SGUTranscripts - User contributions [en]

SGU Episode 414

2013-10-12T23:31:38Z

Fallible: /* Can We Know Everything? (33:23) */ move (indistinct) tags to more standard (inaudible)

{{Editing required
|transcription = y

|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 414
|episodeDate = 22nd Jun 2013
|episodeIcon = File:chinese-alien-head.jpg
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 = DL: {{w|Daniel Loxton}}
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-06-22.mp3
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=46390.0
|qowText = Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing
|qowAuthor = {{w|Harlan Ellison}}
|}}

== Introduction ==
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, today is Wednesday, June 19th, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,

B: Hey, everybody

S: Rebecca Watson,

R: Hello, everyone.

S: Jay Novella,

J: Hey, guys.

S: and Evan Bernstein.

E: Salutations, everybody

R: Hello...

S: Salutations and felicitations, Evan.

E: Oh, and felicitations, how could I forget the Squire of Gothos. Shame on me,

S: I don't know (chuckles)

E: shame on me.

R: The hell you guys talking about.

E: Well, Rebecca, aren't you watching the Star Trek series?

R: I guess I haven't gotten up to that point, yet.

E: This is the original series.

R: I'm watching The Next Generation.

S: You know what I saw recently? "Star Trek Continues".

E: Hm?

S: which is a a

J: Wha?

S: fan.. "Star Trek Continues", it's a fan episode, a fan video, where it's as if the ep... the seasons continued as if it wasn't canceled after three seasons. So it's not, it's not like a parody, and it's not an update or a reboot or anything it's like what would a fourth season have actually been like,

B: Oh, cool.

S: and and they do their best to reproduce, the production value, the sets are identical, all the sound effects, the music the acting

R: Hm

S: the whole culture that was definitely embedded in that late '60s you know in terms of everything. And the

?: (inaudible)

S: some of the actors are damn good, the guy who's doing Kirk has his mannerisms down, absolutely down.

B: And it's not a parody of his mannerisms?

S: No, no it's not, it's not a parody, it's an imitation. And it like things like it's like "Yeah, Kirk does do that!" You know, it's like, (laughter) you uh things you wouldn't even think of. Like the

R: That is so Kirk.

S: ways he moves his arms when he walks. Yeah, it's just amazing.

R: Hey, remember that Star Trek episode where, uh, poisonous gas covered most of the planet, and murdered millions of people?

E: Ahhh.

R: Oh, wait, no, that was real life. Oh, my God!

B: (laughs)

E: That's worse.

== This Day in Skepticism (1:58) ==
R: On June 22, 1783, a poisonous cloud caused by the eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland, uh, finally reached France. So this is kind of, um, I really could have picked any date, uh, it's very interesting, it's something that I didn't even realize was the thing, uh, it was one of the most deadly if not the most deadly volcanic eruptions in human history, as I said it happened in Iceland but it spread all over the globe, uh, first of all though in Iceland it killed about 50% of the livestock which lead to a famine which killed a quarter of the population of Iceland. Uh, so it was pretty immediate but then it also went on to possibly cause droughts in India and Africa which lead to millions of more deaths, uh, as well as crop failures in Europe and air pollution and this deadly gas... from this deadly gas. So, all to... all told, it killed probably over 6 million people

?: What?

R: globally. Yeah, 6 million.

E: That's a lot (inaudible)

R: It was a pretty big volcanic eruption.

E: 1783, that's (inaudible) quite a bit.

B: Holy crap.

R: And the cloud was sulfur dioxide that

E: Oh, that'll do it

R: and also the hydrogen... the hydrogen fluoride apparently I think killed most of the people in Iceland but the sulfur dioxide is what drifted into Europe to start murdering people there. But yeah and it also caused severe global temperature change, uh, it was the hottest summer on record followed by really violent winter with hail and storms and all that good stuff which probably lead to more deaths.

S: It was the longest period of below zero temperatures in New England.

R: Oh, yeah, the US... the US area just had some severe weather. They don't... I.. I didn't find a whole of talk about deaths that resulted in it but I think people were just dying left and right anyway, at that point, so

S: A bad winter in 1783 was no joke.

R: Exactly, yeah, that's... that's what I'm sayin'. But...

B: So this gas released it wasn't part of like a.. a pyroclastic flow, it was just this, just this gas that came out and went

S: Just a bubble of gas

B: all over the place

R: Yeah, like a volcanic fart, silent but deadly

E: Probably wasn't too silent, either

R: Too soon?

?: Too soon (laughter)

S: Volcanoes are no joke, that superheated gas that kills people it's not just the lava and the ash, I mean, it's usually the gas, even if it's not poisonous gas if it's superheated it's like your lungs explode, you know. Well, let's move on, uhm, have you guys heard...

?: (stage inhalation)

?: Uh?

== News Items ==
=== Osteoarthritis (4:41)===
* Science-based Medicine: [http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/knee-osteoarthritis-thumbs-down-for-acupuncture-and-glucosamine/ Knee Osteoarthritis: Thumbs Down for Acupuncture and Glucosamine]

S: the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has released their, uh, 1200 page report evaluating evidence for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis

R: Now the last time you led us into one of these and we made all made light-hearted jokes about how boring the topic was, we got a bunch of angry letters from botanists, so, no, Steve, not gonna fall for it, this sounds fascinating, tell me more. (laughter)

S: Yeah, but like last time I convinced you how cool botany was, now I wanna convince you how cool osteoarthritis is.

E: Here come more letters (laughter)

S: Oh, boy. (laughter)

S: um, so osteoarthritis is, essentially degenerative arthritis of a joint, mainly from wear and tear, but there are other obviously biological factors involved, and so knee osteoarthritis, very common, um, as people get into their 40's and 50's they uh, their knees start to ache, you know, and they just wear out, they just don't really last 80 years unfortunately. There are lots of potential treatments for osteoarthritis including many that are not evidence-based. This report is interesting for a number of reasons, not just for the specific recommendations that are made. Harriet Hall writes about this on Science-based Medicine and I recommend that for those who are interested but I just want to highlight some of the interesting things. First of all, it shows that science-based practitioners actually care about evidence, despite all of the propaganda about "Oh, those doctors only want drugs and surgery" here we have a uh a major you know a professional organization in the United States dedicated to orthopedic surgery reviewing thousands of published studies, putting out a 1200 page comprehensive report looking in-depth into the evidence for many different approaches, and here are the highlights of what they found, where there was strong evidence you know for or against. So glucosamine chondroitin you guys are familiar with this, right, this is a dietary supplement that has been and still is promoted, um, has been for years, for arthritis. What do you think they found?

E: It doesn't work.

S: It doesn't work. So it was one of the few things where there was strong evidence against its effectiveness. Glucosamine and chondroitin doesn't work, there have been large studies. Exercise, strong evidence for, in favor of it. Weight loss, moderate evidence in favor of it. Acupuncture, what do you think they concluded?

R: No evidence.

?: Overwhelming evidence.

S: Strong evidence against its effectiveness. So very nice to see that they took a science-based approach to acupuncture research and didn't fall for the bait-and-switch of "Oh, it works like a placebo" you know, they didn't fall for that business. And also, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories strong evidence they are effective, that's not surprising. And here's one: arthroscopy with lavage and debridement --- strong evidence against.

B: Really?

E: Lavage, huh?

S: So lavage is like just washing it out. So arthroscopy is putting the scope into the knee and looking around, you know, for diagnostic, but if you take anything out then it becomes a therapeutic procedure, right, that's debridement, you know, cutting away any fraying pieces of cartilage and then washing out those pieces, that's the lavage part. So, this is a pretty lucrative, popular procedure for orthopedists to do. And here they are, the official organization of orthopedists, coming out with a statement saying there is strong evidence against the effectiveness of this procedure. This is something that we've written about on Science-based Medicine previously when there...there... when a review came out, I think now about two years ago, showing that arthroscopy was not effective, and there was some push-back from some orthopedists, and we said "Hey, this is the evidence, baby, this is, this is what it shows". So it's nice now to see the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons looking at the evidence and honestly saying "Yep, our beloved procedure, that we would love to have work, doesn't work". So it's hard in the face of this, if you look at the bigger picture, it's hard to justify the typical knee-jerk criticisms that alternative medicine proponents have against mainstream medicine

R: Heh, knee-jerk

S: Yeah, knee-jerk. That it's they only care about drugs and surgery, well here they are saying um, their favorite surgical procedure doesn't work, that they don't care about other things, here they're strongly in favor of exercise, moderately in favor of weight loss, Um, and that they're not, they don't care about actually treating people, well, this is, I think this shows their dedication to the evidence to what actually works regardless of what the modality is, and this is, this is, what we see in mainstream medicine all the time. This is a Herculean effort and it's great document, but this is what we see all the time, you know, the... academic professional uh physicians looking at the evidence objectively and the chips fall where they may, in its direct contradiction to all the anti-mainstream medicine conspiracy theories that you're going to hear from the alternative medicine side, so I thought that was worth pointing out. Also, Harriet pointed out something interesting, things like homeopathy didn't even make the list, it wasn't even worth their time to take a look at.

B: Oh, awesome.

E: Good.

S: Yeah.

R. Good (inaudible).

E: I don't know if we'd be able to say that if this were British Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, right? That probably would have made that list.

S: Homeopathy probably would have,

E: Yes

S: just because homeopathy is more popular across the pond, yeah.

B: Uh, Steve, did they mention why it wasn't on the list?

S: No, just... it didn't even... didn't even make the radar. Just wasn't even, yeah, not... not mentioned one way or the other.

B: OK

== Quickie with Bob (10:27)==
* ESO: [http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1326/ New Kind of Variable Star Discovered]

E: Oh, hey, wait, wait. I would like a Quickie with Bob right now.

B: Really?

E: Yes, right this moment.

B: Thank you, Evan, I'm almost certain you will not regret this.

E: (laughs)

B: This is your Quickie with Bob. Astronomers in Chile, guys, have discovered a new type of variable star it was pretty interesting story uh they did detailed observations of 3700 stars in this specific cluster over 7 years. Um, and showed that they found 36 of these stars had very minute changes in their brightness of about only about a tenth of a percent over an hour or as much as over 20 hours. And uh this is... this is big news in the community because variable stars are in... are incredibly common there's lots of different types of variable stars and it's always interesting to... to add another one to the group actually the list of uh of typ... of variable stars um the types themselves was much bigger than... than I remember them being but just to break it down real quick there's... there's two different main types of stars that are variable, there's the intrinsic and extrinsic and it's kind of obvious what they... what that means the intrinsic stars that are variable are variable because of that's just the way they are something about their internal dynamics makes them makes the light output variable whereas the extrinsic... the extrinsic stars... variable stars are variable only because you know say something might move in front of them or... or there might be some... something in the way that changes the light that reaches the Earth. So within these intrinsic stars there's... there's just a few categories there's the pulsating variables, there's the eruptives, and there's the cataclysmic or explosive variable stars. This new one that they found I think is pretty obvious that it's within the... the pulsating variable star category

S: Is there a throbbing category? (laughter)

E: Is there a grooving category?

B: So like I said these variables are most certainly they'll be within the pulsating variety they haven't actually named this type of variable yet but I'm sure it's gonna be within that... that category They're not sure why they pulsate, either, basically because current models say that they should not be variable so this is the real surprise that these... that these varied so much and but one clue that they found is that many of these variables rotate very very fast

S: Yeah, that seems pretty telling

B: Yeah, more than 50% of their critical velocity, in fact, and the critical velocity

E: Wow

B: is a velocity that if they... if they reached 100% they would actually start throwing off mass so they're spinning very very fast and uh this spinning might... may have an effect on the dynamics of their interiors which then would result in the variability of the light output. So, uh, so keep an eye on it, I'm curious to see what they're gonna call it and uh, and... and you know what more they can determine, um, about these types of stars based on uh, on... on this... these studies that they're... these very detailed studies that they're doing. So, uh, so I got guys this has been your Quickie with Bob, I hope it was good for you, too.

== News items continued ==
=== Patenting DNA (13:07)===
* BBC News: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22895161 US Supreme Court says human DNA cannot be patented]

S: Thanks, Bob. OK, Rebecca, you're gonna tell us about a major Supreme Court case regarding patenting genes.

R: Yes, you are correct, Steve. There is a huge decision that just happened in the Supreme Court on, uh, June 13th, the Supreme Court ruled that, uh, companies, particularly Myriad Genetics, in this case, cannot patent a human gene. So in this specific case, it was this company Myriad Genetics which was one of the patent holders on the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes. Now, astute listeners might recall that we were recently talking about these very genes, in the case of Angelina Jolie,

S: Yeah.

R: who came out and said that she had the mutation in her BRCA gene that said she was much much much more likely to get breast cancer and ovarian cancer and so she had her breast removed. Now, we also mentioned that Angelina Jolie had spoken briefly about the fact that not everyone has access to the genetic testing required to find out if you have the mutation, in order to get the life saving operations you would need. Well, the reason why many people don't have access to this genetic testing is because Myriad Genetics was one of the patent holders and... and they were the only company that was allowed to perform this testing on these genes. So, if you wanted to find if you had the mutation you had to go through Myriad Genetics and that increases the price dramatically so they could charge thousands of dollars to people who wanted the testing. What this ruling means in this specific case it's a huge win for women particularly because this means that you... women can go get genetic testing anywhere to find out if they have this mutation they don't have to go through Myriad in order to find out, so, now you have companies competing against each other, prices go down, etc., etc., and more lives are saved because of it, so that's one result of this and one of the reasons why women's rights groups were a huge part of the uh lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court decision it was a unanimous decision the case was led by uh the ACLU um representing women's rights groups as well as scientists and other interest groups but also scientists win from this case because it means that uh any scientist can now pursue research on the... these genes where prior to this only Myriad and the other patent holders would technically be able to do that. Basically the court ruled that you can't patent a human gene however they did leave it open that you could possibly patent a gene that had been fiddled with.

?: Yeah.

R: So uh if you

?: (inaudible) huge

R: come up with your own gene, like a synthetic gene like cDNA... c... cDNA, that could still be eligible for a patent. Uh, but because Myriad the company did not actually create anything, they just researched the gene they're not allowed to patent it.

S: Yeah. So

R: So

S: products of nature cannot be patented and what this decision was exploring specifically was how much modification is necessary before a product of nature is an innovation. An... yeah, this that needed to be explored for the in... for this specific case of genes. And it seems that everyone pos... with the possible exception of Myriad, is happy about this decision this is a... I've seen nothing but universal praise for this decision.

E: Myriad shouldn't be too sad their stock rose that day

S: Is that right? (laughs)

E: as a result, yeah.

R: They have been fighting this

E: That will fade.

R: for a very long time so this is a huge loss for them, but it's... it is a great gain for humanity, we're

S: Yeah, for humanity.

R: literally talking about lives being saved

E: Yeah, absolutely.

R: and more research being done.

B: Yeah, it does seem...

R: So it is a good thing.

B: it does seem (inaudible) to me lots of benefits but what about the idea, the one negative thing that I've heard, that I've seen in a couple of places was that some people are afraid that companies like Myriad, of course, will scale back investment because they're not gonna be rewarded ah with patents for this so I just wonder how much of a genuine concern that aspect of this is.

R: Consider how much research is done by private companies compared to the huge amount of research that's currently being done through government institutions and universities. Private companies have always focussed on what's going to make the most money and that's why we have uh government funding for scientific endeavors. There's one other thing I wanted to mention, a bit of, uh, myth-busting. This... this thing was going around that... uh, Scalia doesn't believe in genetics, or in molecular biology. So, uh, it was a unanimous decision but Justice Scalia wrote a separate thing... ruling...

S: Separate opinion.

R: opinion, thank you, that's the word.

E: Opinion, yeah.

R: Uh, Scalia wrote a separate opinion uh saying that he, uh, agrees to vote with the majority, but he does not agree with one part of the opinion that has no effect on his final vote. What he said was, um, that he wouldn't sign on to Part 1a and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology because he can't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief. So, Part 1a, deal... it's just a list of basic facts about DNA, about genetics, uh it's all kind of just basic level genetic stuff.

E: So was he basically saying I don't know what this is?

R: Yeah, you know, so some...

E: and therefore I can't really

R: some people were

E: say anything about it.

R: taking uh that he wouldn't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief to mean that he didn't believe in genetics or he didn't know about genetics and so he didn't believe them, something like that. But, I've heard from lawyers who have said that this is a bit of legal-speak in a way, that there's this sort of ongoing argument on whether or not they should in... judges should include basic information that's not necessary to the final ruling, and so that's kind of what he was saying, is that this chunk I'm not a scientist, I'm not going to sign my name on this and say that as a Justice I approve of this because I have no idea I'm not a scientist and it has nothing to do with the case.

S: He's being a legal stickler,

R: Yes.

S: not a science denier.

R: Exactly.

B: Oh, OK.

R: That...

E: Right.

R: that's what I'm hearing from... from lawyers, and

S: That makes sense.

R: it makes sense to me.

S: And that's kind of his shtick, too,

R: Yeah.

S: is to be a legal stickler.

B?: Hmmm, OK.

=== Foot Fungus (20:02)===
* Science News: [http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350599/description/Foot_fungi_a_thriving_diverse_community Foot fungi a thriving, diverse community]

S: OK, well thanks, Rebecca. Bob, can you explain to me why my toes occasionally itch? (laughter)

R: Ew, bugs, probably.

B: Well, guys, uh, last May... at the end of last May, uh, the, uh, the issue of Nature, they discuss the... the first census... the very first census of skin-dwelling fungi (fung-ee), that... that's

S: Fungi (fung-guy)?

B: Well, there's three ways to pronounce it as far as I can tell

S: Fungi (fun-jee)?

B: Fungi (fung-ee), fungi (fung-eye), fungi (funj-eye). Those are the three that I came across

R: But "fungi" (fung-eye) is the only one that works with that "mushroom walks into a bar" joke.

B: OK.

S: What about... what about "fungi" (fun-jee)?

B: That's actually my preferred pronunciation and I didn't find it. So, whatever, I'll just go with... I'll just go with one of the ones that I found. So this study reveals

E: (chuckles)

B: there's a fungus among us. OK, somebody had to say it, it's out of the way, I said it. So, actually, it...

