that was broken down into four hundred twenty-six different atheists or agnostics, and seven hundred twenty-three people who indicated that their religion is quote, “nothing in particular.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The real purpose of the recontact study was part of a bigger question about whether or not people choose new churches, when they choose new churches or houses of worship. And so they found a lot of really interesting outcomes on that. How often throughout the lifespan people go to a new church. What are the reasons that motivate them from leaving their former congregation, going to their new congregation. But within that, of course, they had all of these quote, “nones.” And so they found that there were a lot of really interesting things that came out of the nones, and they – N-O-N-E-S, not N-U-N-S – and they &#039;&#039;(Evan chuckles)&#039;&#039; dug a little bit deeper and asked a lot of questions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So again, just to be clear, as part of a big thirty-five thousand people study a few years ago, they recontacted five thousand individuals. But now I&#039;m only gonna be talking about the one thousand one hundred forty-nine individuals within that group who defined themselves as unaffiliated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So here&#039;s some interesting  stuff: The vast majority of these unaffiliated individuals say that they were actually raised as a member of a particular religion before shedding their religious identity in adulthood. So about seventy-eight percent of those people that they interviewed that said that they don&#039;t identify with a religion were raised religious, which to me seems reasonable. I mean, my personal anecdotal experience, and maybe it&#039;s because I grew up in the Bible belt (it&#039;s very rare for me to meet people who had no religion as they were growing up; much more common when I actually met people with similar viewpoints that said they had left a church earlier).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The really, I think, interesting thing here is that what they wanted to do is know why. “Why did you actually leave if you were raised religious?” And they found that there were a &#039;&#039;ton&#039;&#039; of different responses because they actually allowed for open-ended responses. So I&#039;ll read you some quotes in a bit. But there were some themes that sort of clustered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest response, which was about half (actually forty-nine percent of individuals) said that they left because they don&#039;t believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: That&#039;s pretty straight-forward. “I don&#039;t believe, so I&#039;m not gonna go any more.” About twenty percent said that they left because they disliked organized religion. About eighteen percent said that they were just religiously unsure or undecided. And then only ten percent of this group that identified as a none or unaffiliated actually self-defined as an inactive believer, meaning that they still had those beliefs, but they either are non-practicing or they&#039;re too busy to attend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So there is still within that nones group, I think, a little bit of a holdover of what I might not define as a none or an unaffiliated. So that&#039;s kind of interesting to parse it in that way. Under the “Don&#039;t believe” group, we found that many people said that they were disenchanted, and that&#039;s why they no longer believe. Some people said they just are not interested in, or they don&#039;t need religion, or that their views evolved. But that was actually a very small number. And only one percent of the individuals overall said that they went through a crisis of faith.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it does seem like it was less common that something happened in their lives that really changed their opinion. More common that, as we were just talking about, it was a slow, gradual thing that happened through learning and thinking and coming across new evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: And the internet as well, I&#039;m sure has ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, the internet probably had a big part of that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Totally fits with what I would expect. I think just largely generational. I think that they younger generations – it&#039;s funny. A lot of them, it&#039;s not like their atheist, they&#039;re so areligious &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: they&#039;re not even an atheist, you know what I mean? It&#039;s like they just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: It&#039;s not on their radar. Not on their radar.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting that “none” label&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, “None.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think that we&#039;re seeing a lot, or just, “I&#039;m religiously unaffiliated.” There is something interesting though: Remember how I said forty-nine percent of this overall group said that they just don&#039;t believe, and that&#039;s why they left. Interestingly, if they actually broke that down into the people who self-identify as atheist versus agnostic versus quote, “Nothing in particular,” actually eighty-two percent of atheists say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. Sixty-three percent of agnostics say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. And only thirty-seven percent of the “Nothing in particular” group left because they said they don&#039;t believe; which also makes sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Are you surprised by any of these findings?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: No, none of this really stuck out to me too much. I mean, it&#039;s definitely interesting. I think probably what&#039;s more interesting is the overall thing, like, Bob and I were talking about before we were on air, just the overall trends that we&#039;re seeing away from a specific religion or organized religion, and into a kind of personal formulation of spirituality, religion, or lack thereof.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does seem like we&#039;re seeing an individualistic move away from these big groups, and I do kind of find that interesting because we hear about these studies all the time, a lot of nay-sayers will send us these studies and we&#039;ll actually describe them on the show where congregations, church groups, being in a community actually is correlated with positive health benefits. And so it is kind of interesting that we&#039;re seeing more and more people sort of leaving that organized community behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And I think that&#039;s where we&#039;re starting to see some changes, even within the atheistic community. Some people still like the idea that they&#039;re unaffiliated and they don&#039;t want to be part of a group, but you&#039;re starting to see some. Atheist groups meeting and even having kind of their version of a quote, “church,” (which of course is completely secular&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: &#039;&#039;(Chuckles)&#039;&#039; Yeah, right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: but is still a group thing so that they can have that sense of community).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That&#039;s basically what secular humanism is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I do wonder a couple of things when I see these kind of numbers: One is, “Is this a long-term trend?” You know, is this the arc of human history to become less religious over time, or is this cyclical? You know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Wax and wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, you know, it&#039;s hard to get out of your time frame, and to try to look at the big picture. Certainly in the last I would say couple hundred years, it seems like the power that religion has on our society, even in the United States (which is fairly religious for a Western country),&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: it&#039;s definitely been on the wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, for sure, with, understanding evolution, just advances in scientific thinking, that&#039;s been a big thing; and like you guys said, the internet, just being able to meet people who are like-minded that maybe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: don&#039;t live down the street from you, is huge; and feeling more confident in coming out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And the second question I have is (and I think I know the answer to this), but, as religion is on the wane, are people just replacing it with other forms of belief systems? This doesn&#039;t necessarily mean that there are more people who are being rational, or who are rejecting all ideology or all belief systems. It&#039;s more that they&#039;re rejecting traditional organized religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s &#039;&#039;so&#039;&#039; true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Becoming druids? And&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: warlocks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Just new age stuff, yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I know so, in L.A., it is very rare for me to meet people who are religious. I actually forget that that&#039;s a thing. I grew up in a very religious part of the country, the Bible belt. I live in L.A. Most everyone I know is non-religious. Yet,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: But they&#039;re still spiritual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: if you dig deep - oh, they&#039;re crazy spiritual! They have&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a university out here that&#039;s basically a cult. It&#039;s like a spiritual psychology university where people are studying, like, past life interactions and energy transfer,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: and chi. The woo thinking, the medical quackery, and the, yes, quote, “Spiritual,” - and I don&#039;t want to misuse that word. I have a hard time with that word because I think it comes with a lot of baggage. I think that it&#039;s perfectly legitimate for individuals to consider themselves to be spiritual in a sort of zen kind of way; you know, finding perfundity in nature. Carl Sagan even used the term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Sure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think he can talk about spirituality in a way that it is not magical thinking, and then you can talk about spirituality in a way that&#039;s absolutely magical thinking, and we have a lot of those people here on the West Coast. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Why can&#039;t everybody be like us?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Rogues laugh)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Then we wouldn&#039;t have to exist!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aw, how sad!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We would just vanish in a puff of smoke.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If the whole world were skeptical, obviously, you can&#039;t say no to that, but it would be interesting because we would not have to exist at that point. We wouldn&#039;t need a skeptical movement if there wasn&#039;t so much irrationality in the world. I&#039;d still rather have the rational world though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Who&#039;s That Noisy &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(56:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Answer to last week: Space X landing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Membership drive at 59:14)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Absence of Evidence &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:00:16)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science or Fiction &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:09:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- I have difficulty differentiating Bob / Jay / Evan - if there are spots you can help, thanks -bshirley ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Science or Fiction music)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;It&#039;s time for Science or Fiction&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious, and I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Are you guys ready for this week? Three regular news items. &amp;lt;!--- overlapping responses ---&amp;gt; Alright, here we go. These are interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Items===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number one: a new study finds that rat whiskers contain chemical receptors to smell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Morris, Amanda &amp;quot;[http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2016/08/whiskers-help-animals-sense-winds-direction.html Whiskers Help Animals Sense the Direction of the Wind]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;McCormick School of Engineering.&#039;&#039; Northwestern University. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822155920.htm Chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition: Study challenges distinctiveness of human cooperation.]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Science News.&#039;&#039; Emory Health Sciences. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; And,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number three: scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazaro, Sage &amp;quot;[http://observer.com/2016/08/scientists-discovered-how-to-jumpstart-the-brain-of-a-coma-patient Real-Life Awakening: Scientists ‘Jumpstart’ the Brain of a Coma Patient]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Observer.&#039;&#039; Observer.com. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob, go first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Bob&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Alright, the rat whiskers, sure, that makes sense, i mean, would you call it “smell”? I could see that. I could see that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Un, the second, let’s see… chimpanzees choosing cooperation over competition, five to one, that’s… that kinda goes against what I’ve been led to believe about how… if you said bonobos I would absolutely agree with you, but chimpanzees are definitely more on the uncooperative/irascible&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irascible Wiktionary:irascible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; scale.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: …irascible… (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Scientist, let’s see, number three, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultrasound. I just kinda love brain stimulation. I think it, i’ve heard, I know it’s not, you know, it’s not, it doesn’t necessarily do what they’ve been claiming over these years but I think, I still have read some interesting experiments that have surprising effects, so I’ll tentatively go with that one. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um, cooperation over competition, five to one, alright I’m gonna say the &#039;&#039;&#039;chimpanzees is fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Okay. Jay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Jay&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: This one about the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors… what I can’t figure out is how, how is the chemical receptor in the rat whisker communicating back to the brain? There’s no electrical type nerve connection from the organ, the receptor, to the brain. Unless it’s… i don’t know. I just don’t see how that can possibly be. It seems completely BS to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second one here, researchers find chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition. I don’t know about the rate of five to one, but I do agree with that and I think that makes a lot of sense. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And this last one, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating the brain, the thing that Bob has hidden in a drawer next to his bed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Apparently, it’s not hidden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: I just wanted to make sure Cara was awake, that’s all. That’s why I said that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I’m awake. I’m awake.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘’(laughter)’’&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Stimulating the brain brings people from, …minimally conscious to fully conscious with a low power ultra sound. I agree because this reminds me what it’s like when I wake up in the morning, and that’s my coffee. So, sure, this is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I just &#039;&#039;&#039;don’t think the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039; and the chemical receptors, and them helping them smell thing. No. Nope, I don’t agree. That’s fake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: Ok. Evan?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Evan&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: So, the patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious. I suppose those… minimally conscious is a technical state of some sort. Not a coma? Or like…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, it ‘’is’’ a coma, but minimally conscious is pretty self explanatory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Okay. But now, you stimulate the brain with a low powered ulrta sound? So, how did they do that? Or, why does that, why does a low powered ultra sound have that ability to that? I don’t really understand it. This one’s tricky.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next one, the middle one, chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. I think that one will be science. I don’t think there’s any problem with that ratio. It may ‘’seem’’ high, but, you know, chimpanzees are very cool. Very cool. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How closely related in our DNA are we to chimpanzees? Ninety …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: 98 percent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: It depends on how you count it. There’s no one objective answer to that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: yeah, but it’s very high.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhere between 96 and 98 percent is the usual figure that the scientists give.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: alright, fair enough, I think people, although they’re competitive also i think we ‘’do’’ have a lot of cooperation, so I think we kinda mirror that. I think we’re okay there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And the last one is the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors. So, I’m gonna… this one I’m having a problem with because, I’ll go back to what we were talking about before with the logical fallacies &amp;lt;!--- link https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_581#Name_That_Logical_Fallacy:_Absence_of_Evidence_.281:00:16.29 ---&amp;gt;, isn’t this something we would have figured out maybe a ‘’long’’ time ago? You know, rat whiskers. It’s not like some hidden thing that we weren’t able to… what prevented us from determining this a long time ago? So, I think we would have found the evidence for that a while ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, therefore I think I’ll agree with Jay, I think &#039;&#039;&#039;the rat whisker one is gonna turn out to be the fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Alright. And, Cara…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cara&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think I’m torn between rat whiskers and the consciousness situation, so I’ll start with the chimpanzees. It seems reasonable to me. I’ve seen ‘’a lot’’ of primate studies, going all the way down to monkeys, not even apes, that show high rates of competition and of helping get food or share things in order to maximize the benefit for the group. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do rat whiskers contain a chemical receptor that help with sm… well I’ll disagree with jay because that is what a whisker ‘’is’’. It is an organ. It’s a sensory organ that actually helps with probe reception, or it helps them navigate their environment. So, if you cut certain whiskers you can do all kinds of neurological studies where you change some of the representation on the sensory cortex. So there ‘’is’’ a direct connection between whiskers and the brain, but ‘’chemical’’ receptors is interesting to me because I don’t think they have a physical way to bind anything. I mean, that would be what the receptor is. But it would be crazy if they just now found that because rat whiskers… or rats are such a common laboratory animal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And then scientists report a case where a patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious – Okay, so they woke up. – after using low power ultra sound. I think I’ve seen cases where consciousness is kind of sparked with thalamic stimulation. It’d be crazy if you could do this from outside the brain, and usually ultra sound is delivered from outside. So, I mean, I want this one to be true. So maybe – whuah, this is hard – I’m gonna hope that the ultrasound is also science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And that the &#039;&#039;&#039;fiction is the chemical receptors on the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039;. Because I just think they would have found that sooner. That would be my reasoning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 3===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Okay (1:19:45)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, you all agree with the third one, so let’s start there. Scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound. You all think this one is science. And this one is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(many): Yeah, baby.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yay. Wow, that’s so cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob: And Cara, great job. You pretty much nailed a lot of the details there. This was thalamic stimulation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, it was!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: The thalamus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: The thalmus. First of all, I was very careful in how I worded this. This was a single case. And they can’t prove that the stimulation is what did it, just that the patient woke up after they stimulated them. But, the timing ‘’does’’ look good, but they’ll obviously have to replicate it to see how generalizable this effect is, and if the effect is actually real. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, let me throw in some caveats here. First of all, this is a patient who was in a coma because of trauma. Trauma patients have a much better prognosis that patients who, for example, have diffuse anoxic ischemic injury.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Arciniegas, Dr. David B. &amp;quot;[http://www.internationalbrain.org/articles/hypoxicischemic-brain-injury/ Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;International Brain Injury Association&#039;&#039;. InternationalBrain.org. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; So, if your whole brain is injured because of lack of oxygen, these types of things generally don’t work. But if you have trauma to the brain, there may be pieces of the brain which work and other pieces to the brain that don’t work. And this is sort of a classic scenario where probably the cortex was relatively spared, and was still pretty functional, but the cortex just wasn’t being activated by the deeper structures like the thalamus. And so, if you could get the thalamus, if you could kick start or jump start the thalamus–which is what they’re calling it–you can do it with drugs, you can do it with wires, with deep-brain stimulation, if you can get that thalamus to function more it can wake up the rest of the brain, which is actually not that bad off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Isn’t it crazy how tenuous that is? Oh, my god.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, right? These little centers, deep in your brain, alerting your whole cortex, and if they get taken out, you’re in a coma. Your whole brain could be perfectly normal, but you’re essentially permanently asleep, because you don’t have the mechanism to alert or wake up your brain. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in those special cases where that’s the problem, this kind of thing can work. There was also a study where they implanted a chip basically to stimulate the thalamus and the deep structures. That also can be effective. So, eventually that may be the intervention. But, this is now using just an external, low power ultra sound focused on the thalamus to stimulate it. They described the patient being, again, minimally conscious. They would be able to do ‘’some’’ things, but not much. They occasionally would attend to external stimulation. Then after the treatment, they were essentially awake. They would look at the examiner. They did a fist bump, it was reported. One of the doctors as they were walking away they would follow commands, participate in their feeding. Still not neurologically normal. The guy still has brain damage. And was still was minimally verbal. I think would just shake his head yes and no, but would do so appropriately, but wasn’t really speaking. Again, he woke up but was not returned to neurologically intact. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do think we’re gonna see, fairly soon, these types of interventions to treat this one subgroup of patients who have enough brain function to be awake, but their deep structure’s just not working well enough to alert the brain. And all we need to do is stimulate it in order to get them to wake up. And we’re just figuring out the different techniques for doing that. Yeah, but very very cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Very cool. Maybe this could work for…, I know it’s a very specific case, but …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah. Okay, we’ll go backwards, I guess. We’ll go to number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. Bob, you think this one is the fiction, everyone else thinks this is science, and this one… is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Ahh, F-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Sorry, Bob.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: So, this was a little surprising actually, because previous research seemed to indicate that chimpanzees in particular are very competitive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yes!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: They’re greedy. You know, chimpanzees are often described as greedy, like they can’t inhibit their need to take things. They’ll steal. They’ll cheat. They’ll freeload. And they’ll compete against each other for resources. In this study, though, researchers tried to do a more open ended experiment with/in a more natural group environment. So, they had eleven chimpanzees who were involved in this study and essentially they gave them tasks to do that would result in a reward. But the task required either two chimpanzees to cooperate or three chimpanzees to cooperate; one chimpanzee could not get the reward by themselves. And they just observed their behavior. For example, did the chimpanzees work together, and did they police themselves for theft or freeloading or competition. And in fact, they did. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They engaged in a lot of policing behavior or enforcement strategies. For example, they wouldn’t expose the rewards if somebody… if a chimpanzee who had previously freeloaded was hanging around. They would say “nope, not until we get this jerk outta here. We’re not gonna do it.” You know. Sometimes the more alpha males would get involved in policing and punishing and ejecting the previous freeloaders or thieves from the area. They essentially enforced cooperation collectively as a group through punishment and these kind of behaviours. Which is what humans do. That’s essentially our system of justice is largely about, enforcing social norms and living together, cooperating, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And lots of other animals do that too. Birds, lots of birds do this. Birds will, for example, some species of birds will warn each other if predators are coming. But if one bird doesn’t participate in that, then other birds won’t warn them when it’s their turn. So, they use reciprocity as a way of awarding and punishing this behavior. So, even birds do this. So, cooperation’s actually fairly wide spread in the animal kingdom but it is ‘’not’’ unique to humans. Although some researchers have argued that our level of cooperation ‘’is’’ unique to humans. But every time somebody says that, you know, it seems like we find that chimpanzees do it too. And this is a similar case. Chimpanzees were mostly cooperating and engaging in a number of behaviors to enforce that cooperation, on the group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: So that’s nice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aww. That’s really cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That’s pretty cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhat cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 1===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: (laughs) …all this means that… a new study finds that rat whiskers&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskers Whiskers]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Wikipedia&#039;&#039;. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; contain chemical receptors that help them to smell, that is complete and total fiction. And the whiskers that themselves are basically hairs. They don’t have nerves in them. They have nerves at the base of the hair that sense the movement in the whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Yea, where you saying that there were receptors in the whiskers?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, but I made that up. That was wrong. That’s the lie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Okay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: The whiskers are just hairs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: (inaudible)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: They are like vibro- receptors at the base of the whiskers. So, the rat can sense, they get sensory information to their brain that actually helps them map the world when those whiskers move. The new study that inspired this item though was a study showing that rats can use their whiskers to sense the direction of the wind. And that helps them follow odors. So, if they’re smelling something, they need to know what the direction of the wind is blowing in in order to track that odor back to it’s source. And their whiskers help them do that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this study, very quickly, was they had rats enter an arena through a door and there were five fans. One of the fans was on and blowing. The hole at the base of that fan led to food. The hole at the base of the other four fans did not. So, if they couldn’t sense the wind at all, they would have a 20 percent chance of guessing the correct hole out of the gate. But the rats were able to do it 60 percent of the time, not just 20 percent of the time. But in order to show that they were using their whiskers, they then cut off their whiskers to see how they would do. Okay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Aww.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: But they said that the cutting off of the whiskers is painless. It’s like cutting off your hair. And they grow back. So, there’s no permanent harm done. So, they would cut off their whiskers, and then their performance dropped by 20 percent. So, they were still able to do better than chance, because there were other ways to sense the wind. But their performance decreased significantly because they no longer had their whiskers as a sensory organ. This suggests that they were sensing the wind, in part, with their whiskers. That was the study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I looked it up. I couldn’t find any evidence that they sniffed the air with their whiskers at all. I guess they could lick their whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: That’s what I was thinking. It’s exactly what I was licking, uh… thinking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If there’s stuff clinging to the whiskers, they could taste it by licking it. But the whiskers themselves don’t have receptors on them, as far as I could find. They’re just hair. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alright, Evan, give us the quote…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Skeptical Quote of the Week &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:27:14)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And until next week, this is your Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Outro404}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today I Learned: ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Steve states in this episode that Name That Logical Fallacy is a very popular segment that they don&#039;t do often enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Navigation}} &amp;lt;!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- Create category redirect pages for each segment mentioned below - https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Page categories&lt;br /&gt;
|Religion &amp;amp; Faith           = y &amp;lt;!--  Pew Belief Poll (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Pseudoscience        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Science &amp;amp; the Media        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10754</id>
		<title>SGU Episode 581</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10754"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:37:05Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* What&amp;#039;s the Word (3:32) */ remove float&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Editing required&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{InfoBox&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeNum     = 581&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeDate    = August 27&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2016  &amp;lt;!-- broadcast date --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeIcon    = File:Proximab2.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|previous       =                          &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to previous episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|next           =                        &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to next episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|rebecca        =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|bob            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|jay            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|evan           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|cara           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|perry          =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest1         =      &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest2         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no second guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest3         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no third guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|downloadLink   = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2016-08-27.mp3&lt;br /&gt;
|forumLink      = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,47202.0.html&lt;br /&gt;
|qowText        = Our place in the Galaxy nor our Galaxy itself is special. Darwin has further shown that humans are a natural product of evolution by means of natural selection. The discovery of extrasolar life will demonstrate that even that last claim to being special will have to be abandoned&lt;br /&gt;
|qowAuthor      = Mario Livio, astrophysiscist &amp;lt;!-- add author and link --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;You&#039;re listening to the Skeptics&#039; Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Hello, and welcome to The Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, August 24&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2016; and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SGU Going to DragonCon &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(0:27)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What&#039;s the Word &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(3:32)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none &amp;lt;!--- not enough space to float to the right, remove when there&#039;s some content ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
* {{w|Inquiline}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== News Items ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Proxima Centauri Follow Up &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(7:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, Matt &#039;[http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ Potentially Habitable Exoplanet Confirmed Around Nearest Star!]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Universe Today&#039;&#039;. Fraser Cain. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- transcriber can use reference and remove link (if desired) ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anthropocene &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(15:01)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Yirka, Bob &#039;[http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Phys.org&#039;&#039;. Omicron Technology Limited. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene Anthropocene] on Wikipedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(New era is based on all the environmental effects humans are having on the Earth)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== World Wide Web Turns 25 &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(26:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
*  http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832 1st website ever restored to its 1992 glory: CERN&#039;s ancient page describes the &amp;quot;W3&amp;quot; project]&#039;. &#039;&#039;CBC News: Technology and Science&#039;&#039;. CBC/Radio-Canada. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Commercial at 33:33)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- reference added as convenience for transcriber. raw link can be removed if desired. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fighting Against Pseudoscience &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(34:54)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: All right, Evan, there was this article&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Grant, Richard P &#039;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2016/aug/23/scientists-losing-science-communication-skeptic-cox Why scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Science - Occam&#039;s Corner&#039;&#039;. The Guardian News. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; published recently about science communication and fighting against pseudoscience that is interesting, although I don&#039;t totally agree with it. But let&#039;s talk about it. Tell us about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah. It appeared in the Guardian, it was written by a former biologist. He turned blogger. His name is Richard Grant. And the title of his article is, “Why Scientists Are Losing the Fight to Communicate Science to the Public.” So I&#039;ll read a few things directly from the article, and then we can sort of comment on it as we go.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says that, “Scientists and science-communicators are engaged in a constant battle with ignorance. But that&#039;s an approach doomed to failure.” Okay. He says that, &amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;“A video did the rounds a couple of years ago of some self-styled skeptic disagreeing (robustly, shall we say) with an anti-vaxxer. The speaker was roundly cheered by everyone for sharing the video. He sure put that idiot in their place! Scientists love to argue, cutting through bullshit and getting to the truth of the matter is pretty much the job description.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I kinda don&#039;t necessarily fully agree with that. But he goes on to say,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;”It&#039;s not really surprising scientists and science supporters frequently take on those who dabble in homeopathy or deny anthropogenic climate change, or who oppose vaccinations or genetically modified food. Brian Cox was at it last week performing a smack down on a climate change denier on the ABC&#039;s Q&amp;amp;A discussion program. He brought graphs (knock-out blow) and yet it leaves me cold. Is this really what science communication is about? Is this informing and changing minds, winning people over to a better, brighter future? I doubt it somehow.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I had a lot of problems with this article. So I think the core point that he&#039;s making, that you can&#039;t just oppose belief in pseudoscience with facts; you have to understand the psychological motivation why people are believing that pseudoscience – sure. That&#039;s absolutely valid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, but that&#039;s also not ... new.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We all know that it&#039;s not a deficit problem. Sci-com, the reason it&#039;s not as effective as we&#039;d like to be is not because there&#039;s just not enough knowledge out there. We know that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, my problem was he&#039;s writing to science communicators, and he is about twenty years behind on the conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s how I felt. It&#039;s like, “Where have you been?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, this is like, I remember having this conversation literally twenty years ago ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: when we were really getting involved with this. And there&#039;s so much more nuance, there&#039;s so much more involved with this. I just briefly put this up on our Facebook page and said that he&#039;s actually committing the problem that he&#039;s criticizing. He&#039;s sort of talking at us and not to us, and not really addressing the issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So like, for example, he&#039;s talking as if there is only true believers, but that&#039;s not true. There&#039;s not only true believers. First of all, there are a lot of people who are in the middle, or are just undecided, or just don&#039;t really know about whatever the topic is, like vaccines. Like, hey, there are a lot of parents who are, they hear concerning things about vaccines, but they&#039;re not anti-vaxxers. And so just putting the correct information out there and opposing the anti-vaxxers has a dramatic effect on the public conversation. It&#039;s an incredibly valuable resource to people who just want to know what the facts are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And it absolutely does prevent people, I think, from going down that rabbit hole and becoming a conspiracy theorist or an anti-science denier or whatever. And also, there are con artists out there as well. That&#039;s another group. There are people who are exploiting the true believers, are exploiting the community, exploiting the beliefs, the conspiracies, whatever, just to make money, just to sell their wares, to sell their snake oil; and they absolutely need to be deconstructed and taken apart. Their claims need to be vigorously opposed. They need to be corrected. We need to have the correct factual information out there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, when dealing with groups of people who believe things for ideological, emotional, political, sociological reasons, we need to address them in the context of the reason for their belief; and we know that there&#039;s a back-fire effect. People could dig their heels in if you make them defend their ideology. Yeah, we&#039;ve been through all of this. This is what we talk about all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So his article was just naive. It was just uninformed. As I was reading it, I&#039;m like, “God, this really would have benefited if he actually spoke to a skeptic at some point who&#039;s been doing this for more than a couple of weeks.” His opinions might have had some depth to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Or a professional science communicator,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: somebody who does this for a living, and who&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: studies outcome effects, and who talks to other science communicators. It was a little bit judgy, this whole thing. What is the quote? Somewhere in here. He&#039;s like, “How often is it that science communications actually listen to the needs of their audience?” And it&#039;s like, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: the number one thing we always say in sci-com is know your audience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s the first thing every science communicator&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: talks about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right, right, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s just so dismissive to act as though we&#039;re ... I think he&#039;s really getting upset at scientists who don&#039;t communicate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Um-hmm, maybe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I don&#039;t know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s frustrating. And also,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Frustrating&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: is it fair to ask, who &#039;&#039;is&#039;&#039; this guy?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Steve chuckles)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Who is he? Really? Richard Grant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I don&#039;t know. I don&#039;t know who he is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: &#039;&#039;(Laughs)&#039;&#039; You know? He works in med – yeah, here it is. “He&#039;s a former biochemist, cell biologist, structural biologist now working in medical communications and founder of the independent blogging network, Occam&#039;s Typewriter.” Okay, so he&#039;s just like one of the many of us. Basically, instead of saying, “Here are the ways that many of us can improve,” he&#039;s saying, “Wow, you guys all suck at this.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Steve, I got the same feeling &#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039; you did. This is very incomplete, way too black and white, not recognizing the broad spectrum where people fall along the lines of science, intelligence, or understanding science. In fact, he breaks it down into – he gives basically two general reasons as to why he arrived at this conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says, “First, in general, people don&#039;t like being told what to do. When the experts tell us how to live our lives, or worse, what to think, something rebels in people, especially when there&#039;s even the merest whiff of controversy or uncertainty.” And then he says, the second point is that on the whole he doesn&#039;t think that people that object to vaccines or GMO&#039;s are at heart anti-science, some are, but most aren&#039;t. People simply want to know that someone is listening, that someone is taking their worry seriously, and that somebody cares for them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I just don&#039;t agree with that. Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: I don&#039;t know where he arrived &#039;&#039;(laughs)&#039;&#039; at that point, or how he got ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I mean,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: that conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: you know, he&#039;s armchair criticizing a community of people that he doesn&#039;t really understand. Again, I&#039;m not gonna play the card, like, “He doesn&#039;t have the cred to have an opinion.” Of course he does. But if you&#039;re going to be judgmental about what other people are doing, you&#039;d better make a good, sincere effort to understand what they&#039;re actually doing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And we do have the advantage here. The SGU is eleven years old. We&#039;ve been doing this for twenty years. This is a very interactive medium. We get dozens, dozens of emails every day. I read dozens of comments to my blog, and comments on our Facebook posts every day. We are interacting with people. We are interacting with a broad audience as well as our community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have a much better idea of what people actually think, and how they actually respond to what we say, than this guy apparently does, you know? He would have benefited tremendously from talking to somebody who&#039;s actually involved in doing this. We just got an email today. I wasn&#039;t planning on reading this, but I&#039;ll just say it&#039;s somebody who&#039;s name is Kim. I won&#039;t give her full name, who basically said, “Hey, I started out as an absolutely true believer, gullible, believed everything.” An impressive list of pseudoscience had dominated her life. Listened to our show, and then over time was totally converted into a skeptic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So he&#039;s just factually wrong, that nobody ever gets converted, because we get these emails all of the time. It&#039;s probably statistically a small number, but you can&#039;t say that it never happens. And in any case, that&#039;s not even the primary goal. The primary goal is informing people who are open to the information, who are not already true believers. So, anyway, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: unfortunately, we encounter a lot of this, this sort of armchair criticism. It is, I agree with you, Cara. It&#039;s just being judgy. He ends -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s judgy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: the way he ends, yeah, it was so terrible. He&#039;s said, “Most science communication isn&#039;t about persuading people, it&#039;s self-affirmation for those already on the inside. Look at us,” it says. “Aren&#039;t we clever? We are exclusive. We are a gang. We are a family. It&#039;s tribalism.” That&#039;s bullshit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I&#039;m not saying there isn&#039;t any of that. Of course there is. People are tribal, we do have our communities. It is a source of identity. But it is so much not that, that is not what dominates science communication and skeptical activism. It is absolutely about persuading people. We are sincerely interested in engaging in the conversation, and persuading as many people as we can; and we&#039;re constantly self-examining, and looking at published research to figure out how to better do it, and we talk about it all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Oh yeah, absolutely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, it&#039;s just, you know – he really, I think, again, as I say, especially in that piece that he was doing, he&#039;s guilty of the exact thing that he&#039;s criticizing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah! He&#039;s also so fatalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s not like he&#039;s really putting forth any better options.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He&#039;s basically, “Well, some minds will never change.” It&#039;s like, “Okay, thanks?” And then he sort of kind of throws a toogawanda under the bus to some extent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He was honestly one of the most, I think, effective and sort of non-controversial&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: medical communicators out there, you know? His writings touch people who are absolutely religious or absolutely magical thinking, and they still can read his things and not feel insulted, and take something from them. He&#039;s just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a very good writer in that way. I don&#039;t know. Everything about it is a little bit like, the worst of what it is to write a blog. You know, I think blogs are incredibly important, and they&#039;re incredibly necessary, and good blogs can be better than bad journalism; but sometimes blogs can be very lazy. There was no reporting done on this. He never spoke to anybody&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: before he wrote this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah, it&#039;s an opinion piece&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: more than anything, and, you know, I don&#039;t know what the Guardian&#039;s all about as far as putting this out as a news article, but&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s a bit annoying, &#039;cause it doesn&#039;t say “opinion,” and it doesn&#039;t say&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: No, it&#039;s not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: “blog.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It says, “Science: Occam&#039;s Corner.” Like, this is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: listed under, “Science.” Obviously, “Occam&#039;s Corner” sounds like it&#039;s his blog that he has on the Guardian, but it&#039;s not really clear that that&#039;s what somebody&#039;s reading. So anybody who comes across this who doesn&#039;t know the difference between good and bad science journalism might look at this and say, “Oh my gosh, well, this is the state of things,” not realizing that he never interviewed a single person, or did any real reporting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Ugh! Anyway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, he also makes ... one last comment on this. He makes this very typical rookie mistake. I think we&#039;ve sort of made this mistake and then fixed it because this is what the evidence shows, is the idea that people are resistant to facts in general, which is not true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Nope&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: What the evidence shows is that if you give people facts, they change their opinion. They change their opinion to meet the facts unless they are already ideologically bound to one position. So people behave differently for emotionally held ideological opinions versus things that they don&#039;t have an emotional stake in. And so you have to deal with people differently in different contexts. But he was nowhere near drilling down to that level of detail in his article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, okay let&#039;s move on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Pew Belief Poll &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(47:05)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Cara, tell us about the latest Pew poll about belief.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lipka, Michael &#039;[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/ Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Fact Tank: News in the Numbers&#039;&#039;. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Sure. So you guys may remember a report last year by Pew that detailed a really sharp decline in Christian affiliation, and a growing number of Americans reporting themselves as quote, “nones.” That was part of a really big study called the 2014 Religious Landscape study that was published in 2015. It included at the time thirty-five thousand seventy-one respondents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what the Pew research group decided to do is a follow up, a recontact study, where they found – or maybe they reached out to more. But they ultimately ended up having I think five thousand individuals who they interviewed more in depth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of those five thousand individuals, one thousand one hundred forty-nine of those define themselves as “nones,” or unaffiliated. So that was broken down into four hundred twenty-six different atheists or agnostics, and seven hundred twenty-three people who indicated that their religion is quote, “nothing in particular.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The real purpose of the recontact study was part of a bigger question about whether or not people choose new churches, when they choose new churches or houses of worship. And so they found a lot of really interesting outcomes on that. How often throughout the lifespan people go to a new church. What are the reasons that motivate them from leaving their former congregation, going to their new congregation. But within that, of course, they had all of these quote, “nones.” And so they found that there were a lot of really interesting things that came out of the nones, and they – N-O-N-E-S, not N-U-N-S – and they &#039;&#039;(Evan chuckles)&#039;&#039; dug a little bit deeper and asked a lot of questions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So again, just to be clear, as part of a big thirty-five thousand people study a few years ago, they recontacted five thousand individuals. But now I&#039;m only gonna be talking about the one thousand one hundred forty-nine individuals within that group who defined themselves as unaffiliated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So here&#039;s some interesting  stuff: The vast majority of these unaffiliated individuals say that they were actually raised as a member of a particular religion before shedding their religious identity in adulthood. So about seventy-eight percent of those people that they interviewed that said that they don&#039;t identify with a religion were raised religious, which to me seems reasonable. I mean, my personal anecdotal experience, and maybe it&#039;s because I grew up in the Bible belt (it&#039;s very rare for me to meet people who had no religion as they were growing up; much more common when I actually met people with similar viewpoints that said they had left a church earlier).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The really, I think, interesting thing here is that what they wanted to do is know why. “Why did you actually leave if you were raised religious?” And they found that there were a &#039;&#039;ton&#039;&#039; of different responses because they actually allowed for open-ended responses. So I&#039;ll read you some quotes in a bit. But there were some themes that sort of clustered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest response, which was about half (actually forty-nine percent of individuals) said that they left because they don&#039;t believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: That&#039;s pretty straight-forward. “I don&#039;t believe, so I&#039;m not gonna go any more.” About twenty percent said that they left because they disliked organized religion. About eighteen percent said that they were just religiously unsure or undecided. And then only ten percent of this group that identified as a none or unaffiliated actually self-defined as an inactive believer, meaning that they still had those beliefs, but they either are non-practicing or they&#039;re too busy to attend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So there is still within that nones group, I think, a little bit of a holdover of what I might not define as a none or an unaffiliated. So that&#039;s kind of interesting to parse it in that way. Under the “Don&#039;t believe” group, we found that many people said that they were disenchanted, and that&#039;s why they no longer believe. Some people said they just are not interested in, or they don&#039;t need religion, or that their views evolved. But that was actually a very small number. And only one percent of the individuals overall said that they went through a crisis of faith.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it does seem like it was less common that something happened in their lives that really changed their opinion. More common that, as we were just talking about, it was a slow, gradual thing that happened through learning and thinking and coming across new evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: And the internet as well, I&#039;m sure has ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, the internet probably had a big part of that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Totally fits with what I would expect. I think just largely generational. I think that they younger generations – it&#039;s funny. A lot of them, it&#039;s not like their atheist, they&#039;re so areligious &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: they&#039;re not even an atheist, you know what I mean? It&#039;s like they just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: It&#039;s not on their radar. Not on their radar.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting that “none” label&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, “None.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think that we&#039;re seeing a lot, or just, “I&#039;m religiously unaffiliated.” There is something interesting though: Remember how I said forty-nine percent of this overall group said that they just don&#039;t believe, and that&#039;s why they left. Interestingly, if they actually broke that down into the people who self-identify as atheist versus agnostic versus quote, “Nothing in particular,” actually eighty-two percent of atheists say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. Sixty-three percent of agnostics say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. And only thirty-seven percent of the “Nothing in particular” group left because they said they don&#039;t believe; which also makes sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Are you surprised by any of these findings?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: No, none of this really stuck out to me too much. I mean, it&#039;s definitely interesting. I think probably what&#039;s more interesting is the overall thing, like, Bob and I were talking about before we were on air, just the overall trends that we&#039;re seeing away from a specific religion or organized religion, and into a kind of personal formulation of spirituality, religion, or lack thereof.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does seem like we&#039;re seeing an individualistic move away from these big groups, and I do kind of find that interesting because we hear about these studies all the time, a lot of nay-sayers will send us these studies and we&#039;ll actually describe them on the show where congregations, church groups, being in a community actually is correlated with positive health benefits. And so it is kind of interesting that we&#039;re seeing more and more people sort of leaving that organized community behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And I think that&#039;s where we&#039;re starting to see some changes, even within the atheistic community. Some people still like the idea that they&#039;re unaffiliated and they don&#039;t want to be part of a group, but you&#039;re starting to see some. Atheist groups meeting and even having kind of their version of a quote, “church,” (which of course is completely secular&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: &#039;&#039;(Chuckles)&#039;&#039; Yeah, right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: but is still a group thing so that they can have that sense of community).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That&#039;s basically what secular humanism is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I do wonder a couple of things when I see these kind of numbers: One is, “Is this a long-term trend?” You know, is this the arc of human history to become less religious over time, or is this cyclical? You know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Wax and wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, you know, it&#039;s hard to get out of your time frame, and to try to look at the big picture. Certainly in the last I would say couple hundred years, it seems like the power that religion has on our society, even in the United States (which is fairly religious for a Western country),&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: it&#039;s definitely been on the wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, for sure, with, understanding evolution, just advances in scientific thinking, that&#039;s been a big thing; and like you guys said, the internet, just being able to meet people who are like-minded that maybe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: don&#039;t live down the street from you, is huge; and feeling more confident in coming out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And the second question I have is (and I think I know the answer to this), but, as religion is on the wane, are people just replacing it with other forms of belief systems? This doesn&#039;t necessarily mean that there are more people who are being rational, or who are rejecting all ideology or all belief systems. It&#039;s more that they&#039;re rejecting traditional organized religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s &#039;&#039;so&#039;&#039; true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Becoming druids? And&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: warlocks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Just new age stuff, yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I know so, in L.A., it is very rare for me to meet people who are religious. I actually forget that that&#039;s a thing. I grew up in a very religious part of the country, the Bible belt. I live in L.A. Most everyone I know is non-religious. Yet,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: But they&#039;re still spiritual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: if you dig deep - oh, they&#039;re crazy spiritual! They have&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a university out here that&#039;s basically a cult. It&#039;s like a spiritual psychology university where people are studying, like, past life interactions and energy transfer,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: and chi. The woo thinking, the medical quackery, and the, yes, quote, “Spiritual,” - and I don&#039;t want to misuse that word. I have a hard time with that word because I think it comes with a lot of baggage. I think that it&#039;s perfectly legitimate for individuals to consider themselves to be spiritual in a sort of zen kind of way; you know, finding perfundity in nature. Carl Sagan even used the term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Sure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think he can talk about spirituality in a way that it is not magical thinking, and then you can talk about spirituality in a way that&#039;s absolutely magical thinking, and we have a lot of those people here on the West Coast. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Why can&#039;t everybody be like us?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Rogues laugh)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Then we wouldn&#039;t have to exist!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aw, how sad!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We would just vanish in a puff of smoke.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If the whole world were skeptical, obviously, you can&#039;t say no to that, but it would be interesting because we would not have to exist at that point. We wouldn&#039;t need a skeptical movement if there wasn&#039;t so much irrationality in the world. I&#039;d still rather have the rational world though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Who&#039;s That Noisy &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(56:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Answer to last week: Space X landing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Membership drive at 59:14)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Absence of Evidence &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:00:16)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science or Fiction &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:09:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- I have difficulty differentiating Bob / Jay / Evan - if there are spots you can help, thanks -bshirley ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Science or Fiction music)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;It&#039;s time for Science or Fiction&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious, and I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Are you guys ready for this week? Three regular news items. &amp;lt;!--- overlapping responses ---&amp;gt; Alright, here we go. These are interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Items===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number one: a new study finds that rat whiskers contain chemical receptors to smell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Morris, Amanda &amp;quot;[http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2016/08/whiskers-help-animals-sense-winds-direction.html Whiskers Help Animals Sense the Direction of the Wind]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;McCormick School of Engineering.&#039;&#039; Northwestern University. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822155920.htm Chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition: Study challenges distinctiveness of human cooperation.]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Science News.&#039;&#039; Emory Health Sciences. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; And,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number three: scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazaro, Sage &amp;quot;[http://observer.com/2016/08/scientists-discovered-how-to-jumpstart-the-brain-of-a-coma-patient Real-Life Awakening: Scientists ‘Jumpstart’ the Brain of a Coma Patient]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Observer.&#039;&#039; Observer.com. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob, go first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Bob&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Alright, the rat whiskers, sure, that makes sense, i mean, would you call it “smell”? I could see that. I could see that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Un, the second, let’s see… chimpanzees choosing cooperation over competition, five to one, that’s… that kinda goes against what I’ve been led to believe about how… if you said bonobos I would absolutely agree with you, but chimpanzees are definitely more on the uncooperative/irascible&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irascible Wiktionary:irascible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; scale.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: …irascible… (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Scientist, let’s see, number three, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultrasound. I just kinda love brain stimulation. I think it, i’ve heard, I know it’s not, you know, it’s not, it doesn’t necessarily do what they’ve been claiming over these years but I think, I still have read some interesting experiments that have surprising effects, so I’ll tentatively go with that one. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um, cooperation over competition, five to one, alright I’m gonna say the &#039;&#039;&#039;chimpanzees is fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Okay. Jay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Jay&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: This one about the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors… what I can’t figure out is how, how is the chemical receptor in the rat whisker communicating back to the brain? There’s no electrical type nerve connection from the organ, the receptor, to the brain. Unless it’s… i don’t know. I just don’t see how that can possibly be. It seems completely BS to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second one here, researchers find chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition. I don’t know about the rate of five to one, but I do agree with that and I think that makes a lot of sense. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And this last one, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating the brain, the thing that Bob has hidden in a drawer next to his bed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Apparently, it’s not hidden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: I just wanted to make sure Cara was awake, that’s all. That’s why I said that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I’m awake. I’m awake.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘’(laughter)’’&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Stimulating the brain brings people from, …minimally conscious to fully conscious with a low power ultra sound. I agree because this reminds me what it’s like when I wake up in the morning, and that’s my coffee. So, sure, this is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I just &#039;&#039;&#039;don’t think the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039; and the chemical receptors, and them helping them smell thing. No. Nope, I don’t agree. That’s fake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: Ok. Evan?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Evan&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: So, the patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious. I suppose those… minimally conscious is a technical state of some sort. Not a coma? Or like…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, it ‘’is’’ a coma, but minimally conscious is pretty self explanatory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Okay. But now, you stimulate the brain with a low powered ulrta sound? So, how did they do that? Or, why does that, why does a low powered ultra sound have that ability to that? I don’t really understand it. This one’s tricky.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next one, the middle one, chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. I think that one will be science. I don’t think there’s any problem with that ratio. It may ‘’seem’’ high, but, you know, chimpanzees are very cool. Very cool. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How closely related in our DNA are we to chimpanzees? Ninety …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: 98 percent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: It depends on how you count it. There’s no one objective answer to that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: yeah, but it’s very high.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhere between 96 and 98 percent is the usual figure that the scientists give.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: alright, fair enough, I think people, although they’re competitive also i think we ‘’do’’ have a lot of cooperation, so I think we kinda mirror that. I think we’re okay there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And the last one is the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors. So, I’m gonna… this one I’m having a problem with because, I’ll go back to what we were talking about before with the logical fallacies &amp;lt;!--- link https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_581#Name_That_Logical_Fallacy:_Absence_of_Evidence_.281:00:16.29 ---&amp;gt;, isn’t this something we would have figured out maybe a ‘’long’’ time ago? You know, rat whiskers. It’s not like some hidden thing that we weren’t able to… what prevented us from determining this a long time ago? So, I think we would have found the evidence for that a while ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, therefore I think I’ll agree with Jay, I think &#039;&#039;&#039;the rat whisker one is gonna turn out to be the fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Alright. And, Cara…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cara&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think I’m torn between rat whiskers and the consciousness situation, so I’ll start with the chimpanzees. It seems reasonable to me. I’ve seen ‘’a lot’’ of primate studies, going all the way down to monkeys, not even apes, that show high rates of competition and of helping get food or share things in order to maximize the benefit for the group. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do rat whiskers contain a chemical receptor that help with sm… well I’ll disagree with jay because that is what a whisker ‘’is’’. It is an organ. It’s a sensory organ that actually helps with probe reception, or it helps them navigate their environment. So, if you cut certain whiskers you can do all kinds of neurological studies where you change some of the representation on the sensory cortex. So there ‘’is’’ a direct connection between whiskers and the brain, but ‘’chemical’’ receptors is interesting to me because I don’t think they have a physical way to bind anything. I mean, that would be what the receptor is. But it would be crazy if they just now found that because rat whiskers… or rats are such a common laboratory animal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And then scientists report a case where a patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious – Okay, so they woke up. – after using low power ultra sound. I think I’ve seen cases where consciousness is kind of sparked with thalamic stimulation. It’d be crazy if you could do this from outside the brain, and usually ultra sound is delivered from outside. So, I mean, I want this one to be true. So maybe – whuah, this is hard – I’m gonna hope that the ultrasound is also science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And that the &#039;&#039;&#039;fiction is the chemical receptors on the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039;. Because I just think they would have found that sooner. That would be my reasoning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 3===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Okay (1:19:45)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, you all agree with the third one, so let’s start there. Scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound. You all think this one is science. And this one is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(many): Yeah, baby.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yay. Wow, that’s so cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob: And Cara, great job. You pretty much nailed a lot of the details there. This was thalamic stimulation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, it was!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: The thalamus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: The thalmus. First of all, I was very careful in how I worded this. This was a single case. And they can’t prove that the stimulation is what did it, just that the patient woke up after they stimulated them. But, the timing ‘’does’’ look good, but they’ll obviously have to replicate it to see how generalizable this effect is, and if the effect is actually real. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, let me throw in some caveats here. First of all, this is a patient who was in a coma because of trauma. Trauma patients have a much better prognosis that patients who, for example, have diffuse anoxic ischemic injury.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Arciniegas, Dr. David B. &amp;quot;[http://www.internationalbrain.org/articles/hypoxicischemic-brain-injury/ Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;International Brain Injury Association&#039;&#039;. InternationalBrain.org. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; So, if your whole brain is injured because of lack of oxygen, these types of things generally don’t work. But if you have trauma to the brain, there may be pieces of the brain which work and other pieces to the brain that don’t work. And this is sort of a classic scenario where probably the cortex was relatively spared, and was still pretty functional, but the cortex just wasn’t being activated by the deeper structures like the thalamus. And so, if you could get the thalamus, if you could kick start or jump start the thalamus–which is what they’re calling it–you can do it with drugs, you can do it with wires, with deep-brain stimulation, if you can get that thalamus to function more it can wake up the rest of the brain, which is actually not that bad off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Isn’t it crazy how tenuous that is? Oh, my god.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, right? These little centers, deep in your brain, alerting your whole cortex, and if they get taken out, you’re in a coma. Your whole brain could be perfectly normal, but you’re essentially permanently asleep, because you don’t have the mechanism to alert or wake up your brain. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in those special cases where that’s the problem, this kind of thing can work. There was also a study where they implanted a chip basically to stimulate the thalamus and the deep structures. That also can be effective. So, eventually that may be the intervention. But, this is now using just an external, low power ultra sound focused on the thalamus to stimulate it. They described the patient being, again, minimally conscious. They would be able to do ‘’some’’ things, but not much. They occasionally would attend to external stimulation. Then after the treatment, they were essentially awake. They would look at the examiner. They did a fist bump, it was reported. One of the doctors as they were walking away they would follow commands, participate in their feeding. Still not neurologically normal. The guy still has brain damage. And was still was minimally verbal. I think would just shake his head yes and no, but would do so appropriately, but wasn’t really speaking. Again, he woke up but was not returned to neurologically intact. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do think we’re gonna see, fairly soon, these types of interventions to treat this one subgroup of patients who have enough brain function to be awake, but their deep structure’s just not working well enough to alert the brain. And all we need to do is stimulate it in order to get them to wake up. And we’re just figuring out the different techniques for doing that. Yeah, but very very cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Very cool. Maybe this could work for…, I know it’s a very specific case, but …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah. Okay, we’ll go backwards, I guess. We’ll go to number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. Bob, you think this one is the fiction, everyone else thinks this is science, and this one… is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Ahh, F-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Sorry, Bob.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: So, this was a little surprising actually, because previous research seemed to indicate that chimpanzees in particular are very competitive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yes!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: They’re greedy. You know, chimpanzees are often described as greedy, like they can’t inhibit their need to take things. They’ll steal. They’ll cheat. They’ll freeload. And they’ll compete against each other for resources. In this study, though, researchers tried to do a more open ended experiment with/in a more natural group environment. So, they had eleven chimpanzees who were involved in this study and essentially they gave them tasks to do that would result in a reward. But the task required either two chimpanzees to cooperate or three chimpanzees to cooperate; one chimpanzee could not get the reward by themselves. And they just observed their behavior. For example, did the chimpanzees work together, and did they police themselves for theft or freeloading or competition. And in fact, they did. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They engaged in a lot of policing behavior or enforcement strategies. For example, they wouldn’t expose the rewards if somebody… if a chimpanzee who had previously freeloaded was hanging around. They would say “nope, not until we get this jerk outta here. We’re not gonna do it.” You know. Sometimes the more alpha males would get involved in policing and punishing and ejecting the previous freeloaders or thieves from the area. They essentially enforced cooperation collectively as a group through punishment and these kind of behaviours. Which is what humans do. That’s essentially our system of justice is largely about, enforcing social norms and living together, cooperating, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And lots of other animals do that too. Birds, lots of birds do this. Birds will, for example, some species of birds will warn each other if predators are coming. But if one bird doesn’t participate in that, then other birds won’t warn them when it’s their turn. So, they use reciprocity as a way of awarding and punishing this behavior. So, even birds do this. So, cooperation’s actually fairly wide spread in the animal kingdom but it is ‘’not’’ unique to humans. Although some researchers have argued that our level of cooperation ‘’is’’ unique to humans. But every time somebody says that, you know, it seems like we find that chimpanzees do it too. And this is a similar case. Chimpanzees were mostly cooperating and engaging in a number of behaviors to enforce that cooperation, on the group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: So that’s nice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aww. That’s really cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That’s pretty cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhat cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 1===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: (laughs) …all this means that… a new study finds that rat whiskers&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskers Whiskers]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Wikipedia&#039;&#039;. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; contain chemical receptors that help them to smell, that is complete and total fiction. And the whiskers that themselves are basically hairs. They don’t have nerves in them. They have nerves at the base of the hair that sense the movement in the whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Yea, where you saying that there were receptors in the whiskers?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, but I made that up. That was wrong. That’s the lie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Okay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: The whiskers are just hairs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: (inaudible)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: They are like vibro- receptors at the base of the whiskers. So, the rat can sense, they get sensory information to their brain that actually helps them map the world when those whiskers move. The new study that inspired this item though was a study showing that rats can use their whiskers to sense the direction of the wind. And that helps them follow odors. So, if they’re smelling something, they need to know what the direction of the wind is blowing in in order to track that odor back to it’s source. And their whiskers help them do that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this study, very quickly, was they had rats enter an arena through a door and there were five fans. One of the fans was on and blowing. The hole at the base of that fan led to food. The hole at the base of the other four fans did not. So, if they couldn’t sense the wind at all, they would have a 20 percent chance of guessing the correct hole out of the gate. But the rats were able to do it 60 percent of the time, not just 20 percent of the time. But in order to show that they were using their whiskers, they then cut off their whiskers to see how they would do. Okay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Aww.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: But they said that the cutting off of the whiskers is painless. It’s like cutting off your hair. And they grow back. So, there’s no permanent harm done. So, they would cut off their whiskers, and then their performance dropped by 20 percent. So, they were still able to do better than chance, because there were other ways to sense the wind. But their performance decreased significantly because they no longer had their whiskers as a sensory organ. This suggests that they were sensing the wind, in part, with their whiskers. That was the study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I looked it up. I couldn’t find any evidence that they sniffed the air with their whiskers at all. I guess they could lick their whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: That’s what I was thinking. It’s exactly what I was licking, uh… thinking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If there’s stuff clinging to the whiskers, they could taste it by licking it. But the whiskers themselves don’t have receptors on them, as far as I could find. They’re just hair. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alright, Evan, give us the quote…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Skeptical Quote of the Week &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:27:14)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And until next week, this is your Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Outro404}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today I Learned: ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Steve states in this episode that Name That Logical Fallacy is a very popular segment that they don&#039;t do often enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Navigation}} &amp;lt;!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- Create category redirect pages for each segment mentioned below - https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Page categories&lt;br /&gt;
|Religion &amp;amp; Faith           = y &amp;lt;!--  Pew Belief Poll (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Pseudoscience        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Science &amp;amp; the Media        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10753</id>
		<title>Template:SectionChecklist</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10753"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:34:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: adding float parameter&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{|style=&amp;quot;background-color: #FFFFF0; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 1 1px; border: 1px solid #F4A460; float:{{{float|right}}};&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
! width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|[[File:Emblem-pen-orange.png|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=5, align=center|This {{{section|section}}} needs the following help. Each effort has a link for more details.&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=#ffff44, align=center|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;IN PROGRESS&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! transcription&lt;br /&gt;
! proof reading&lt;br /&gt;
! time stamps&lt;br /&gt;
! formatting&lt;br /&gt;
! links&lt;br /&gt;
! categories&lt;br /&gt;