E: (laughs)

B: it reveals that there's a little variation... there's very little variation in the fungal communities on our bodies except for our feet which calls home to 80 to 100 different types of fungus, they're just like all

?: (inaudible)

B: over the place down there. So, for... just for a quick

?: (inaudible)

B: high-level refresher uh fungi (fung-ee) are the third type of multi-cellular organisms, they're neither plant nor animals, um, one major difference between them and the other two is that their cell walls contain chitin, now that's (inaudible) that's like the exoskeleton of a crabs and lobsters or... or even the beaks of squid uh made of chitin. Uh, fungi play a pivotal role in decomposing organic matter and cycling uh nutrients in the environment and they also appear to be inordinately fond of feet. So here's a quick quote from the study: "A human's skin surfaces are complex ecosystems for microorganisms including fungi, bacteria and viruses which are known collectively as the skin microbiome". So I was as... I was surprised as I said that this initial study was the first of its kind. It seems, I guess, in terms of... yeah, human cohabitation bacteria and viruses get all.. get all the press and all the research dollars, so one reason why the lowly fungus I guess may have been neglected is that it's notoriously difficult to culture, I didn't know that, unlike bacteria which is easy, culturing a fungus from say uh the toenail can take weeks... weeks for it

S: And yet... and yet it's hard to kill when you wanna get rid of it.

B: (chuckle) Right. So... so how did they do it? They looked... they looked at the DNA, of course. They took ten volunteers and they swabbed 14 sites on their bodies including taking toenail clippings apparently. Uh, they then put them in a DNA sequencer which of course is uh one of the key technologies advanced by leaps and bounds uh by the Human Genome Project. Um, they used these molecular tags that stick only to the fungal DNA, so they wouldn't have to worry about all the human DNA and the bacterial DNA and viral DNA, that... that... that was mixed into the samples, so now they have this pure sample of just... of just fung... uh the fungus DNA. They then examined the tiny bits of fungal DNA uh called the phylogenetic markers to tally up all the different types of... of fungal species and bam, they were done, they had... they had a tally of all the different types of species. So, if you look most anywhere on the head or the torso you... you're likely to find one genus and that's called Malassezia. Uh, different areas have different species uh though, like the crease behind your ear or... or on your forehead there's little variation there. Surprisingly, your hands have tons of bacteria but very few fungal communities. So your feet, though, it's... it's completely different ecosystem, um, on your... on your toenails alone there's forty different uh fungi varieties, sixty between your toes, and eighty live on the bottom of... of your heel, which I think would ac... I wouldn't think that would be the most plentiful spot I would think, like, between your toes would have more but apparently there's lots of 'em on the bottom of your heel. So... so why is... how come? Why... why is this so? And it...

E: Gravity.

B: Yeah, gra... (laughs)

E: (chuckles)

B: Well it's... it's not hard to imagine one... one reason, right, your feet are... are often on contact with surfaces that fungi like to hang out on like your socks or locker room floors. I never walk barefoot at... at the gym, uh, never would do it.

E: Uhhhh,

B: So also

E: gosh... (inaudible) so bad.

B: your... your feet... I didn't know that your feet are cooler than other parts of your body, and... and fungi like cooler places, apparently, they hang out. Um, so... so should we all be grossed out? Are you guys like really grossed out... about this stuff?

R: (inaudible) obviously

?: Ahhh...

E: (inaudible) more grossed out about...

R: It takes more than that to... gross out Steve.

B: Yeah, I... I'm not...

S: Oh, yeah...

B: Yeah, I wouldn't think Steve would be, but I'm not... I'm not

S: I've had my head inside of a corpse

B: Cool, um...

R: Hey, thanks for that...

E: A human corpse? Wait, a human corpse?

B: I di...

S: Yeah.

B: Of course.

S: So has everyone who has gone through medical school.

E: You put your head in the corpse?

S: Well, you gotta get into the anatomy, I mean you gotta... you know you're disecting something...

E: I don't...

S: They... so, you get so grossed out in your first year of medical school you're basically done getting grossed out for life.

?: Yeah.

R: Yeah.

B: Totally desensitized.

R: I don't... I don't find what you've said so gross, Bob, but when in... you're talking I was thinking of that... toenail fungus, uh, commercial where...

E: Oh, yeah.

R: where the germ, like, lifts up

E: Little critters.

B: Yeah, yeah, yeah!

R: the toenail and then climbs inside and that's like the worst... worst commercial ever made.

B: Oh, my God I remember that something about detaching a toenail yes I... I cringe

R: Yeah.

B: every time I saw that, nothing to do with the

R: It's awful.

B: fungus or anything but it's just the lifting that toenail

R: Yeah, like the fungus didn't help

B: was nasty. Yeah right, yes. I mean it doesn't gross me out, the... thinking that there's... em... potentially s... you know... well over a hundred different types of these guys all over us. I thin... it's good... it's good that we're colonized by these critters because they're... they're likely to prevent other nasty... guys from taking hold on our skin so it's good that they're there. Likewise, this.. this research can actually help improve our treatment for skin disease and maybe even help with some types of cancers, some people were saying. So... so I say embrace the... the fungi living on your skin, you really don't have much of a choice until we replace them all with nanobots.

=== Chinese Fake Alien (25:46)===
* The Telegraph: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10115832/Chinese-farmer-jailed-for-making-a-rubber-alien.html Chinese farmer jailed for making a rubber alien]

S: All right, thanks, Bob. Evan, you're gonna tell us about a fake Chinese alien.<ref>[http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130612000078&cid=1103 WantChinaTimes]</ref> (laughter)

?: Oh, God.

E: Now that could mean several different things, I'll... I'll do my best to clarify. Now, there are times when news outlets totally, totally botch their headlines... right, I mean really botch

B: No.

E: We've talked about some real doozies on the show. But rarely do we give them credit when they actually get it right. Let's give The Telegraph its due, because they got this headline spot-on. They wrote: "Chinese farmer jailed for making rubber alien". That kind-a says it all.

?: OK.

E: (chuckles) So it's being reported out of the Shandong province, that, uh, local police recently arrested someone named Mr. Li, a farmer slash alien enthusiast by day and an alien enthusiast farmer... slash farmer by night. And here are his versions of the event, this is Mr. Li.

S: "Mr. Li" 's a pseudonym, probably, by the way.

E: He said: <blockquote>"I was setting an electrical trap for rabbits by the Yellow River, when I saw a bright light. Above my bike, a UFO was floating. One by one, five aliens came down, but one of them stumbled onto one of my rabbit traps and was electricuted. The others went back into their ship and flew away."</blockquote>So that's his story.

S: Quite a tale he's got there. So this alien from who knows how far away from another solar system in super advanced technology and then dies in a rabbit trap.

E: Exa...

S: And his friends leave him behind.

E: And they leave him behind.

R: Was he rabbit shit? (laughter)

E: No.

R: Maybe he was... maybe he was a rabbit, like from another dimension.

E: Well, then rabbits look an awful lot like little grays with Chinese accentuations around the eyes

B?: Yes.

E: and head and stuff. But

B: Plus... plus only mice... only mice are from other dimensions.

E: But how did he go about backing up his claim. Well he does what any true believer does and he post pictures of the ET on the Internet. And in three days these pictures happen to go viral, so after five days of having posted the pictures the local police show up at his door and he's taken in for questioning. Now during the questioning Mr. Li admitted, willingly or otherwise, that the whole thing was a hoax.

S: Shock, shocked.

E: He made an alien, he constructed it himself out of this gluey rubber sort of substance uh tied together with ropes and uh other things and you know... a few... he... he drew his inspiration from the Simon Peg film Paul I don't know if you guys have seen that

?: Hall?

R: Yeah, the one where they go to Comicon.

S: Yes.

E: Right... right.

S: Yes, I saw it.

E: And the alien does a little bit sort of kind of look like that I suppose.

S: But you're right, Evan, the... the uh alien head looks Chinese.

E: It... it does (chuckles).

S: It does... so I mean it's his cultural bias leaking through in his sculpture and he's not aware of it but to these Western you know American eyes it has this... it looks like uh something... that it... like an piece of art that a Chinese person would create.

E: Right.

S: You know, it's not just the eyes it's the mouth it's everything you know it's just there's a subtle sort of Oriental appearance to it. Uh, which is always, I think, a... a very telling sign to look for when people are imagining or faking alien phenomena and their cultural biases come through, and of course we're... you're much more attuned to them when it's from a di... from another culture.

E: But why did he... why did he do it why did you think he did it well he says it with the intent of helping more people believe in aliens. Which is

S: Yeah.

R: Weird.

E: an interesting way to go about doing that... uh, I suppose... um, he claims that and these are his words again:<blockquote>It's still disputed whether or not UFOs and aliens exist but we believe</blockquote>not sure what he means by we<blockquote>they do and we want to expand our group</blockquote>I don't know what group he's part of... uh<blockquote>and make more people believe that aliens do exist.</blockquote> So that's

R: Was this him

E: the approach.

R: saying this or was this

E: That was him.

R: the government saying that he said that.

E: Uh, that is the report from The Telegraph say... uh... which is quoting him as saying that.

R: Hm.

S: Who knows.

E: Yeah you who... who really knows. It's for the conspiry theori... conspiracy theorists,

S: (chuckle)

E: I guess to... to... to sort of figure it

R: Well, you know I mean you don't have to stretch far to come up with a conspiracy involving the Chinese government making a guy say something (chuckle) I mean

E: (chuckle)

R: making a Chinese prisoner say something that they want him to say. Um...

E: That's true.

B: Yeah, my mind all bets are off

R: Yeah, especially if they wanna

B: soo as he... soo as he ga... soo as the government got a hold of him they can well, nothing he says now... really (chuckle) you know whatever

R: Even if it was just a case of they... they wanted to trump up the charge a bit so they didn't look like they were just hassling some farmer, now they've got like a cult that they can

?: Yeah

R: pin on him, you know,

?: Yeah, yeah

E: But

R: 'cuz they're... they hate... they hate the cults.

E: Mr. Li spent five days incarcerated, the crime was fabricating lies and disrupting normal social order.

B: Oh, boy, wow.

E: Yeah, that... that doesn't sound too Orwellian or anything (inaudible)

S: Yeah, disrupting the social order that yeah really Orwellian, I agree

?: scary

E: Now, guys, to wrap this up, I'll say that the rubber alien was examined by scientists and deemed to be a hoax, the dead giveaway is when they broke open the alien and pulled out a slip of paper with a fortune, that's right

S: (laughs)

B: Oh!

E: And it... and the fort... it read "Help I'm being held prisoner in a Chinese bakery

R: Hm, hm.

E: and your lucky numbers are 4, 14, 22, 31, and 49". So

?: Jesus

E: that sort of sealed the deal.

B: Oh, boy.

R: That joke fails, though, on the fact that fortune cookies aren't Chinese.

S: Yeah, that's true.

E: No, that enhances the joke and the... gaw.... (inaudible, possibly expletive) (laughter)

== Who's That Noisy? (31:24)==
S: All right, well Evan, you also have to tell us about Who's That Noisy.

E: I will do that, now, um... what we'll do is next week we're gonna reveal last week's winner.

S: We're recording a little ahead of schedule 'cause of... we're on our TAM recording schedule, so, the... we're gonna have to get caught up on the Who's That Noisy-s t... towards the end

E: Right

R: We might all be dead right now.

S: (chuckles) That's true.

E: Maybe, I mean who knows, another volcano you know might spew

R: Hm

E: sulfur dioxide or whatever the hell's

R: could happen

E: gonna come out of it, however, we do have a puzzle for this week, so that will be this week's Who's That Noisy, is a puzzle and, here we go. So, there is this machine, OK? Now this machine does one thing. It shuffles playing cards. However, this machine always rearranges cards in the same way relative to the original order of the cards. OK, we're talking about a deck of playing cards here. Now all of the hearts arranged in order from ace to king were put into the machine. The cards were shuffled, and then they were put into the machine again. After the second... after the second shuffling, the cards were in the following order: 10, 9, queen, 8, king, 3, 4, ace, 5, jack, 6, 2, 7. So you need to tell us, now, what order were the cards in after the first shuffle.

S: Very tricksy.

R: Eh-hm.

E: It is tricksy, yeah.

B: (inaudible)

E: I don't know if, uh... I don't if Bilbo would have gotten that in the cave while he was dueling it out...

B: Ahhh.

E: (inaudbile) wits with Gollum

S: Not without a pen and paper, I don't think

E: (laughs) that's for sure (laughs). So... think about that

S: Or quill and parchment

E: Qua... yes, of course, Middle Earth and all... wtn@theskepticsguide.org or sguforums.com is the forum's website... so... think about it, give us your best answer, and good luck to everyone.

== Questions and Emails ==
=== Can We Know Everything? (33:23)===

S: All right, thanks, Evan. We do have one email for this week. This one comes from Mark Dennehy from Melbourne, and Mark writes:
<blockquote>I have been listening to the show for 4 years and although I have always been a sceptic</blockquote>with a C<blockquote>I have learnt a great deal from your show. I would like to hear the rogues view on whether science has the potential to explain the physical world in such a way that we understand everything. Is there a limit to what we can comprehend? For example a dog has no concept of quantum gravity and wouldn’t ask the question of himself "Is space-time fundamentally continuous or discrete?" We have gone from asking ourselves how to grow food to "why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe?" Our brain appears finite in capacity so I would assume that would limit our ability to understand the world around us. Reaching a limit at some stage seems inevitable. Or will our brains develop as we need to solve increasingly more difficult questions, after all our brains appear</blockquote>to need... our brains appear<blockquote>not to need to store every bit of information we discover perhaps more the ability to solve a problem, and the capacity to grasp the variables at that time. I could be wrong though. Your opinions would be greatly appreciated and interesting. (Mark Dennehy, Melbourne)</blockquote>Thank you, Mark. So, what do you guys think?

R: I already learned everything there is to know

?: (inaudible)

R: when I was a teenager, so...

S: Yeah.

E: So you're done.

B: (inaudible)

R: Q.E.D.

E: You maxxed out.

R: Uh, hm.

B: I think we're definitely not smart enough to understand everything, I mean there's always gonna be... som... I think there's always gonna be some ways to explain aspects of nature that... that... that could be beyond us. It's amazing that we've... that we've come this far but I think as we progress I think there's definitely areas that we'll hit that will be just... just it'll be similar to a dog trying to think about quantum gravity but the thing is that, uh, it's not just our brains anymore, I mean we'll you know we'll have you know aids, we'll have in... we'll have supercomputers and eventually even artificial intelligence that wi... that will help us and work with us and probably eventually completely outclass us in... in understanding this stuff. So, um, and then... they'll... they'll also be, I believe, uh, br... you know, uh, we'll not evolve our brains but we'll en... we'll artificially enhance our brains. There's lots of ways to g... (inaudible) to do that

S: We'll probably do both.

B: So, yeah, so... so I think there's... th... th... there'll probably be very little that, um, that we won't eventually figure out... who knows how long that'll take... but I think, uh, we will hav... we... we have and we will have the ability to understand, uh, as much as can be understood.

S: Well, yeah, I think there's two ways to look at this question. One is, wha you were discussing, Bob, which is the finite limitations of the human brain. I agree that there are probably limitations to our ability to understand the universe, but, we will augment, evolve, supplement, our brains as technology progresses. That ther... there's no, I guess, theoretical limit to that, so, um, through those tools I think we... we, you know, that... that.. that limitation wi... is something that we can surpass. The other way to think about that, though, about just, um, cognitive limitations... I'm not sure, I've never liked the analogy to the dog. Maybe

B: Why?

S: it's apt but, uh, I'm not sure because it seems like there is not just a quantitative but a qualitative difference, between a dog and a human brain... that maybe once you have the ability to think about things at a certain level then you're there and then... then, you know, you... that gives you qualitative abilities, you know, of investigation, of asking questions, of exploration. Right, so it's not just that... you... we're a certain amount farth.. more intelligent than a dog therefore we can understand a certain amount more about the universe

B: Uh, huh.

S: It's that, we can engage in a kind of introspection and exploration and questioning that a dog can't even engage in at all.

R: Yeah, but, I mean there are apes who can engage in a certain level of that much more than a dog but less than humans, so, (inaudible) surely we can imagine a level up from us, right, where there's something we're missing. Like there's... there're very few things that humans are capable of, that apes or other animals can't do in some capacity.

S: I... (inaudible) I agree, that is possible, I'm not convinced that has to be the case, though, that's my point. It's possible that... uh... our current abilities are limited and we won't be able to figure out the universe but it's also possible that we have the tools necessary and now it's just a matter of applying them.

B: So... so we've passed some sort of cognitive threshold, where we

S: Yeah.

B: could eventually figure out everything, but... so what you're saying is that we... we could pretty much figure out most anything but what I'm taking away from that, though, is that it might... it might be so fiendishly difficult that it would take... that it could take uh... an extremely long time for us to find... to ev... to finally wrap our heads aroung something.

E: Oh, yeah.

S: Right, so... so, so far we're talking about the one approach to this problem which is the... the human capacity. And, again, there's a couple of ways to look at that which we explored. The other way to look at this question is "Is it even theoretically possible to understand everything about the universe". There may be limitations to the ability of any intelligent creature to gain certain bits of knowledge, and I think, first of all, I think that that... that is absolutely true, there are things that we will never know, because the information is lost. It's just lost to the universe... but depends on what ya mean by understanding everything about the universe.

E: Right, that's what I thought too, yeah.

S: Yeah, so like, what, like what color

E: It's nebulous.

S: was a certain dinosaur, you know, again, that... that information

E: Right.

S: may be lost to the universe. But let's put that aside so that, we'll... we'll say OK obviously we can't know about information that's lost to the universe. You... you could frame questions about the universe that cannot be explored by science.

B: Yeah, and I would add to that, Steve, uh, you... chaotic systems, you know, sensitive dependency

S: Yeah.

B: on initial conditions. Those things are inherently unpredictable no matter how smart and no matter what technology you have, so, I would add that, but that's kind of a... maybe a trivial addition, an obvious addition.

S: Right. And there may be other questions like "What happened before the Big Bang" that we just... we will... may never figure out a way to... to fi... to answer that question.

R: But, of course, you (inaudible) even with that we've already started reaching back before the Big Bang, and making some observations

E: Inferences,

R: so

E: yeah.

S: Yeah.

R: yeah...

S: Yeah, I agree, (inaudible) we've started to make some inferences but there... but there may be limits.

R: Yeah,

S: (inaudible)

R: I agree with that. I... I feel though, that in general tha.. I... I... I think there's also a difference between... (inaudible) everything there is to know about the things we know about, and then  is there... if there's a... if there's a gap in our understanding that we can identify will we have the tools to fill that gap, but also, are there... are we constantly surrounded by gaps we're not even ever going to realize just because of the limits of our own

B: Yeah.