! redirect&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{transcription|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Transcription|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{proof-reading|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Proof-reading|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
  {{#if: {{{transcription|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{time-stamps|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Time-stamps|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{formatting|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Formatting|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{links|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Links|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{categories|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{segment redirects|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categorized_segment_redirects|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=7, align=center | &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Once all the sections are completed for this section, this template can be removed.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rename request: SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please include this template at the top of pages that require attention. This not only shows what&#039;s needed, but also adds the page to the &#039;[[:Category:Needs attention|Needs attention]]&#039; category and its sub-categories for other contributors to see lists of pages needing work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: there is no &amp;quot;today I learned&amp;quot; checklist for the section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- episode is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =  &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
When a file is first created and nothing has been done, you can use this template to place in each section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once you feel each item has been taken care of, set the value of it to be empty indicating that work is no longer needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription = &amp;lt;!--- username transcribed ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!--- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;proof-reading&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; parameter should only be set after the transcription has occurred.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|float=none&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription = &amp;lt;!--- username transcribed ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!--- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading  = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
The values of the parameters can be any non-empty value, so leave a message for the next editor if you wish.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 {{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Maintenance templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10752</id>
		<title>SGU Episode 581</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_581&amp;diff=10752"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:30:55Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* What&amp;#039;s the Word (3:32) */ added section checklist&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Editing required&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{InfoBox&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeNum     = 581&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeDate    = August 27&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2016  &amp;lt;!-- broadcast date --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeIcon    = File:Proximab2.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|previous       =                          &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to previous episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|next           =                        &amp;lt;!-- not required, automates to next episode --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|rebecca        =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|bob            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|jay            = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|evan           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|cara           = y                         &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|perry          =                          &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if absent --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest1         =      &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest2         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no second guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|guest3         =                           &amp;lt;!-- leave blank if no third guest --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|downloadLink   = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2016-08-27.mp3&lt;br /&gt;
|forumLink      = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,47202.0.html&lt;br /&gt;
|qowText        = Our place in the Galaxy nor our Galaxy itself is special. Darwin has further shown that humans are a natural product of evolution by means of natural selection. The discovery of extrasolar life will demonstrate that even that last claim to being special will have to be abandoned&lt;br /&gt;
|qowAuthor      = Mario Livio, astrophysiscist &amp;lt;!-- add author and link --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;You&#039;re listening to the Skeptics&#039; Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Hello, and welcome to The Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, August 24&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, 2016; and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SGU Going to DragonCon &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(0:27)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What&#039;s the Word &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(3:32)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
* {{w|Inquiline}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== News Items ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Proxima Centauri Follow Up &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(7:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Williams, Matt &#039;[http://www.universetoday.com/130427/habitable-terrestrial-exoplanet-confirmed-around-nearest-star/ Potentially Habitable Exoplanet Confirmed Around Nearest Star!]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Universe Today&#039;&#039;. Fraser Cain. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- transcriber can use reference and remove link (if desired) ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anthropocene &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(15:01)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Yirka, Bob &#039;[http://phys.org/news/2016-08-golden-spike-anthropocene.html Search is on for &#039;golden spike&#039; signaling start of Anthropocene]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Phys.org&#039;&#039;. Omicron Technology Limited. Retrieved 10 September 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene Anthropocene] on Wikipedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(New era is based on all the environmental effects humans are having on the Earth)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== World Wide Web Turns 25 &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(26:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
*  http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/1st-website-ever-restored-to-its-1992-glory-1.1350832 1st website ever restored to its 1992 glory: CERN&#039;s ancient page describes the &amp;quot;W3&amp;quot; project]&#039;. &#039;&#039;CBC News: Technology and Science&#039;&#039;. CBC/Radio-Canada. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Commercial at 33:33)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- reference added as convenience for transcriber. raw link can be removed if desired. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Fighting Against Pseudoscience &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(34:54)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: All right, Evan, there was this article&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Grant, Richard P &#039;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2016/aug/23/scientists-losing-science-communication-skeptic-cox Why scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Science - Occam&#039;s Corner&#039;&#039;. The Guardian News. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; published recently about science communication and fighting against pseudoscience that is interesting, although I don&#039;t totally agree with it. But let&#039;s talk about it. Tell us about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah. It appeared in the Guardian, it was written by a former biologist. He turned blogger. His name is Richard Grant. And the title of his article is, “Why Scientists Are Losing the Fight to Communicate Science to the Public.” So I&#039;ll read a few things directly from the article, and then we can sort of comment on it as we go.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says that, “Scientists and science-communicators are engaged in a constant battle with ignorance. But that&#039;s an approach doomed to failure.” Okay. He says that, &amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;“A video did the rounds a couple of years ago of some self-styled skeptic disagreeing (robustly, shall we say) with an anti-vaxxer. The speaker was roundly cheered by everyone for sharing the video. He sure put that idiot in their place! Scientists love to argue, cutting through bullshit and getting to the truth of the matter is pretty much the job description.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I kinda don&#039;t necessarily fully agree with that. But he goes on to say,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Blockquote&amp;gt;”It&#039;s not really surprising scientists and science supporters frequently take on those who dabble in homeopathy or deny anthropogenic climate change, or who oppose vaccinations or genetically modified food. Brian Cox was at it last week performing a smack down on a climate change denier on the ABC&#039;s Q&amp;amp;A discussion program. He brought graphs (knock-out blow) and yet it leaves me cold. Is this really what science communication is about? Is this informing and changing minds, winning people over to a better, brighter future? I doubt it somehow.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I had a lot of problems with this article. So I think the core point that he&#039;s making, that you can&#039;t just oppose belief in pseudoscience with facts; you have to understand the psychological motivation why people are believing that pseudoscience – sure. That&#039;s absolutely valid.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, but that&#039;s also not ... new.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We all know that it&#039;s not a deficit problem. Sci-com, the reason it&#039;s not as effective as we&#039;d like to be is not because there&#039;s just not enough knowledge out there. We know that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, my problem was he&#039;s writing to science communicators, and he is about twenty years behind on the conversation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s how I felt. It&#039;s like, “Where have you been?”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, this is like, I remember having this conversation literally twenty years ago ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: when we were really getting involved with this. And there&#039;s so much more nuance, there&#039;s so much more involved with this. I just briefly put this up on our Facebook page and said that he&#039;s actually committing the problem that he&#039;s criticizing. He&#039;s sort of talking at us and not to us, and not really addressing the issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So like, for example, he&#039;s talking as if there is only true believers, but that&#039;s not true. There&#039;s not only true believers. First of all, there are a lot of people who are in the middle, or are just undecided, or just don&#039;t really know about whatever the topic is, like vaccines. Like, hey, there are a lot of parents who are, they hear concerning things about vaccines, but they&#039;re not anti-vaxxers. And so just putting the correct information out there and opposing the anti-vaxxers has a dramatic effect on the public conversation. It&#039;s an incredibly valuable resource to people who just want to know what the facts are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And it absolutely does prevent people, I think, from going down that rabbit hole and becoming a conspiracy theorist or an anti-science denier or whatever. And also, there are con artists out there as well. That&#039;s another group. There are people who are exploiting the true believers, are exploiting the community, exploiting the beliefs, the conspiracies, whatever, just to make money, just to sell their wares, to sell their snake oil; and they absolutely need to be deconstructed and taken apart. Their claims need to be vigorously opposed. They need to be corrected. We need to have the correct factual information out there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time, when dealing with groups of people who believe things for ideological, emotional, political, sociological reasons, we need to address them in the context of the reason for their belief; and we know that there&#039;s a back-fire effect. People could dig their heels in if you make them defend their ideology. Yeah, we&#039;ve been through all of this. This is what we talk about all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So his article was just naive. It was just uninformed. As I was reading it, I&#039;m like, “God, this really would have benefited if he actually spoke to a skeptic at some point who&#039;s been doing this for more than a couple of weeks.” His opinions might have had some depth to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Or a professional science communicator,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: somebody who does this for a living, and who&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Exactly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: studies outcome effects, and who talks to other science communicators. It was a little bit judgy, this whole thing. What is the quote? Somewhere in here. He&#039;s like, “How often is it that science communications actually listen to the needs of their audience?” And it&#039;s like, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: the number one thing we always say in sci-com is know your audience.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s the first thing every science communicator&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: talks about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right, right, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s just so dismissive to act as though we&#039;re ... I think he&#039;s really getting upset at scientists who don&#039;t communicate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Um-hmm, maybe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I don&#039;t know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s frustrating. And also,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Frustrating&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: is it fair to ask, who &#039;&#039;is&#039;&#039; this guy?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Steve chuckles)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Who is he? Really? Richard Grant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I don&#039;t know. I don&#039;t know who he is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: &#039;&#039;(Laughs)&#039;&#039; You know? He works in med – yeah, here it is. “He&#039;s a former biochemist, cell biologist, structural biologist now working in medical communications and founder of the independent blogging network, Occam&#039;s Typewriter.” Okay, so he&#039;s just like one of the many of us. Basically, instead of saying, “Here are the ways that many of us can improve,” he&#039;s saying, “Wow, you guys all suck at this.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Steve, I got the same feeling &#039;&#039;(Cara laughs)&#039;&#039; you did. This is very incomplete, way too black and white, not recognizing the broad spectrum where people fall along the lines of science, intelligence, or understanding science. In fact, he breaks it down into – he gives basically two general reasons as to why he arrived at this conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says, “First, in general, people don&#039;t like being told what to do. When the experts tell us how to live our lives, or worse, what to think, something rebels in people, especially when there&#039;s even the merest whiff of controversy or uncertainty.” And then he says, the second point is that on the whole he doesn&#039;t think that people that object to vaccines or GMO&#039;s are at heart anti-science, some are, but most aren&#039;t. People simply want to know that someone is listening, that someone is taking their worry seriously, and that somebody cares for them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I just don&#039;t agree with that. Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: I don&#039;t know where he arrived &#039;&#039;(laughs)&#039;&#039; at that point, or how he got ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, I mean,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: that conclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: you know, he&#039;s armchair criticizing a community of people that he doesn&#039;t really understand. Again, I&#039;m not gonna play the card, like, “He doesn&#039;t have the cred to have an opinion.” Of course he does. But if you&#039;re going to be judgmental about what other people are doing, you&#039;d better make a good, sincere effort to understand what they&#039;re actually doing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And we do have the advantage here. The SGU is eleven years old. We&#039;ve been doing this for twenty years. This is a very interactive medium. We get dozens, dozens of emails every day. I read dozens of comments to my blog, and comments on our Facebook posts every day. We are interacting with people. We are interacting with a broad audience as well as our community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have a much better idea of what people actually think, and how they actually respond to what we say, than this guy apparently does, you know? He would have benefited tremendously from talking to somebody who&#039;s actually involved in doing this. We just got an email today. I wasn&#039;t planning on reading this, but I&#039;ll just say it&#039;s somebody who&#039;s name is Kim. I won&#039;t give her full name, who basically said, “Hey, I started out as an absolutely true believer, gullible, believed everything.” An impressive list of pseudoscience had dominated her life. Listened to our show, and then over time was totally converted into a skeptic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So he&#039;s just factually wrong, that nobody ever gets converted, because we get these emails all of the time. It&#039;s probably statistically a small number, but you can&#039;t say that it never happens. And in any case, that&#039;s not even the primary goal. The primary goal is informing people who are open to the information, who are not already true believers. So, anyway, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: unfortunately, we encounter a lot of this, this sort of armchair criticism. It is, I agree with you, Cara. It&#039;s just being judgy. He ends -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s judgy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: the way he ends, yeah, it was so terrible. He&#039;s said, “Most science communication isn&#039;t about persuading people, it&#039;s self-affirmation for those already on the inside. Look at us,” it says. “Aren&#039;t we clever? We are exclusive. We are a gang. We are a family. It&#039;s tribalism.” That&#039;s bullshit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I&#039;m not saying there isn&#039;t any of that. Of course there is. People are tribal, we do have our communities. It is a source of identity. But it is so much not that, that is not what dominates science communication and skeptical activism. It is absolutely about persuading people. We are sincerely interested in engaging in the conversation, and persuading as many people as we can; and we&#039;re constantly self-examining, and looking at published research to figure out how to better do it, and we talk about it all the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Oh yeah, absolutely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, it&#039;s just, you know – he really, I think, again, as I say, especially in that piece that he was doing, he&#039;s guilty of the exact thing that he&#039;s criticizing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah! He&#039;s also so fatalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s not like he&#039;s really putting forth any better options.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He&#039;s basically, “Well, some minds will never change.” It&#039;s like, “Okay, thanks?” And then he sort of kind of throws a toogawanda under the bus to some extent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: He was honestly one of the most, I think, effective and sort of non-controversial&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: medical communicators out there, you know? His writings touch people who are absolutely religious or absolutely magical thinking, and they still can read his things and not feel insulted, and take something from them. He&#039;s just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a very good writer in that way. I don&#039;t know. Everything about it is a little bit like, the worst of what it is to write a blog. You know, I think blogs are incredibly important, and they&#039;re incredibly necessary, and good blogs can be better than bad journalism; but sometimes blogs can be very lazy. There was no reporting done on this. He never spoke to anybody&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: That&#039;s right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: before he wrote this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah, it&#039;s an opinion piece&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: more than anything, and, you know, I don&#039;t know what the Guardian&#039;s all about as far as putting this out as a news article, but&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s a bit annoying, &#039;cause it doesn&#039;t say “opinion,” and it doesn&#039;t say&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: No, it&#039;s not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: “blog.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It says, “Science: Occam&#039;s Corner.” Like, this is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: listed under, “Science.” Obviously, “Occam&#039;s Corner” sounds like it&#039;s his blog that he has on the Guardian, but it&#039;s not really clear that that&#039;s what somebody&#039;s reading. So anybody who comes across this who doesn&#039;t know the difference between good and bad science journalism might look at this and say, “Oh my gosh, well, this is the state of things,” not realizing that he never interviewed a single person, or did any real reporting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Ugh! Anyway.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, he also makes ... one last comment on this. He makes this very typical rookie mistake. I think we&#039;ve sort of made this mistake and then fixed it because this is what the evidence shows, is the idea that people are resistant to facts in general, which is not true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Nope&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: What the evidence shows is that if you give people facts, they change their opinion. They change their opinion to meet the facts unless they are already ideologically bound to one position. So people behave differently for emotionally held ideological opinions versus things that they don&#039;t have an emotional stake in. And so you have to deal with people differently in different contexts. But he was nowhere near drilling down to that level of detail in his article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, okay let&#039;s move on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Pew Belief Poll &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(47:05)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Cara, tell us about the latest Pew poll about belief.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lipka, Michael &#039;[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/24/why-americas-nones-left-religion-behind/ Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Fact Tank: News in the Numbers&#039;&#039;. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Sure. So you guys may remember a report last year by Pew that detailed a really sharp decline in Christian affiliation, and a growing number of Americans reporting themselves as quote, “nones.” That was part of a really big study called the 2014 Religious Landscape study that was published in 2015. It included at the time thirty-five thousand seventy-one respondents.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what the Pew research group decided to do is a follow up, a recontact study, where they found – or maybe they reached out to more. But they ultimately ended up having I think five thousand individuals who they interviewed more in depth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of those five thousand individuals, one thousand one hundred forty-nine of those define themselves as “nones,” or unaffiliated. So that was broken down into four hundred twenty-six different atheists or agnostics, and seven hundred twenty-three people who indicated that their religion is quote, “nothing in particular.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The real purpose of the recontact study was part of a bigger question about whether or not people choose new churches, when they choose new churches or houses of worship. And so they found a lot of really interesting outcomes on that. How often throughout the lifespan people go to a new church. What are the reasons that motivate them from leaving their former congregation, going to their new congregation. But within that, of course, they had all of these quote, “nones.” And so they found that there were a lot of really interesting things that came out of the nones, and they – N-O-N-E-S, not N-U-N-S – and they &#039;&#039;(Evan chuckles)&#039;&#039; dug a little bit deeper and asked a lot of questions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So again, just to be clear, as part of a big thirty-five thousand people study a few years ago, they recontacted five thousand individuals. But now I&#039;m only gonna be talking about the one thousand one hundred forty-nine individuals within that group who defined themselves as unaffiliated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So here&#039;s some interesting  stuff: The vast majority of these unaffiliated individuals say that they were actually raised as a member of a particular religion before shedding their religious identity in adulthood. So about seventy-eight percent of those people that they interviewed that said that they don&#039;t identify with a religion were raised religious, which to me seems reasonable. I mean, my personal anecdotal experience, and maybe it&#039;s because I grew up in the Bible belt (it&#039;s very rare for me to meet people who had no religion as they were growing up; much more common when I actually met people with similar viewpoints that said they had left a church earlier).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The really, I think, interesting thing here is that what they wanted to do is know why. “Why did you actually leave if you were raised religious?” And they found that there were a &#039;&#039;ton&#039;&#039; of different responses because they actually allowed for open-ended responses. So I&#039;ll read you some quotes in a bit. But there were some themes that sort of clustered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest response, which was about half (actually forty-nine percent of individuals) said that they left because they don&#039;t believe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: That&#039;s pretty straight-forward. “I don&#039;t believe, so I&#039;m not gonna go any more.” About twenty percent said that they left because they disliked organized religion. About eighteen percent said that they were just religiously unsure or undecided. And then only ten percent of this group that identified as a none or unaffiliated actually self-defined as an inactive believer, meaning that they still had those beliefs, but they either are non-practicing or they&#039;re too busy to attend.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So there is still within that nones group, I think, a little bit of a holdover of what I might not define as a none or an unaffiliated. So that&#039;s kind of interesting to parse it in that way. Under the “Don&#039;t believe” group, we found that many people said that they were disenchanted, and that&#039;s why they no longer believe. Some people said they just are not interested in, or they don&#039;t need religion, or that their views evolved. But that was actually a very small number. And only one percent of the individuals overall said that they went through a crisis of faith.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it does seem like it was less common that something happened in their lives that really changed their opinion. More common that, as we were just talking about, it was a slow, gradual thing that happened through learning and thinking and coming across new evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: And the internet as well, I&#039;m sure has ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, the internet probably had a big part of that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Totally fits with what I would expect. I think just largely generational. I think that they younger generations – it&#039;s funny. A lot of them, it&#039;s not like their atheist, they&#039;re so areligious &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: they&#039;re not even an atheist, you know what I mean? It&#039;s like they just&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: It&#039;s not on their radar. Not on their radar.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, that&#039;s why they&#039;re adopting that “none” label&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, “None.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think that we&#039;re seeing a lot, or just, “I&#039;m religiously unaffiliated.” There is something interesting though: Remember how I said forty-nine percent of this overall group said that they just don&#039;t believe, and that&#039;s why they left. Interestingly, if they actually broke that down into the people who self-identify as atheist versus agnostic versus quote, “Nothing in particular,” actually eighty-two percent of atheists say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. Sixty-three percent of agnostics say that they left because they don&#039;t believe. And only thirty-seven percent of the “Nothing in particular” group left because they said they don&#039;t believe; which also makes sense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Are you surprised by any of these findings?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: No, none of this really stuck out to me too much. I mean, it&#039;s definitely interesting. I think probably what&#039;s more interesting is the overall thing, like, Bob and I were talking about before we were on air, just the overall trends that we&#039;re seeing away from a specific religion or organized religion, and into a kind of personal formulation of spirituality, religion, or lack thereof.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does seem like we&#039;re seeing an individualistic move away from these big groups, and I do kind of find that interesting because we hear about these studies all the time, a lot of nay-sayers will send us these studies and we&#039;ll actually describe them on the show where congregations, church groups, being in a community actually is correlated with positive health benefits. And so it is kind of interesting that we&#039;re seeing more and more people sort of leaving that organized community behind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And I think that&#039;s where we&#039;re starting to see some changes, even within the atheistic community. Some people still like the idea that they&#039;re unaffiliated and they don&#039;t want to be part of a group, but you&#039;re starting to see some. Atheist groups meeting and even having kind of their version of a quote, “church,” (which of course is completely secular&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: &#039;&#039;(Chuckles)&#039;&#039; Yeah, right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: but is still a group thing so that they can have that sense of community).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That&#039;s basically what secular humanism is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, exactly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So it&#039;s interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I do wonder a couple of things when I see these kind of numbers: One is, “Is this a long-term trend?” You know, is this the arc of human history to become less religious over time, or is this cyclical? You know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Wax and wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, you know, it&#039;s hard to get out of your time frame, and to try to look at the big picture. Certainly in the last I would say couple hundred years, it seems like the power that religion has on our society, even in the United States (which is fairly religious for a Western country),&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: it&#039;s definitely been on the wane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, for sure, with, understanding evolution, just advances in scientific thinking, that&#039;s been a big thing; and like you guys said, the internet, just being able to meet people who are like-minded that maybe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: don&#039;t live down the street from you, is huge; and feeling more confident in coming out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And the second question I have is (and I think I know the answer to this), but, as religion is on the wane, are people just replacing it with other forms of belief systems? This doesn&#039;t necessarily mean that there are more people who are being rational, or who are rejecting all ideology or all belief systems. It&#039;s more that they&#039;re rejecting traditional organized religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: It&#039;s &#039;&#039;so&#039;&#039; true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Becoming druids? And&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, right.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: warlocks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Just new age stuff, yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I know so, in L.A., it is very rare for me to meet people who are religious. I actually forget that that&#039;s a thing. I grew up in a very religious part of the country, the Bible belt. I live in L.A. Most everyone I know is non-religious. Yet,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: But they&#039;re still spiritual.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: if you dig deep - oh, they&#039;re crazy spiritual! They have&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: a university out here that&#039;s basically a cult. It&#039;s like a spiritual psychology university where people are studying, like, past life interactions and energy transfer,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: and chi. The woo thinking, the medical quackery, and the, yes, quote, “Spiritual,” - and I don&#039;t want to misuse that word. I have a hard time with that word because I think it comes with a lot of baggage. I think that it&#039;s perfectly legitimate for individuals to consider themselves to be spiritual in a sort of zen kind of way; you know, finding perfundity in nature. Carl Sagan even used the term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Sure&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think he can talk about spirituality in a way that it is not magical thinking, and then you can talk about spirituality in a way that&#039;s absolutely magical thinking, and we have a lot of those people here on the West Coast. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Why can&#039;t everybody be like us?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Rogues laugh)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Then we wouldn&#039;t have to exist!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aw, how sad!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Yeah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: We would just vanish in a puff of smoke.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If the whole world were skeptical, obviously, you can&#039;t say no to that, but it would be interesting because we would not have to exist at that point. We wouldn&#039;t need a skeptical movement if there wasn&#039;t so much irrationality in the world. I&#039;d still rather have the rational world though.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Who&#039;s That Noisy &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(56:39)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Answer to last week: Space X landing&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Membership drive at 59:14)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Absence of Evidence &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:00:16)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science or Fiction &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:09:38)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- I have difficulty differentiating Bob / Jay / Evan - if there are spots you can help, thanks -bshirley ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Science or Fiction music)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;It&#039;s time for Science or Fiction&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious, and I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Are you guys ready for this week? Three regular news items. &amp;lt;!--- overlapping responses ---&amp;gt; Alright, here we go. These are interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Items===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number one: a new study finds that rat whiskers contain chemical receptors to smell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Morris, Amanda &amp;quot;[http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2016/08/whiskers-help-animals-sense-winds-direction.html Whiskers Help Animals Sense the Direction of the Wind]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;McCormick School of Engineering.&#039;&#039; Northwestern University. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822155920.htm Chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition: Study challenges distinctiveness of human cooperation.]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Science News.&#039;&#039; Emory Health Sciences. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; And,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Item number three: scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lazaro, Sage &amp;quot;[http://observer.com/2016/08/scientists-discovered-how-to-jumpstart-the-brain-of-a-coma-patient Real-Life Awakening: Scientists ‘Jumpstart’ the Brain of a Coma Patient]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;Observer.&#039;&#039; Observer.com. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob, go first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Bob&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Alright, the rat whiskers, sure, that makes sense, i mean, would you call it “smell”? I could see that. I could see that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Un, the second, let’s see… chimpanzees choosing cooperation over competition, five to one, that’s… that kinda goes against what I’ve been led to believe about how… if you said bonobos I would absolutely agree with you, but chimpanzees are definitely more on the uncooperative/irascible&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irascible Wiktionary:irascible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; scale.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: …irascible… (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Scientist, let’s see, number three, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultrasound. I just kinda love brain stimulation. I think it, i’ve heard, I know it’s not, you know, it’s not, it doesn’t necessarily do what they’ve been claiming over these years but I think, I still have read some interesting experiments that have surprising effects, so I’ll tentatively go with that one. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um, cooperation over competition, five to one, alright I’m gonna say the &#039;&#039;&#039;chimpanzees is fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Okay. Jay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Jay&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: This one about the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors… what I can’t figure out is how, how is the chemical receptor in the rat whisker communicating back to the brain? There’s no electrical type nerve connection from the organ, the receptor, to the brain. Unless it’s… i don’t know. I just don’t see how that can possibly be. It seems completely BS to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second one here, researchers find chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition. I don’t know about the rate of five to one, but I do agree with that and I think that makes a lot of sense. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And this last one, minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating the brain, the thing that Bob has hidden in a drawer next to his bed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Apparently, it’s not hidden.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: I just wanted to make sure Cara was awake, that’s all. That’s why I said that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I’m awake. I’m awake.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘’(laughter)’’&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Stimulating the brain brings people from, …minimally conscious to fully conscious with a low power ultra sound. I agree because this reminds me what it’s like when I wake up in the morning, and that’s my coffee. So, sure, this is possible.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I just &#039;&#039;&#039;don’t think the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039; and the chemical receptors, and them helping them smell thing. No. Nope, I don’t agree. That’s fake.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: Ok. Evan?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Evan&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: So, the patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious. I suppose those… minimally conscious is a technical state of some sort. Not a coma? Or like…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, it ‘’is’’ a coma, but minimally conscious is pretty self explanatory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Okay. But now, you stimulate the brain with a low powered ulrta sound? So, how did they do that? Or, why does that, why does a low powered ultra sound have that ability to that? I don’t really understand it. This one’s tricky.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next one, the middle one, chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. I think that one will be science. I don’t think there’s any problem with that ratio. It may ‘’seem’’ high, but, you know, chimpanzees are very cool. Very cool. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How closely related in our DNA are we to chimpanzees? Ninety …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: 98 percent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: It depends on how you count it. There’s no one objective answer to that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: yeah, but it’s very high.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhere between 96 and 98 percent is the usual figure that the scientists give.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: alright, fair enough, I think people, although they’re competitive also i think we ‘’do’’ have a lot of cooperation, so I think we kinda mirror that. I think we’re okay there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And the last one is the rat whiskers that contain chemical receptors. So, I’m gonna… this one I’m having a problem with because, I’ll go back to what we were talking about before with the logical fallacies &amp;lt;!--- link https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_581#Name_That_Logical_Fallacy:_Absence_of_Evidence_.281:00:16.29 ---&amp;gt;, isn’t this something we would have figured out maybe a ‘’long’’ time ago? You know, rat whiskers. It’s not like some hidden thing that we weren’t able to… what prevented us from determining this a long time ago? So, I think we would have found the evidence for that a while ago. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, therefore I think I’ll agree with Jay, I think &#039;&#039;&#039;the rat whisker one is gonna turn out to be the fiction&#039;&#039;&#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Alright. And, Cara…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Cara&#039;s Response===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I think I’m torn between rat whiskers and the consciousness situation, so I’ll start with the chimpanzees. It seems reasonable to me. I’ve seen ‘’a lot’’ of primate studies, going all the way down to monkeys, not even apes, that show high rates of competition and of helping get food or share things in order to maximize the benefit for the group. So, I’m gonna say that one is science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do rat whiskers contain a chemical receptor that help with sm… well I’ll disagree with jay because that is what a whisker ‘’is’’. It is an organ. It’s a sensory organ that actually helps with probe reception, or it helps them navigate their environment. So, if you cut certain whiskers you can do all kinds of neurological studies where you change some of the representation on the sensory cortex. So there ‘’is’’ a direct connection between whiskers and the brain, but ‘’chemical’’ receptors is interesting to me because I don’t think they have a physical way to bind anything. I mean, that would be what the receptor is. But it would be crazy if they just now found that because rat whiskers… or rats are such a common laboratory animal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And then scientists report a case where a patient went from minimally conscious to fully conscious – Okay, so they woke up. – after using low power ultra sound. I think I’ve seen cases where consciousness is kind of sparked with thalamic stimulation. It’d be crazy if you could do this from outside the brain, and usually ultra sound is delivered from outside. So, I mean, I want this one to be true. So maybe – whuah, this is hard – I’m gonna hope that the ultrasound is also science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And that the &#039;&#039;&#039;fiction is the chemical receptors on the rat whiskers&#039;&#039;&#039;. Because I just think they would have found that sooner. That would be my reasoning.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 3===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Okay (1:19:45)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, you all agree with the third one, so let’s start there. Scientists report a case of a patient who went from minimally conscious to fully conscious after stimulating his brain with low power ultra sound. You all think this one is science. And this one is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(many): Yeah, baby.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yay. Wow, that’s so cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob: And Cara, great job. You pretty much nailed a lot of the details there. This was thalamic stimulation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Oh, it was!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: The thalamus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: The thalmus. First of all, I was very careful in how I worded this. This was a single case. And they can’t prove that the stimulation is what did it, just that the patient woke up after they stimulated them. But, the timing ‘’does’’ look good, but they’ll obviously have to replicate it to see how generalizable this effect is, and if the effect is actually real. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But, let me throw in some caveats here. First of all, this is a patient who was in a coma because of trauma. Trauma patients have a much better prognosis that patients who, for example, have diffuse anoxic ischemic injury.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Arciniegas, Dr. David B. &amp;quot;[http://www.internationalbrain.org/articles/hypoxicischemic-brain-injury/ Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury]&amp;quot;. &#039;&#039;International Brain Injury Association&#039;&#039;. InternationalBrain.org. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; So, if your whole brain is injured because of lack of oxygen, these types of things generally don’t work. But if you have trauma to the brain, there may be pieces of the brain which work and other pieces to the brain that don’t work. And this is sort of a classic scenario where probably the cortex was relatively spared, and was still pretty functional, but the cortex just wasn’t being activated by the deeper structures like the thalamus. And so, if you could get the thalamus, if you could kick start or jump start the thalamus–which is what they’re calling it–you can do it with drugs, you can do it with wires, with deep-brain stimulation, if you can get that thalamus to function more it can wake up the rest of the brain, which is actually not that bad off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Isn’t it crazy how tenuous that is? Oh, my god.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yeah, right? These little centers, deep in your brain, alerting your whole cortex, and if they get taken out, you’re in a coma. Your whole brain could be perfectly normal, but you’re essentially permanently asleep, because you don’t have the mechanism to alert or wake up your brain. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, in those special cases where that’s the problem, this kind of thing can work. There was also a study where they implanted a chip basically to stimulate the thalamus and the deep structures. That also can be effective. So, eventually that may be the intervention. But, this is now using just an external, low power ultra sound focused on the thalamus to stimulate it. They described the patient being, again, minimally conscious. They would be able to do ‘’some’’ things, but not much. They occasionally would attend to external stimulation. Then after the treatment, they were essentially awake. They would look at the examiner. They did a fist bump, it was reported. One of the doctors as they were walking away they would follow commands, participate in their feeding. Still not neurologically normal. The guy still has brain damage. And was still was minimally verbal. I think would just shake his head yes and no, but would do so appropriately, but wasn’t really speaking. Again, he woke up but was not returned to neurologically intact. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do think we’re gonna see, fairly soon, these types of interventions to treat this one subgroup of patients who have enough brain function to be awake, but their deep structure’s just not working well enough to alert the brain. And all we need to do is stimulate it in order to get them to wake up. And we’re just figuring out the different techniques for doing that. Yeah, but very very cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Very cool. Maybe this could work for…, I know it’s a very specific case, but …&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 2===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah. Okay, we’ll go backwards, I guess. We’ll go to number two: in a study, researchers find that chimpanzees choose cooperation over competition at a rate of five to one. Bob, you think this one is the fiction, everyone else thinks this is science, and this one… is… science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Ahh, F-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Sorry, Bob.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: (laughs)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: So, this was a little surprising actually, because previous research seemed to indicate that chimpanzees in particular are very competitive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yes!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Steve: They’re greedy. You know, chimpanzees are often described as greedy, like they can’t inhibit their need to take things. They’ll steal. They’ll cheat. They’ll freeload. And they’ll compete against each other for resources. In this study, though, researchers tried to do a more open ended experiment with/in a more natural group environment. So, they had eleven chimpanzees who were involved in this study and essentially they gave them tasks to do that would result in a reward. But the task required either two chimpanzees to cooperate or three chimpanzees to cooperate; one chimpanzee could not get the reward by themselves. And they just observed their behavior. For example, did the chimpanzees work together, and did they police themselves for theft or freeloading or competition. And in fact, they did. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They engaged in a lot of policing behavior or enforcement strategies. For example, they wouldn’t expose the rewards if somebody… if a chimpanzee who had previously freeloaded was hanging around. They would say “nope, not until we get this jerk outta here. We’re not gonna do it.” You know. Sometimes the more alpha males would get involved in policing and punishing and ejecting the previous freeloaders or thieves from the area. They essentially enforced cooperation collectively as a group through punishment and these kind of behaviours. Which is what humans do. That’s essentially our system of justice is largely about, enforcing social norms and living together, cooperating, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And lots of other animals do that too. Birds, lots of birds do this. Birds will, for example, some species of birds will warn each other if predators are coming. But if one bird doesn’t participate in that, then other birds won’t warn them when it’s their turn. So, they use reciprocity as a way of awarding and punishing this behavior. So, even birds do this. So, cooperation’s actually fairly wide spread in the animal kingdom but it is ‘’not’’ unique to humans. Although some researchers have argued that our level of cooperation ‘’is’’ unique to humans. But every time somebody says that, you know, it seems like we find that chimpanzees do it too. And this is a similar case. Chimpanzees were mostly cooperating and engaging in a number of behaviors to enforce that cooperation, on the group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: So that’s nice&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Aww. That’s really cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That’s pretty cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Somewhat cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Steve Explains Item 1===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: (laughs) …all this means that… a new study finds that rat whiskers&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&#039;[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskers Whiskers]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Wikipedia&#039;&#039;. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 10 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; contain chemical receptors that help them to smell, that is complete and total fiction. And the whiskers that themselves are basically hairs. They don’t have nerves in them. They have nerves at the base of the hair that sense the movement in the whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Yea, where you saying that there were receptors in the whiskers?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Yeah, but I made that up. That was wrong. That’s the lie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Okay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: The whiskers are just hairs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: (inaudible)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: They are like vibro- receptors at the base of the whiskers. So, the rat can sense, they get sensory information to their brain that actually helps them map the world when those whiskers move. The new study that inspired this item though was a study showing that rats can use their whiskers to sense the direction of the wind. And that helps them follow odors. So, if they’re smelling something, they need to know what the direction of the wind is blowing in in order to track that odor back to it’s source. And their whiskers help them do that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But this study, very quickly, was they had rats enter an arena through a door and there were five fans. One of the fans was on and blowing. The hole at the base of that fan led to food. The hole at the base of the other four fans did not. So, if they couldn’t sense the wind at all, they would have a 20 percent chance of guessing the correct hole out of the gate. But the rats were able to do it 60 percent of the time, not just 20 percent of the time. But in order to show that they were using their whiskers, they then cut off their whiskers to see how they would do. Okay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: Aww.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: But they said that the cutting off of the whiskers is painless. It’s like cutting off your hair. And they grow back. So, there’s no permanent harm done. So, they would cut off their whiskers, and then their performance dropped by 20 percent. So, they were still able to do better than chance, because there were other ways to sense the wind. But their performance decreased significantly because they no longer had their whiskers as a sensory organ. This suggests that they were sensing the wind, in part, with their whiskers. That was the study.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I looked it up. I couldn’t find any evidence that they sniffed the air with their whiskers at all. I guess they could lick their whiskers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
?: That’s what I was thinking. It’s exactly what I was licking, uh… thinking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: If there’s stuff clinging to the whiskers, they could taste it by licking it. But the whiskers themselves don’t have receptors on them, as far as I could find. They’re just hair. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alright, Evan, give us the quote…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Skeptical Quote of the Week &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:27:14)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: And until next week, this is your Skeptic&#039;s Guide to the Universe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Outro404}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today I Learned: ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Steve states in this episode that Name That Logical Fallacy is a very popular segment that they don&#039;t do often enough.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Navigation}} &amp;lt;!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- Create category redirect pages for each segment mentioned below - https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Page categories&lt;br /&gt;
|Religion &amp;amp; Faith           = y &amp;lt;!--  Pew Belief Poll (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Pseudoscience        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|Science &amp;amp; the Media        = y &amp;lt;!--  Fighting Against Pseudoscience (581) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10751</id>
		<title>Template:SectionChecklist</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10751"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:29:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: changed references to new name&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{|style=&amp;quot;background-color: #FFFFF0; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 1 1px; border: 1px solid #F4A460; float:right;&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
! width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|[[File:Emblem-pen-orange.png|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=5, align=center|This {{{section|section}}} needs the following help. Each effort has a link for more details.&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=#ffff44, align=center|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;IN PROGRESS&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! transcription&lt;br /&gt;
! proof reading&lt;br /&gt;
! time stamps&lt;br /&gt;
! formatting&lt;br /&gt;
! links&lt;br /&gt;
! categories&lt;br /&gt;
! redirect&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{transcription|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Transcription|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{proof-reading|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Proof-reading|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
  {{#if: {{{transcription|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{time-stamps|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Time-stamps|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{formatting|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Formatting|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{links|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Links|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{categories|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{segment redirects|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categorized_segment_redirects|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=7, align=center | &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Once all the sections are completed for this section, this template can be removed.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rename request: SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please include this template at the top of pages that require attention. This not only shows what&#039;s needed, but also adds the page to the &#039;[[:Category:Needs attention|Needs attention]]&#039; category and its sub-categories for other contributors to see lists of pages needing work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: there is no &amp;quot;today I learned&amp;quot; checklist for the section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- episode is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =  &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
When a file is first created and nothing has been done, you can use this template to place in each section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once you feel each item has been taken care of, set the value of it to be empty indicating that work is no longer needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription = &amp;lt;!--- username transcribed ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!--- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;proof-reading&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; parameter should only be set after the transcription has occurred.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!--- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading  = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
The values of the parameters can be any non-empty value, so leave a message for the next editor if you wish.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 {{SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Maintenance templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Editing_needed&amp;diff=10750</id>
		<title>Template:Editing needed</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Editing_needed&amp;diff=10750"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:27:48Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: Bshirley moved page Template:Editing needed to Template:SectionChecklist: still being developed, felt it was a more appropriate name&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;#REDIRECT [[Template:SectionChecklist]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10749</id>
		<title>Template:SectionChecklist</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10749"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:27:48Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: Bshirley moved page Template:Editing needed to Template:SectionChecklist: still being developed, felt it was a more appropriate name&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{|style=&amp;quot;background-color: #FFFFF0; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 1 1px; border: 1px solid #F4A460; float:right;&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
! width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|[[File:Emblem-pen-orange.png|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=5, align=center|This {{{section|section}}} needs the following help. Each effort has a link for more details.&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=#ffff44, align=center|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;IN PROGRESS&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! transcription&lt;br /&gt;
! proof reading&lt;br /&gt;
! time stamps&lt;br /&gt;
! formatting&lt;br /&gt;
! links&lt;br /&gt;
! categories&lt;br /&gt;
! redirect&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{transcription|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Transcription|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{proof-reading|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Proof-reading|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
  {{#if: {{{transcription|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{time-stamps|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Time-stamps|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{formatting|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Formatting|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{links|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Links|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{categories|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{segment redirects|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categorized_segment_redirects|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=7, align=center | &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Once all the sections are completed for this section, this template can be removed.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rename request: SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please include this template at the top of pages that require attention. This not only shows what&#039;s needed, but also adds the page to the &#039;[[:Category:Needs attention|Needs attention]]&#039; category and its sub-categories for other contributors to see lists of pages needing work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: there is no &amp;quot;today I learned&amp;quot; checklist for the section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- episode is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =  &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
When a file is first created and nothing has been done, you can use this template to place in each section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once you feel each item has been taken care of, set the value of it to be empty indicating that work is no longer needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription = &amp;lt;!--- username transcribed ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!--- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;proof-reading&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; parameter should only be set after the transcription has occurred.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!--- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading  = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
The values of the parameters can be any non-empty value, so leave a message for the next editor if you wish.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 {{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Maintenance templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10748</id>
		<title>Template:SectionChecklist</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10748"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:27:08Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: updated usage, made proof reading not show a tick when transcription still needed&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{|style=&amp;quot;background-color: #FFFFF0; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 1 1px; border: 1px solid #F4A460; float:right;&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
! width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|[[File:Emblem-pen-orange.png|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=5, align=center|This {{{section|section}}} needs the following help. Each effort has a link for more details.&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=#ffff44, align=center|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;IN PROGRESS&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! transcription&lt;br /&gt;
! proof reading&lt;br /&gt;
! time stamps&lt;br /&gt;
! formatting&lt;br /&gt;
! links&lt;br /&gt;
! categories&lt;br /&gt;
! redirect&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{transcription|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Transcription|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{proof-reading|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Proof-reading|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
  {{#if: {{{transcription|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{time-stamps|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Time-stamps|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{formatting|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Formatting|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{links|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Links|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{categories|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{segment redirects|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categorized_segment_redirects|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=7, align=center | &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Once all the sections are completed for this section, this template can be removed.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rename request: SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please include this template at the top of pages that require attention. This not only shows what&#039;s needed, but also adds the page to the &#039;[[:Category:Needs attention|Needs attention]]&#039; category and its sub-categories for other contributors to see lists of pages needing work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: there is no &amp;quot;today I learned&amp;quot; checklist for the section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- episode is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =  &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
When a file is first created and nothing has been done, you can use this template to place in each section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once you feel each item has been taken care of, set the value of it to be empty indicating that work is no longer needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          =     &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription = &amp;lt;!--- username transcribed ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!--- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;proof-reading&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; parameter should only be set after the transcription has occurred.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!--- please only include when some transcription is present. ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading  = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
The values of the parameters can be any non-empty value, so leave a message for the next editor if you wish.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 {{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Maintenance templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10747</id>
		<title>Template:SectionChecklist</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10747"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:12:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: floating right&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{|style=&amp;quot;background-color: #FFFFF0; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 1 1px; border: 1px solid #F4A460; float:right;&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
! width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|[[File:Emblem-pen-orange.png|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=5, align=center|This {{{section|section}}} needs the following help. Each effort has a link for more details.&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=#ffff44, align=center|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;IN PROGRESS&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! transcription&lt;br /&gt;
! proof reading&lt;br /&gt;
! time stamps&lt;br /&gt;
! formatting&lt;br /&gt;
! links&lt;br /&gt;
! categories&lt;br /&gt;
! redirect&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{transcription|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Transcription|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{proof-reading|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Proof-reading|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{time-stamps|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Time-stamps|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{formatting|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Formatting|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{links|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Links|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{categories|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{segment redirects|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categorized_segment_redirects|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=7, align=center | &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Once all the sections are completed for this section, this template can be removed.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rename request: SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please include this template at the top of pages that require attention. This not only shows what&#039;s needed, but also adds the page to the &#039;[[:Category:Needs attention|Needs attention]]&#039; category and its sub-categories for other contributors to see lists of pages needing work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: there is no &amp;quot;today I learned&amp;quot; checklist for the section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
You can copy/paste the following code into your page, removing lines as appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- episode is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
       &amp;lt;!--- the values can actually be and non-empty value, so leave a message for the editor if you like ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading  = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Maintenance templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Contents&amp;diff=10746</id>
		<title>Help:Contents</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Contents&amp;diff=10746"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:09:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* Useful links */ fixed link&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Thanks for your interest in helping out with the SGU transcript project!&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you probably know, there are over 400 full episodes of the SGU, and over 100 5x5 episodes, so we appreciate any and all of the help we get.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We want to make it clear that we welcome &#039;&#039;&#039;[[Help:How to Contribute|all contributions]]&#039;&#039;&#039;, regardless of whether you can tell the difference between Jay and Bob, don&#039;t have time to do all the formatting, or can only transcribe &#039;&#039;parts&#039;&#039; of episodes.  We encourage everyone to contribute just as much or as little as they wish.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please feel free to post questions and feedback in the [[SGUTranscripts:Community portal|Community portal]] or you can contact us at [mailto:info@sgutranscripts.org info@sgutranscripts.org].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Help pages ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Help:Getting Started|Getting Started]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; covers the basics of creating and editing a page, and other useful info&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Help:How to Contribute|How to Contribute]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; covers the many ways you can help out; it&#039;s not only transcription&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Help:Episode infobox|Episode infobox]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; describes how to add input to the full episode infoboxes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Help:5X5 infobox|5X5 infobox]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; describes how to add input to the 5X5 episode infoboxes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Help:Categories|Categories]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; list of categories used on SGUTranscripts.org&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Help:Template list|Template list]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; lists all available templates&lt;br /&gt;
|}&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
==== Useful pages ====&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Template:SGU episode list]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; list of SGU episodes used on the main page and [[SGU Episodes]]. Add new pages here&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Template:5X5 episode list]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; 5X5 episode table used on the main page and [[5X5 Episodes]]. Add new pages here&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Episode skeleton‎‎]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; can be used for copy/pasting the basic structure into episode transcription pages&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[5X5 skeleton‎‎]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; can be used for copy/pasting the basic structure into 5X5 transcription pages&lt;br /&gt;
|}&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
==== Useful links ====&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Contents MediaWiki Help]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[metawikipedia:Help:Advanced editing|Meta-Wiki Help:Advanced editing]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[wikipedia:Help:Cheatsheet|Wikipedia Cheatsheet]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Tutorial|Wikipedia Tutorial]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[wikipedia:Help:Contents|Wikipedia Help Contents]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[wikipedia:Help:Wiki_markup|Wikipedia Wiki Markup]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Consult the [[mw:Help:Contents|User&#039;s Guide]] for information on using the wiki software.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[mw:Manual:Configuration_settings|Configuration settings list]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[mw:Manual:FAQ|MediaWiki FAQ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:SGUheader.jpg|center|300px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Help]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Contents&amp;diff=10745</id>
		<title>Help:Contents</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Contents&amp;diff=10745"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:08:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* Useful links */ added link to general help on Mediawiki site, previously in links on left&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;Thanks for your interest in helping out with the SGU transcript project!&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you probably know, there are over 400 full episodes of the SGU, and over 100 5x5 episodes, so we appreciate any and all of the help we get.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We want to make it clear that we welcome &#039;&#039;&#039;[[Help:How to Contribute|all contributions]]&#039;&#039;&#039;, regardless of whether you can tell the difference between Jay and Bob, don&#039;t have time to do all the formatting, or can only transcribe &#039;&#039;parts&#039;&#039; of episodes.  We encourage everyone to contribute just as much or as little as they wish.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please feel free to post questions and feedback in the [[SGUTranscripts:Community portal|Community portal]] or you can contact us at [mailto:info@sgutranscripts.org info@sgutranscripts.org].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Help pages ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Help:Getting Started|Getting Started]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; covers the basics of creating and editing a page, and other useful info&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Help:How to Contribute|How to Contribute]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; covers the many ways you can help out; it&#039;s not only transcription&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Help:Episode infobox|Episode infobox]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; describes how to add input to the full episode infoboxes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Help:5X5 infobox|5X5 infobox]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; describes how to add input to the 5X5 episode infoboxes&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Help:Categories|Categories]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; list of categories used on SGUTranscripts.org&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Help:Template list|Template list]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; lists all available templates&lt;br /&gt;
|}&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
==== Useful pages ====&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Template:SGU episode list]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; list of SGU episodes used on the main page and [[SGU Episodes]]. Add new pages here&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Template:5X5 episode list]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; 5X5 episode table used on the main page and [[5X5 Episodes]]. Add new pages here&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Episode skeleton‎‎]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; can be used for copy/pasting the basic structure into episode transcription pages&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[5X5 skeleton‎‎]]|| &amp;amp;ndash; can be used for copy/pasting the basic structure into 5X5 transcription pages&lt;br /&gt;
|}&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
==== Useful links ====&lt;br /&gt;
* [[mediawiki:Help:Contents|MediaWiki Help]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[metawikipedia:Help:Advanced editing|Meta-Wiki Help:Advanced editing]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[wikipedia:Help:Cheatsheet|Wikipedia Cheatsheet]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Tutorial|Wikipedia Tutorial]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[wikipedia:Help:Contents|Wikipedia Help Contents]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[wikipedia:Help:Wiki_markup|Wikipedia Wiki Markup]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Consult the [[mw:Help:Contents|User&#039;s Guide]] for information on using the wiki software.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[mw:Manual:Configuration_settings|Configuration settings list]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[mw:Manual:FAQ|MediaWiki FAQ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:SGUheader.jpg|center|300px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Help]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10744</id>
		<title>Template:SectionChecklist</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10744"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:04:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{|style=&amp;quot;background-color: #FFFFF0; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 1 1px; border: 1px solid #F4A460;&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;95%&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|[[File:Emblem-pen-orange.png|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=5, align=center|This {{{section|section}}} needs the following help. Each effort has a link for more details.&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=#ffff44, align=center|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;IN PROGRESS&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! transcription&lt;br /&gt;
! proof reading&lt;br /&gt;
! time stamps&lt;br /&gt;
! formatting&lt;br /&gt;
! links&lt;br /&gt;
! categories&lt;br /&gt;
! redirect&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{transcription|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Transcription|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{proof-reading|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Proof-reading|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{time-stamps|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Time-stamps|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{formatting|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Formatting|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{links|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Links|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{categories|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{segment redirects|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categorized_segment_redirects|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=7, align=center | &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Once all the sections are completed for this section, this template can be removed.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
THIS TEMPLATE IS EXPERIMENTAL and based on [[Template:Editing required]] --[[User:bshirley|Bill Shirley]] ([[User talk:bshirley|talk]]) 03:56, 13 September 2016 (AEST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rename request: SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please include this template at the top of pages that require attention. This not only shows what&#039;s needed, but also adds the page to the &#039;[[:Category:Needs attention|Needs attention]]&#039; category and its sub-categories for other contributors to see lists of pages needing work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: there is no &amp;quot;today I learned&amp;quot; checklist for the section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
You can copy/paste the following code into your page, removing lines as appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- episode is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
       &amp;lt;!--- the values can actually be and non-empty value, so leave a message for the editor if you like ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading  = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Maintenance templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10743</id>
		<title>Template:SectionChecklist</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10743"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T21:03:52Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* Usage */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{|style=&amp;quot;background-color: #FFFFF0; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 1 1px; border: 1px solid #F4A460;&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;95%&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;|[[File:Emblem-pen-orange.png|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=5, align=center|This {{{section|section}}} needs the following help. Each effort has a link for more details.&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=#ffff44, align=center|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;IN PROGRESS&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! transcription&lt;br /&gt;
! proof reading&lt;br /&gt;
! time stamps&lt;br /&gt;
! formatting&lt;br /&gt;
! links&lt;br /&gt;
! categories&lt;br /&gt;
! redirect&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{transcription|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Transcription|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{proof-reading|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Proof-reading|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{time-stamps|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Time-stamps|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{formatting|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Formatting|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{links|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Links|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{categories|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{segment redirects|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categorized_segment_redirects|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=7, align=center | &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Once all the sections are completed for this section, this template can be removed.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
THIS TEMPLATE IS EXPERIMENTAL and based on [[Template:Editing required]] --[[User:bshirley|Bill Shirley]] ([[User talk:bshirley|talk]]) 03:56, 13 September 2016 (AEST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rename request: SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please include this template at the top of pages that require attention. This not only shows what&#039;s needed, but also adds the page to the &#039;[[:Category:Needs attention|Needs attention]]&#039; category and its sub-categories for other contributors to see lists of pages needing work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: there is no &amp;quot;today I learned&amp;quot; checklist for the section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