R: senses and things. Um, I

S: Right.

R: think that's a possibility as well.

S: Yeah, it's (inaudible) it's sort of the, uh, things that we don't know we don't know.

R: Exactly.

?: Uh, huh.

S: Yeah. All right, guys, uh, well, let's go on to our interview.

== Interview with Daniel Loxton (40:25) ==
About his new book: ''Abominable Science''

== Science or Fiction (58:37) ==
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612173326.htm Item #1:] New fossil evidence reveals the presence of kangaroo ancestors 25 million years ago in what is now Europe. [http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/15806 Item #2:] Researchers find that male guppies can reproduce up to 10 months after they have died. [http://www.anl.gov/articles/discovery-new-material-state-counterintuitive-laws-physics Item #3:] Scientists have discovered a material that gets larger under pressure, in apparent defiance of the laws of physics.

== Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:13:12) ==
<blockquote>Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing.</blockquote>
Harlan Ellison

{{Outro404}}

== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

SGU Episode 414

2013-10-12T16:44:18Z

Fallible: /* Can We Know Everything? (33:23) */ Finish last little bit!

{{Editing required
|transcription = y

|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 414
|episodeDate = 22nd Jun 2013
|episodeIcon = File:chinese-alien-head.jpg
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 = DL: {{w|Daniel Loxton}}
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-06-22.mp3
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=46390.0
|qowText = Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing
|qowAuthor = {{w|Harlan Ellison}}
|}}

== Introduction ==
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, today is Wednesday, June 19th, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,

B: Hey, everybody

S: Rebecca Watson,

R: Hello, everyone.

S: Jay Novella,

J: Hey, guys.

S: and Evan Bernstein.

E: Salutations, everybody

R: Hello...

S: Salutations and felicitations, Evan.

E: Oh, and felicitations, how could I forget the Squire of Gothos. Shame on me,

S: I don't know (chuckles)

E: shame on me.

R: The hell you guys talking about.

E: Well, Rebecca, aren't you watching the Star Trek series?

R: I guess I haven't gotten up to that point, yet.

E: This is the original series.

R: I'm watching The Next Generation.

S: You know what I saw recently? "Star Trek Continues".

E: Hm?

S: which is a a

J: Wha?

S: fan.. "Star Trek Continues", it's a fan episode, a fan video, where it's as if the ep... the seasons continued as if it wasn't canceled after three seasons. So it's not, it's not like a parody, and it's not an update or a reboot or anything it's like what would a fourth season have actually been like,

B: Oh, cool.

S: and and they do their best to reproduce, the production value, the sets are identical, all the sound effects, the music the acting

R: Hm

S: the whole culture that was definitely embedded in that late '60s you know in terms of everything. And the

?: (inaudible)

S: some of the actors are damn good, the guy who's doing Kirk has his mannerisms down, absolutely down.

B: And it's not a parody of his mannerisms?

S: No, no it's not, it's not a parody, it's an imitation. And it like things like it's like "Yeah, Kirk does do that!" You know, it's like, (laughter) you uh things you wouldn't even think of. Like the

R: That is so Kirk.

S: ways he moves his arms when he walks. Yeah, it's just amazing.

R: Hey, remember that Star Trek episode where, uh, poisonous gas covered most of the planet, and murdered millions of people?

E: Ahhh.

R: Oh, wait, no, that was real life. Oh, my God!

B: (laughs)

E: That's worse.

== This Day in Skepticism (1:58) ==
R: On June 22, 1783, a poisonous cloud caused by the eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland, uh, finally reached France. So this is kind of, um, I really could have picked any date, uh, it's very interesting, it's something that I didn't even realize was the thing, uh, it was one of the most deadly if not the most deadly volcanic eruptions in human history, as I said it happened in Iceland but it spread all over the globe, uh, first of all though in Iceland it killed about 50% of the livestock which lead to a famine which killed a quarter of the population of Iceland. Uh, so it was pretty immediate but then it also went on to possibly cause droughts in India and Africa which lead to millions of more deaths, uh, as well as crop failures in Europe and air pollution and this deadly gas... from this deadly gas. So, all to... all told, it killed probably over 6 million people

?: What?

R: globally. Yeah, 6 million.

E: That's a lot (inaudible)

R: It was a pretty big volcanic eruption.

E: 1783, that's (inaudible) quite a bit.

B: Holy crap.

R: And the cloud was sulfur dioxide that

E: Oh, that'll do it

R: and also the hydrogen... the hydrogen fluoride apparently I think killed most of the people in Iceland but the sulfur dioxide is what drifted into Europe to start murdering people there. But yeah and it also caused severe global temperature change, uh, it was the hottest summer on record followed by really violent winter with hail and storms and all that good stuff which probably lead to more deaths.

S: It was the longest period of below zero temperatures in New England.

R: Oh, yeah, the US... the US area just had some severe weather. They don't... I.. I didn't find a whole of talk about deaths that resulted in it but I think people were just dying left and right anyway, at that point, so

S: A bad winter in 1783 was no joke.

R: Exactly, yeah, that's... that's what I'm sayin'. But...

B: So this gas released it wasn't part of like a.. a pyroclastic flow, it was just this, just this gas that came out and went

S: Just a bubble of gas

B: all over the place

R: Yeah, like a volcanic fart, silent but deadly

E: Probably wasn't too silent, either

R: Too soon?

?: Too soon (laughter)

S: Volcanoes are no joke, that superheated gas that kills people it's not just the lava and the ash, I mean, it's usually the gas, even if it's not poisonous gas if it's superheated it's like your lungs explode, you know. Well, let's move on, uhm, have you guys heard...

?: (stage inhalation)

?: Uh?

== News Items ==
=== Osteoarthritis (4:41)===
* Science-based Medicine: [http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/knee-osteoarthritis-thumbs-down-for-acupuncture-and-glucosamine/ Knee Osteoarthritis: Thumbs Down for Acupuncture and Glucosamine]

S: the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has released their, uh, 1200 page report evaluating evidence for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis

R: Now the last time you led us into one of these and we made all made light-hearted jokes about how boring the topic was, we got a bunch of angry letters from botanists, so, no, Steve, not gonna fall for it, this sounds fascinating, tell me more. (laughter)

S: Yeah, but like last time I convinced you how cool botany was, now I wanna convince you how cool osteoarthritis is.

E: Here come more letters (laughter)

S: Oh, boy. (laughter)

S: um, so osteoarthritis is, essentially degenerative arthritis of a joint, mainly from wear and tear, but there are other obviously biological factors involved, and so knee osteoarthritis, very common, um, as people get into their 40's and 50's they uh, their knees start to ache, you know, and they just wear out, they just don't really last 80 years unfortunately. There are lots of potential treatments for osteoarthritis including many that are not evidence-based. This report is interesting for a number of reasons, not just for the specific recommendations that are made. Harriet Hall writes about this on Science-based Medicine and I recommend that for those who are interested but I just want to highlight some of the interesting things. First of all, it shows that science-based practitioners actually care about evidence, despite all of the propaganda about "Oh, those doctors only want drugs and surgery" here we have a uh a major you know a professional organization in the United States dedicated to orthopedic surgery reviewing thousands of published studies, putting out a 1200 page comprehensive report looking in-depth into the evidence for many different approaches, and here are the highlights of what they found, where there was strong evidence you know for or against. So glucosamine chondroitin you guys are familiar with this, right, this is a dietary supplement that has been and still is promoted, um, has been for years, for arthritis. What do you think they found?

E: It doesn't work.

S: It doesn't work. So it was one of the few things where there was strong evidence against its effectiveness. Glucosamine and chondroitin doesn't work, there have been large studies. Exercise, strong evidence for, in favor of it. Weight loss, moderate evidence in favor of it. Acupuncture, what do you think they concluded?

R: No evidence.

?: Overwhelming evidence.

S: Strong evidence against its effectiveness. So very nice to see that they took a science-based approach to acupuncture research and didn't fall for the bait-and-switch of "Oh, it works like a placebo" you know, they didn't fall for that business. And also, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories strong evidence they are effective, that's not surprising. And here's one: arthroscopy with lavage and debridement --- strong evidence against.

B: Really?

E: Lavage, huh?

S: So lavage is like just washing it out. So arthroscopy is putting the scope into the knee and looking around, you know, for diagnostic, but if you take anything out then it becomes a therapeutic procedure, right, that's debridement, you know, cutting away any fraying pieces of cartilage and then washing out those pieces, that's the lavage part. So, this is a pretty lucrative, popular procedure for orthopedists to do. And here they are, the official organization of orthopedists, coming out with a statement saying there is strong evidence against the effectiveness of this procedure. This is something that we've written about on Science-based Medicine previously when there...there... when a review came out, I think now about two years ago, showing that arthroscopy was not effective, and there was some push-back from some orthopedists, and we said "Hey, this is the evidence, baby, this is, this is what it shows". So it's nice now to see the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons looking at the evidence and honestly saying "Yep, our beloved procedure, that we would love to have work, doesn't work". So it's hard in the face of this, if you look at the bigger picture, it's hard to justify the typical knee-jerk criticisms that alternative medicine proponents have against mainstream medicine

R: Heh, knee-jerk

S: Yeah, knee-jerk. That it's they only care about drugs and surgery, well here they are saying um, their favorite surgical procedure doesn't work, that they don't care about other things, here they're strongly in favor of exercise, moderately in favor of weight loss, Um, and that they're not, they don't care about actually treating people, well, this is, I think this shows their dedication to the evidence to what actually works regardless of what the modality is, and this is, this is, what we see in mainstream medicine all the time. This is a Herculean effort and it's great document, but this is what we see all the time, you know, the... academic professional uh physicians looking at the evidence objectively and the chips fall where they may, in its direct contradiction to all the anti-mainstream medicine conspiracy theories that you're going to hear from the alternative medicine side, so I thought that was worth pointing out. Also, Harriet pointed out something interesting, things like homeopathy didn't even make the list, it wasn't even worth their time to take a look at.

B: Oh, awesome.

E: Good.

S: Yeah.

R. Good (inaudible).

E: I don't know if we'd be able to say that if this were British Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, right? That probably would have made that list.

S: Homeopathy probably would have,

E: Yes

S: just because homeopathy is more popular across the pond, yeah.

B: Uh, Steve, did they mention why it wasn't on the list?

S: No, just... it didn't even... didn't even make the radar. Just wasn't even, yeah, not... not mentioned one way or the other.

B: OK

== Quickie with Bob (10:27)==
* ESO: [http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1326/ New Kind of Variable Star Discovered]

E: Oh, hey, wait, wait. I would like a Quickie with Bob right now.

B: Really?

E: Yes, right this moment.

B: Thank you, Evan, I'm almost certain you will not regret this.

E: (laughs)

B: This is your Quickie with Bob. Astronomers in Chile, guys, have discovered a new type of variable star it was pretty interesting story uh they did detailed observations of 3700 stars in this specific cluster over 7 years. Um, and showed that they found 36 of these stars had very minute changes in their brightness of about only about a tenth of a percent over an hour or as much as over 20 hours. And uh this is... this is big news in the community because variable stars are in... are incredibly common there's lots of different types of variable stars and it's always interesting to... to add another one to the group actually the list of uh of typ... of variable stars um the types themselves was much bigger than... than I remember them being but just to break it down real quick there's... there's two different main types of stars that are variable, there's the intrinsic and extrinsic and it's kind of obvious what they... what that means the intrinsic stars that are variable are variable because of that's just the way they are something about their internal dynamics makes them makes the light output variable whereas the extrinsic... the extrinsic stars... variable stars are variable only because you know say something might move in front of them or... or there might be some... something in the way that changes the light that reaches the Earth. So within these intrinsic stars there's... there's just a few categories there's the pulsating variables, there's the eruptives, and there's the cataclysmic or explosive variable stars. This new one that they found I think is pretty obvious that it's within the... the pulsating variable star category

S: Is there a throbbing category? (laughter)

E: Is there a grooving category?

B: So like I said these variables are most certainly they'll be within the pulsating variety they haven't actually named this type of variable yet but I'm sure it's gonna be within that... that category They're not sure why they pulsate, either, basically because current models say that they should not be variable so this is the real surprise that these... that these varied so much and but one clue that they found is that many of these variables rotate very very fast

S: Yeah, that seems pretty telling

B: Yeah, more than 50% of their critical velocity, in fact, and the critical velocity

E: Wow

B: is a velocity that if they... if they reached 100% they would actually start throwing off mass so they're spinning very very fast and uh this spinning might... may have an effect on the dynamics of their interiors which then would result in the variability of the light output. So, uh, so keep an eye on it, I'm curious to see what they're gonna call it and uh, and... and you know what more they can determine, um, about these types of stars based on uh, on... on this... these studies that they're... these very detailed studies that they're doing. So, uh, so I got guys this has been your Quickie with Bob, I hope it was good for you, too.

== News items continued ==
=== Patenting DNA (13:07)===
* BBC News: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22895161 US Supreme Court says human DNA cannot be patented]

S: Thanks, Bob. OK, Rebecca, you're gonna tell us about a major Supreme Court case regarding patenting genes.

R: Yes, you are correct, Steve. There is a huge decision that just happened in the Supreme Court on, uh, June 13th, the Supreme Court ruled that, uh, companies, particularly Myriad Genetics, in this case, cannot patent a human gene. So in this specific case, it was this company Myriad Genetics which was one of the patent holders on the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes. Now, astute listeners might recall that we were recently talking about these very genes, in the case of Angelina Jolie,

S: Yeah.

R: who came out and said that she had the mutation in her BRCA gene that said she was much much much more likely to get breast cancer and ovarian cancer and so she had her breast removed. Now, we also mentioned that Angelina Jolie had spoken briefly about the fact that not everyone has access to the genetic testing required to find out if you have the mutation, in order to get the life saving operations you would need. Well, the reason why many people don't have access to this genetic testing is because Myriad Genetics was one of the patent holders and... and they were the only company that was allowed to perform this testing on these genes. So, if you wanted to find if you had the mutation you had to go through Myriad Genetics and that increases the price dramatically so they could charge thousands of dollars to people who wanted the testing. What this ruling means in this specific case it's a huge win for women particularly because this means that you... women can go get genetic testing anywhere to find out if they have this mutation they don't have to go through Myriad in order to find out, so, now you have companies competing against each other, prices go down, etc., etc., and more lives are saved because of it, so that's one result of this and one of the reasons why women's rights groups were a huge part of the uh lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court decision it was a unanimous decision the case was led by uh the ACLU um representing women's rights groups as well as scientists and other interest groups but also scientists win from this case because it means that uh any scientist can now pursue research on the... these genes where prior to this only Myriad and the other patent holders would technically be able to do that. Basically the court ruled that you can't patent a human gene however they did leave it open that you could possibly patent a gene that had been fiddled with.

?: Yeah.

R: So uh if you

?: (inaudible) huge

R: come up with your own gene, like a synthetic gene like cDNA... c... cDNA, that could still be eligible for a patent. Uh, but because Myriad the company did not actually create anything, they just researched the gene they're not allowed to patent it.

S: Yeah. So

R: So

S: products of nature cannot be patented and what this decision was exploring specifically was how much modification is necessary before a product of nature is an innovation. An... yeah, this that needed to be explored for the in... for this specific case of genes. And it seems that everyone pos... with the possible exception of Myriad, is happy about this decision this is a... I've seen nothing but universal praise for this decision.

E: Myriad shouldn't be too sad their stock rose that day

S: Is that right? (laughs)

E: as a result, yeah.

R: They have been fighting this

E: That will fade.

R: for a very long time so this is a huge loss for them, but it's... it is a great gain for humanity, we're

S: Yeah, for humanity.

R: literally talking about lives being saved

E: Yeah, absolutely.

R: and more research being done.

B: Yeah, it does seem...

R: So it is a good thing.

B: it does seem (inaudible) to me lots of benefits but what about the idea, the one negative thing that I've heard, that I've seen in a couple of places was that some people are afraid that companies like Myriad, of course, will scale back investment because they're not gonna be rewarded ah with patents for this so I just wonder how much of a genuine concern that aspect of this is.

R: Consider how much research is done by private companies compared to the huge amount of research that's currently being done through government institutions and universities. Private companies have always focussed on what's going to make the most money and that's why we have uh government funding for scientific endeavors. There's one other thing I wanted to mention, a bit of, uh, myth-busting. This... this thing was going around that... uh, Scalia doesn't believe in genetics, or in molecular biology. So, uh, it was a unanimous decision but Justice Scalia wrote a separate thing... ruling...

S: Separate opinion.

R: opinion, thank you, that's the word.

E: Opinion, yeah.

R: Uh, Scalia wrote a separate opinion uh saying that he, uh, agrees to vote with the majority, but he does not agree with one part of the opinion that has no effect on his final vote. What he said was, um, that he wouldn't sign on to Part 1a and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology because he can't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief. So, Part 1a, deal... it's just a list of basic facts about DNA, about genetics, uh it's all kind of just basic level genetic stuff.

E: So was he basically saying I don't know what this is?

R: Yeah, you know, so some...

E: and therefore I can't really

R: some people were

E: say anything about it.

R: taking uh that he wouldn't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief to mean that he didn't believe in genetics or he didn't know about genetics and so he didn't believe them, something like that. But, I've heard from lawyers who have said that this is a bit of legal-speak in a way, that there's this sort of ongoing argument on whether or not they should in... judges should include basic information that's not necessary to the final ruling, and so that's kind of what he was saying, is that this chunk I'm not a scientist, I'm not going to sign my name on this and say that as a Justice I approve of this because I have no idea I'm not a scientist and it has nothing to do with the case.

S: He's being a legal stickler,

R: Yes.

S: not a science denier.

R: Exactly.

B: Oh, OK.

R: That...

E: Right.

R: that's what I'm hearing from... from lawyers, and

S: That makes sense.

R: it makes sense to me.

S: And that's kind of his shtick, too,

R: Yeah.

S: is to be a legal stickler.

B?: Hmmm, OK.

=== Foot Fungus (20:02)===
* Science News: [http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350599/description/Foot_fungi_a_thriving_diverse_community Foot fungi a thriving, diverse community]

S: OK, well thanks, Rebecca. Bob, can you explain to me why my toes occasionally itch? (laughter)

R: Ew, bugs, probably.