You can copy/paste the following code into your page, removing lines as appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- episode is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre style=&amp;quot;width:35em;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
       &amp;lt;!--- the values can actually be and non-empty value, so leave a message for the editor if you like ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading  = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Maintenance templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bshirley&amp;diff=10742</id>
		<title>User:Bshirley</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bshirley&amp;diff=10742"/>
		<updated>2016-09-17T20:55:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A Texan Computer Scientist living and working in Houston, Texas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://twitter.com/bshirley @bshirley] on twitter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would love to see [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SandboxLink Extension:SandboxLink] added to the wiki, so I wouldn&#039;t have to use this page for my personal sandbox.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Contributions ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* transcribed [[SGU_Episode_581#Science_or_Fiction_.281:09:38.29|Science or Fiction]] on [[SGU_Episode_581]]&lt;br /&gt;
* updated functionality and documentation of templates&lt;br /&gt;
** [[Template:Google_speech]]&lt;br /&gt;
** (experimental, in progress) [[Template:Editing_needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
** created [[Template:MessageBox]], based on others&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have been adding templates to the [[Templates]] category, they are all sub categorized which makes them harder to discover. I think categorizing them all improves that. Some of them are not editable by me, however. So here&#039;s the list I&#039;m keeping for myself of those.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Template:W]] - wikipedia link creator&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Template:5X5_infobox]] &lt;br /&gt;
* [[Template:InfoBox]] - info box for episode&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Template:Numerical_titles]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Template Reference ====&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Advanced_templates wikimedia/Help:Advanced_templates]&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:ParserFunctions mediawiki/Help:Extension:ParserFunctions]&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Template wikipedia/Help:Template]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===FYI===&lt;br /&gt;
{{CURRENTDAYNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Local time is wrong - {{LOCALTIME}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* we&#039;re on WikiMedia Version {{CURRENTVERSION}}&lt;br /&gt;
* user count: {{NUMBEROFUSERS}}&lt;br /&gt;
* admin count: {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}&lt;br /&gt;
* active count: {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}&lt;br /&gt;
* number of articles: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Desirable Template ===&lt;br /&gt;
For suggested placement at the end of the &#039;&#039;&#039;Science or Fiction&#039;&#039;&#039; section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After investigation, I suspect this is desirable to implement as an extension. I plan on installing a local wiki and working on that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{SOFResults&lt;br /&gt;
|episode=581&lt;br /&gt;
|host=Steve &amp;lt;!--- asker of the questions ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|topic1=whiskers &amp;lt;!--- short word or phrase representing the item ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|topic2=chimpanzees&lt;br /&gt;
|topic3=coma&lt;br /&gt;
|fiction=whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|topc4=&lt;br /&gt;
|rogue1=Bob &amp;lt;!--- rogues in order of response ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|answer1=whiskers &amp;lt;!--- guess, using one of the topic&#039;s names ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|rogue2=Jay&lt;br /&gt;
|answer2=whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|rogue3=Evan&lt;br /&gt;
|answer3=whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|rogue4=Cara&lt;br /&gt;
|answer4=whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would output something like:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=2|Science or Fiction (581)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ffcccc&amp;quot;|Steve&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ffcccc&amp;quot;|crushed&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|Bob&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|Jay&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|Evan&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|Cara&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=2|other topics&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=2 style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;|chimpanzees&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=2 style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;|coma&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suggested colorings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=3|Host Colorings&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|swept&lt;br /&gt;
|#ccffcc&lt;br /&gt;
|all the rogues guessed one of the incorrect items&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccccff&amp;quot;|scattered&lt;br /&gt;
|#ccccff&lt;br /&gt;
|each item was guessed at least once (Steve&#039;s preferred result)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ffffcc&amp;quot;|mixed&lt;br /&gt;
|#ffffcc&lt;br /&gt;
|some wrong, some right&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ffcccc&amp;quot;|crushed&lt;br /&gt;
|#ffcccc&lt;br /&gt;
|all the rogues guessed the correct answer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=3|Rogue Colorings&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|correct&lt;br /&gt;
|#ccffcc&lt;br /&gt;
|correctly selected the fiction item&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ffcccc&amp;quot;|incorrect&lt;br /&gt;
|#ffcccc&lt;br /&gt;
|selected one of the science items&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Template Output&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- SOFResults template output ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=2|{{anchorencode:SOFResults}}Science or Fiction ({{episode}})&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color0}}&amp;quot;|{{host}}&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color0}}&amp;quot;|{{host_result}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color1}}&amp;quot;|{{rogue1}}&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color1}}&amp;quot;|{{answer1}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color2}}&amp;quot;|{{rogue2}}&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color2}}&amp;quot;|{{answer2}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color3}}&amp;quot;|{{rogue3}}&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color3}}&amp;quot;|{{answer3}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color4}}&amp;quot;|{{rogue4}}&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color4}}&amp;quot;|{{answer4}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=2|other topics&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=2 style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;|{{topic2}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=2 style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;|{{topic3}}&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- end SOFResults ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10733</id>
		<title>Template:SectionChecklist</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10733"/>
		<updated>2016-09-14T02:32:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: removed unused parameter from examples&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{|style=&amp;quot;background-color: #FFFFF0; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 1 1px; border: 1px solid #F4A460;&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;95%&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;|[[File:Emblem-pen-orange.png|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=5, align=center|This {{{section|section}}} needs the following help. Each effort has a link for more details.&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=#ffff44, align=center|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;IN PROGRESS&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! transcription&lt;br /&gt;
! proof reading&lt;br /&gt;
! time stamps&lt;br /&gt;
! formatting&lt;br /&gt;
! links&lt;br /&gt;
! categories&lt;br /&gt;
! redirect&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{transcription|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Transcription|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{proof-reading|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Proof-reading|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{time-stamps|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Time-stamps|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{formatting|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Formatting|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{links|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Links|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{categories|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{segment redirects|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categorized_segment_redirects|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=7, align=center | &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Once all the sections are completed for this section, this template can be removed.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
THIS TEMPLATE IS EXPERIMENTAL and based on [[Template:Editing required]] --[[User:bshirley|Bill Shirley]] ([[User talk:bshirley|talk]]) 03:56, 13 September 2016 (AEST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rename request: SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please include this template at the top of pages that require attention. This not only shows what&#039;s needed, but also adds the page to the &#039;[[:Category:Needs attention|Needs attention]]&#039; category and its sub-categories for other contributors to see lists of pages needing work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: there is no &amp;quot;today I learned&amp;quot; checklist for the section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
You can copy/paste the following code into your page, removing lines as appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- section is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- episode is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
       &amp;lt;!--- the values can actually be and non-empty value, &lt;br /&gt;
       ----- so leave a message for the editor if you like ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading  = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Maintenance templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10732</id>
		<title>Template:SectionChecklist</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10732"/>
		<updated>2016-09-14T02:29:55Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{|style=&amp;quot;background-color: #FFFFF0; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 1 1px; border: 1px solid #F4A460;&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;95%&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;|[[File:Emblem-pen-orange.png|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=5, align=center|This {{{section|episode}}} needs the following help. Each effort has a link for more details.&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=#ffff44, align=center|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;IN PROGRESS&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! transcription&lt;br /&gt;
! proof reading&lt;br /&gt;
! time stamps&lt;br /&gt;
! formatting&lt;br /&gt;
! links&lt;br /&gt;
! categories&lt;br /&gt;
! redirect&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{transcription|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Transcription|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{proof-reading|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Proof-reading|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{time-stamps|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Time-stamps|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{formatting|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Formatting|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{links|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Links|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{categories|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{segment redirects|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categorized_segment_redirects|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=7, align=center | &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Once all the sections are completed for this section, this template can be removed.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
THIS TEMPLATE IS EXPERIMENTAL and based on [[Template:Editing required]] --[[User:bshirley|Bill Shirley]] ([[User talk:bshirley|talk]]) 03:56, 13 September 2016 (AEST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rename request: SectionChecklist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please include this template at the top of pages that require attention. This not only shows what&#039;s needed, but also adds the page to the &#039;[[:Category:Needs attention|Needs attention]]&#039; category and its sub-categories for other contributors to see lists of pages needing work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
You can copy/paste the following code into your page, removing lines as appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- episode is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- episode is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
       &amp;lt;!--- the values can actually be and non-empty value, &lt;br /&gt;
       ----- so leave a message for the editor if you like ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading  = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Maintenance templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10731</id>
		<title>Template:SectionChecklist</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10731"/>
		<updated>2016-09-14T02:26:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: interim save&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{|style=&amp;quot;background-color: #FFFFF0; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 1 1px; border: 1px solid #F4A460;&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;95%&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;|[[File:Emblem-pen-orange.png|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=5, align=center|This {{{section|episode}}} needs the following help. Each effort has a link for more details.&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=#ffff55,align=center|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;IN PROGRESS&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! transcription&lt;br /&gt;
! proof reading&lt;br /&gt;
! time stamps&lt;br /&gt;
! formatting&lt;br /&gt;
! links&lt;br /&gt;
! categories&lt;br /&gt;
! redirect&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{transcription|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Transcription|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{proof-reading|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Proof-reading|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{time-stamps|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Time-stamps|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{formatting|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Formatting|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{links|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Links|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{categories|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{segment redirects|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categorized_segment_redirects|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=7, align=center | &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Once all the sections are completed for this section, this template can be removed.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
THIS TEMPLATE IS EXPERIMENTAL and based on [[Template:Editing required]] --[[User:bshirley|Bill Shirley]] ([[User talk:bshirley|talk]]) 03:56, 13 September 2016 (AEST)&lt;br /&gt;
rename: Section Checklist&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- learning templates ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please include this template at the top of pages that require attention. This not only shows what&#039;s needed, but also adds the page to the &#039;[[:Category:Needs attention|Needs attention]]&#039; category and its sub-categories for other contributors to see lists of pages needing work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
You can copy/paste the following code into your page, removing lines as appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- episode is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- episode is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
       &amp;lt;!--- the values can actually be and non-empty value, &lt;br /&gt;
       ----- so leave a message for the editor if you like ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading  = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Maintenance templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bshirley&amp;diff=10730</id>
		<title>User:Bshirley</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bshirley&amp;diff=10730"/>
		<updated>2016-09-14T02:21:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: added some Template references&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A Texan Computer Scientist living and working in Houston, Texas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://twitter.com/bshirley @bshirley] on twitter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Contributions ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* transcribed [[SGU_Episode_581#Science_or_Fiction_.281:09:38.29|Science or Fiction]] on [[SGU_Episode_581]]&lt;br /&gt;
* updated functionality and documentation of templates&lt;br /&gt;
** [[Template:Google_speech]]&lt;br /&gt;
** (experimental, in progress) [[Template:Editing_needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
** created [[Template:MessageBox]], based on others&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have been adding templates to the [[Templates]] category, they are all sub categorized which makes them harder to discover. I think categorizing them all improves that. Some of them are not editable by me, however. So here&#039;s the list I&#039;m keeping for myself of those.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Template:W]] - wikipedia link creator&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Template:5X5_infobox]] &lt;br /&gt;
* [[Template:InfoBox]] - info box for episode&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Template:Numerical_titles]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Template Reference ====&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Advanced_templates wikimedia/Help:Advanced_templates]&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:ParserFunctions mediawiki/Help:Extension:ParserFunctions]&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Template wikipedia/Help:Template]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===FYI===&lt;br /&gt;
{{CURRENTDAYNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Local time is wrong - {{LOCALTIME}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* we&#039;re on WikiMedia Version {{CURRENTVERSION}}&lt;br /&gt;
* user count: {{NUMBEROFUSERS}}&lt;br /&gt;
* admin count: {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}&lt;br /&gt;
* active count: {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}&lt;br /&gt;
* number of articles: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Desirable Template ===&lt;br /&gt;
For suggested placement at the end of the &#039;&#039;&#039;Science or Fiction&#039;&#039;&#039; section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After investigation, I suspect this is desirable to implement as an extension. I plan on installing a local wiki and working on that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{SOFResults&lt;br /&gt;
|episode=581&lt;br /&gt;
|host=Steve &amp;lt;!--- asker of the questions ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|topic1=whiskers &amp;lt;!--- short word or phrase representing the item ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|topic2=chimpanzees&lt;br /&gt;
|topic3=coma&lt;br /&gt;
|fiction=whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|topc4=&lt;br /&gt;
|rogue1=Bob &amp;lt;!--- rogues in order of response ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|answer1=whiskers &amp;lt;!--- guess, using one of the topic&#039;s names ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|rogue2=Jay&lt;br /&gt;
|answer2=whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|rogue3=Evan&lt;br /&gt;
|answer3=whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|rogue4=Cara&lt;br /&gt;
|answer4=whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would output something like:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=2|Science or Fiction (581)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ffcccc&amp;quot;|Steve&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ffcccc&amp;quot;|crushed&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|Bob&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|Jay&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|Evan&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|Cara&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=2|other topics&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=2 style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;|chimpanzees&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=2 style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;|coma&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suggested colorings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=3|Host Colorings&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|swept&lt;br /&gt;
|#ccffcc&lt;br /&gt;
|all the rogues guessed one of the incorrect items&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccccff&amp;quot;|scattered&lt;br /&gt;
|#ccccff&lt;br /&gt;
|each item was guessed at least once (Steve&#039;s preferred result)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ffffcc&amp;quot;|mixed&lt;br /&gt;
|#ffffcc&lt;br /&gt;
|some wrong, some right&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ffcccc&amp;quot;|crushed&lt;br /&gt;
|#ffcccc&lt;br /&gt;
|all the rogues guessed the correct answer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=3|Rogue Colorings&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|correct&lt;br /&gt;
|#ccffcc&lt;br /&gt;
|correctly selected the fiction item&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ffcccc&amp;quot;|incorrect&lt;br /&gt;
|#ffcccc&lt;br /&gt;
|selected one of the science items&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Template Output&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- SOFResults template output ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=2|{{anchorencode:SOFResults}}Science or Fiction ({{episode}})&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color0}}&amp;quot;|{{host}}&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color0}}&amp;quot;|{{host_result}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color1}}&amp;quot;|{{rogue1}}&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color1}}&amp;quot;|{{answer1}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color2}}&amp;quot;|{{rogue2}}&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color2}}&amp;quot;|{{answer2}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color3}}&amp;quot;|{{rogue3}}&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color3}}&amp;quot;|{{answer3}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color4}}&amp;quot;|{{rogue4}}&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color4}}&amp;quot;|{{answer4}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=2|other topics&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=2 style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;|{{topic2}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=2 style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;|{{topic3}}&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- end SOFResults ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10729</id>
		<title>Template:SectionChecklist</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10729"/>
		<updated>2016-09-14T02:13:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: interim save&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{|style=&amp;quot;background-color: #FFFFF0; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 1 1px; border: 1px solid #F4A460;&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;1&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;95%&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;|[[File:Emblem-pen-orange.png|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=5|This {{{section|episode}}} needs the following help. Each effort has a link for more details.&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=#F4A460,align=center|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;IN PROGRESS&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! transcription&lt;br /&gt;
! proof reading&lt;br /&gt;
! time stamps&lt;br /&gt;
! formatting&lt;br /&gt;
! links&lt;br /&gt;
! categories&lt;br /&gt;
! redirect&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{transcription|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Transcription|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs transcription}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{proof-reading|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Proof-reading|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs proof-reading}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{time-stamps|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Time-stamps|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs time-stamps}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{formatting|}}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Formatting|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs formatting}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{links|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/Help:How_to_Contribute#Links|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs links}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{categories|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categories|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs categories}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{segment redirects|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
    [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categorized_segment_redirects|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs segment redirects}} |&lt;br /&gt;
    {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=7, align=center | &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Once all the sections are completed for this section, this template can be removed.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
THIS TEMPLATE IS EXPERIMENTAL and based on [[Template:Editing required]] --[[User:bshirley|Bill Shirley]] ([[User talk:bshirley|talk]]) 03:56, 13 September 2016 (AEST)&lt;br /&gt;
rename: Section Checklist&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- learning templates ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please include this template at the top of pages that require attention. This not only shows what&#039;s needed, but also adds the page to the &#039;[[:Category:Needs attention|Needs attention]]&#039; category and its sub-categories for other contributors to see lists of pages needing work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
You can copy/paste the following code into your page, removing lines as appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- episode is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- episode is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
       &amp;lt;!--- the values can actually be and non-empty value, &lt;br /&gt;
       ----- so leave a message for the editor if you like ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading  = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Maintenance templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Help:How_to_Contribute&amp;diff=10728</id>
		<title>Help:How to Contribute</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Help:How_to_Contribute&amp;diff=10728"/>
		<updated>2016-09-14T02:09:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: stray html was causing subtitle problem&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;SGUTranscripts.org aims to help SGU fans search and reference topics, and to make the SGU episodes as accessible as possible. There are lots of different ways to contribute, this page describes some of them. The important thing is that all real contributions are welcome, so don&#039;t be afraid to contribute, even if you just fix a typo here and there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you have any ideas for fun things to include on the site, please let us know in the [[SGUTranscripts:Community portal|Community portal]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &#039;Editing Required&#039; template ==&lt;br /&gt;
Pages that include the &#039;[[Template:Editing required|Editing required]]&#039; template (orange box saying &amp;quot;This episode needs:...&amp;quot;) show what aspects of the page need to be completed. These pages will also be listed in the relevant subcategory of [[:Category:Needs attention]], which is a good place to look for any loose ends that need tying up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once an issue has been addressed, it can be removed from the &#039;Editing required&#039; template by deleting the input line in the page&#039;s editing box. If it is the last issue to be resolved, then the template can be removed from the page entirely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Transcription ==&lt;br /&gt;
The most obvious way to help out is to transcribe an episode, or sections of an episode. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you&#039;re new to transcribing, you might want to start with a 5X5 episode, or a segment of an episode. The [[Help:Getting Started]] page gives information on setting up and editing pages, including a section with [[Help:Getting_Started#Tips_for_Transcription|Tips for Transcription]] that has specific suggestions for what software and techniques can be used to help you transcribe comfortably.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A list of pages that have already been created, but need transcribing, can be found at [[:Category:Needs transcription]] (currently includes {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Needs transcription}} entries). Incomplete and available transcript pages are also denoted on the [[SGU_Episodes|SGU Episodes]] page with a {{Open}} icon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Guidelines ===&lt;br /&gt;
We don&#039;t have any &amp;quot;rules&amp;quot; for transcribing, but we try to keep as true to the podcast as possible. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While you don&#039;t need to include all the fillers, such as &amp;quot;um&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;er&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;you know&amp;quot;, do try to stick to what is actually said, and not interpret the Rogues&#039; dialogue. The way a person speaks is often very different to how you would read or write text, and can be very messy, even nonsensical. However, with so many people contributing transcriptions, re-writing podcasts in a more &#039;readable&#039; format would be heavily influenced by the writing style and interpretation of the transcriber, which would soon become impossible to monitor. Therefore, it&#039;s probably best to leave it to the reader to interpret, and to use punctuation (such as commas, dashes and &amp;quot;...&amp;quot;) to indicate broken sentences, change of tack etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki /&amp;gt;For example, if a rogue is interrupted or changes what they&#039;re saying in the middle of a sentence, just add &amp;quot;&amp;lt;code&amp;gt;&amp;amp;ndash&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt;;&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To help convey the tone of the dialogue, emphasis of words can be shown by including them in &#039;&#039;italics&#039;&#039; (see [[Help:Getting_Started#Text_Formatting|Getting Started: Text Formatting]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where the Rogues laugh - and they often do - include &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;(laughter)&#039;&#039;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; (multiple people) or &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;(laughs)&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; (single) in the transcript. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you have trouble deciphering what is said, just put &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;(inaudible)&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; where the speech would be.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== What to listen for ===&lt;br /&gt;
When transcribing or proofreading an episode, it is a good idea to keep in mind other aspects of the transcript page that you might want to include, as you will be familiar with the content, and able to identify the most important points. For example, it can be easy to note the times at which each segment begins (see [[#Time-stamps|Time-stamps]]) and the [[:Help:Categories#Content_Categories|topic categories]] that are covered when transcribing (see [[#Categories|Categories]] section below). In the same way, when an interesting fact comes up, you might want to add it to the &#039;Today I Learned&#039; list for the episode (see [[#Today I Learned...|below]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you&#039;d like to transcribe without adding other features, that&#039;s absolutely fine, and plenty of work in itself. If you come across something you want to point out to others editing the page, you can insert a comment in the editing box. For example, if you come across a fact for the &#039;Today I Learned&#039; list, or a good quote from one of the Rogues, you can insert a comment using &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;!--&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;--&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt;. This won&#039;t show on the regular page, but will be included in the page&#039;s edit box.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! Appearance on page&lt;br /&gt;
! What you type&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;padding-left:1em; padding-right:1em;&amp;quot;|text text text text text text&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;padding-left:1em; padding-right:1em;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;code&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;text text text text text text  &amp;lt;!-- include in TIL section --&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- might be worth working on a list of standard comments that can be included in transcripts for picking up later.  Perhaps something like:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SGUQuote&lt;br /&gt;
TIL&lt;br /&gt;
NeedsLink&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rwh86 --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Proof-reading ==&lt;br /&gt;
Another way to contribute is by proof-reading pages.  It can be a long, hard task to transcribe a whole episode, and it&#039;s easy to miss typos and attribute lines to the wrong speakers. That&#039;s why it&#039;s good to have a second contributor proof-read pages.  To proof-read a page, simply listen to the podcast and check that the text that has been transcribed matches what you hear.  Proof-reading can often be done with playback at full speed (or even faster), so it&#039;s a rather easier task than transcribing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A list of pages that have yet to be proof-read can be found at [[:Category:Needs proof-reading]] (currently includes {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Needs proof-reading}} {{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Needs proof-reading}}|1|entry|entries}}).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As with transcribing, proof-reading a page should not include re-writing the transcription into a regular writing style, but should stay close to what is said on the podcast.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Things to look out for when proof-reading:&lt;br /&gt;
* Typos&lt;br /&gt;
* Inclusion of appropriate and working links added to relevant text or included as references&lt;br /&gt;
* Misattribution of speakers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other things that are easy for a proofreader to add to a page are:&lt;br /&gt;
* Categories - if not already applied (see [[#Categories|below]])&lt;br /&gt;
* Interesting facts for &amp;quot;Today I Learned...&amp;quot; list (see [[#Today I Learned...|below]])&lt;br /&gt;
* Favorite Rogue quotes (see [[#Favorite_Rogue_Quotes|below]])&lt;br /&gt;
* Categorized segment redirects (see [[#Categorized_segment_redirects|below]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You should also look out for comments made by the transcriber in the editing box, or on the talk page, as they may point out sections which they found difficult to transcribe or find links for etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once a page has been proof-read, the parameter &amp;quot;verified&amp;quot; can be added to the infobox template, which will display a tick, and a link to the explanatory page, [[Help:Transcript Verified|Transcript Verified]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Time-stamps ==&lt;br /&gt;
One of the main advantages of transcribing the SGU podcasts is for reference. By including time-stamps at the beginning of each segment, readers can revisit topics of interest, or point other people to the section, without going through the whole podcast (not that that&#039;s ever much of a chore).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some transcripts need time-stamps added to them, you can find a list of these pages at [[:Category:Needs time-stamps]] (currently includes {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Needs time-stamps}} {{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Needs time-stamps}}|1|entry|entries}}).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Time-stamps take the format:&lt;br /&gt;
* m:ss for times under 10 minutes, e.g. (0:37) and (2:34)&lt;br /&gt;
* mm:ss for times between 10 minutes and an hour, e.g. (17:42)&lt;br /&gt;
* h:mm:ss for times over an hour, e.g. (1:09:42)&lt;br /&gt;
They are added in a small font in the section header, for example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! width=&amp;quot;20%&amp;quot;| Appearance on page&lt;br /&gt;
! width=&amp;quot;20%&amp;quot;| What you type&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;padding-left:1em; padding-right:1em;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;h2&amp;gt; Science or Fiction &amp;lt;/h2&amp;gt; &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(45:16)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;padding-left:1em; padding-right:1em;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;code&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;== Science or Fiction &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(45:16)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Formatting ==&lt;br /&gt;
Some contributors may prefer to submit unformatted transcriptions, which then need a few tweaks, such as defining quotes or adding wiki mark-up. More information on formatting can be found on the [[Help:Getting Started#Wiki_mark-up|Getting started]] help page.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Automatically added to pages with only skeletons, so not appropriate here&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A list of pages needing to be formatted can be found at [[:Category:Needs formatting]] (currently includes {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Needs formatting}} {{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Needs formatting}}|1|entry|entries}}). --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Page skeletons===&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Episode skeleton]] contains the general structure of a transcript page, including section headings, infobox (see next section), outro and navigation templates. For 5X5 episodes, use the [[5X5 skeleton]]. These pages can be copied to new transcript pages and built upon by changing headers and adding text and links.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Infobox ===&lt;br /&gt;
The infobox appears on the right-hand side of every transcript page, outlining certain information about the podcast, including, among other things, the broadcast date, any guests on the show, a key for speakers and links to the shownotes, podcast and SGU forum page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Help:Episode infobox]] page gives an explanation of how to enter input into an infobox to customize it for each episode. For help customizing the infobox for 5X5 episodes, see [[Help:5X5 infobox]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Automatically added to pages with only skeletons, so not appropriate here&lt;br /&gt;
A list of pages needing links can be found at [[:Category:Needs links]] (currently includes {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Needs links}} {{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Needs links}}|1|entry|entries}}).&lt;br /&gt;
--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As SGUTranscripts.org is a resource to explore the topics discussed on the SGU podcast, we like to add links whenever appropriate. For information on adding links, see [[Help:Getting_Started#Links|Getting Started: Links]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The default source for links used here is Wikipedia, unless there is reason to use an alternative source. This helps to keep things uniform across transcript pages, and also means that you don&#039;t have to search for the &#039;&#039;ultimate&#039;&#039; website to explain the subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Links provided in the show notes ===&lt;br /&gt;
Transcript pages should include all working links on the relevant podcast show notes page at [http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcast.aspx?mid=1 theskepticsguide.org]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enter these immediately after the relevant segment title, and use a descriptive format for the linking text, instead of the raw URL. An easy way of doing this is to include the name of the source of the page (e.g. the website or organisation), followed by a colon and the title of the page or article. For example, instead of:&lt;br /&gt;
:http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/modern-medical-zombies/ &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Use:&lt;br /&gt;
:[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/modern-medical-zombies/ Neurologica: Modern Medical Zombies]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This allows the reader to see clearly where the link will take them, and is generally more inviting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== General links ===&lt;br /&gt;
There are many occasions where a link can be a useful addition to the transcript. Generally, these include:&lt;br /&gt;
* Technical jargon&lt;br /&gt;
* Key concepts that may not be immediately obvious (e.g. argumentum ad hominem)&lt;br /&gt;
* People / organisations&lt;br /&gt;
* Websites &lt;br /&gt;
* Articles / blogs&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of these links can be added to text in the transcript itself, however, there are some cases for which there is no appropriate text to turn into the link. For these, use references (see [[Help:Getting Started#References|Getting Started: References]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Unidentified internal links ===&lt;br /&gt;
When a podcast references another SGU episode that has not been identified, the template [[Template:Link needed|Link needed]] should be included. For example:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! Appearance on page&lt;br /&gt;
! What you type&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;padding-left:1em; padding-right:1em;&amp;quot;|We talked about bat-winged monkey-birds before{{Link needed}}&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;padding-left:1em; padding-right:1em;&amp;quot;|&amp;lt;code&amp;gt;&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;We talked about bat-winged monkey-birds before{{Link needed}}&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This not only highlights the need for the link, but adds the page to [[:Category:Needs internal links]] (currently includes {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Needs internal links}} {{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Needs internal links}}|1|entry|entries}}). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note, this category is separate to [[:Category:Needs links]], mentioned above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Categories ==&lt;br /&gt;