B: Well, guys, uh, last May... at the end of last May, uh, the, uh, the issue of Nature, they discuss the... the first census... the very first census of skin-dwelling fungi (fung-ee), that... that's

S: Fungi (fung-guy)?

B: Well, there's three ways to pronounce it as far as I can tell

S: Fungi (fun-jee)?

B: Fungi (fung-ee), fungi (fung-eye), fungi (funj-eye). Those are the three that I came across

R: But "fungi" (fung-eye) is the only one that works with that "mushroom walks into a bar" joke.

B: OK.

S: What about... what about "fungi" (fun-jee)?

B: That's actually my preferred pronunciation and I didn't find it. So, whatever, I'll just go with... I'll just go with one of the ones that I found. So this study reveals

E: (chuckles)

B: there's a fungus among us. OK, somebody had to say it, it's out of the way, I said it. So, actually, it...

E: (laughs)

B: it reveals that there's a little variation... there's very little variation in the fungal communities on our bodies except for our feet which calls home to 80 to 100 different types of fungus, they're just like all

?: (inaudible)

B: over the place down there. So, for... just for a quick

?: (inaudible)

B: high-level refresher uh fungi (fung-ee) are the third type of multi-cellular organisms, they're neither plant nor animals, um, one major difference between them and the other two is that their cell walls contain chitin, now that's (inaudible) that's like the exoskeleton of a crabs and lobsters or... or even the beaks of squid uh made of chitin. Uh, fungi play a pivotal role in decomposing organic matter and cycling uh nutrients in the environment and they also appear to be inordinately fond of feet. So here's a quick quote from the study: "A human's skin surfaces are complex ecosystems for microorganisms including fungi, bacteria and viruses which are known collectively as the skin microbiome". So I was as... I was surprised as I said that this initial study was the first of its kind. It seems, I guess, in terms of... yeah, human cohabitation bacteria and viruses get all.. get all the press and all the research dollars, so one reason why the lowly fungus I guess may have been neglected is that it's notoriously difficult to culture, I didn't know that, unlike bacteria which is easy, culturing a fungus from say uh the toenail can take weeks... weeks for it

S: And yet... and yet it's hard to kill when you wanna get rid of it.

B: (chuckle) Right. So... so how did they do it? They looked... they looked at the DNA, of course. They took ten volunteers and they swabbed 14 sites on their bodies including taking toenail clippings apparently. Uh, they then put them in a DNA sequencer which of course is uh one of the key technologies advanced by leaps and bounds uh by the Human Genome Project. Um, they used these molecular tags that stick only to the fungal DNA, so they wouldn't have to worry about all the human DNA and the bacterial DNA and viral DNA, that... that... that was mixed into the samples, so now they have this pure sample of just... of just fung... uh the fungus DNA. They then examined the tiny bits of fungal DNA uh called the phylogenetic markers to tally up all the different types of... of fungal species and bam, they were done, they had... they had a tally of all the different types of species. So, if you look most anywhere on the head or the torso you... you're likely to find one genus and that's called Malassezia. Uh, different areas have different species uh though, like the crease behind your ear or... or on your forehead there's little variation there. Surprisingly, your hands have tons of bacteria but very few fungal communities. So your feet, though, it's... it's completely different ecosystem, um, on your... on your toenails alone there's forty different uh fungi varieties, sixty between your toes, and eighty live on the bottom of... of your heel, which I think would ac... I wouldn't think that would be the most plentiful spot I would think, like, between your toes would have more but apparently there's lots of 'em on the bottom of your heel. So... so why is... how come? Why... why is this so? And it...

E: Gravity.

B: Yeah, gra... (laughs)

E: (chuckles)

B: Well it's... it's not hard to imagine one... one reason, right, your feet are... are often on contact with surfaces that fungi like to hang out on like your socks or locker room floors. I never walk barefoot at... at the gym, uh, never would do it.

E: Uhhhh,

B: So also

E: gosh... (inaudible) so bad.

B: your... your feet... I didn't know that your feet are cooler than other parts of your body, and... and fungi like cooler places, apparently, they hang out. Um, so... so should we all be grossed out? Are you guys like really grossed out... about this stuff?

R: (inaudible) obviously

?: Ahhh...

E: (inaudible) more grossed out about...

R: It takes more than that to... gross out Steve.

B: Yeah, I... I'm not...

S: Oh, yeah...

B: Yeah, I wouldn't think Steve would be, but I'm not... I'm not

S: I've had my head inside of a corpse

B: Cool, um...

R: Hey, thanks for that...

E: A human corpse? Wait, a human corpse?

B: I di...

S: Yeah.

B: Of course.

S: So has everyone who has gone through medical school.

E: You put your head in the corpse?

S: Well, you gotta get into the anatomy, I mean you gotta... you know you're disecting something...

E: I don't...

S: They... so, you get so grossed out in your first year of medical school you're basically done getting grossed out for life.

?: Yeah.

R: Yeah.

B: Totally desensitized.

R: I don't... I don't find what you've said so gross, Bob, but when in... you're talking I was thinking of that... toenail fungus, uh, commercial where...

E: Oh, yeah.

R: where the germ, like, lifts up

E: Little critters.

B: Yeah, yeah, yeah!

R: the toenail and then climbs inside and that's like the worst... worst commercial ever made.

B: Oh, my God I remember that something about detaching a toenail yes I... I cringe

R: Yeah.

B: every time I saw that, nothing to do with the

R: It's awful.

B: fungus or anything but it's just the lifting that toenail

R: Yeah, like the fungus didn't help

B: was nasty. Yeah right, yes. I mean it doesn't gross me out, the... thinking that there's... em... potentially s... you know... well over a hundred different types of these guys all over us. I thin... it's good... it's good that we're colonized by these critters because they're... they're likely to prevent other nasty... guys from taking hold on our skin so it's good that they're there. Likewise, this.. this research can actually help improve our treatment for skin disease and maybe even help with some types of cancers, some people were saying. So... so I say embrace the... the fungi living on your skin, you really don't have much of a choice until we replace them all with nanobots.

=== Chinese Fake Alien (25:46)===
* The Telegraph: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10115832/Chinese-farmer-jailed-for-making-a-rubber-alien.html Chinese farmer jailed for making a rubber alien]

S: All right, thanks, Bob. Evan, you're gonna tell us about a fake Chinese alien.<ref>[http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130612000078&cid=1103 WantChinaTimes]</ref> (laughter)

?: Oh, God.

E: Now that could mean several different things, I'll... I'll do my best to clarify. Now, there are times when news outlets totally, totally botch their headlines... right, I mean really botch

B: No.

E: We've talked about some real doozies on the show. But rarely do we give them credit when they actually get it right. Let's give The Telegraph its due, because they got this headline spot-on. They wrote: "Chinese farmer jailed for making rubber alien". That kind-a says it all.

?: OK.

E: (chuckles) So it's being reported out of the Shandong province, that, uh, local police recently arrested someone named Mr. Li, a farmer slash alien enthusiast by day and an alien enthusiast farmer... slash farmer by night. And here are his versions of the event, this is Mr. Li.

S: "Mr. Li" 's a pseudonym, probably, by the way.

E: He said: <blockquote>"I was setting an electrical trap for rabbits by the Yellow River, when I saw a bright light. Above my bike, a UFO was floating. One by one, five aliens came down, but one of them stumbled onto one of my rabbit traps and was electricuted. The others went back into their ship and flew away."</blockquote>So that's his story.

S: Quite a tale he's got there. So this alien from who knows how far away from another solar system in super advanced technology and then dies in a rabbit trap.

E: Exa...

S: And his friends leave him behind.

E: And they leave him behind.

R: Was he rabbit shit? (laughter)

E: No.

R: Maybe he was... maybe he was a rabbit, like from another dimension.

E: Well, then rabbits look an awful lot like little grays with Chinese accentuations around the eyes

B?: Yes.

E: and head and stuff. But

B: Plus... plus only mice... only mice are from other dimensions.

E: But how did he go about backing up his claim. Well he does what any true believer does and he post pictures of the ET on the Internet. And in three days these pictures happen to go viral, so after five days of having posted the pictures the local police show up at his door and he's taken in for questioning. Now during the questioning Mr. Li admitted, willingly or otherwise, that the whole thing was a hoax.

S: Shock, shocked.

E: He made an alien, he constructed it himself out of this gluey rubber sort of substance uh tied together with ropes and uh other things and you know... a few... he... he drew his inspiration from the Simon Peg film Paul I don't know if you guys have seen that

?: Hall?

R: Yeah, the one where they go to Comicon.

S: Yes.

E: Right... right.

S: Yes, I saw it.

E: And the alien does a little bit sort of kind of look like that I suppose.

S: But you're right, Evan, the... the uh alien head looks Chinese.

E: It... it does (chuckles).

S: It does... so I mean it's his cultural bias leaking through in his sculpture and he's not aware of it but to these Western you know American eyes it has this... it looks like uh something... that it... like an piece of art that a Chinese person would create.

E: Right.

S: You know, it's not just the eyes it's the mouth it's everything you know it's just there's a subtle sort of Oriental appearance to it. Uh, which is always, I think, a... a very telling sign to look for when people are imagining or faking alien phenomena and their cultural biases come through, and of course we're... you're much more attuned to them when it's from a di... from another culture.

E: But why did he... why did he do it why did you think he did it well he says it with the intent of helping more people believe in aliens. Which is

S: Yeah.

R: Weird.

E: an interesting way to go about doing that... uh, I suppose... um, he claims that and these are his words again:<blockquote>It's still disputed whether or not UFOs and aliens exist but we believe</blockquote>not sure what he means by we<blockquote>they do and we want to expand our group</blockquote>I don't know what group he's part of... uh<blockquote>and make more people believe that aliens do exist.</blockquote> So that's

R: Was this him

E: the approach.

R: saying this or was this

E: That was him.

R: the government saying that he said that.

E: Uh, that is the report from The Telegraph say... uh... which is quoting him as saying that.

R: Hm.

S: Who knows.

E: Yeah you who... who really knows. It's for the conspiry theori... conspiracy theorists,

S: (chuckle)

E: I guess to... to... to sort of figure it

R: Well, you know I mean you don't have to stretch far to come up with a conspiracy involving the Chinese government making a guy say something (chuckle) I mean

E: (chuckle)

R: making a Chinese prisoner say something that they want him to say. Um...

E: That's true.

B: Yeah, my mind all bets are off

R: Yeah, especially if they wanna

B: soo as he... soo as he ga... soo as the government got a hold of him they can well, nothing he says now... really (chuckle) you know whatever

R: Even if it was just a case of they... they wanted to trump up the charge a bit so they didn't look like they were just hassling some farmer, now they've got like a cult that they can

?: Yeah

R: pin on him, you know,

?: Yeah, yeah

E: But

R: 'cuz they're... they hate... they hate the cults.

E: Mr. Li spent five days incarcerated, the crime was fabricating lies and disrupting normal social order.

B: Oh, boy, wow.

E: Yeah, that... that doesn't sound too Orwellian or anything (inaudible)

S: Yeah, disrupting the social order that yeah really Orwellian, I agree

?: scary

E: Now, guys, to wrap this up, I'll say that the rubber alien was examined by scientists and deemed to be a hoax, the dead giveaway is when they broke open the alien and pulled out a slip of paper with a fortune, that's right

S: (laughs)

B: Oh!

E: And it... and the fort... it read "Help I'm being held prisoner in a Chinese bakery

R: Hm, hm.

E: and your lucky numbers are 4, 14, 22, 31, and 49". So

?: Jesus

E: that sort of sealed the deal.

B: Oh, boy.

R: That joke fails, though, on the fact that fortune cookies aren't Chinese.

S: Yeah, that's true.

E: No, that enhances the joke and the... gaw.... (inaudible, possibly expletive) (laughter)

== Who's That Noisy? (31:24)==
S: All right, well Evan, you also have to tell us about Who's That Noisy.

E: I will do that, now, um... what we'll do is next week we're gonna reveal last week's winner.

S: We're recording a little ahead of schedule 'cause of... we're on our TAM recording schedule, so, the... we're gonna have to get caught up on the Who's That Noisy-s t... towards the end

E: Right

R: We might all be dead right now.

S: (chuckles) That's true.

E: Maybe, I mean who knows, another volcano you know might spew

R: Hm

E: sulfur dioxide or whatever the hell's

R: could happen

E: gonna come out of it, however, we do have a puzzle for this week, so that will be this week's Who's That Noisy, is a puzzle and, here we go. So, there is this machine, OK? Now this machine does one thing. It shuffles playing cards. However, this machine always rearranges cards in the same way relative to the original order of the cards. OK, we're talking about a deck of playing cards here. Now all of the hearts arranged in order from ace to king were put into the machine. The cards were shuffled, and then they were put into the machine again. After the second... after the second shuffling, the cards were in the following order: 10, 9, queen, 8, king, 3, 4, ace, 5, jack, 6, 2, 7. So you need to tell us, now, what order were the cards in after the first shuffle.

S: Very tricksy.

R: Eh-hm.

E: It is tricksy, yeah.

B: (inaudible)

E: I don't know if, uh... I don't if Bilbo would have gotten that in the cave while he was dueling it out...

B: Ahhh.

E: (inaudbile) wits with Gollum

S: Not without a pen and paper, I don't think

E: (laughs) that's for sure (laughs). So... think about that

S: Or quill and parchment

E: Qua... yes, of course, Middle Earth and all... wtn@theskepticsguide.org or sguforums.com is the forum's website... so... think about it, give us your best answer, and good luck to everyone.

== Questions and Emails ==
=== Can We Know Everything? (33:23)===

S: All right, thanks, Evan. We do have one email for this week. This one comes from Mark Dennehy from Melbourne, and Mark writes:
<blockquote>I have been listening to the show for 4 years and although I have always been a sceptic</blockquote>with a C<blockquote>I have learnt a great deal from your show. I would like to hear the rogues view on whether science has the potential to explain the physical world in such a way that we understand everything. Is there a limit to what we can comprehend? For example a dog has no concept of quantum gravity and wouldn’t ask the question of himself "Is space-time fundamentally continuous or discrete?" We have gone from asking ourselves how to grow food to "why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe?" Our brain appears finite in capacity so I would assume that would limit our ability to understand the world around us. Reaching a limit at some stage seems inevitable. Or will our brains develop as we need to solve increasingly more difficult questions, after all our brains appear</blockquote>to need... our brains appear<blockquote>not to need to store every bit of information we discover perhaps more the ability to solve a problem, and the capacity to grasp the variables at that time. I could be wrong though. Your opinions would be greatly appreciated and interesting. (Mark Dennehy, Melbourne)</blockquote>Thank you, Mark. So, what do you guys think?

R: I already learned everything there is to know

?: (inaudible)

R: when I was a teenager, so...

S: Yeah.

E: So you're done.

B: (inaudible)

R: Q.E.D.

E: You maxxed out.

R: Uh, hm.

B: I think we're definitely not smart enough to understand everything, I mean there's always gonna be... som... I think there's always gonna be some ways to explain aspects of nature that... that... that could be beyond us. It's amazing that we've... that we've come this far but I think as we progress I think there's definitely areas that we'll hit that will be just... just it'll be similar to a dog trying to think about quantum gravity but the thing is that, uh, it's not just our brains anymore, I mean we'll you know we'll have you know aids, we'll have in... we'll have supercomputers and eventually even artificial intelligence that wi... that will help us and work with us and probably eventually completely outclass us in... in understanding this stuff. So, um, and then... they'll... they'll also be, I believe, uh, br... you know, uh, we'll not evolve our brains but we'll en... we'll artificially enhance our brains. There's lots of ways to g... (inaudible) to do that

S: We'll probably do both.

B: So, yeah, so... so I think there's... th... th... there'll probably be very little that, um, that we won't eventually figure out... who knows how long that'll take... but I think, uh, we will hav... we... we have and we will have the ability to understand, uh, as much as can be understood.

S: Well, yeah, I think there's two ways to look at this question. One is, wha you were discussing, Bob, which is the finite limitations of the human brain. I agree that there are probably limitations to our ability to understand the universe, but, we will augment, evolve, supplement, our brains as technology progresses. That ther... there's no, I guess, theoretical limit to that, so, um, through those tools I think we... we, you know, that... that.. that limitation wi... is something that we can surpass. The other way to think about that, though, about just, um, cognitive limitations... I'm not sure, I've never liked the analogy to the dog. Maybe

B: Why?

S: it's apt but, uh, I'm not sure because it seems like there is not just a quantitative but a qualitative difference, between a dog and a human brain... that maybe once you have the ability to think about things at a certain level then you're there and then... then, you know, you... that gives you qualitative abilities, you know, of investigation, of asking questions, of exploration. Right, so it's not just that... you... we're a certain amount farth.. more intelligent than a dog therefore we can understand a certain amount more about the universe

B: Uh, huh.

S: It's that, we can engage in a kind of introspection and exploration and questioning that a dog can't even engage in at all.

R: Yeah, but, I mean there are apes who can engage in a certain level of that much more than a dog but less than humans, so, (inaudible) surely we can imagine a level up from us, right, where there's something we're missing. Like there's... there're very few things that humans are capable of, that apes or other animals can't do in some capacity.

S: I... (inaudible) I agree, that is possible, I'm not convinced that has to be the case, though, that's my point. It's possible that... uh... our current abilities are limited and we won't be able to figure out the universe but it's also possible that we have the tools necessary and now it's just a matter of applying them.

B: So... so we've passed some sort of cognitive threshold, where we

S: Yeah.

B: could eventually figure out everything, but... so what you're saying is that we... we could pretty much figure out most anything but what I'm taking away from that, though, is that it might... it might be so fiendishly difficult that it would take... that it could take uh... an extremely long time for us to find... to ev... to finally wrap our heads aroung something.

E: Oh, yeah.

S: Right, so... so, so far we're talking about the one approach to this problem which is the... the human capacity. And, again, there's a couple of ways to look at that which we explored. The other way to look at this question is "Is it even theoretically possible to understand everything about the universe". There may be limitations to the ability of any intelligent creature to gain certain bits of knowledge, and I think, first of all, I think that that... that is absolutely true, there are things that we will never know, because the information is lost. It's just lost to the universe... but depends on what ya mean by understanding everything about the universe.

E: Right, that's what I thought too, yeah.

S: Yeah, so like, what, like what color

E: It's nebulous.

S: was a certain dinosaur, you know, again, that... that information

E: Right.

S: may be lost to the universe. But let's put that aside so that, we'll... we'll say OK obviously we can't know about information that's lost to the universe. You... you could frame questions about the universe that cannot be explored by science.