A nice easy way to search through SGUTranscripts is to [[Browse_Categories|browse through categories]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When a page has been categorized, the relevant categories are automatically listed at the bottom of that page, and it is also automatically added to the relevant [[:Category:Topic|category pages]]. Therefore, to avoid adding incomplete transcriptions to the category pages, please only add categories to pages/segments that have been transcribed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Automatically added to pages with only skeletons, so not appropriate here&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Episode pages that haven&#039;t been categorized are listed in [[:Category:Needs categories]] (currently includes {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Needs categories}} {{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Needs categories}}|1|entry|entries}}).&lt;br /&gt;
--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Using templates to add categories ===&lt;br /&gt;
To add categories to a full SGU episode, include [[Template:Page categories]], for 5X5 episodes, use [[Template:5X5 categories]]. The template pages show the available categories and the input needed. The category templates add the page to the available categories, and apply a sort key based on the page name to separate out full episodes from section links on the category pages, and keep numbered order (e.g. see [[:Category:Nature &amp;amp; Evolution]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Categorized segment redirects ===&lt;br /&gt;
SGU podcasts cover a multitude of topics in a single episode, which can make it difficult to find exactly what you&#039;re looking for. To categorize  segments individually, and list them on category pages under a relevant title, a redirect page is needed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, [[SGU Episode 1|Episode 1]] contains a segment on exploding toads, and was entered into the category &#039;Nature &amp;amp; Evolution&#039;. However, on the category page for &#039;Nature &amp;amp; Evolution&#039;, listing &#039;SGU Episode 1&#039; is not very informative. However, making a page with the title &#039;Exploding toads baffle scientists (1)&#039; that redirects straight to the segment, and categorizing &#039;&#039;that&#039;&#039; page under &#039;Nature &amp;amp; Evolution&#039;, will make it much clearer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Automatically added to pages with only skeletons, so not appropriate here&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Episode pages that do not have categorized redirects for their segments are listed in [[:Category:Needs segment redirects]] (currently includes {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Needs segment redirects}} {{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Needs segment redirects}}|1|entry|entries}}).&lt;br /&gt;
--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
There are a couple of ways of contributing to these, you can propose a title for the redirect page and/or create the redirect page itself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When adding categorized redirects, first check that they haven&#039;t already been created by clicking on &#039;What links here&#039; to the left of the page. Redirects are marked as &amp;quot;(redirect page) ‎ (← links)&amp;quot;. You should also look in the episode&#039;s talk page and the editing box for suggestions made by other contributors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Redirect page titles ====&lt;br /&gt;
There are a few conventions to follow for naming redirect pages, the most important being the inclusion of the episode number in brackets at the end of the title. They should also be in a &#039;&#039;&#039;sentence case format&#039;&#039;&#039;, that is, capitals should not be used for each word, but only at the beginning, after colons and for proper nouns and acronyms. This helps to keep things clear and uniform.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[:Category:Guest Rogues|&#039;&#039;&#039;Guest Rogues&#039;&#039;&#039;]] titles are simply the name of the guest, e.g. [[James Randi (355)]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[:Category:Live Recording|&#039;&#039;&#039;Live Recording&#039;&#039;&#039;]] titles are the name of the event they are recording at, e.g. [[NECSS 2012 (354)]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[:Category:Interview|&#039;&#039;&#039;Interview&#039;&#039;&#039;]] titles should start with the interviewee&#039;s name and include some clues as to what they spoke about, e.g. [[Neil deGrasse Tyson interview: Spaghettification and education (156)]]&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Science or Fiction&#039;&#039;&#039; segments can have a redirect for each topic, but as these present information differently to other podcast segments, you should also include &amp;quot;SoF&amp;quot; in the brackets after the episode number to inform readers, e.g. [[Black holes: Mass limit calculated (165 SoF)]]&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;5X5 Episode&#039;&#039;&#039; redirects should include &amp;quot;5X5&amp;quot; before the episode number in the brackets , e.g. [[Ghost photographs (5X5 2)]]&lt;br /&gt;
*Quickie with Bob segments should be preceded with &amp;quot;Quickie with Bob:&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Titles should be short and informative, and can often be based on the segment heading in the SGU show notes, but remember that they need to be unique and descriptive in order to differentiate between them on a category listing page. It is also good practice to use keywords first, both for clarity and to facilitate sorting on the category page, e.g. [[Global warming: Heartland Institute scandal follow-up (346)]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you are not creating the redirect pages, simply add your proposed titles to the talk page for the episode, and someone will do this for you.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Creating redirect pages ====&lt;br /&gt;
Create a redirect by searching for the appropriate title in the search box at the top right. If no page exists with that  title, then a link to &#039;Create the page &amp;quot;xxxx&amp;quot; on this wiki!&#039; will be shown. Click on this link to create the new page. In the editing box, add &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;#REDIRECT&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; and then the internal link to the segment (which will include the time-stamp), followed by applying the relevant category, or categories. For more information on the available categories, see [[Help:Categories]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To find the segment link, click on the entry in the table of contents on the episode page, you will notice that the brackets for the time stamp are replaced by &amp;quot;.28&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;.29&amp;quot; in the URL. The internal link consists of the text &#039;&#039;after&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;quot;http://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, the redirect page [[Glow-in-the-dark cockroach (411 SoF)]] contains:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#REDIRECT [[SGU_Episode_411#Science_or_Fiction_.281:04:25.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Nature &amp;amp; Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today I Learned... ==&lt;br /&gt;
These sections include a bullet-point list of interesting facts that come up in the episode. A list of pages without &#039;Today I Learned...&#039; fact lists can be found at [[:Category:Needs TIL]] (currently includes {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Needs TIL}} {{#ifeq: {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Needs TIL}}|1|entry|entries}}).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Entries should be concise, and include links/references where possible so that they are informative and independent of the episode&#039;s transcription. To insert bullet-points, simply add an asterisk at the beginning of the line. For an example, see [[SGU Episode 347#Today I Learned...]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Favorite Rogue Quotes ==&lt;br /&gt;
The weekly Skeptical Quote is a great homage to outstanding thinkers and orators, but what about all the great quotes that come from the Rogues themselves?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To celebrate the profound and humorous utterances of our friends at the SGU, we&#039;re building a list of our [[Favorite Rogue Quotes]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to this list, first check that the quote isn&#039;t already in the list, then enter the quote into the table, adding the speaker(s), the relevant episode, and the topic. Use the [[Help:Categories]] list to help define the primary topic for the quote, that way the table can be sorted easily. For example, if it&#039;s a joke, use &amp;quot;humor&amp;quot;; if they&#039;re deploring the state of science education, use &amp;quot;Science &amp;amp; Education&amp;quot;. More detailed information on adding quotes can be found at the top of the editing box of the [[Favorite Rogue Quotes]] page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Help]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10727</id>
		<title>Template:SectionChecklist</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10727"/>
		<updated>2016-09-14T01:57:53Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: interim save&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{|style=&amp;quot;background-color: #FFFFF0; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 1 1px; border: 1px solid #F4A460;&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;95%&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;|[[File:Emblem-pen-orange.png|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=5|This {{{section|episode}}} needs: &lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=#F4A460|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;IN PROGRESS&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! transcription&lt;br /&gt;
! proof reading&lt;br /&gt;
! time stamps&lt;br /&gt;
! formatting&lt;br /&gt;
! links&lt;br /&gt;
! categories&lt;br /&gt;
! redirect&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{transcription|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
needed&lt;br /&gt;
 {{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs transcription}} |&lt;br /&gt;
{{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{proof-reading|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
 colspan=3|proof-reading &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 {{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs proof-reading}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{time-stamps|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
 time-stamps &amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs time-stamps}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{formatting|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
 formatting {{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs formatting}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{links|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
 links &amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs links}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{categories|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
 categories &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs categories}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| width=1, align=center |&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{segment redirects|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
 [[Help:How_to_Contribute#Categorized_segment_redirects|needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs segment redirects}} |&lt;br /&gt;
 {{tick}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=7, align=center | &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Once all the sections are completed for this section, this template can be removed.&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
THIS TEMPLATE IS EXPERIMENTAL and based on [[Template:Editing required]] --[[User:bshirley|Bill Shirley]] ([[User talk:bshirley|talk]]) 03:56, 13 September 2016 (AEST)&lt;br /&gt;
rename: Section Checklist&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- learning templates ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please include this template at the top of pages that require attention. This not only shows what&#039;s needed, but also adds the page to the &#039;[[:Category:Needs attention|Needs attention]]&#039; category and its sub-categories for other contributors to see lists of pages needing work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
You can copy/paste the following code into your page, removing lines as appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- episode is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- episode is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
       &amp;lt;!--- the values can actually be and non-empty value, &lt;br /&gt;
       ----- so leave a message for the editor if you like ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading  = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Maintenance templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10726</id>
		<title>Template:SectionChecklist</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SectionChecklist&amp;diff=10726"/>
		<updated>2016-09-14T01:22:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: reformatting again&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{|style=&amp;quot;background-color: #FFFFF0; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 1 1px; border: 1px solid #F4A460;&amp;quot; border=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;95%&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
! width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;|[[File:Emblem-pen-orange.png|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=5|This {{{section|episode}}} needs: &lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=#F4A460|&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;IN PROGRESS&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! transcription&lt;br /&gt;
! proof reading&lt;br /&gt;
! time stamps&lt;br /&gt;
! formatting&lt;br /&gt;
! links&lt;br /&gt;
! categories&lt;br /&gt;
! redirect&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|{{#if: {{{transcription|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
colspan=3 &amp;amp;#124; transcription&lt;br /&gt;
 {{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs transcription}} |&lt;br /&gt;
colspan=3 style=&amp;quot;background-color: #ccffff&amp;quot; &amp;amp;#124; transcription complete&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
{{#if: {{{proof-reading|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
 colspan=3|proof-reading &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 {{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs proof-reading}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|{{#if: {{{time-stamps|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
 time-stamps &amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs time-stamps}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|{{#if: {{{formatting|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
 formatting {{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs formatting}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|{{#if: {{{links|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
 links &amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs links}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|{{#if: {{{Today I Learned list|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;Today I Learned&#039; list &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs TIL}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|{{#if: {{{categories|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
 categories &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs categories}}&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|{{#if: {{{segment redirects|}}} | &lt;br /&gt;
 segment redirects &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Numerical titles|page={{PAGENAME}}|category=Needs segment redirects}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=7 | message&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
THIS TEMPLATE IS EXPERIMENTAL and based on [[Template:Editing required]] --[[User:bshirley|Bill Shirley]] ([[User talk:bshirley|talk]]) 03:56, 13 September 2016 (AEST)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- learning templates ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
Please include this template at the top of pages that require attention. This not only shows what&#039;s needed, but also adds the page to the &#039;[[:Category:Needs attention|Needs attention]]&#039; category and its sub-categories for other contributors to see lists of pages needing work.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
You can copy/paste the following code into your page, removing lines as appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- episode is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = awesome episode     &amp;lt;!--- episode is the default value, can be omitted ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|time-stamps            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y    &amp;lt;!-- please only include when some transcription is present. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
       &amp;lt;!--- the values can actually be and non-empty value, &lt;br /&gt;
       ----- so leave a message for the editor if you like ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Editing needed&lt;br /&gt;
|section = section&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading  = my transcription was quick and sloppy, needs work, sorry -username&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Maintenance templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_583&amp;diff=10721</id>
		<title>SGU Episode 583</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_583&amp;diff=10721"/>
		<updated>2016-09-13T05:46:40Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* Science or Fiction (54:22) */ turned links into citations&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Editing required&lt;br /&gt;
|transcription          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|proof-reading          = y&lt;br /&gt;
|formatting             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|links                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Today I Learned list   = y&lt;br /&gt;
|categories             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|segment redirects      = y     &amp;lt;!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{InfoBox&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeNum     = 583&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeDate    = September 10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 2016&lt;br /&gt;
|episodeIcon    = File:tasmaniandevsm.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|bob            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|jay            = y&lt;br /&gt;
|evan           = y&lt;br /&gt;
|cara           = y&lt;br /&gt;
|guest1         = BB: Brian Brushwood&lt;br /&gt;
|downloadLink   = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2016-09-10.mp3&lt;br /&gt;
|forumLink      = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,47285.0.html&lt;br /&gt;
|qowText        = Good grief. If we can’t laugh at ourselves, and at one another, in good spirit and without malice, then what fun can there be? If we must withhold all ribbing in the name of protecting everyone’s feelings, then we truly are a toothless society.&lt;br /&gt;
|qowAuthor      = {{w|George Takei}}&lt;br /&gt;
|}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;You&#039;re listening to the Skeptics&#039; Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Brian Brushwood on TV &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(0:57)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Costume Analysis at DragonCon &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:50)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== News Items ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Lightning Reindeer Death &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(7:00)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
* http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/norway-reindeer-lightning-weather/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Space Train &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(16:16)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.sciencealert.com/meet-solar-express-the-space-train-concept-that-can-get-to-mars-in-two-days&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolving Tasmanian Devils &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(25:52)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
* http://phys.org/news/2016-08-tasmanian-devils-evolve-resist-deadly.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Commercial at 32:23)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Internet Renaming Animals &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(33:56)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Juno at Jupiter &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(36:43)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/jupiter-s-north-pole-unlike-anything-encountered-in-solar-system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Finding Galactic Missing Matter &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(38:25)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ===&lt;br /&gt;
* http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/08/milky-way-had-blowout-bash-6-million-years-ago/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What&#039;s the Word &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(47:01)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Thanatosis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: All right, Cara, I believe it&#039;s time for What&#039;s the Word.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: All right! Well, the word this week is thanatosis. Anybody in the audience, you guys know it already? Any ecologists. &#039;&#039;(Audience member shouts)&#039;&#039; Zoologists. Yeah, we got a few there!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: I think I saw somebody in there with a Thanatosis costume.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, yeah. Thanatotic ... Um, so this was sent in by a listener, Ben K, from Hyattsville, Maryland. The definition of thanatosis is, “The cessation of all voluntary activity, an assumption of a posture of apparent death.” So, you&#039;ll also hear it known as, playing dead, feigning death, apparent death, tonic immobility, or playing possum. That&#039;s where that phrase comes from.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, thanatosis occurs in a lot of reptile and insect species, especially beetles. Beetles are apparently really epic at this. Some amphibians and even mammals, like the possum. Thanatosis is actually a Greek root meaning “death.” And some linguists argue that the more appropriate term would actually be thanatopsis, because the suffix “opsis” actually refers to sight. So, death sight, or this looking dead, seems to be a more appropriate term. But we actually do say thanatosis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And in fact, thanatopsis is the name of a famous poem by William Colin Bryant. He wrote it in 1811. When I was digging about thanatosis, I started reading about early descriptions of it, before the term was actually used. In the 1600&#039;s, this behavior was actually described in the literature as animal hypnosis, because handlers would encounter when they would pick up an animal, or otherwise get in the animal&#039;s way, that they would feign death. And they thought that they were hypnotizing them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, you&#039;ll see that term used in a lot of older citations, and then thanatosis became the more scientific term for it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Have you ever seen a possum playing dead?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: No&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: I&#039;ve seen a possum gape, which is what they do immediately before they play dead, and they&#039;re hideous. Possums can be so cute and so hideous.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: That&#039;s because, see, look at the picture. This guy has a possum friend, and he&#039;s like, “So how&#039;s this?” And he plays dead. And the other guy goes, “No, no, no, no. Open your hand a little. Okay, good. No, we could do better. All right, open your mouth too. All right, you got it. Perfect.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: So, I&#039;ve seen two possums with apparent state. The one was at my mother-in-law&#039;s house. They have dogs. I think the dogs scared them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Steve, wait. Don&#039;t confuse that possum playing dead for your mother-in-law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Audience groans)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Thanks Joc. It was her mom that was talking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Angry wife on hand.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Okay, so possum, they look freakin&#039; dead. They&#039;re good.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yeah, they are.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: The curled lip sold it. Really, I was impressed. I was like, “Are you sure that thing&#039;s not actually dead? &#039;Cause I think the dog killed the thing.” So we kept an eye on it, and it got up and ran away after, whatever, an hour of being left alone. So then, couple years later, my wife again comes in. “Oh, our dog must have killed a possum. He&#039;s laying dead in the middle of the driveway. Would you get rid of it?” I&#039;m like, “Okay, I&#039;ve been there before, right?” So I go out, and there&#039;s a possum playing dead in the drive way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: This possum literally threw his intestines out on the driveway before Steve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: So, it turns out that it was actually dead.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: How long did you wait before you conclude that?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: So, literally, I waited a couple of hours. I went out, like, “Shit, that thing is still in the middle of the driveway. I guess it&#039;s”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E: Its eyes are starting to get out &#039;&#039;(Inaudible)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Right&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: But I do think that&#039;s a good course of action. You know, if there&#039;s an insect in your house, a spider, a beetle, something like that; or you are handling it, and then it fell on the floor, and it looked like you killed it. Don&#039;t flush it down the toilet. It might still be alive. Just set it outside, let nature take its course, or let it fly away.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it&#039;s funny, because possums are really good at playing dead, right? They look dead. You know who&#039;s kind of crap at it, are snakes. Have you ever seen a snake play dead? Aw, look at that – they don&#039;t play dead!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: He&#039;s so fakin&#039; it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: They just turn upside-down, and they&#039;re like, “I think that&#039;s enough.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Audience laughs)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: That&#039;s good enough, right?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BB: So, my question is, when you encounter the possums playing dead, when do they give up the act? How much do, you&#039;re juggling them around, and finally, it&#039;s like, “All right, that&#039;s enough.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: No, no, no. You have to leave it alone. It&#039;s not about, the more you interrogate it, the more it will stay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BB: So if you&#039;re holding it, he&#039;ll just keep up the act&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: Yes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BB: playing dead?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Yep, yep&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
BB: Flopping him all around? And we talk about this like it&#039;s a voluntary ... this is actually, for most animals, kind of a reaction. It&#039;s an involuntary action.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B: Does it mimic rigor after a little while?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: They look like they&#039;re in rigor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: They look dead, yeah.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: But snakes don&#039;t. Snakes just look like they&#039;re playing. &#039;&#039;(Audience laughs)&#039;&#039; He&#039;s adorable, right? Yeah. Aw.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J: Is that a frog?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: That&#039;s a frog.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
C: So, like I said, some animals are better than others. Some just kind of flop onto their backs. And there&#039;s different reasons that scientists say that thanatosis occurs. Sometimes it&#039;s, we think of it as being a defence mechanism. Like, if I play dead, the predator&#039;s not gonna want to eat me, because if I&#039;m already dead, and they&#039;re not scavengers, it&#039;s gonna be less appealing to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But there are also examples of thanatosis for mating purposes, like it&#039;s a way to say &#039;&#039;(audience laughs)&#039;&#039; “It&#039;s okay.” Like, “I&#039;m giving you permission.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: So, we&#039;re going to do science or fiction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Applause)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
S: Everybody&#039;s favorite segment&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;(Commercial at 52:37)&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science or Fiction &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;()&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Item #1: Researchers find that 30% of college students flush their unused prescription medication down the drain.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brown, Joshua E &#039;[http://www.uvm.edu/giee/?Page=news&amp;amp;storyID=23308 Drugs in the Water? Don’t Blame the Students: Study shows down-the-drain disposal is not a major source of pharmaceutical pollution]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Gund Institute for Ecological Economics&#039;&#039;. University of Vermont. Retrieved 13 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Item #2: A new study finds that simply wearing glasses reduced facial recognition by people to a statistically significant degree.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Strickland, Ashley &#039;[http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/health/superman-glasses-disguise-facial-recognition/ Why you may not recognize Clark Kent as Superman]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Cable News Netword&#039;&#039;. Turner Broadcasting System. Retrieved 13 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Item #3: For the first time engineers have created carbon nanotube transistors that outperform state-of-the-art silicon transistors.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Malecek, Adam &#039;[http://phys.org/news/2016-09-carbon-nanotube-transistors-outperform-silicon.html For first time, carbon nanotube transistors outperform silicon]&#039;. &#039;&#039;Phys.org&#039;&#039;. Omicron Technology Limited. Retrieved 13 September 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Skeptical Quote of the Week &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(1:01:45)&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Good grief. If we can’t laugh at ourselves, and at one another, in good spirit and without malice, then what fun can there be? If we must withhold all ribbing in the name of protecting everyone’s feelings, then we truly are a toothless society.&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt; - George Takei&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Outro404}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Navigation}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Page categories&lt;br /&gt;
|Guest Rogues               = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Live Recording             = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Interview                  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Astronomy &amp;amp; Space Science  = y&lt;br /&gt;
|Nature &amp;amp; Evolution         = y &amp;lt;!-- Thanatosis (583) --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:MessageBox&amp;diff=10718</id>
		<title>Template:MessageBox</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:MessageBox&amp;diff=10718"/>
		<updated>2016-09-13T05:19:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: removed category tag&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color: #ffffcc; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 0px; border: 2px solid #ffff22;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| border=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; bgcolor=#ffff22|&amp;amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;
| width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;|[[File:{{{image|Emblem-pen.png}}}|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| {{{1|One of the editors wanted to leave you a message, but they forgot to enter it.}}}&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simple way to leave a message behind for other editors. Of course, general viewers will see it, so don&#039;t use it inappropriately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
parameters&lt;br /&gt;
* first parameter, unnamed - required, a message to be displayed.&lt;br /&gt;
* image - optional, an alternate image to be displayed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|I have something very important to say.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
appears as:&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox |I have something very important to say.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox&lt;br /&gt;
|Episodes up to #315 have been checked for references to colleges and universities.&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Emblem-pen-orange.png&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
appears as:&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox&lt;br /&gt;
|Episodes up to #315 have been checked for references to colleges and universities.&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Emblem-pen-orange.png&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|If you have an opinion about how to XYZ, join [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|the discussion]] on this page.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
appears as:&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|If you have an opinion about how to XYZ, join [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|the discussion]] on this page.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Message templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Universities_on_the_SGU&amp;diff=10717</id>
		<title>Universities on the SGU</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Universities_on_the_SGU&amp;diff=10717"/>
		<updated>2016-09-13T05:18:16Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: Added needs attention category&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{MessageBox|All transcribed episodes up to 346 have been checked so far.}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Needs attention]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Universities mentioned on the {{SGU}} and the context in which they were mentioned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable sortable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!==”unsortable”|University!!LinkToSegment!!Description&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Ferrarra in Italy&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_3#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2816:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Massimo Pigliucci got a degree there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Connecticut&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_3#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2816:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Massimo Pigliucci got a degree there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Tennessee (at Knoxville)&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_3#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2816:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Massimo Pigliucci got a degree there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Colorado University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_5#Interview_with_Michael_Shermer_.2810:00.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Soldiers in Iraq should be shot&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Hawaii at Manoa&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_8#Science_or_Fiction_.288:30.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Caterpillar eats snails&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Purdue University &lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_8#Science_or_Fiction_.288:30.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Cold fusion&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Maharishi University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_8#Steven_Salerno_Interview:_Self_Help_Movement_.2820:53.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Self help movement&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Harvard University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_9#Conclusion_.281:01:30.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Published a book on alien abduction&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Maryland&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_11#Interview_with_Robert_Park]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Dr. Robert Park teaches there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Berne&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_11#Studying_Alternative_Medicine_.2812:16.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Homeopathy is a placebo&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Arkansas&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_12#Atkins_Diet_and_Nutrition_.2837:50.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Atkins weight loss not impressive&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University =  Harvard University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_12#Atkins_Diet_and_Nutrition_.2837:50.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Trans fat is bad&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Purdue University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_16#Glenn_Sparks_Interview_.280:24.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Glenn Sparks works there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Wisconsin, Madison&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_16#Survey_Results_.2816:18.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Glenn Sparks studied there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Kentucky&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_17#Bleeding_Statues_and_Joe.27s_Personas_.2834:33.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Joe Nickell studied there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Temple University School of Medicine&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_18#Science_or_Fiction_.288:31.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = St. John&#039;s Wort protein suppresses HIV&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Rensselaer Research&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_18#Science_or_Fiction_.288:31.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = T-Rays&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Southern Maine&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_19#Million_Dollar_Bigfoot_Challenge_.285:30.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Million dollar Bigfoot challenge&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Edinburgh&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_19#Putting_the_.27Psi.27_Into_Science_.2830:19.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = ESP experiments&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Kansas&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_20#Intelligent_Design_and_Kansas_University_.281:16.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Intelligent design taught as religion, not science&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Boston University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_20#Intelligent_Design_and_the_Great_Debate]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Hosted the Great Debate on Intelligent Design&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = George Mason University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_20#Intelligent_Design_and_the_Great_Debate]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = James Trefil teaches there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Vermont&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_20#Free_Will]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Derk Pereboom wrote argued against free will&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Duke University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_20#Free_Will]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Owen Flanagan works there, helped write The Problem of the Soul&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Kansas &lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_21#Intelligent_Design_Course_Withdrawn_.281:_13.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Withdrew Intelligent Design Course&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Stanford University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_21#Interview_with_.22Wallace_Sampson.2C_MD.22_.288:20.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Wallace Sampson, guest on the SGU, works there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Syracuse University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_22#Science_or_Fiction_.288:52.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Bat genital size&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Harvard University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_22#Alien_Abductees_.2835:18.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Studied “alien abductees” for false memories&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Seoul National University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_25#Stem_Cell_Research_Fraud_.2855:26.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Stem Cell research fraud&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Duke University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_27#Stolen_Memories_.288:20.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Memories can be “stolen”&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Canterbury&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_27#Stolen_Memories_.288:20.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Memories can be “stolen”&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Michigan&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_28#Interview_with_Tara_Smith_.2825:57.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Tara Smith did her post doc there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Iowa&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_28#Interview_with_Tara_Smith_.2825:57.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Tara Smith teaches there.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Lakehead University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_31#WiFi_networks_and_leukemia.2C_brain_tumours_.280:40.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Limited wifi on their campus because of radiation&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Pace University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_31#Science_or_Fiction_.2822:50.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Terence Hines has a PhD there.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Johns Hopkins University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_33#Plastic_Scare_.2814:23.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Falsely quoted in a plastic scare spam email.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of California&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_36#The_Woman_who_Never_Forgets_.2815:02.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Researchers there are studying a woman who never forgets anything&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Duke University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_37#Prayer_in_Medicine_.2814:130]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Dr. Harold Koenig, the director of the Center of Spirituality and Theology dismissed a study that showed prayer does not help medical patients.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Ohio State University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_38#Science_or_Fiction_.2853:33.