B: Yeah, and I would add to that, Steve, uh, you... chaotic systems, you know, sensitive dependency

S: Yeah.

B: on initial conditions. Those things are inherently unpredictable no matter how smart and no matter what technology you have, so, I would add that, but that's kind of a... maybe a trivial addition, an obvious addition.

S: Right. And there may be other questions like "What happened before the Big Bang" that we just... we will... may never figure out a way to... to fi... to answer that question.

R: But, of course, you (indistinct) even with that we've already started reaching back before the Big Bang, and making some observations

E: Inferences,

R: so

E: yeah.

S: Yeah.

R: yeah...

S: Yeah, I agree, (indistinct) we've started to make some inferences but there... but there may be limits.

R: Yeah,

S: (indistinct)

R: I agree with that. I... I feel though, that in general tha.. I... I... I think there's also a difference between... (indistinct) everything there is to know about the things we know about, and then  is there... if there's a... if there's a gap in our understanding that we can identify will we have the tools to fill that gap, but also, are there... are we constantly surrounded by gaps we're not even ever going to realize just because of the limits of our own

B: Yeah.

R: senses and things. Um, I

S: Right.

R: think that's a possibility as well.

S: Yeah, it's (indistinct) it's sort of the, uh, things that we don't know we don't know.

R: Exactly.

?: Uh, huh.

S: Yeah. All right, guys, uh, well, let's go on to our interview.

== Interview with Daniel Loxton (40:25) ==
About his new book: ''Abominable Science''

== Science or Fiction (58:37) ==
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612173326.htm Item #1:] New fossil evidence reveals the presence of kangaroo ancestors 25 million years ago in what is now Europe. [http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/15806 Item #2:] Researchers find that male guppies can reproduce up to 10 months after they have died. [http://www.anl.gov/articles/discovery-new-material-state-counterintuitive-laws-physics Item #3:] Scientists have discovered a material that gets larger under pressure, in apparent defiance of the laws of physics.

== Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:13:12) ==
<blockquote>Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing.</blockquote>
Harlan Ellison

{{Outro404}}

== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

SGU Episode 414

2013-10-12T16:37:20Z

Fallible: /* Can We Know Everything? (33:23) */ Plodding along...

{{Editing required
|transcription = y

|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 414
|episodeDate = 22nd Jun 2013
|episodeIcon = File:chinese-alien-head.jpg
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 = DL: {{w|Daniel Loxton}}
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-06-22.mp3
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=46390.0
|qowText = Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing
|qowAuthor = {{w|Harlan Ellison}}
|}}

== Introduction ==
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, today is Wednesday, June 19th, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,

B: Hey, everybody

S: Rebecca Watson,

R: Hello, everyone.

S: Jay Novella,

J: Hey, guys.

S: and Evan Bernstein.

E: Salutations, everybody

R: Hello...

S: Salutations and felicitations, Evan.

E: Oh, and felicitations, how could I forget the Squire of Gothos. Shame on me,

S: I don't know (chuckles)

E: shame on me.

R: The hell you guys talking about.

E: Well, Rebecca, aren't you watching the Star Trek series?

R: I guess I haven't gotten up to that point, yet.

E: This is the original series.

R: I'm watching The Next Generation.

S: You know what I saw recently? "Star Trek Continues".

E: Hm?

S: which is a a

J: Wha?

S: fan.. "Star Trek Continues", it's a fan episode, a fan video, where it's as if the ep... the seasons continued as if it wasn't canceled after three seasons. So it's not, it's not like a parody, and it's not an update or a reboot or anything it's like what would a fourth season have actually been like,

B: Oh, cool.

S: and and they do their best to reproduce, the production value, the sets are identical, all the sound effects, the music the acting

R: Hm

S: the whole culture that was definitely embedded in that late '60s you know in terms of everything. And the

?: (inaudible)

S: some of the actors are damn good, the guy who's doing Kirk has his mannerisms down, absolutely down.

B: And it's not a parody of his mannerisms?

S: No, no it's not, it's not a parody, it's an imitation. And it like things like it's like "Yeah, Kirk does do that!" You know, it's like, (laughter) you uh things you wouldn't even think of. Like the

R: That is so Kirk.

S: ways he moves his arms when he walks. Yeah, it's just amazing.

R: Hey, remember that Star Trek episode where, uh, poisonous gas covered most of the planet, and murdered millions of people?

E: Ahhh.

R: Oh, wait, no, that was real life. Oh, my God!

B: (laughs)

E: That's worse.

== This Day in Skepticism (1:58) ==
R: On June 22, 1783, a poisonous cloud caused by the eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland, uh, finally reached France. So this is kind of, um, I really could have picked any date, uh, it's very interesting, it's something that I didn't even realize was the thing, uh, it was one of the most deadly if not the most deadly volcanic eruptions in human history, as I said it happened in Iceland but it spread all over the globe, uh, first of all though in Iceland it killed about 50% of the livestock which lead to a famine which killed a quarter of the population of Iceland. Uh, so it was pretty immediate but then it also went on to possibly cause droughts in India and Africa which lead to millions of more deaths, uh, as well as crop failures in Europe and air pollution and this deadly gas... from this deadly gas. So, all to... all told, it killed probably over 6 million people

?: What?

R: globally. Yeah, 6 million.

E: That's a lot (inaudible)

R: It was a pretty big volcanic eruption.

E: 1783, that's (inaudible) quite a bit.

B: Holy crap.

R: And the cloud was sulfur dioxide that

E: Oh, that'll do it

R: and also the hydrogen... the hydrogen fluoride apparently I think killed most of the people in Iceland but the sulfur dioxide is what drifted into Europe to start murdering people there. But yeah and it also caused severe global temperature change, uh, it was the hottest summer on record followed by really violent winter with hail and storms and all that good stuff which probably lead to more deaths.

S: It was the longest period of below zero temperatures in New England.

R: Oh, yeah, the US... the US area just had some severe weather. They don't... I.. I didn't find a whole of talk about deaths that resulted in it but I think people were just dying left and right anyway, at that point, so

S: A bad winter in 1783 was no joke.

R: Exactly, yeah, that's... that's what I'm sayin'. But...

B: So this gas released it wasn't part of like a.. a pyroclastic flow, it was just this, just this gas that came out and went

S: Just a bubble of gas

B: all over the place

R: Yeah, like a volcanic fart, silent but deadly

E: Probably wasn't too silent, either

R: Too soon?

?: Too soon (laughter)

S: Volcanoes are no joke, that superheated gas that kills people it's not just the lava and the ash, I mean, it's usually the gas, even if it's not poisonous gas if it's superheated it's like your lungs explode, you know. Well, let's move on, uhm, have you guys heard...

?: (stage inhalation)

?: Uh?

== News Items ==
=== Osteoarthritis (4:41)===
* Science-based Medicine: [http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/knee-osteoarthritis-thumbs-down-for-acupuncture-and-glucosamine/ Knee Osteoarthritis: Thumbs Down for Acupuncture and Glucosamine]

S: the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has released their, uh, 1200 page report evaluating evidence for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis

R: Now the last time you led us into one of these and we made all made light-hearted jokes about how boring the topic was, we got a bunch of angry letters from botanists, so, no, Steve, not gonna fall for it, this sounds fascinating, tell me more. (laughter)

S: Yeah, but like last time I convinced you how cool botany was, now I wanna convince you how cool osteoarthritis is.

E: Here come more letters (laughter)

S: Oh, boy. (laughter)

S: um, so osteoarthritis is, essentially degenerative arthritis of a joint, mainly from wear and tear, but there are other obviously biological factors involved, and so knee osteoarthritis, very common, um, as people get into their 40's and 50's they uh, their knees start to ache, you know, and they just wear out, they just don't really last 80 years unfortunately. There are lots of potential treatments for osteoarthritis including many that are not evidence-based. This report is interesting for a number of reasons, not just for the specific recommendations that are made. Harriet Hall writes about this on Science-based Medicine and I recommend that for those who are interested but I just want to highlight some of the interesting things. First of all, it shows that science-based practitioners actually care about evidence, despite all of the propaganda about "Oh, those doctors only want drugs and surgery" here we have a uh a major you know a professional organization in the United States dedicated to orthopedic surgery reviewing thousands of published studies, putting out a 1200 page comprehensive report looking in-depth into the evidence for many different approaches, and here are the highlights of what they found, where there was strong evidence you know for or against. So glucosamine chondroitin you guys are familiar with this, right, this is a dietary supplement that has been and still is promoted, um, has been for years, for arthritis. What do you think they found?

E: It doesn't work.

S: It doesn't work. So it was one of the few things where there was strong evidence against its effectiveness. Glucosamine and chondroitin doesn't work, there have been large studies. Exercise, strong evidence for, in favor of it. Weight loss, moderate evidence in favor of it. Acupuncture, what do you think they concluded?

R: No evidence.

?: Overwhelming evidence.

S: Strong evidence against its effectiveness. So very nice to see that they took a science-based approach to acupuncture research and didn't fall for the bait-and-switch of "Oh, it works like a placebo" you know, they didn't fall for that business. And also, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories strong evidence they are effective, that's not surprising. And here's one: arthroscopy with lavage and debridement --- strong evidence against.

B: Really?

E: Lavage, huh?

S: So lavage is like just washing it out. So arthroscopy is putting the scope into the knee and looking around, you know, for diagnostic, but if you take anything out then it becomes a therapeutic procedure, right, that's debridement, you know, cutting away any fraying pieces of cartilage and then washing out those pieces, that's the lavage part. So, this is a pretty lucrative, popular procedure for orthopedists to do. And here they are, the official organization of orthopedists, coming out with a statement saying there is strong evidence against the effectiveness of this procedure. This is something that we've written about on Science-based Medicine previously when there...there... when a review came out, I think now about two years ago, showing that arthroscopy was not effective, and there was some push-back from some orthopedists, and we said "Hey, this is the evidence, baby, this is, this is what it shows". So it's nice now to see the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons looking at the evidence and honestly saying "Yep, our beloved procedure, that we would love to have work, doesn't work". So it's hard in the face of this, if you look at the bigger picture, it's hard to justify the typical knee-jerk criticisms that alternative medicine proponents have against mainstream medicine

R: Heh, knee-jerk

S: Yeah, knee-jerk. That it's they only care about drugs and surgery, well here they are saying um, their favorite surgical procedure doesn't work, that they don't care about other things, here they're strongly in favor of exercise, moderately in favor of weight loss, Um, and that they're not, they don't care about actually treating people, well, this is, I think this shows their dedication to the evidence to what actually works regardless of what the modality is, and this is, this is, what we see in mainstream medicine all the time. This is a Herculean effort and it's great document, but this is what we see all the time, you know, the... academic professional uh physicians looking at the evidence objectively and the chips fall where they may, in its direct contradiction to all the anti-mainstream medicine conspiracy theories that you're going to hear from the alternative medicine side, so I thought that was worth pointing out. Also, Harriet pointed out something interesting, things like homeopathy didn't even make the list, it wasn't even worth their time to take a look at.

B: Oh, awesome.

E: Good.

S: Yeah.

R. Good (inaudible).

E: I don't know if we'd be able to say that if this were British Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, right? That probably would have made that list.

S: Homeopathy probably would have,

E: Yes

S: just because homeopathy is more popular across the pond, yeah.

B: Uh, Steve, did they mention why it wasn't on the list?

S: No, just... it didn't even... didn't even make the radar. Just wasn't even, yeah, not... not mentioned one way or the other.

B: OK

== Quickie with Bob (10:27)==
* ESO: [http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1326/ New Kind of Variable Star Discovered]

E: Oh, hey, wait, wait. I would like a Quickie with Bob right now.

B: Really?

E: Yes, right this moment.

B: Thank you, Evan, I'm almost certain you will not regret this.

E: (laughs)

B: This is your Quickie with Bob. Astronomers in Chile, guys, have discovered a new type of variable star it was pretty interesting story uh they did detailed observations of 3700 stars in this specific cluster over 7 years. Um, and showed that they found 36 of these stars had very minute changes in their brightness of about only about a tenth of a percent over an hour or as much as over 20 hours. And uh this is... this is big news in the community because variable stars are in... are incredibly common there's lots of different types of variable stars and it's always interesting to... to add another one to the group actually the list of uh of typ... of variable stars um the types themselves was much bigger than... than I remember them being but just to break it down real quick there's... there's two different main types of stars that are variable, there's the intrinsic and extrinsic and it's kind of obvious what they... what that means the intrinsic stars that are variable are variable because of that's just the way they are something about their internal dynamics makes them makes the light output variable whereas the extrinsic... the extrinsic stars... variable stars are variable only because you know say something might move in front of them or... or there might be some... something in the way that changes the light that reaches the Earth. So within these intrinsic stars there's... there's just a few categories there's the pulsating variables, there's the eruptives, and there's the cataclysmic or explosive variable stars. This new one that they found I think is pretty obvious that it's within the... the pulsating variable star category

S: Is there a throbbing category? (laughter)

E: Is there a grooving category?

B: So like I said these variables are most certainly they'll be within the pulsating variety they haven't actually named this type of variable yet but I'm sure it's gonna be within that... that category They're not sure why they pulsate, either, basically because current models say that they should not be variable so this is the real surprise that these... that these varied so much and but one clue that they found is that many of these variables rotate very very fast

S: Yeah, that seems pretty telling

B: Yeah, more than 50% of their critical velocity, in fact, and the critical velocity

E: Wow

B: is a velocity that if they... if they reached 100% they would actually start throwing off mass so they're spinning very very fast and uh this spinning might... may have an effect on the dynamics of their interiors which then would result in the variability of the light output. So, uh, so keep an eye on it, I'm curious to see what they're gonna call it and uh, and... and you know what more they can determine, um, about these types of stars based on uh, on... on this... these studies that they're... these very detailed studies that they're doing. So, uh, so I got guys this has been your Quickie with Bob, I hope it was good for you, too.

== News items continued ==
=== Patenting DNA (13:07)===
* BBC News: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22895161 US Supreme Court says human DNA cannot be patented]

S: Thanks, Bob. OK, Rebecca, you're gonna tell us about a major Supreme Court case regarding patenting genes.

R: Yes, you are correct, Steve. There is a huge decision that just happened in the Supreme Court on, uh, June 13th, the Supreme Court ruled that, uh, companies, particularly Myriad Genetics, in this case, cannot patent a human gene. So in this specific case, it was this company Myriad Genetics which was one of the patent holders on the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes. Now, astute listeners might recall that we were recently talking about these very genes, in the case of Angelina Jolie,

S: Yeah.

R: who came out and said that she had the mutation in her BRCA gene that said she was much much much more likely to get breast cancer and ovarian cancer and so she had her breast removed. Now, we also mentioned that Angelina Jolie had spoken briefly about the fact that not everyone has access to the genetic testing required to find out if you have the mutation, in order to get the life saving operations you would need. Well, the reason why many people don't have access to this genetic testing is because Myriad Genetics was one of the patent holders and... and they were the only company that was allowed to perform this testing on these genes. So, if you wanted to find if you had the mutation you had to go through Myriad Genetics and that increases the price dramatically so they could charge thousands of dollars to people who wanted the testing. What this ruling means in this specific case it's a huge win for women particularly because this means that you... women can go get genetic testing anywhere to find out if they have this mutation they don't have to go through Myriad in order to find out, so, now you have companies competing against each other, prices go down, etc., etc., and more lives are saved because of it, so that's one result of this and one of the reasons why women's rights groups were a huge part of the uh lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court decision it was a unanimous decision the case was led by uh the ACLU um representing women's rights groups as well as scientists and other interest groups but also scientists win from this case because it means that uh any scientist can now pursue research on the... these genes where prior to this only Myriad and the other patent holders would technically be able to do that. Basically the court ruled that you can't patent a human gene however they did leave it open that you could possibly patent a gene that had been fiddled with.

?: Yeah.

R: So uh if you

?: (inaudible) huge

R: come up with your own gene, like a synthetic gene like cDNA... c... cDNA, that could still be eligible for a patent. Uh, but because Myriad the company did not actually create anything, they just researched the gene they're not allowed to patent it.

S: Yeah. So

R: So

S: products of nature cannot be patented and what this decision was exploring specifically was how much modification is necessary before a product of nature is an innovation. An... yeah, this that needed to be explored for the in... for this specific case of genes. And it seems that everyone pos... with the possible exception of Myriad, is happy about this decision this is a... I've seen nothing but universal praise for this decision.

E: Myriad shouldn't be too sad their stock rose that day

S: Is that right? (laughs)

E: as a result, yeah.

R: They have been fighting this

E: That will fade.

R: for a very long time so this is a huge loss for them, but it's... it is a great gain for humanity, we're

S: Yeah, for humanity.

R: literally talking about lives being saved

E: Yeah, absolutely.

R: and more research being done.

B: Yeah, it does seem...

R: So it is a good thing.

B: it does seem (inaudible) to me lots of benefits but what about the idea, the one negative thing that I've heard, that I've seen in a couple of places was that some people are afraid that companies like Myriad, of course, will scale back investment because they're not gonna be rewarded ah with patents for this so I just wonder how much of a genuine concern that aspect of this is.

R: Consider how much research is done by private companies compared to the huge amount of research that's currently being done through government institutions and universities. Private companies have always focussed on what's going to make the most money and that's why we have uh government funding for scientific endeavors. There's one other thing I wanted to mention, a bit of, uh, myth-busting. This... this thing was going around that... uh, Scalia doesn't believe in genetics, or in molecular biology. So, uh, it was a unanimous decision but Justice Scalia wrote a separate thing... ruling...

S: Separate opinion.

R: opinion, thank you, that's the word.

E: Opinion, yeah.

R: Uh, Scalia wrote a separate opinion uh saying that he, uh, agrees to vote with the majority, but he does not agree with one part of the opinion that has no effect on his final vote. What he said was, um, that he wouldn't sign on to Part 1a and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology because he can't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief. So, Part 1a, deal... it's just a list of basic facts about DNA, about genetics, uh it's all kind of just basic level genetic stuff.

E: So was he basically saying I don't know what this is?

R: Yeah, you know, so some...

E: and therefore I can't really

R: some people were

E: say anything about it.

R: taking uh that he wouldn't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief to mean that he didn't believe in genetics or he didn't know about genetics and so he didn't believe them, something like that. But, I've heard from lawyers who have said that this is a bit of legal-speak in a way, that there's this sort of ongoing argument on whether or not they should in... judges should include basic information that's not necessary to the final ruling, and so that's kind of what he was saying, is that this chunk I'm not a scientist, I'm not going to sign my name on this and say that as a Justice I approve of this because I have no idea I'm not a scientist and it has nothing to do with the case.

S: He's being a legal stickler,

R: Yes.

S: not a science denier.

R: Exactly.

B: Oh, OK.

R: That...

E: Right.

R: that's what I'm hearing from... from lawyers, and

S: That makes sense.

R: it makes sense to me.

S: And that's kind of his shtick, too,

R: Yeah.

S: is to be a legal stickler.

B?: Hmmm, OK.

=== Foot Fungus (20:02)===
* Science News: [http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350599/description/Foot_fungi_a_thriving_diverse_community Foot fungi a thriving, diverse community]

S: OK, well thanks, Rebecca. Bob, can you explain to me why my toes occasionally itch? (laughter)

R: Ew, bugs, probably.

B: Well, guys, uh, last May... at the end of last May, uh, the, uh, the issue of Nature, they discuss the... the first census... the very first census of skin-dwelling fungi (fung-ee), that... that's

S: Fungi (fung-guy)?

B: Well, there's three ways to pronounce it as far as I can tell

S: Fungi (fun-jee)?

B: Fungi (fung-ee), fungi (fung-eye), fungi (funj-eye). Those are the three that I came across

R: But "fungi" (fung-eye) is the only one that works with that "mushroom walks into a bar" joke.

B: OK.

S: What about... what about "fungi" (fun-jee)?

B: That's actually my preferred pronunciation and I didn't find it. So, whatever, I'll just go with... I'll just go with one of the ones that I found. So this study reveals

E: (chuckles)

B: there's a fungus among us. OK, somebody had to say it, it's out of the way, I said it. So, actually, it...

E: (laughs)

B: it reveals that there's a little variation... there's very little variation in the fungal communities on our bodies except for our feet which calls home to 80 to 100 different types of fungus, they're just like all

?: (inaudible)

B: over the place down there. So, for... just for a quick

?: (inaudible)

B: high-level refresher uh fungi (fung-ee) are the third type of multi-cellular organisms, they're neither plant nor animals, um, one major difference between them and the other two is that their cell walls contain chitin, now that's (inaudible) that's like the exoskeleton of a crabs and lobsters or... or even the beaks of squid uh made of chitin. Uh, fungi play a pivotal role in decomposing organic matter and cycling uh nutrients in the environment and they also appear to be inordinately fond of feet. So here's a quick quote from the study: "A human's skin surfaces are complex ecosystems for microorganisms including fungi, bacteria and viruses which are known collectively as the skin microbiome". So I was as... I was surprised as I said that this initial study was the first of its kind. It seems, I guess, in terms of... yeah, human cohabitation bacteria and viruses get all.. get all the press and all the research dollars, so one reason why the lowly fungus I guess may have been neglected is that it's notoriously difficult to culture, I didn't know that, unlike bacteria which is easy, culturing a fungus from say uh the toenail can take weeks... weeks for it

S: And yet... and yet it's hard to kill when you wanna get rid of it.

B: (chuckle) Right. So... so how did they do it? They looked... they looked at the DNA, of course. They took ten volunteers and they swabbed 14 sites on their bodies including taking toenail clippings apparently. Uh, they then put them in a DNA sequencer which of course is uh one of the key technologies advanced by leaps and bounds uh by the Human Genome Project. Um, they used these molecular tags that stick only to the fungal DNA, so they wouldn't have to worry about all the human DNA and the bacterial DNA and viral DNA, that... that... that was mixed into the samples, so now they have this pure sample of just... of just fung... uh the fungus DNA. They then examined the tiny bits of fungal DNA uh called the phylogenetic markers to tally up all the different types of... of fungal species and bam, they were done, they had... they had a tally of all the different types of species. So, if you look most anywhere on the head or the torso you... you're likely to find one genus and that's called Malassezia. Uh, different areas have different species uh though, like the crease behind your ear or... or on your forehead there's little variation there. Surprisingly, your hands have tons of bacteria but very few fungal communities. So your feet, though, it's... it's completely different ecosystem, um, on your... on your toenails alone there's forty different uh fungi varieties, sixty between your toes, and eighty live on the bottom of... of your heel, which I think would ac... I wouldn't think that would be the most plentiful spot I would think, like, between your toes would have more but apparently there's lots of 'em on the bottom of your heel. So... so why is... how come? Why... why is this so? And it...

E: Gravity.

B: Yeah, gra... (laughs)

E: (chuckles)

B: Well it's... it's not hard to imagine one... one reason, right, your feet are... are often on contact with surfaces that fungi like to hang out on like your socks or locker room floors. I never walk barefoot at... at the gym, uh, never would do it.

E: Uhhhh,

B: So also

E: gosh... (inaudible) so bad.

B: your... your feet... I didn't know that your feet are cooler than other parts of your body, and... and fungi like cooler places, apparently, they hang out. Um, so... so should we all be grossed out? Are you guys like really grossed out... about this stuff?

R: (inaudible) obviously

?: Ahhh...

E: (inaudible) more grossed out about...

R: It takes more than that to... gross out Steve.

B: Yeah, I... I'm not...

S: Oh, yeah...

B: Yeah, I wouldn't think Steve would be, but I'm not... I'm not

S: I've had my head inside of a corpse

B: Cool, um...

R: Hey, thanks for that...

E: A human corpse? Wait, a human corpse?

B: I di...

S: Yeah.

B: Of course.

S: So has everyone who has gone through medical school.

E: You put your head in the corpse?

S: Well, you gotta get into the anatomy, I mean you gotta... you know you're disecting something...

E: I don't...

S: They... so, you get so grossed out in your first year of medical school you're basically done getting grossed out for life.

?: Yeah.

R: Yeah.

B: Totally desensitized.

R: I don't... I don't find what you've said so gross, Bob, but when in... you're talking I was thinking of that... toenail fungus, uh, commercial where...

E: Oh, yeah.

R: where the germ, like, lifts up

E: Little critters.

B: Yeah, yeah, yeah!

R: the toenail and then climbs inside and that's like the worst... worst commercial ever made.

B: Oh, my God I remember that something about detaching a toenail yes I... I cringe

R: Yeah.

B: every time I saw that, nothing to do with the

R: It's awful.

B: fungus or anything but it's just the lifting that toenail

R: Yeah, like the fungus didn't help

B: was nasty. Yeah right, yes. I mean it doesn't gross me out, the... thinking that there's... em... potentially s... you know... well over a hundred different types of these guys all over us. I thin... it's good... it's good that we're colonized by these critters because they're... they're likely to prevent other nasty... guys from taking hold on our skin so it's good that they're there. Likewise, this.. this research can actually help improve our treatment for skin disease and maybe even help with some types of cancers, some people were saying. So... so I say embrace the... the fungi living on your skin, you really don't have much of a choice until we replace them all with nanobots.

=== Chinese Fake Alien (25:46)===
* The Telegraph: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10115832/Chinese-farmer-jailed-for-making-a-rubber-alien.html Chinese farmer jailed for making a rubber alien]

S: All right, thanks, Bob. Evan, you're gonna tell us about a fake Chinese alien.<ref>[http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130612000078&cid=1103 WantChinaTimes]</ref> (laughter)

?: Oh, God.

E: Now that could mean several different things, I'll... I'll do my best to clarify. Now, there are times when news outlets totally, totally botch their headlines... right, I mean really botch

B: No.

E: We've talked about some real doozies on the show. But rarely do we give them credit when they actually get it right. Let's give The Telegraph its due, because they got this headline spot-on. They wrote: "Chinese farmer jailed for making rubber alien". That kind-a says it all.

?: OK.

E: (chuckles) So it's being reported out of the Shandong province, that, uh, local police recently arrested someone named Mr. Li, a farmer slash alien enthusiast by day and an alien enthusiast farmer... slash farmer by night. And here are his versions of the event, this is Mr. Li.

S: "Mr. Li" 's a pseudonym, probably, by the way.

E: He said: <blockquote>"I was setting an electrical trap for rabbits by the Yellow River, when I saw a bright light. Above my bike, a UFO was floating. One by one, five aliens came down, but one of them stumbled onto one of my rabbit traps and was electricuted. The others went back into their ship and flew away."</blockquote>So that's his story.

S: Quite a tale he's got there. So this alien from who knows how far away from another solar system in super advanced technology and then dies in a rabbit trap.

E: Exa...

S: And his friends leave him behind.

E: And they leave him behind.

R: Was he rabbit shit? (laughter)

E: No.

R: Maybe he was... maybe he was a rabbit, like from another dimension.

E: Well, then rabbits look an awful lot like little grays with Chinese accentuations around the eyes

B?: Yes.

E: and head and stuff. But

B: Plus... plus only mice... only mice are from other dimensions.

E: But how did he go about backing up his claim. Well he does what any true believer does and he post pictures of the ET on the Internet. And in three days these pictures happen to go viral, so after five days of having posted the pictures the local police show up at his door and he's taken in for questioning. Now during the questioning Mr. Li admitted, willingly or otherwise, that the whole thing was a hoax.

S: Shock, shocked.

E: He made an alien, he constructed it himself out of this gluey rubber sort of substance uh tied together with ropes and uh other things and you know... a few... he... he drew his inspiration from the Simon Peg film Paul I don't know if you guys have seen that

?: Hall?

R: Yeah, the one where they go to Comicon.

S: Yes.

E: Right... right.

S: Yes, I saw it.

E: And the alien does a little bit sort of kind of look like that I suppose.

S: But you're right, Evan, the... the uh alien head looks Chinese.

E: It... it does (chuckles).

S: It does... so I mean it's his cultural bias leaking through in his sculpture and he's not aware of it but to these Western you know American eyes it has this... it looks like uh something... that it... like an piece of art that a Chinese person would create.

E: Right.

S: You know, it's not just the eyes it's the mouth it's everything you know it's just there's a subtle sort of Oriental appearance to it. Uh, which is always, I think, a... a very telling sign to look for when people are imagining or faking alien phenomena and their cultural biases come through, and of course we're... you're much more attuned to them when it's from a di... from another culture.

E: But why did he... why did he do it why did you think he did it well he says it with the intent of helping more people believe in aliens. Which is

S: Yeah.

R: Weird.

E: an interesting way to go about doing that... uh, I suppose... um, he claims that and these are his words again:<blockquote>It's still disputed whether or not UFOs and aliens exist but we believe</blockquote>not sure what he means by we<blockquote>they do and we want to expand our group</blockquote>I don't know what group he's part of... uh<blockquote>and make more people believe that aliens do exist.</blockquote> So that's

R: Was this him

E: the approach.

R: saying this or was this

E: That was him.

R: the government saying that he said that.

E: Uh, that is the report from The Telegraph say... uh... which is quoting him as saying that.

R: Hm.

S: Who knows.

E: Yeah you who... who really knows. It's for the conspiry theori... conspiracy theorists,

S: (chuckle)

E: I guess to... to... to sort of figure it

R: Well, you know I mean you don't have to stretch far to come up with a conspiracy involving the Chinese government making a guy say something (chuckle) I mean

E: (chuckle)

R: making a Chinese prisoner say something that they want him to say. Um...

E: That's true.

B: Yeah, my mind all bets are off

R: Yeah, especially if they wanna

B: soo as he... soo as he ga... soo as the government got a hold of him they can well, nothing he says now... really (chuckle) you know whatever

R: Even if it was just a case of they... they wanted to trump up the charge a bit so they didn't look like they were just hassling some farmer, now they've got like a cult that they can

?: Yeah

R: pin on him, you know,

?: Yeah, yeah

E: But

R: 'cuz they're... they hate... they hate the cults.

E: Mr. Li spent five days incarcerated, the crime was fabricating lies and disrupting normal social order.

B: Oh, boy, wow.

E: Yeah, that... that doesn't sound too Orwellian or anything (inaudible)

S: Yeah, disrupting the social order that yeah really Orwellian, I agree

?: scary

E: Now, guys, to wrap this up, I'll say that the rubber alien was examined by scientists and deemed to be a hoax, the dead giveaway is when they broke open the alien and pulled out a slip of paper with a fortune, that's right

S: (laughs)

B: Oh!

E: And it... and the fort... it read "Help I'm being held prisoner in a Chinese bakery

R: Hm, hm.

E: and your lucky numbers are 4, 14, 22, 31, and 49". So

?: Jesus

E: that sort of sealed the deal.

B: Oh, boy.

R: That joke fails, though, on the fact that fortune cookies aren't Chinese.

S: Yeah, that's true.

E: No, that enhances the joke and the... gaw.... (inaudible, possibly expletive) (laughter)

== Who's That Noisy? (31:24)==
S: All right, well Evan, you also have to tell us about Who's That Noisy.

E: I will do that, now, um... what we'll do is next week we're gonna reveal last week's winner.

S: We're recording a little ahead of schedule 'cause of... we're on our TAM recording schedule, so, the... we're gonna have to get caught up on the Who's That Noisy-s t... towards the end

E: Right

R: We might all be dead right now.

S: (chuckles) That's true.

E: Maybe, I mean who knows, another volcano you know might spew

R: Hm

E: sulfur dioxide or whatever the hell's

R: could happen

E: gonna come out of it, however, we do have a puzzle for this week, so that will be this week's Who's That Noisy, is a puzzle and, here we go. So, there is this machine, OK? Now this machine does one thing. It shuffles playing cards. However, this machine always rearranges cards in the same way relative to the original order of the cards. OK, we're talking about a deck of playing cards here. Now all of the hearts arranged in order from ace to king were put into the machine. The cards were shuffled, and then they were put into the machine again. After the second... after the second shuffling, the cards were in the following order: 10, 9, queen, 8, king, 3, 4, ace, 5, jack, 6, 2, 7. So you need to tell us, now, what order were the cards in after the first shuffle.

S: Very tricksy.

R: Eh-hm.

E: It is tricksy, yeah.

B: (inaudible)

E: I don't know if, uh... I don't if Bilbo would have gotten that in the cave while he was dueling it out...

B: Ahhh.

E: (inaudbile) wits with Gollum

S: Not without a pen and paper, I don't think

E: (laughs) that's for sure (laughs). So... think about that

S: Or quill and parchment

E: Qua... yes, of course, Middle Earth and all... wtn@theskepticsguide.org or sguforums.com is the forum's website... so... think about it, give us your best answer, and good luck to everyone.

== Questions and Emails ==
=== Can We Know Everything? (33:23)===
{{transcribing | date = 2013-10-12 | transcriber = Fallible}}

S: All right, thanks, Evan. We do have one email for this week. This one comes from Mark Dennehy from Melbourne, and Mark writes:
<blockquote>I have been listening to the show for 4 years and although I have always been a sceptic</blockquote>with a C<blockquote>I have learnt a great deal from your show. I would like to hear the rogues view on whether science has the potential to explain the physical world in such a way that we understand everything. Is there a limit to what we can comprehend? For example a dog has no concept of quantum gravity and wouldn’t ask the question of himself "Is space-time fundamentally continuous or discrete?" We have gone from asking ourselves how to grow food to "why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe?" Our brain appears finite in capacity so I would assume that would limit our ability to understand the world around us. Reaching a limit at some stage seems inevitable. Or will our brains develop as we need to solve increasingly more difficult questions, after all our brains appear</blockquote>to need... our brains appear<blockquote>not to need to store every bit of information we discover perhaps more the ability to solve a problem, and the capacity to grasp the variables at that time. I could be wrong though. Your opinions would be greatly appreciated and interesting. (Mark Dennehy, Melbourne)</blockquote>Thank you, Mark. So, what do you guys think?

R: I already learned everything there is to know

?: (inaudible)

R: when I was a teenager, so...

S: Yeah.

E: So you're done.

B: (inaudible)

R: Q.E.D.

E: You maxxed out.

R: Uh, hm.

B: I think we're definitely not smart enough to understand everything, I mean there's always gonna be... som... I think there's always gonna be some ways to explain aspects of nature that... that... that could be beyond us. It's amazing that we've... that we've come this far but I think as we progress I think there's definitely areas that we'll hit that will be just... just it'll be similar to a dog trying to think about quantum gravity but the thing is that, uh, it's not just our brains anymore, I mean we'll you know we'll have you know aids, we'll have in... we'll have supercomputers and eventually even artificial intelligence that wi... that will help us and work with us and probably eventually completely outclass us in... in understanding this stuff. So, um, and then... they'll... they'll also be, I believe, uh, br... you know, uh, we'll not evolve our brains but we'll en... we'll artificially enhance our brains. There's lots of ways to g... (inaudible) to do that

S: We'll probably do both.

B: So, yeah, so... so I think there's... th... th... there'll probably be very little that, um, that we won't eventually figure out... who knows how long that'll take... but I think, uh, we will hav... we... we have and we will have the ability to understand, uh, as much as can be understood.

S: Well, yeah, I think there's two ways to look at this question. One is, wha you were discussing, Bob, which is the finite limitations of the human brain. I agree that there are probably limitations to our ability to understand the universe, but, we will augment, evolve, supplement, our brains as technology progresses. That ther... there's no, I guess, theoretical limit to that, so, um, through those tools I think we... we, you know, that... that.. that limitation wi... is something that we can surpass. The other way to think about that, though, about just, um, cognitive limitations... I'm not sure, I've never liked the analogy to the dog. Maybe

B: Why?

S: it's apt but, uh, I'm not sure because it seems like there is not just a quantitative but a qualitative difference, between a dog and a human brain... that maybe once you have the ability to think about things at a certain level then you're there and then... then, you know, you... that gives you qualitative abilities, you know, of investigation, of asking questions, of exploration. Right, so it's not just that... you... we're a certain amount farth.. more intelligent than a dog therefore we can understand a certain amount more about the universe

B: Uh, huh.

S: It's that, we can engage in a kind of introspection and exploration and questioning that a dog can't even engage in at all.

R: Yeah, but, I mean there are apes who can engage in a certain level of that much more than a dog but less than humans, so, (inaudible) surely we can imagine a level up from us, right, where there's something we're missing. Like there's... there're very few things that humans are capable of, that apes or other animals can't do in some capacity.

S: I... (inaudible) I agree, that is possible, I'm not convinced that has to be the case, though, that's my point. It's possible that... uh... our current abilities are limited and we won't be able to figure out the universe but it's also possible that we have the tools necessary and now it's just a matter of applying them.

B: So... so we've passed some sort of cognitive threshold, where we

S: Yeah.