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Aaron Wickman published a study that shows no difference in IQ scores between older and younger siblings.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Arizona&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_39#Interview_with_Marilyn_Schlitz_.2836:34.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Marilyn Schlitz just came from a conference there called “Towards Science Consciousness”&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Southern Connecticut State University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_40#Birthday_Problem_.2822:17.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Evan Bernstein gave a lecture on the birthday problem there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Sheffield Hallam University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_42#UFO.27s_in_the_UK_.282:11.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Dr. David Clark requested the results of a UK UFO study that showed no evidence of aliens. The request resulted in media attention.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Washington&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_42#UFO.27s_in_the_UK_.282:11.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Eugenie Scott lectured to an audience there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Johns Hopkins University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_43#Interview_with_Ray_Hyman_.2827:45.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Ray Hyman got a PhD is psychology there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Harvard University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_43#Interview_with_Ray_Hyman_.2827:45.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Ray Hyman taught psychology and statistics there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Princeton University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_43#Ganzfeld_Experiements_.2828:39.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Robert Jahn, the Dean of Applied Sciences and Engineering wrote a positive article on parapsychology that got a lot of attention.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Cambridge University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_43#Ganzfeld_Experiements_.2828:39.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = The Parapsychological Association and the Society for Psychical Research had their 100th anniversary celebration there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Rochester&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_43#Science_or_Fiction_.2865:52.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Robert Boyd made light go backward&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Penn State University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_43#Science_or_Fiction_.2865:52.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = A publication by Abhey Ashtekar says there was a quantum bounce instead of a Big Bang&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Everglades University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_44#The_Amaz.21ng_Meeting_4_.2834:28.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Offering a Bachelor of Science degree in alternative medicine&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Cincinnati&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_47#Interview_with_Zachary_Moore_.2829:58.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Zachary Moore earned his Doctor of Philosophy in Pathobiology and Molecular Medicine there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Texas&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_47#Interview_with_Zachary_Moore_.2829:58.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Zachary Moore was a post-grad assistant there at the time&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Michigan&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_47#Science_or_Fiction_.281:07:16.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Conducted a study showing that people get happier as they get older&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Cornell University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_48]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Steve Mirsky got a Masters degree in chemistry there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Oklahoma&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_49#Gerald_Schroeder_on_God_.2812:05.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Frank Sonnleitner criticized an intelligent design proponent&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Minnesota&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_49#Science_or_Fiction_.2848:38.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Researched ways to reduce kidney stone formation in astronauts&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Buffalo&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_49#Science_or_Fiction_.2848:38.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Researchers there found wearing seat belts reduced the risk of fatality in an accident&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Alberta&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_49#Science_or_Fiction_.2848:38.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Patented a device that uses ultrasound to regrow teeth&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Yale University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_62#Science_or_Fiction_.281:07:38.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = A study there found artificially high levels of testosterone can cause cells to induce their own death. Also, Steve says he works there.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Brown University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_98#Science_or_Fiction_.2853:53.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Physicists there looked at the motion of an electron through super-cold liquid helium&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Northwestern University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_102#Study:_1_in_6_Juries_Get_the_Verdict_Wrong_.2817:33.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Study shows that 1 in 6 juries get the verdict wrong&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Emory University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_103#Interview_with_Scott_Lilienfield_.2834:33.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Scott Lilienfield is a clinical psychologist and professor there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Colorado University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_105#Ward_Churchill_Fired_.282:26.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Fired Ward Churchill for academic misconduct, including plagiarism. He said it was because of his views about 9/11 conspiracies.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = George Mason University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_110#Science_or_Fiction_.2858:25.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = A study there showed that husbands do less work than live-in boyfriends&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Maharishi University of Management&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_150#New_Alien_Video_.281:50.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Stan Romanek (a delusional believer according to Steve) went there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Osaka University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_150#Cold_Fusion]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Yoshiaka Arata believes he has discovered cold fusion&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Buffalo&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_150#Science_or_Fiction_.281:06:24.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Study shows it is psychologically healthy to keep feelings inside rather than discussing them after collective traumatic events like 9/11.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Texas at Austin&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_156#Zapping_Cancer_Cells_.2819:34.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Engineers there created surgical lasers so accurate that they can destroy cancer cells, leaving their neighbor cells unaffected&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Bristol University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_165#Science_or_Fiction_.281:04:43.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Research suggests the rise of the dinosaurs was due to pure luck&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Pennsylvania State University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_184#Evolution_Before_Our_Eyes_.2814:09.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = A study saw evolution happening&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Stony Brook University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_185#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2833:39.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Massimo Pigliucci is a professor of ecology and evolution there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Florida&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_201#Question_.23_1_-_Polonium_Halos_.2825:29.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = A creationist named Robert V. Gentry got a Master&#039;s in Physics there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Rhode Island&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_201#Who.27s_That_Noisy_.281:16:56.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Scientists recorded the sound of an Atlantic Croaker fish&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Leeds&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_202#Volcanic_Extinction_.2810:52.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Scientists discovered a volcanic eruption mass-extinction event that had been previously unknown&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Bristol&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_203#Interview_with_Bruce_Hood_.2833:13.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Bruce Hood (a guest on the SGU) works there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Brown University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_245#Rise_of_the_Dinosaurs_.285:36.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = The rise of the dinosaurs was caused by volcanism&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of New York&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_252#Nonsense_on_Stilts_.281:33.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Massimo Pigliucci works there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_252#Definition_of_Siphon_.2811:11.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Stephen Hughes discovered that oxford has used the wrong definition of siphon for the last 100 years&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Univeersity of Gothenburg&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_257#Einstein.27s_Brain_.289:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Studied astrocytes&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Queen&#039;s University in Kingston, Canada&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_257#Science_or_Fiction_.281:00:07.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Computer simulation shows many comets in our solar system originated in other solar systems&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Penn State University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_271#Losing_Your_Religion_.281:02.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Did a crappy study looking at health and religion&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Cornell University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_271#Halfalogue_.2831:51.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Lauren Emberson studied how distracting it is to hear one end of a cellphone conversation&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Toronto&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_271#Science_or_Fiction_.281:00:58.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Todd Reichert achieved sustained human-powered flight with an ornithopter (has flapping wings)&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Paris&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_328#This_Day_in_Skepticism_.282:09.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = In 1398, academics there declared that magic is real and dangerous&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Sydney&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_328#Science_or_Fiction_.281:01:02.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Including enough protein in our diets rather than just cutting calories curbs appetities&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Northwestern University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_331#Science_or_Fiction_.281:00:43.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Scientists there improved the charging rate of lithium-ion batteries ten-fold (they wear out faster though)&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Southern Cross University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_339#Name_That_Logical_Fallacy_.2850:20.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = The school of health there teaches alternative medicine, and a professor there defended the practice&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Uppsala University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_340#Science_or_Fiction_.2857:06.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Researchers associate lack of sleep with increased appetite&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Tokyo&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_345#Missing_Dark_Matter_.2812:37.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Researchers show galaxies could be connected by a web of dark matter&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Cornell University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_345#Nanoparticle_Safety_.2829:11.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Nanoparticles in food could harm human health&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Yale University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_346#Science_or_Fiction_.281:03:26.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Triceratops and Torosaurus were two separate species, not one&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Navigation pages]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Needs_attention&amp;diff=10716</id>
		<title>Category:Needs attention</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Needs_attention&amp;diff=10716"/>
		<updated>2016-09-13T05:15:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: added this parent category to the list of hidden&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This category includes all pages that require some kind of editing, sorted into relevant sub-categories.&lt;br /&gt;
__HIDDENCAT__&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:MessageBox&amp;diff=10715</id>
		<title>Template:MessageBox</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:MessageBox&amp;diff=10715"/>
		<updated>2016-09-13T05:07:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: added hidden category&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color: #ffffcc; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 0px; border: 2px solid #ffff22;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| border=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; bgcolor=#ffff22|&amp;amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;
| width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;|[[File:{{{image|Emblem-pen.png}}}|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| {{{1|One of the editors wanted to leave you a message, but they forgot to enter it.}}}&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Needs transcription]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simple way to leave a message behind for other editors. Of course, general viewers will see it, so don&#039;t use it inappropriately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The presence of this message, which is intended as a note to editors, will mark the page as needing transcription (there was no &amp;quot;needs editing&amp;quot;, so transcription was used as feeling most generic).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
parameters&lt;br /&gt;
* first parameter, unnamed - required, a message to be displayed.&lt;br /&gt;
* image - optional, an alternate image to be displayed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|I have something very important to say.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
appears as:&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox |I have something very important to say.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox&lt;br /&gt;
|Episodes up to #315 have been checked for references to colleges and universities.&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Emblem-pen-orange.png&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
appears as:&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox&lt;br /&gt;
|Episodes up to #315 have been checked for references to colleges and universities.&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Emblem-pen-orange.png&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|If you have an opinion about how to XYZ, join [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|the discussion]] on this page.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
appears as:&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|If you have an opinion about how to XYZ, join [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|the discussion]] on this page.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Message templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Universities_on_the_SGU&amp;diff=10714</id>
		<title>Universities on the SGU</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Universities_on_the_SGU&amp;diff=10714"/>
		<updated>2016-09-13T05:03:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: added navigation pages category&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{MessageBox|All transcribed episodes up to 346 have been checked so far.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Universities mentioned on the {{SGU}} and the context in which they were mentioned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable sortable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!==”unsortable”|University!!LinkToSegment!!Description&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Ferrarra in Italy&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_3#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2816:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Massimo Pigliucci got a degree there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Connecticut&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_3#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2816:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Massimo Pigliucci got a degree there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Tennessee (at Knoxville)&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_3#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2816:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Massimo Pigliucci got a degree there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Colorado University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_5#Interview_with_Michael_Shermer_.2810:00.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Soldiers in Iraq should be shot&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Hawaii at Manoa&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_8#Science_or_Fiction_.288:30.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Caterpillar eats snails&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Purdue University &lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_8#Science_or_Fiction_.288:30.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Cold fusion&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Maharishi University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_8#Steven_Salerno_Interview:_Self_Help_Movement_.2820:53.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Self help movement&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Harvard University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_9#Conclusion_.281:01:30.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Published a book on alien abduction&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Maryland&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_11#Interview_with_Robert_Park]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Dr. Robert Park teaches there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Berne&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_11#Studying_Alternative_Medicine_.2812:16.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Homeopathy is a placebo&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Arkansas&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_12#Atkins_Diet_and_Nutrition_.2837:50.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Atkins weight loss not impressive&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University =  Harvard University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_12#Atkins_Diet_and_Nutrition_.2837:50.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Trans fat is bad&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Purdue University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_16#Glenn_Sparks_Interview_.280:24.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Glenn Sparks works there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Wisconsin, Madison&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_16#Survey_Results_.2816:18.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Glenn Sparks studied there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Kentucky&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_17#Bleeding_Statues_and_Joe.27s_Personas_.2834:33.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Joe Nickell studied there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Temple University School of Medicine&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_18#Science_or_Fiction_.288:31.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = St. John&#039;s Wort protein suppresses HIV&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Rensselaer Research&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_18#Science_or_Fiction_.288:31.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = T-Rays&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Southern Maine&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_19#Million_Dollar_Bigfoot_Challenge_.285:30.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Million dollar Bigfoot challenge&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Edinburgh&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_19#Putting_the_.27Psi.27_Into_Science_.2830:19.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = ESP experiments&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Kansas&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_20#Intelligent_Design_and_Kansas_University_.281:16.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Intelligent design taught as religion, not science&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Boston University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_20#Intelligent_Design_and_the_Great_Debate]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Hosted the Great Debate on Intelligent Design&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = George Mason University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_20#Intelligent_Design_and_the_Great_Debate]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = James Trefil teaches there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Vermont&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_20#Free_Will]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Derk Pereboom wrote argued against free will&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Duke University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_20#Free_Will]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Owen Flanagan works there, helped write The Problem of the Soul&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Kansas &lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_21#Intelligent_Design_Course_Withdrawn_.281:_13.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Withdrew Intelligent Design Course&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Stanford University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_21#Interview_with_.22Wallace_Sampson.2C_MD.22_.288:20.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Wallace Sampson, guest on the SGU, works there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Syracuse University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_22#Science_or_Fiction_.288:52.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Bat genital size&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Harvard University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_22#Alien_Abductees_.2835:18.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Studied “alien abductees” for false memories&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Seoul National University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_25#Stem_Cell_Research_Fraud_.2855:26.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Stem Cell research fraud&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Duke University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_27#Stolen_Memories_.288:20.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Memories can be “stolen”&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Canterbury&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_27#Stolen_Memories_.288:20.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Memories can be “stolen”&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Michigan&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_28#Interview_with_Tara_Smith_.2825:57.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Tara Smith did her post doc there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Iowa&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_28#Interview_with_Tara_Smith_.2825:57.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Tara Smith teaches there.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Lakehead University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_31#WiFi_networks_and_leukemia.2C_brain_tumours_.280:40.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Limited wifi on their campus because of radiation&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Pace University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_31#Science_or_Fiction_.2822:50.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Terence Hines has a PhD there.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Johns Hopkins University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_33#Plastic_Scare_.2814:23.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Falsely quoted in a plastic scare spam email.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of California&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_36#The_Woman_who_Never_Forgets_.2815:02.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Researchers there are studying a woman who never forgets anything&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Duke University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_37#Prayer_in_Medicine_.2814:130]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Dr. Harold Koenig, the director of the Center of Spirituality and Theology dismissed a study that showed prayer does not help medical patients.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Ohio State University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_38#Science_or_Fiction_.2853:33.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Aaron Wickman published a study that shows no difference in IQ scores between older and younger siblings.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Arizona&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_39#Interview_with_Marilyn_Schlitz_.2836:34.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Marilyn Schlitz just came from a conference there called “Towards Science Consciousness”&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Southern Connecticut State University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_40#Birthday_Problem_.2822:17.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Evan Bernstein gave a lecture on the birthday problem there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Sheffield Hallam University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_42#UFO.27s_in_the_UK_.282:11.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Dr. David Clark requested the results of a UK UFO study that showed no evidence of aliens. The request resulted in media attention.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Washington&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_42#UFO.27s_in_the_UK_.282:11.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Eugenie Scott lectured to an audience there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Johns Hopkins University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_43#Interview_with_Ray_Hyman_.2827:45.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Ray Hyman got a PhD is psychology there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Harvard University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_43#Interview_with_Ray_Hyman_.2827:45.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Ray Hyman taught psychology and statistics there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Princeton University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_43#Ganzfeld_Experiements_.2828:39.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Robert Jahn, the Dean of Applied Sciences and Engineering wrote a positive article on parapsychology that got a lot of attention.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Cambridge University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_43#Ganzfeld_Experiements_.2828:39.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = The Parapsychological Association and the Society for Psychical Research had their 100th anniversary celebration there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Rochester&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_43#Science_or_Fiction_.2865:52.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Robert Boyd made light go backward&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Penn State University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_43#Science_or_Fiction_.2865:52.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = A publication by Abhey Ashtekar says there was a quantum bounce instead of a Big Bang&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Everglades University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_44#The_Amaz.21ng_Meeting_4_.2834:28.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Offering a Bachelor of Science degree in alternative medicine&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Cincinnati&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_47#Interview_with_Zachary_Moore_.2829:58.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Zachary Moore earned his Doctor of Philosophy in Pathobiology and Molecular Medicine there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Texas&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_47#Interview_with_Zachary_Moore_.2829:58.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Zachary Moore was a post-grad assistant there at the time&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Michigan&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_47#Science_or_Fiction_.281:07:16.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Conducted a study showing that people get happier as they get older&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Cornell University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_48]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Steve Mirsky got a Masters degree in chemistry there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Oklahoma&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_49#Gerald_Schroeder_on_God_.2812:05.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Frank Sonnleitner criticized an intelligent design proponent&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Minnesota&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_49#Science_or_Fiction_.2848:38.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Researched ways to reduce kidney stone formation in astronauts&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Buffalo&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_49#Science_or_Fiction_.2848:38.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Researchers there found wearing seat belts reduced the risk of fatality in an accident&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Alberta&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_49#Science_or_Fiction_.2848:38.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Patented a device that uses ultrasound to regrow teeth&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Yale University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_62#Science_or_Fiction_.281:07:38.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = A study there found artificially high levels of testosterone can cause cells to induce their own death. Also, Steve says he works there.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Brown University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_98#Science_or_Fiction_.2853:53.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Physicists there looked at the motion of an electron through super-cold liquid helium&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Northwestern University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_102#Study:_1_in_6_Juries_Get_the_Verdict_Wrong_.2817:33.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Study shows that 1 in 6 juries get the verdict wrong&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Emory University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_103#Interview_with_Scott_Lilienfield_.2834:33.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Scott Lilienfield is a clinical psychologist and professor there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Colorado University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_105#Ward_Churchill_Fired_.282:26.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Fired Ward Churchill for academic misconduct, including plagiarism. He said it was because of his views about 9/11 conspiracies.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = George Mason University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_110#Science_or_Fiction_.2858:25.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = A study there showed that husbands do less work than live-in boyfriends&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Maharishi University of Management&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_150#New_Alien_Video_.281:50.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Stan Romanek (a delusional believer according to Steve) went there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Osaka University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_150#Cold_Fusion]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Yoshiaka Arata believes he has discovered cold fusion&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Buffalo&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_150#Science_or_Fiction_.281:06:24.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Study shows it is psychologically healthy to keep feelings inside rather than discussing them after collective traumatic events like 9/11.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Texas at Austin&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_156#Zapping_Cancer_Cells_.2819:34.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Engineers there created surgical lasers so accurate that they can destroy cancer cells, leaving their neighbor cells unaffected&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Bristol University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_165#Science_or_Fiction_.281:04:43.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Research suggests the rise of the dinosaurs was due to pure luck&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Pennsylvania State University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_184#Evolution_Before_Our_Eyes_.2814:09.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = A study saw evolution happening&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Stony Brook University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_185#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2833:39.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Massimo Pigliucci is a professor of ecology and evolution there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Florida&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_201#Question_.23_1_-_Polonium_Halos_.2825:29.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = A creationist named Robert V. Gentry got a Master&#039;s in Physics there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Rhode Island&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_201#Who.27s_That_Noisy_.281:16:56.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Scientists recorded the sound of an Atlantic Croaker fish&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Leeds&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_202#Volcanic_Extinction_.2810:52.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Scientists discovered a volcanic eruption mass-extinction event that had been previously unknown&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Bristol&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_203#Interview_with_Bruce_Hood_.2833:13.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Bruce Hood (a guest on the SGU) works there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Brown University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_245#Rise_of_the_Dinosaurs_.285:36.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = The rise of the dinosaurs was caused by volcanism&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of New York&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_252#Nonsense_on_Stilts_.281:33.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Massimo Pigliucci works there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_252#Definition_of_Siphon_.2811:11.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Stephen Hughes discovered that oxford has used the wrong definition of siphon for the last 100 years&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Univeersity of Gothenburg&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_257#Einstein.27s_Brain_.289:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Studied astrocytes&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Queen&#039;s University in Kingston, Canada&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_257#Science_or_Fiction_.281:00:07.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Computer simulation shows many comets in our solar system originated in other solar systems&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Penn State University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_271#Losing_Your_Religion_.281:02.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Did a crappy study looking at health and religion&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Cornell University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_271#Halfalogue_.2831:51.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Lauren Emberson studied how distracting it is to hear one end of a cellphone conversation&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Toronto&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_271#Science_or_Fiction_.281:00:58.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Todd Reichert achieved sustained human-powered flight with an ornithopter (has flapping wings)&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Paris&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_328#This_Day_in_Skepticism_.282:09.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = In 1398, academics there declared that magic is real and dangerous&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Sydney&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_328#Science_or_Fiction_.281:01:02.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Including enough protein in our diets rather than just cutting calories curbs appetities&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Northwestern University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_331#Science_or_Fiction_.281:00:43.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Scientists there improved the charging rate of lithium-ion batteries ten-fold (they wear out faster though)&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Southern Cross University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_339#Name_That_Logical_Fallacy_.2850:20.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = The school of health there teaches alternative medicine, and a professor there defended the practice&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Uppsala University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_340#Science_or_Fiction_.2857:06.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Researchers associate lack of sleep with increased appetite&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Tokyo&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_345#Missing_Dark_Matter_.2812:37.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Researchers show galaxies could be connected by a web of dark matter&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Cornell University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_345#Nanoparticle_Safety_.2829:11.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Nanoparticles in food could harm human health&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Yale University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_346#Science_or_Fiction_.281:03:26.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Triceratops and Torosaurus were two separate species, not one&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Navigation pages]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:University_entry&amp;diff=10713</id>
		<title>Template:University entry</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:University_entry&amp;diff=10713"/>
		<updated>2016-09-13T04:53:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: doc change&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;|{{#if: {{{University|}}} | {{w | {{{University}}} }} }}&lt;br /&gt;
|{{#if: {{{LinkToSegment|}}} | {{{LinkToSegment}}} }}&lt;br /&gt;
|{{#if: {{{Description|}}} | {{{Description}}} }}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
This template is used to add formatted entries to the sortable table on the [[Universities on the SGU]] page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Note ====&lt;br /&gt;
Automatic links to the Wikipedia page are provided for the Universities. Links will not show red if there is no entry. They may land on a &amp;quot;not found&amp;quot; page if it is misspelled or otherwise misnamed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
Entries should be added in order, as the table does not automatically order itself on opening.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optional variables:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;University&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;LinkToSegment&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;Description&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Example:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=wikitable&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- other entries ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University    = University of Ferrarra in Italy&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment     = [[SGU_Episode_3#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2816:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description  = Massimo Pigliucci got a degree there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- other entries ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Output:&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=wikitable&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University  = University of Ferrarra in Italy&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment   = [[SGU_Episode_3#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2816:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description  = Massimo Pigliucci got a degree there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Copy ===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University    = University of Ferrarra in Italy&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment     = [[SGU_Episode_3#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2816:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description  = Massimo Pigliucci got a degree there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Table entry templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:University_entry&amp;diff=10712</id>
		<title>Template:University entry</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:University_entry&amp;diff=10712"/>
		<updated>2016-09-13T04:48:05Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: added an automatic Wikipedia link to the university - i thought it would be useful&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;|{{#if: {{{University|}}} | {{w | {{{University}}} }} }}&lt;br /&gt;
|{{#if: {{{LinkToSegment|}}} | {{{LinkToSegment}}} }}&lt;br /&gt;
|{{#if: {{{Description|}}} | {{{Description}}} }}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
This template is used to add formatted entries to the sortable table on the [[Universities on the SGU]] page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Note ====&lt;br /&gt;
Automatic links to the Wikipedia page are provided for the Universities. If they display as a red link, try to determine what the entry is titled, it may have a longer formal name.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
Entries should be added in order, as the table does not automatically order itself on opening.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optional variables:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;University&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;LinkToSegment&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;Description&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Example:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=wikitable&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- other entries ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University    = University of Ferrarra in Italy&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment     = [[SGU_Episode_3#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2816:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description  = Massimo Pigliucci got a degree there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- other entries ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Output:&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=wikitable&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University  = University of Ferrarra in Italy&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment   = [[SGU_Episode_3#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2816:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description  = Massimo Pigliucci got a degree there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Copy ===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University    = University of Ferrarra in Italy&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment     = [[SGU_Episode_3#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2816:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description  = Massimo Pigliucci got a degree there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Table entry templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:University_entry&amp;diff=10711</id>
		<title>Template:University entry</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:University_entry&amp;diff=10711"/>
		<updated>2016-09-13T04:31:07Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: added documentation&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;|{{#if: {{{University|}}} | {{{University}}} }}&lt;br /&gt;
|{{#if: {{{LinkToSegment|}}} | {{{LinkToSegment}}} }}&lt;br /&gt;
|{{#if: {{{Description|}}} | {{{Description}}} }}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
This template is used to add formatted entries to the sortable table on the [[Universities on the SGU]] page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
Entries should be added in order, as the table does not automatically order itself on opening.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Optional variables:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;University&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;LinkToSegment&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;Description&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Example:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=wikitable&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- other entries ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University    = University of Ferrarra in Italy&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment     = [[SGU_Episode_3#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2816:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description  = Massimo Pigliucci got a degree there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- other entries ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Output:&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=wikitable&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University  = University of Ferrarra in Italy&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment   = [[SGU_Episode_3#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2816:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description  = Massimo Pigliucci got a degree there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Copy ===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University    = University of Ferrarra in Italy&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment     = [[SGU_Episode_3#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2816:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description  = Massimo Pigliucci got a degree there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Table entry templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Universities_on_the_SGU&amp;diff=10710</id>
		<title>Universities on the SGU</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Universities_on_the_SGU&amp;diff=10710"/>
		<updated>2016-09-13T04:14:39Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: Shortened all long links to local links, added message at top&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{MessageBox|All transcribed episodes up to 346 have been checked so far.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Universities mentioned on the {{SGU}} and the context in which they were mentioned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable sortable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:center;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!==”unsortable”|University!!LinkToSegment!!Description&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Ferrarra in Italy&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_3#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2816:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Massimo Pigliucci got a degree there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Connecticut&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_3#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2816:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Massimo Pigliucci got a degree there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Tennessee (at Knoxville)&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_3#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2816:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Massimo Pigliucci got a degree there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Colorado University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_5#Interview_with_Michael_Shermer_.2810:00.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Soldiers in Iraq should be shot&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Hawaii at Manoa&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_8#Science_or_Fiction_.288:30.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Caterpillar eats snails&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Purdue University &lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_8#Science_or_Fiction_.288:30.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Cold fusion&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Maharishi University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_8#Steven_Salerno_Interview:_Self_Help_Movement_.2820:53.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Self help movement&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Harvard University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_9#Conclusion_.281:01:30.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Published a book on alien abduction&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Maryland&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_11#Interview_with_Robert_Park]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Dr. Robert Park teaches there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Berne&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_11#Studying_Alternative_Medicine_.2812:16.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Homeopathy is a placebo&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Arkansas&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_12#Atkins_Diet_and_Nutrition_.2837:50.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Atkins weight loss not impressive&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University =  Harvard University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_12#Atkins_Diet_and_Nutrition_.2837:50.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Trans fat is bad&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Purdue University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_16#Glenn_Sparks_Interview_.280:24.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Glenn Sparks works there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Wisconsin, Madison&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_16#Survey_Results_.2816:18.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Glenn Sparks studied there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Kentucky&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_17#Bleeding_Statues_and_Joe.27s_Personas_.2834:33.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Joe Nickell studied there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Temple University School of Medicine&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_18#Science_or_Fiction_.288:31.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = St. John&#039;s Wort protein suppresses HIV&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Rensselaer Research&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_18#Science_or_Fiction_.288:31.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = T-Rays&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Southern Maine&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_19#Million_Dollar_Bigfoot_Challenge_.285:30.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Million dollar Bigfoot challenge&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Edinburgh&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_19#Putting_the_.27Psi.27_Into_Science_.2830:19.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = ESP experiments&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Kansas&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_20#Intelligent_Design_and_Kansas_University_.281:16.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Intelligent design taught as religion, not science&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Boston University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_20#Intelligent_Design_and_the_Great_Debate]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Hosted the Great Debate on Intelligent Design&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = George Mason University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_20#Intelligent_Design_and_the_Great_Debate]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = James Trefil teaches there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Vermont&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_20#Free_Will]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Derk Pereboom wrote argued against free will&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Duke University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_20#Free_Will]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Owen Flanagan works there, helped write The Problem of the Soul&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Kansas &lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_21#Intelligent_Design_Course_Withdrawn_.281:_13.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Withdrew Intelligent Design Course&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Stanford University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_21#Interview_with_.22Wallace_Sampson.2C_MD.22_.288:20.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Wallace Sampson, guest on the SGU, works there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Syracuse University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_22#Science_or_Fiction_.288:52.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Bat genital size&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Harvard University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_22#Alien_Abductees_.2835:18.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Studied “alien abductees” for false memories&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Seoul National University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_25#Stem_Cell_Research_Fraud_.2855:26.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Stem Cell research fraud&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Duke University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_27#Stolen_Memories_.288:20.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Memories can be “stolen”&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Canterbury&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_27#Stolen_Memories_.288:20.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Memories can be “stolen”&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Michigan&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_28#Interview_with_Tara_Smith_.2825:57.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Tara Smith did her post doc there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Iowa&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_28#Interview_with_Tara_Smith_.2825:57.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Tara Smith teaches there.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Lakehead University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_31#WiFi_networks_and_leukemia.2C_brain_tumours_.280:40.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Limited wifi on their campus because of radiation&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Pace University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_31#Science_or_Fiction_.2822:50.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Terence Hines has a PhD there.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Johns Hopkins University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_33#Plastic_Scare_.2814:23.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Falsely quoted in a plastic scare spam email.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of California&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_36#The_Woman_who_Never_Forgets_.2815:02.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Researchers there are studying a woman who never forgets anything&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Duke University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_37#Prayer_in_Medicine_.2814:130]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Dr. Harold Koenig, the director of the Center of Spirituality and Theology dismissed a study that showed prayer does not help medical patients.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Ohio State University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_38#Science_or_Fiction_.2853:33.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Aaron Wickman published a study that shows no difference in IQ scores between older and younger siblings.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Arizona&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_39#Interview_with_Marilyn_Schlitz_.2836:34.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Marilyn Schlitz just came from a conference there called “Towards Science Consciousness”&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Southern Connecticut State University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_40#Birthday_Problem_.2822:17.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Evan Bernstein gave a lecture on the birthday problem there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Sheffield Hallam University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_42#UFO.27s_in_the_UK_.282:11.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Dr. David Clark requested the results of a UK UFO study that showed no evidence of aliens. The request resulted in media attention.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Washington&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_42#UFO.27s_in_the_UK_.282:11.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Eugenie Scott lectured to an audience there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Johns Hopkins University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_43#Interview_with_Ray_Hyman_.2827:45.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Ray Hyman got a PhD is psychology there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Harvard University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_43#Interview_with_Ray_Hyman_.2827:45.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Ray Hyman taught psychology and statistics there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Princeton University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_43#Ganzfeld_Experiements_.2828:39.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Robert Jahn, the Dean of Applied Sciences and Engineering wrote a positive article on parapsychology that got a lot of attention.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Cambridge University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_43#Ganzfeld_Experiements_.2828:39.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = The Parapsychological Association and the Society for Psychical Research had their 100th anniversary celebration there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Rochester&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_43#Science_or_Fiction_.2865:52.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Robert Boyd made light go backward&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Penn State University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_43#Science_or_Fiction_.2865:52.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = A publication by Abhey Ashtekar says there was a quantum bounce instead of a Big Bang&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Everglades University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_44#The_Amaz.21ng_Meeting_4_.2834:28.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Offering a Bachelor of Science degree in alternative medicine&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Cincinnati&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_47#Interview_with_Zachary_Moore_.2829:58.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Zachary Moore earned his Doctor of Philosophy in Pathobiology and Molecular Medicine there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Texas&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_47#Interview_with_Zachary_Moore_.2829:58.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Zachary Moore was a post-grad assistant there at the time&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Michigan&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_47#Science_or_Fiction_.281:07:16.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Conducted a study showing that people get happier as they get older&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Cornell University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_48]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Steve Mirsky got a Masters degree in chemistry there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Oklahoma&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_49#Gerald_Schroeder_on_God_.2812:05.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Frank Sonnleitner criticized an intelligent design proponent&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Minnesota&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_49#Science_or_Fiction_.2848:38.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Researched ways to reduce kidney stone formation in astronauts&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Buffalo&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_49#Science_or_Fiction_.2848:38.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Researchers there found wearing seat belts reduced the risk of fatality in an accident&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Alberta&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_49#Science_or_Fiction_.2848:38.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Patented a device that uses ultrasound to regrow teeth&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Yale University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_62#Science_or_Fiction_.281:07:38.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = A study there found artificially high levels of testosterone can cause cells to induce their own death. Also, Steve says he works there.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Brown University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_98#Science_or_Fiction_.2853:53.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Physicists there looked at the motion of an electron through super-cold liquid helium&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Northwestern University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_102#Study:_1_in_6_Juries_Get_the_Verdict_Wrong_.2817:33.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Study shows that 1 in 6 juries get the verdict wrong&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Emory University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_103#Interview_with_Scott_Lilienfield_.2834:33.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Scott Lilienfield is a clinical psychologist and professor there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Colorado University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_105#Ward_Churchill_Fired_.282:26.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Fired Ward Churchill for academic misconduct, including plagiarism. He said it was because of his views about 9/11 conspiracies.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = George Mason University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_110#Science_or_Fiction_.2858:25.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = A study there showed that husbands do less work than live-in boyfriends&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Maharishi University of Management&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_150#New_Alien_Video_.281:50.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Stan Romanek (a delusional believer according to Steve) went there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Osaka University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_150#Cold_Fusion]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Yoshiaka Arata believes he has discovered cold fusion&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Buffalo&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_150#Science_or_Fiction_.281:06:24.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Study shows it is psychologically healthy to keep feelings inside rather than discussing them after collective traumatic events like 9/11.&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Texas at Austin&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_156#Zapping_Cancer_Cells_.2819:34.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Engineers there created surgical lasers so accurate that they can destroy cancer cells, leaving their neighbor cells unaffected&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Bristol University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_165#Science_or_Fiction_.281:04:43.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Research suggests the rise of the dinosaurs was due to pure luck&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Pennsylvania State University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_184#Evolution_Before_Our_Eyes_.2814:09.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = A study saw evolution happening&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Stony Brook University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_185#Interview_with_Massimo_Pigliucci_.2833:39.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Massimo Pigliucci is a professor of ecology and evolution there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Florida&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_201#Question_.23_1_-_Polonium_Halos_.2825:29.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = A creationist named Robert V. Gentry got a Master&#039;s in Physics there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Rhode Island&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_201#Who.27s_That_Noisy_.281:16:56.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Scientists recorded the sound of an Atlantic Croaker fish&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Leeds&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_202#Volcanic_Extinction_.2810:52.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Scientists discovered a volcanic eruption mass-extinction event that had been previously unknown&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Bristol&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_203#Interview_with_Bruce_Hood_.2833:13.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Bruce Hood (a guest on the SGU) works there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Brown University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_245#Rise_of_the_Dinosaurs_.285:36.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = The rise of the dinosaurs was caused by volcanism&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of New York&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_252#Nonsense_on_Stilts_.281:33.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Massimo Pigliucci works there&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_252#Definition_of_Siphon_.2811:11.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Stephen Hughes discovered that oxford has used the wrong definition of siphon for the last 100 years&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Univeersity of Gothenburg&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_257#Einstein.27s_Brain_.289:22.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Studied astrocytes&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Queen&#039;s University in Kingston, Canada&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_257#Science_or_Fiction_.281:00:07.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Computer simulation shows many comets in our solar system originated in other solar systems&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Penn State University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_271#Losing_Your_Religion_.281:02.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Did a crappy study looking at health and religion&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Cornell University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_271#Halfalogue_.2831:51.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Lauren Emberson studied how distracting it is to hear one end of a cellphone conversation&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Toronto&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_271#Science_or_Fiction_.281:00:58.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Todd Reichert achieved sustained human-powered flight with an ornithopter (has flapping wings)&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Paris&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_328#This_Day_in_Skepticism_.282:09.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = In 1398, academics there declared that magic is real and dangerous&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Sydney&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_328#Science_or_Fiction_.281:01:02.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Including enough protein in our diets rather than just cutting calories curbs appetities&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Northwestern University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_331#Science_or_Fiction_.281:00:43.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Scientists there improved the charging rate of lithium-ion batteries ten-fold (they wear out faster though)&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Southern Cross University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_339#Name_That_Logical_Fallacy_.2850:20.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = The school of health there teaches alternative medicine, and a professor there defended the practice&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Uppsala University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_340#Science_or_Fiction_.2857:06.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Researchers associate lack of sleep with increased appetite&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = University of Tokyo&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_345#Missing_Dark_Matter_.2812:37.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Researchers show galaxies could be connected by a web of dark matter&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Cornell University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_345#Nanoparticle_Safety_.2829:11.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Nanoparticles in food could harm human health&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
{{University entry&lt;br /&gt;
|University = Yale University&lt;br /&gt;
|LinkToSegment = [[SGU_Episode_346#Science_or_Fiction_.281:03:26.29]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Description = Triceratops and Torosaurus were two separate species, not one&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bshirley&amp;diff=10709</id>
		<title>User:Bshirley</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bshirley&amp;diff=10709"/>
		<updated>2016-09-13T04:13:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* Contributions */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A Texan Computer Scientist living and working in Houston, Texas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[https://twitter.com/bshirley @bshirley] on twitter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Contributions ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* transcribed [[SGU_Episode_581#Science_or_Fiction_.281:09:38.29|Science or Fiction]] on [[SGU_Episode_581]]&lt;br /&gt;
* updated functionality and documentation of templates&lt;br /&gt;
** [[Template:Google_speech]]&lt;br /&gt;
** (experimental, in progress) [[Template:Editing_needed]]&lt;br /&gt;
** created [[Template:MessageBox]], based on others&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have been adding templates to the [[Templates]] category, they are all sub categorized which makes them harder to discover. I think categorizing them all improves that. Some of them are not editable by me, however. So here&#039;s the list I&#039;m keeping for myself of those.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Template:W]] - wikipedia link creator&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Template:5X5_infobox]] &lt;br /&gt;
* [[Template:InfoBox]] - info box for episode&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Template:Numerical_titles]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===FYI===&lt;br /&gt;
{{CURRENTDAYNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Local time is wrong - {{LOCALTIME}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* we&#039;re on WikiMedia Version {{CURRENTVERSION}}&lt;br /&gt;
* user count: {{NUMBEROFUSERS}}&lt;br /&gt;
* admin count: {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}&lt;br /&gt;
* active count: {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}&lt;br /&gt;
* number of articles: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Desirable Template ===&lt;br /&gt;
For suggested placement at the end of the &#039;&#039;&#039;Science or Fiction&#039;&#039;&#039; section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After investigation, I suspect this is desirable to implement as an extension. I plan on installing a local wiki and working on that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{SOFResults&lt;br /&gt;
|episode=581&lt;br /&gt;
|host=Steve &amp;lt;!--- asker of the questions ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|topic1=whiskers &amp;lt;!--- short word or phrase representing the item ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|topic2=chimpanzees&lt;br /&gt;
|topic3=coma&lt;br /&gt;
|fiction=whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|topc4=&lt;br /&gt;
|rogue1=Bob &amp;lt;!--- rogues in order of response ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|answer1=whiskers &amp;lt;!--- guess, using one of the topic&#039;s names ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|rogue2=Jay&lt;br /&gt;
|answer2=whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|rogue3=Evan&lt;br /&gt;
|answer3=whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|rogue4=Cara&lt;br /&gt;
|answer4=whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would output something like:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=2|Science or Fiction (581)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ffcccc&amp;quot;|Steve&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ffcccc&amp;quot;|crushed&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|Bob&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|Jay&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|Evan&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|Cara&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|whiskers&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=2|other topics&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=2 style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;|chimpanzees&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=2 style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;|coma&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suggested colorings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=3|Host Colorings&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|swept&lt;br /&gt;
|#ccffcc&lt;br /&gt;
|all the rogues guessed one of the incorrect items&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccccff&amp;quot;|scattered&lt;br /&gt;
|#ccccff&lt;br /&gt;
|each item was guessed at least once (Steve&#039;s preferred result)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ffffcc&amp;quot;|mixed&lt;br /&gt;
|#ffffcc&lt;br /&gt;
|some wrong, some right&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ffcccc&amp;quot;|crushed&lt;br /&gt;
|#ffcccc&lt;br /&gt;
|all the rogues guessed the correct answer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=3|Rogue Colorings&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ccffcc&amp;quot;|correct&lt;br /&gt;
|#ccffcc&lt;br /&gt;
|correctly selected the fiction item&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:#ffcccc&amp;quot;|incorrect&lt;br /&gt;
|#ffcccc&lt;br /&gt;
|selected one of the science items&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Template Output&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- SOFResults template output ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=2|{{anchorencode:SOFResults}}Science or Fiction ({{episode}})&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color0}}&amp;quot;|{{host}}&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color0}}&amp;quot;|{{host_result}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color1}}&amp;quot;|{{rogue1}}&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color1}}&amp;quot;|{{answer1}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color2}}&amp;quot;|{{rogue2}}&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color2}}&amp;quot;|{{answer2}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color3}}&amp;quot;|{{rogue3}}&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color3}}&amp;quot;|{{answer3}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color4}}&amp;quot;|{{rogue4}}&lt;br /&gt;
|style=&amp;quot;background-color:{{color4}}&amp;quot;|{{answer4}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=2|other topics&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=2 style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;|{{topic2}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=2 style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;|{{topic3}}&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!--- end SOFResults ---&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:MessageBox&amp;diff=10708</id>
		<title>Template:MessageBox</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:MessageBox&amp;diff=10708"/>
		<updated>2016-09-13T04:11:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: /* Usage */ formatting&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color: #ffffcc; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 0px; border: 2px solid #ffff22;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| border=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; bgcolor=#ffff22|&amp;amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;
| width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;|[[File:{{{image|Emblem-pen.png}}}|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| {{{1|One of the editors wanted to leave you a message, but they forgot to enter it.}}}&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simple way to leave a message behind for other editors. Of course, general viewers will see it, so don&#039;t use it inappropriately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
parameters&lt;br /&gt;
* first parameter, unnamed - required, a message to be displayed.&lt;br /&gt;
* image - optional, an alternate image to be displayed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|I have something very important to say.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
appears as:&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox |I have something very important to say.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox&lt;br /&gt;
|Episodes up to #315 have been checked for references to colleges and universities.&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Emblem-pen-orange.png&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
appears as:&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox&lt;br /&gt;
|Episodes up to #315 have been checked for references to colleges and universities.&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Emblem-pen-orange.png&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|If you have an opinion about how to XYZ, join [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|the discussion]] on this page.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
appears as:&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|If you have an opinion about how to XYZ, join [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|the discussion]] on this page.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Message templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:MessageBox&amp;diff=10707</id>
		<title>Template:MessageBox</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:MessageBox&amp;diff=10707"/>
		<updated>2016-09-13T04:10:34Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color: #ffffcc; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 0px; border: 2px solid #ffff22;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| border=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; bgcolor=#ffff22|&amp;amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;
| width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;|[[File:{{{image|Emblem-pen.png}}}|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| {{{1|One of the editors wanted to leave you a message, but they forgot to enter it.}}}&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simple way to leave a message behind for other editors. Of course, general viewers will see it, so don&#039;t use it inappropriately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
parameters&lt;br /&gt;
* first parameter, unnamed - required, a message to be displayed.&lt;br /&gt;
* image - optional, an alternate image to be displayed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|I have something very important to say.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
appears as:&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox |I have something very important to say.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|Episodes up to #315 have been checked for references to colleges and universities.&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Emblem-pen-orange.png}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
appears as:&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|Episodes up to #315 have been checked for references to colleges and universities.&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Emblem-pen-orange.png}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|If you have an opinion about how to XYZ, join [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|the discussion]] on this page.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
appears as:&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|If you have an opinion about how to XYZ, join [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|the discussion]] on this page.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Message templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:MessageBox&amp;diff=10706</id>
		<title>Template:MessageBox</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:MessageBox&amp;diff=10706"/>
		<updated>2016-09-13T04:05:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color: #ffffcc; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 0px; border: 2px solid #ffff22;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| border=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; bgcolor=#ffff22|&amp;amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;
| width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;|[[File:{{{2|Emblem-pen.png}}}|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| {{{1|One of the editors wanted to leave you a message, but they forgot to enter it.}}}&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simple way to leave a message behind for other editors. Of course, general viewers will see it, so don&#039;t use it inappropriately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|I have something very important to say.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
appears as:&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox |I have something very important to say.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|Episodes up to #315 have been checked for references to colleges and universities.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
appears as:&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|Episodes up to #315 have been checked for references to colleges and universities.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|If you have an opinion about how to XYZ, join [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|the discussion]] on this page.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
appears as:&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|If you have an opinion about how to XYZ, join [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|the discussion]] on this page.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Message templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:MessageBox&amp;diff=10705</id>
		<title>Template:MessageBox</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:MessageBox&amp;diff=10705"/>
		<updated>2016-09-13T04:05:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bshirley: Continuing documentation. Added second parameter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;background-color: #ffffcc; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 0px; border: 2px solid #ffff22;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| border=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| width=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; bgcolor=#ffff22|&amp;amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;
| width=&amp;quot;40&amp;quot; align=&amp;quot;center&amp;quot;|[[File:{{2|Emblem-pen.png}}|25x25px|link=]]&lt;br /&gt;
| {{{1|One of the editors wanted to leave you a message, but they forgot to enter it.}}}&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Description ===&lt;br /&gt;
A simple way to leave a message behind for other editors. Of course, general viewers will see it, so don&#039;t use it inappropriately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Usage ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|I have something very important to say.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
appears as:&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox |I have something very important to say.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|Episodes up to #315 have been checked for references to colleges and universities.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
appears as:&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|Episodes up to #315 have been checked for references to colleges and universities.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
coded as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|If you have an opinion about how to XYZ, join [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|the discussion]] on this page.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
appears as:&lt;br /&gt;
{{MessageBox|If you have an opinion about how to XYZ, join [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|the discussion]] on this page.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Message templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Templates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Bshirley</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>