B: could eventually figure out everything, but... so what you're saying is that we... we could pretty much figure out most anything but what I'm taking away from that, though, is that it might... it might be so fiendishly difficult that it would take... that it could take uh... an extremely long time for us to find... to ev... to finally wrap our heads aroung something.

E: Oh, yeah.

S: Right, so... so, so far we're talking about the one approach to this problem which is the... the human capacity. And, again, there's a couple of ways to look at that which we explored. The other way to look at this question is "Is it even theoretically possible to understand everything about the universe". There may be limitations to the ability of any intelligent creature to gain certain bits of knowledge, and I think, first of all, I think that that... that is absolutely true, there are things that we will never know, because the information is lost. It's just lost to the universe... but depends on what ya mean by understanding everything about the universe.

E: Right, that's what I thought too, yeah.

S: Yeah, so like, what, like what color

E: It's nebulous.

S: was a certain dinosaur, you know, again, that... that information

E: Right.

S: may be lost to the universe. But let's put that aside so that, we'll... we'll say OK obviously we can't know about information that's lost to the universe. You... you could frame questions about the universe that cannot be explored by science.

B: Yeah, and I would add to that, Steve, uh, you... chaotic systems, you know, sensitive dependency

S: Yeah.

B: on initial conditions. Those things are inherently unpredictable no matter how smart and no matter what technology you have, so, I would add that, but that's kind of a... maybe a trivial addition, an obvious addition.

S: Right. And there may be other questions like "What happened before the Big Bang" that we just... we will... may never figure out a way to... to fi... to answer that question.

R: But, of course, you (indistinct) even with that we've already started reaching back before the Big Bang, and making some observations

E: Inferences,

R: so

E: yeah.

S: Yeah.

R: yeah...

S: Yeah, I agree, (indistinct) we've started to make some inferences but there... but there may be limits.

R: Yeah,

S: (indistinct)

R: I agree with that. I... I feel though, that in general tha.. I... I... I think there's also a difference between... (indistinct) everything there is to know about the things we know about, and then  is there... if there's a... if there's a gap in our understanding that we can identify will we have the tools to fill that gap, but also, are there... are we constantly surrounded by gaps we're not even ever going to realize just because of the limits of our own

B: Yeah.

R: senses and things. Um, I

S: Right.

R: think that's a possibility as well. 

== Interview with Daniel Loxton (40:25) ==
About his new book: ''Abominable Science''

== Science or Fiction (58:37) ==
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612173326.htm Item #1:] New fossil evidence reveals the presence of kangaroo ancestors 25 million years ago in what is now Europe. [http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/15806 Item #2:] Researchers find that male guppies can reproduce up to 10 months after they have died. [http://www.anl.gov/articles/discovery-new-material-state-counterintuitive-laws-physics Item #3:] Scientists have discovered a material that gets larger under pressure, in apparent defiance of the laws of physics.

== Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:13:12) ==
<blockquote>Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing.</blockquote>
Harlan Ellison

{{Outro404}}

== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

SGU Episode 414

2013-09-19T15:00:07Z

Fallible: /* Can We Know Everything? (33:23) */ transcription (in progress)

{{Editing required
|transcription = y

|time-stamps = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 414
|episodeDate = 22nd Jun 2013
|episodeIcon = File:chinese-alien-head.jpg
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 = DL: {{w|Daniel Loxton}}
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-06-22.mp3
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=46390.0
|qowText = Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing
|qowAuthor = {{w|Harlan Ellison}}
|}}

== Introduction ==
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, today is Wednesday, June 19th, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,

B: Hey, everybody

S: Rebecca Watson,

R: Hello, everyone.

S: Jay Novella,

J: Hey, guys.

S: and Evan Bernstein.

E: Salutations, everybody

R: Hello...

S: Salutations and felicitations, Evan.

E: Oh, and felicitations, how could I forget the Squire of Gothos. Shame on me,

S: I don't know (chuckles)

E: shame on me.

R: The hell you guys talking about.

E: Well, Rebecca, aren't you watching the Star Trek series?

R: I guess I haven't gotten up to that point, yet.

E: This is the original series.

R: I'm watching The Next Generation.

S: You know what I saw recently? "Star Trek Continues".

E: Hm?

S: which is a a

J: Wha?

S: fan.. "Star Trek Continues", it's a fan episode, a fan video, where it's as if the ep... the seasons continued as if it wasn't canceled after three seasons. So it's not, it's not like a parody, and it's not an update or a reboot or anything it's like what would a fourth season have actually been like,

B: Oh, cool.

S: and and they do their best to reproduce, the production value, the sets are identical, all the sound effects, the music the acting

R: Hm

S: the whole culture that was definitely embedded in that late '60s you know in terms of everything. And the

?: (inaudible)

S: some of the actors are damn good, the guy who's doing Kirk has his mannerisms down, absolutely down.

B: And it's not a parody of his mannerisms?

S: No, no it's not, it's not a parody, it's an imitation. And it like things like it's like "Yeah, Kirk does do that!" You know, it's like, (laughter) you uh things you wouldn't even think of. Like the

R: That is so Kirk.

S: ways he moves his arms when he walks. Yeah, it's just amazing.

R: Hey, remember that Star Trek episode where, uh, poisonous gas covered most of the planet, and murdered millions of people?

E: Ahhh.

R: Oh, wait, no, that was real life. Oh, my God!

B: (laughs)

E: That's worse.

== This Day in Skepticism (1:58) ==
R: On June 22, 1783, a poisonous cloud caused by the eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland, uh, finally reached France. So this is kind of, um, I really could have picked any date, uh, it's very interesting, it's something that I didn't even realize was the thing, uh, it was one of the most deadly if not the most deadly volcanic eruptions in human history, as I said it happened in Iceland but it spread all over the globe, uh, first of all though in Iceland it killed about 50% of the livestock which lead to a famine which killed a quarter of the population of Iceland. Uh, so it was pretty immediate but then it also went on to possibly cause droughts in India and Africa which lead to millions of more deaths, uh, as well as crop failures in Europe and air pollution and this deadly gas... from this deadly gas. So, all to... all told, it killed probably over 6 million people

?: What?

R: globally. Yeah, 6 million.

E: That's a lot (inaudible)

R: It was a pretty big volcanic eruption.

E: 1783, that's (inaudible) quite a bit.

B: Holy crap.

R: And the cloud was sulfur dioxide that

E: Oh, that'll do it

R: and also the hydrogen... the hydrogen fluoride apparently I think killed most of the people in Iceland but the sulfur dioxide is what drifted into Europe to start murdering people there. But yeah and it also caused severe global temperature change, uh, it was the hottest summer on record followed by really violent winter with hail and storms and all that good stuff which probably lead to more deaths.

S: It was the longest period of below zero temperatures in New England.

R: Oh, yeah, the US... the US area just had some severe weather. They don't... I.. I didn't find a whole of talk about deaths that resulted in it but I think people were just dying left and right anyway, at that point, so

S: A bad winter in 1783 was no joke.

R: Exactly, yeah, that's... that's what I'm sayin'. But...

B: So this gas released it wasn't part of like a.. a pyroclastic flow, it was just this, just this gas that came out and went

S: Just a bubble of gas

B: all over the place

R: Yeah, like a volcanic fart, silent but deadly

E: Probably wasn't too silent, either

R: Too soon?

?: Too soon (laughter)

S: Volcanoes are no joke, that superheated gas that kills people it's not just the lava and the ash, I mean, it's usually the gas, even if it's not poisonous gas if it's superheated it's like your lungs explode, you know. Well, let's move on, uhm, have you guys heard...

?: (stage inhalation)

?: Uh?

== News Items ==
=== Osteoarthritis (4:41)===
* Science-based Medicine: [http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/knee-osteoarthritis-thumbs-down-for-acupuncture-and-glucosamine/ Knee Osteoarthritis: Thumbs Down for Acupuncture and Glucosamine]

S: the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has released their, uh, 1200 page report evaluating evidence for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis

R: Now the last time you led us into one of these and we made all made light-hearted jokes about how boring the topic was, we got a bunch of angry letters from botanists, so, no, Steve, not gonna fall for it, this sounds fascinating, tell me more. (laughter)

S: Yeah, but like last time I convinced you how cool botany was, now I wanna convince you how cool osteoarthritis is.

E: Here come more letters (laughter)

S: Oh, boy. (laughter)

S: um, so osteoarthritis is, essentially degenerative arthritis of a joint, mainly from wear and tear, but there are other obviously biological factors involved, and so knee osteoarthritis, very common, um, as people get into their 40's and 50's they uh, their knees start to ache, you know, and they just wear out, they just don't really last 80 years unfortunately. There are lots of potential treatments for osteoarthritis including many that are not evidence-based. This report is interesting for a number of reasons, not just for the specific recommendations that are made. Harriet Hall writes about this on Science-based Medicine and I recommend that for those who are interested but I just want to highlight some of the interesting things. First of all, it shows that science-based practitioners actually care about evidence, despite all of the propaganda about "Oh, those doctors only want drugs and surgery" here we have a uh a major you know a professional organization in the United States dedicated to orthopedic surgery reviewing thousands of published studies, putting out a 1200 page comprehensive report looking in-depth into the evidence for many different approaches, and here are the highlights of what they found, where there was strong evidence you know for or against. So glucosamine chondroitin you guys are familiar with this, right, this is a dietary supplement that has been and still is promoted, um, has been for years, for arthritis. What do you think they found?

E: It doesn't work.

S: It doesn't work. So it was one of the few things where there was strong evidence against its effectiveness. Glucosamine and chondroitin doesn't work, there have been large studies. Exercise, strong evidence for, in favor of it. Weight loss, moderate evidence in favor of it. Acupuncture, what do you think they concluded?

R: No evidence.

?: Overwhelming evidence.

S: Strong evidence against its effectiveness. So very nice to see that they took a science-based approach to acupuncture research and didn't fall for the bait-and-switch of "Oh, it works like a placebo" you know, they didn't fall for that business. And also, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories strong evidence they are effective, that's not surprising. And here's one: arthroscopy with lavage and debridement --- strong evidence against.

B: Really?

E: Lavage, huh?

S: So lavage is like just washing it out. So arthroscopy is putting the scope into the knee and looking around, you know, for diagnostic, but if you take anything out then it becomes a therapeutic procedure, right, that's debridement, you know, cutting away any fraying pieces of cartilage and then washing out those pieces, that's the lavage part. So, this is a pretty lucrative, popular procedure for orthopedists to do. And here they are, the official organization of orthopedists, coming out with a statement saying there is strong evidence against the effectiveness of this procedure. This is something that we've written about on Science-based Medicine previously when there...there... when a review came out, I think now about two years ago, showing that arthroscopy was not effective, and there was some push-back from some orthopedists, and we said "Hey, this is the evidence, baby, this is, this is what it shows". So it's nice now to see the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons looking at the evidence and honestly saying "Yep, our beloved procedure, that we would love to have work, doesn't work". So it's hard in the face of this, if you look at the bigger picture, it's hard to justify the typical knee-jerk criticisms that alternative medicine proponents have against mainstream medicine

R: Heh, knee-jerk

S: Yeah, knee-jerk. That it's they only care about drugs and surgery, well here they are saying um, their favorite surgical procedure doesn't work, that they don't care about other things, here they're strongly in favor of exercise, moderately in favor of weight loss, Um, and that they're not, they don't care about actually treating people, well, this is, I think this shows their dedication to the evidence to what actually works regardless of what the modality is, and this is, this is, what we see in mainstream medicine all the time. This is a Herculean effort and it's great document, but this is what we see all the time, you know, the... academic professional uh physicians looking at the evidence objectively and the chips fall where they may, in its direct contradiction to all the anti-mainstream medicine conspiracy theories that you're going to hear from the alternative medicine side, so I thought that was worth pointing out. Also, Harriet pointed out something interesting, things like homeopathy didn't even make the list, it wasn't even worth their time to take a look at.

B: Oh, awesome.

E: Good.

S: Yeah.

R. Good (inaudible).

E: I don't know if we'd be able to say that if this were British Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, right? That probably would have made that list.

S: Homeopathy probably would have,

E: Yes

S: just because homeopathy is more popular across the pond, yeah.

B: Uh, Steve, did they mention why it wasn't on the list?

S: No, just... it didn't even... didn't even make the radar. Just wasn't even, yeah, not... not mentioned one way or the other.

B: OK

== Quickie with Bob (10:27)==
* ESO: [http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1326/ New Kind of Variable Star Discovered]

E: Oh, hey, wait, wait. I would like a Quickie with Bob right now.

B: Really?

E: Yes, right this moment.

B: Thank you, Evan, I'm almost certain you will not regret this.

E: (laughs)

B: This is your Quickie with Bob. Astronomers in Chile, guys, have discovered a new type of variable star it was pretty interesting story uh they did detailed observations of 3700 stars in this specific cluster over 7 years. Um, and showed that they found 36 of these stars had very minute changes in their brightness of about only about a tenth of a percent over an hour or as much as over 20 hours. And uh this is... this is big news in the community because variable stars are in... are incredibly common there's lots of different types of variable stars and it's always interesting to... to add another one to the group actually the list of uh of typ... of variable stars um the types themselves was much bigger than... than I remember them being but just to break it down real quick there's... there's two different main types of stars that are variable, there's the intrinsic and extrinsic and it's kind of obvious what they... what that means the intrinsic stars that are variable are variable because of that's just the way they are something about their internal dynamics makes them makes the light output variable whereas the extrinsic... the extrinsic stars... variable stars are variable only because you know say something might move in front of them or... or there might be some... something in the way that changes the light that reaches the Earth. So within these intrinsic stars there's... there's just a few categories there's the pulsating variables, there's the eruptives, and there's the cataclysmic or explosive variable stars. This new one that they found I think is pretty obvious that it's within the... the pulsating variable star category

S: Is there a throbbing category? (laughter)

E: Is there a grooving category?

B: So like I said these variables are most certainly they'll be within the pulsating variety they haven't actually named this type of variable yet but I'm sure it's gonna be within that... that category They're not sure why they pulsate, either, basically because current models say that they should not be variable so this is the real surprise that these... that these varied so much and but one clue that they found is that many of these variables rotate very very fast

S: Yeah, that seems pretty telling

B: Yeah, more than 50% of their critical velocity, in fact, and the critical velocity

E: Wow

B: is a velocity that if they... if they reached 100% they would actually start throwing off mass so they're spinning very very fast and uh this spinning might... may have an effect on the dynamics of their interiors which then would result in the variability of the light output. So, uh, so keep an eye on it, I'm curious to see what they're gonna call it and uh, and... and you know what more they can determine, um, about these types of stars based on uh, on... on this... these studies that they're... these very detailed studies that they're doing. So, uh, so I got guys this has been your Quickie with Bob, I hope it was good for you, too.

== News items continued ==
=== Patenting DNA (13:07)===
* BBC News: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22895161 US Supreme Court says human DNA cannot be patented]

S: Thanks, Bob. OK, Rebecca, you're gonna tell us about a major Supreme Court case regarding patenting genes.

R: Yes, you are correct, Steve. There is a huge decision that just happened in the Supreme Court on, uh, June 13th, the Supreme Court ruled that, uh, companies, particularly Myriad Genetics, in this case, cannot patent a human gene. So in this specific case, it was this company Myriad Genetics which was one of the patent holders on the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes. Now, astute listeners might recall that we were recently talking about these very genes, in the case of Angelina Jolie,

S: Yeah.

R: who came out and said that she had the mutation in her BRCA gene that said she was much much much more likely to get breast cancer and ovarian cancer and so she had her breast removed. Now, we also mentioned that Angelina Jolie had spoken briefly about the fact that not everyone has access to the genetic testing required to find out if you have the mutation, in order to get the life saving operations you would need. Well, the reason why many people don't have access to this genetic testing is because Myriad Genetics was one of the patent holders and... and they were the only company that was allowed to perform this testing on these genes. So, if you wanted to find if you had the mutation you had to go through Myriad Genetics and that increases the price dramatically so they could charge thousands of dollars to people who wanted the testing. What this ruling means in this specific case it's a huge win for women particularly because this means that you... women can go get genetic testing anywhere to find out if they have this mutation they don't have to go through Myriad in order to find out, so, now you have companies competing against each other, prices go down, etc., etc., and more lives are saved because of it, so that's one result of this and one of the reasons why women's rights groups were a huge part of the uh lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court decision it was a unanimous decision the case was led by uh the ACLU um representing women's rights groups as well as scientists and other interest groups but also scientists win from this case because it means that uh any scientist can now pursue research on the... these genes where prior to this only Myriad and the other patent holders would technically be able to do that. Basically the court ruled that you can't patent a human gene however they did leave it open that you could possibly patent a gene that had been fiddled with.

?: Yeah.

R: So uh if you

?: (inaudible) huge

R: come up with your own gene, like a synthetic gene like cDNA... c... cDNA, that could still be eligible for a patent. Uh, but because Myriad the company did not actually create anything, they just researched the gene they're not allowed to patent it.

S: Yeah. So

R: So

S: products of nature cannot be patented and what this decision was exploring specifically was how much modification is necessary before a product of nature is an innovation. An... yeah, this that needed to be explored for the in... for this specific case of genes. And it seems that everyone pos... with the possible exception of Myriad, is happy about this decision this is a... I've seen nothing but universal praise for this decision.

E: Myriad shouldn't be too sad their stock rose that day

S: Is that right? (laughs)

E: as a result, yeah.

R: They have been fighting this

E: That will fade.

R: for a very long time so this is a huge loss for them, but it's... it is a great gain for humanity, we're

S: Yeah, for humanity.

R: literally talking about lives being saved

E: Yeah, absolutely.

R: and more research being done.

B: Yeah, it does seem...

R: So it is a good thing.

B: it does seem (inaudible) to me lots of benefits but what about the idea, the one negative thing that I've heard, that I've seen in a couple of places was that some people are afraid that companies like Myriad, of course, will scale back investment because they're not gonna be rewarded ah with patents for this so I just wonder how much of a genuine concern that aspect of this is.

R: Consider how much research is done by private companies compared to the huge amount of research that's currently being done through government institutions and universities. Private companies have always focussed on what's going to make the most money and that's why we have uh government funding for scientific endeavors. There's one other thing I wanted to mention, a bit of, uh, myth-busting. This... this thing was going around that... uh, Scalia doesn't believe in genetics, or in molecular biology. So, uh, it was a unanimous decision but Justice Scalia wrote a separate thing... ruling...

S: Separate opinion.

R: opinion, thank you, that's the word.

E: Opinion, yeah.

R: Uh, Scalia wrote a separate opinion uh saying that he, uh, agrees to vote with the majority, but he does not agree with one part of the opinion that has no effect on his final vote. What he said was, um, that he wouldn't sign on to Part 1a and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology because he can't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief. So, Part 1a, deal... it's just a list of basic facts about DNA, about genetics, uh it's all kind of just basic level genetic stuff.

E: So was he basically saying I don't know what this is?

R: Yeah, you know, so some...

E: and therefore I can't really

R: some people were

E: say anything about it.

R: taking uh that he wouldn't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief to mean that he didn't believe in genetics or he didn't know about genetics and so he didn't believe them, something like that. But, I've heard from lawyers who have said that this is a bit of legal-speak in a way, that there's this sort of ongoing argument on whether or not they should in... judges should include basic information that's not necessary to the final ruling, and so that's kind of what he was saying, is that this chunk I'm not a scientist, I'm not going to sign my name on this and say that as a Justice I approve of this because I have no idea I'm not a scientist and it has nothing to do with the case.

S: He's being a legal stickler,

R: Yes.

S: not a science denier.

R: Exactly.

B: Oh, OK.

R: That...

E: Right.

R: that's what I'm hearing from... from lawyers, and

S: That makes sense.

R: it makes sense to me.

S: And that's kind of his shtick, too,

R: Yeah.

S: is to be a legal stickler.

B?: Hmmm, OK.

=== Foot Fungus (20:02)===
* Science News: [http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350599/description/Foot_fungi_a_thriving_diverse_community Foot fungi a thriving, diverse community]

S: OK, well thanks, Rebecca. Bob, can you explain to me why my toes occasionally itch? (laughter)

R: Ew, bugs, probably.

B: Well, guys, uh, last May... at the end of last May, uh, the, uh, the issue of Nature, they discuss the... the first census... the very first census of skin-dwelling fungi (fung-ee), that... that's

S: Fungi (fung-guy)?

B: Well, there's three ways to pronounce it as far as I can tell

S: Fungi (fun-jee)?

B: Fungi (fung-ee), fungi (fung-eye), fungi (funj-eye). Those are the three that I came across

R: But "fungi" (fung-eye) is the only one that works with that "mushroom walks into a bar" joke.

B: OK.

S: What about... what about "fungi" (fun-jee)?

B: That's actually my preferred pronunciation and I didn't find it. So, whatever, I'll just go with... I'll just go with one of the ones that I found. So this study reveals

E: (chuckles)

B: there's a fungus among us. OK, somebody had to say it, it's out of the way, I said it. So, actually, it...

E: (laughs)

B: it reveals that there's a little variation... there's very little variation in the fungal communities on our bodies except for our feet which calls home to 80 to 100 different types of fungus, they're just like all

?: (inaudible)

B: over the place down there. So, for... just for a quick

?: (inaudible)

B: high-level refresher uh fungi (fung-ee) are the third type of multi-cellular organisms, they're neither plant nor animals, um, one major difference between them and the other two is that their cell walls contain chitin, now that's (inaudible) that's like the exoskeleton of a crabs and lobsters or... or even the beaks of squid uh made of chitin. Uh, fungi play a pivotal role in decomposing organic matter and cycling uh nutrients in the environment and they also appear to be inordinately fond of feet. So here's a quick quote from the study: "A human's skin surfaces are complex ecosystems for microorganisms including fungi, bacteria and viruses which are known collectively as the skin microbiome". So I was as... I was surprised as I said that this initial study was the first of its kind. It seems, I guess, in terms of... yeah, human cohabitation bacteria and viruses get all.. get all the press and all the research dollars, so one reason why the lowly fungus I guess may have been neglected is that it's notoriously difficult to culture, I didn't know that, unlike bacteria which is easy, culturing a fungus from say uh the toenail can take weeks... weeks for it

S: And yet... and yet it's hard to kill when you wanna get rid of it.

B: (chuckle) Right. So... so how did they do it? They looked... they looked at the DNA, of course. They took ten volunteers and they swabbed 14 sites on their bodies including taking toenail clippings apparently. Uh, they then put them in a DNA sequencer which of course is uh one of the key technologies advanced by leaps and bounds uh by the Human Genome Project. Um, they used these molecular tags that stick only to the fungal DNA, so they wouldn't have to worry about all the human DNA and the bacterial DNA and viral DNA, that... that... that was mixed into the samples, so now they have this pure sample of just... of just fung... uh the fungus DNA. They then examined the tiny bits of fungal DNA uh called the phylogenetic markers to tally up all the different types of... of fungal species and bam, they were done, they had... they had a tally of all the different types of species. So, if you look most anywhere on the head or the torso you... you're likely to find one genus and that's called Malassezia. Uh, different areas have different species uh though, like the crease behind your ear or... or on your forehead there's little variation there. Surprisingly, your hands have tons of bacteria but very few fungal communities. So your feet, though, it's... it's completely different ecosystem, um, on your... on your toenails alone there's forty different uh fungi varieties, sixty between your toes, and eighty live on the bottom of... of your heel, which I think would ac... I wouldn't think that would be the most plentiful spot I would think, like, between your toes would have more but apparently there's lots of 'em on the bottom of your heel. So... so why is... how come? Why... why is this so? And it...

E: Gravity.

B: Yeah, gra... (laughs)

E: (chuckles)

B: Well it's... it's not hard to imagine one... one reason, right, your feet are... are often on contact with surfaces that fungi like to hang out on like your socks or locker room floors. I never walk barefoot at... at the gym, uh, never would do it.

E: Uhhhh,

B: So also

E: gosh... (inaudible) so bad.

B: your... your feet... I didn't know that your feet are cooler than other parts of your body, and... and fungi like cooler places, apparently, they hang out. Um, so... so should we all be grossed out? Are you guys like really grossed out... about this stuff?

R: (inaudible) obviously

?: Ahhh...

E: (inaudible) more grossed out about...

R: It takes more than that to... gross out Steve.

B: Yeah, I... I'm not...

S: Oh, yeah...

B: Yeah, I wouldn't think Steve would be, but I'm not... I'm not

S: I've had my head inside of a corpse

B: Cool, um...

R: Hey, thanks for that...

E: A human corpse? Wait, a human corpse?

B: I di...

S: Yeah.

B: Of course.

S: So has everyone who has gone through medical school.

E: You put your head in the corpse?

S: Well, you gotta get into the anatomy, I mean you gotta... you know you're disecting something...

E: I don't...

S: They... so, you get so grossed out in your first year of medical school you're basically done getting grossed out for life.

?: Yeah.

R: Yeah.

B: Totally desensitized.

R: I don't... I don't find what you've said so gross, Bob, but when in... you're talking I was thinking of that... toenail fungus, uh, commercial where...

E: Oh, yeah.

R: where the germ, like, lifts up

E: Little critters.

B: Yeah, yeah, yeah!

R: the toenail and then climbs inside and that's like the worst... worst commercial ever made.

B: Oh, my God I remember that something about detaching a toenail yes I... I cringe

R: Yeah.

B: every time I saw that, nothing to do with the

R: It's awful.

B: fungus or anything but it's just the lifting that toenail

R: Yeah, like the fungus didn't help

B: was nasty. Yeah right, yes. I mean it doesn't gross me out, the... thinking that there's... em... potentially s... you know... well over a hundred different types of these guys all over us. I thin... it's good... it's good that we're colonized by these critters because they're... they're likely to prevent other nasty... guys from taking hold on our skin so it's good that they're there. Likewise, this.. this research can actually help improve our treatment for skin disease and maybe even help with some types of cancers, some people were saying. So... so I say embrace the... the fungi living on your skin, you really don't have much of a choice until we replace them all with nanobots.

=== Chinese Fake Alien (25:46)===
* The Telegraph: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10115832/Chinese-farmer-jailed-for-making-a-rubber-alien.html Chinese farmer jailed for making a rubber alien]

S: All right, thanks, Bob. Evan, you're gonna tell us about a fake Chinese alien.<ref>[http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130612000078&cid=1103 WantChinaTimes]</ref> (laughter)

?: Oh, God.

E: Now that could mean several different things, I'll... I'll do my best to clarify. Now, there are times when news outlets totally, totally botch their headlines... right, I mean really botch

B: No.

E: We've talked about some real doozies on the show. But rarely do we give them credit when they actually get it right. Let's give The Telegraph its due, because they got this headline spot-on. They wrote: "Chinese farmer jailed for making rubber alien". That kind-a says it all.

?: OK.

E: (chuckles) So it's being reported out of the Shandong province, that, uh, local police recently arrested someone named Mr. Li, a farmer slash alien enthusiast by day and an alien enthusiast farmer... slash farmer by night. And here are his versions of the event, this is Mr. Li.

S: "Mr. Li" 's a pseudonym, probably, by the way.

E: He said: <blockquote>"I was setting an electrical trap for rabbits by the Yellow River, when I saw a bright light. Above my bike, a UFO was floating. One by one, five aliens came down, but one of them stumbled onto one of my rabbit traps and was electricuted. The others went back into their ship and flew away."</blockquote>So that's his story.

S: Quite a tale he's got there. So this alien from who knows how far away from another solar system in super advanced technology and then dies in a rabbit trap.

E: Exa...

S: And his friends leave him behind.

E: And they leave him behind.

R: Was he rabbit shit? (laughter)

E: No.

R: Maybe he was... maybe he was a rabbit, like from another dimension.

E: Well, then rabbits look an awful lot like little grays with Chinese accentuations around the eyes

B?: Yes.

E: and head and stuff. But

B: Plus... plus only mice... only mice are from other dimensions.

E: But how did he go about backing up his claim. Well he does what any true believer does and he post pictures of the ET on the Internet. And in three days these pictures happen to go viral, so after five days of having posted the pictures the local police show up at his door and he's taken in for questioning. Now during the questioning Mr. Li admitted, willingly or otherwise, that the whole thing was a hoax.

S: Shock, shocked.

E: He made an alien, he constructed it himself out of this gluey rubber sort of substance uh tied together with ropes and uh other things and you know... a few... he... he drew his inspiration from the Simon Peg film Paul I don't know if you guys have seen that

?: Hall?

R: Yeah, the one where they go to Comicon.

S: Yes.

E: Right... right.

S: Yes, I saw it.

E: And the alien does a little bit sort of kind of look like that I suppose.

S: But you're right, Evan, the... the uh alien head looks Chinese.

E: It... it does (chuckles).

S: It does... so I mean it's his cultural bias leaking through in his sculpture and he's not aware of it but to these Western you know American eyes it has this... it looks like uh something... that it... like an piece of art that a Chinese person would create.

E: Right.

S: You know, it's not just the eyes it's the mouth it's everything you know it's just there's a subtle sort of Oriental appearance to it. Uh, which is always, I think, a... a very telling sign to look for when people are imagining or faking alien phenomena and their cultural biases come through, and of course we're... you're much more attuned to them when it's from a di... from another culture.

E: But why did he... why did he do it why did you think he did it well he says it with the intent of helping more people believe in aliens. Which is

S: Yeah.

R: Weird.

E: an interesting way to go about doing that... uh, I suppose... um, he claims that and these are his words again:<blockquote>It's still disputed whether or not UFOs and aliens exist but we believe</blockquote>not sure what he means by we<blockquote>they do and we want to expand our group</blockquote>I don't know what group he's part of... uh<blockquote>and make more people believe that aliens do exist.</blockquote> So that's

R: Was this him

E: the approach.

R: saying this or was this

E: That was him.

R: the government saying that he said that.

E: Uh, that is the report from The Telegraph say... uh... which is quoting him as saying that.

R: Hm.

S: Who knows.

E: Yeah you who... who really knows. It's for the conspiry theori... conspiracy theorists,

S: (chuckle)

E: I guess to... to... to sort of figure it

R: Well, you know I mean you don't have to stretch far to come up with a conspiracy involving the Chinese government making a guy say something (chuckle) I mean

E: (chuckle)

R: making a Chinese prisoner say something that they want him to say. Um...

E: That's true.

B: Yeah, my mind all bets are off

R: Yeah, especially if they wanna

B: soo as he... soo as he ga... soo as the government got a hold of him they can well, nothing he says now... really (chuckle) you know whatever

R: Even if it was just a case of they... they wanted to trump up the charge a bit so they didn't look like they were just hassling some farmer, now they've got like a cult that they can

?: Yeah

R: pin on him, you know,

?: Yeah, yeah

E: But

R: 'cuz they're... they hate... they hate the cults.

E: Mr. Li spent five days incarcerated, the crime was fabricating lies and disrupting normal social order.

B: Oh, boy, wow.

E: Yeah, that... that doesn't sound too Orwellian or anything (inaudible)

S: Yeah, disrupting the social order that yeah really Orwellian, I agree

?: scary

E: Now, guys, to wrap this up, I'll say that the rubber alien was examined by scientists and deemed to be a hoax, the dead giveaway is when they broke open the alien and pulled out a slip of paper with a fortune, that's right

S: (laughs)

B: Oh!

E: And it... and the fort... it read "Help I'm being held prisoner in a Chinese bakery

R: Hm, hm.

E: and your lucky numbers are 4, 14, 22, 31, and 49". So

?: Jesus

E: that sort of sealed the deal.

B: Oh, boy.

R: That joke fails, though, on the fact that fortune cookies aren't Chinese.

S: Yeah, that's true.

E: No, that enhances the joke and the... gaw.... (inaudible, possibly expletive) (laughter)

== Who's That Noisy? (31:24)==
S: All right, well Evan, you also have to tell us about Who's That Noisy.

E: I will do that, now, um... what we'll do is next week we're gonna reveal last week's winner.

S: We're recording a little ahead of schedule 'cause of... we're on our TAM recording schedule, so, the... we're gonna have to get caught up on the Who's That Noisy-s t... towards the end

E: Right

R: We might all be dead right now.

S: (chuckles) That's true.

E: Maybe, I mean who knows, another volcano you know might spew

R: Hm

E: sulfur dioxide or whatever the hell's

R: could happen

E: gonna come out of it, however, we do have a puzzle for this week, so that will be this week's Who's That Noisy, is a puzzle and, here we go. So, there is this machine, OK? Now this machine does one thing. It shuffles playing cards. However, this machine always rearranges cards in the same way relative to the original order of the cards. OK, we're talking about a deck of playing cards here. Now all of the hearts arranged in order from ace to king were put into the machine. The cards were shuffled, and then they were put into the machine again. After the second... after the second shuffling, the cards were in the following order: 10, 9, queen, 8, king, 3, 4, ace, 5, jack, 6, 2, 7. So you need to tell us, now, what order were the cards in after the first shuffle.

S: Very tricksy.

R: Eh-hm.

E: It is tricksy, yeah.

B: (inaudible)

E: I don't know if, uh... I don't if Bilbo would have gotten that in the cave while he was dueling it out...

B: Ahhh.

E: (inaudbile) wits with Gollum

S: Not without a pen and paper, I don't think

E: (laughs) that's for sure (laughs). So... think about that

S: Or quill and parchment

E: Qua... yes, of course, Middle Earth and all... wtn@theskepticsguide.org or sguforums.com is the forum's website... so... think about it, give us your best answer, and good luck to everyone.

== Questions and Emails ==
=== Can We Know Everything? (33:23)===
{{transcribing | date = 2013-09-19 | transcriber = Fallible}}

S: All right, thanks, Evan. We do have one email for this week. This one comes from Mark Dennehy from Melbourne, and Mark writes:
<blockquote>I have been listening to the show for 4 years and although I have always been a sceptic</blockquote>with a C<blockquote>I have learnt a great deal from your show. I would like to hear the rogues view on whether science has the potential to explain the physical world in such a way that we understand everything. Is there a limit to what we can comprehend? For example a dog has no concept of quantum gravity and wouldn’t ask the question of himself "Is space-time fundamentally continuous or discrete?" We have gone from asking ourselves how to grow food to "why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe?" Our brain appears finite in capacity so I would assume that would limit our ability to understand the world around us. Reaching a limit at some stage seems inevitable. Or will our brains develop as we need to solve increasingly more difficult questions, after all our brains appear</blockquote>to need... our brains appear<blockquote>not to need to store every bit of information we discover perhaps more the ability to solve a problem, and the capacity to grasp the variables at that time. I could be wrong though. Your opinions would be greatly appreciated and interesting. (Mark Dennehy, Melbourne)</blockquote>Thank you, Mark. So, what do you guys think?

R: I already learned everything there is to know

?: (inaudible)

R: when I was a teenager, so...

S: Yeah.

E: So you're done.

B: (inaudible)

R: Q.E.D.

E: You maxxed out.

R: Uh, hm.

B: I think we're definitely not smart enough to understand everything, I mean there's always gonna be... som... I think there's always gonna be some ways to explain aspects of nature that... that... that could be beyond us. It's amazing that we've... that we've come this far but I think as we progress I think there's definitely areas that we'll hit that will be just... just it'll be similar to a dog trying to think about quantum gravity but the thing is that, uh, it's not just our brains anymore, I mean we'll you know we'll have you know aids, we'll have in... we'll have supercomputers and eventually even artificial intelligence that wi... that will help us and work with us and probably eventually completely outclass us in... in understanding this stuff. So, um, and then... they'll... they'll also be, I believe, uh, br... you know, uh, we'll not evolve our brains but we'll en... we'll artificially enhance our brains. There's lots of ways to g... (inaudible) to do that

S: We'll probably do both.

B: So, yeah, so... so I think there's... th... th... there'll probably be very little that, um, that we won't eventually figure out... who knows how long that'll take... but I think, uh, we will hav... we... we have and we will have the ability to understand, uh, as much as can be understood.

S: Well, yeah, I think there's two ways to look at this question. One is, wha you were discussing, Bob, which is the finite limitations of the human brain. I agree that there are probably limitations to our ability to understand the universe, but, we will augment, evolve, supplement, our brains as technology progresses. That ther... there's no, I guess, theoretical limit to that, so, um, through those tools I think we... we, you know, that... that.. that limitation wi... is something that we can surpass. The other way to think about that, though, about just, um, cognitive limitations... I'm not sure, I've never liked the analogy to the dog. Maybe

B: Why?

S: it's apt but, uh, I'm not sure because it seems like there is not just a quantitative but a qualitative difference, between a dog and a human brain... that maybe once you have the ability to think about things at a certain level then you're there and then... then, you know, you... that gives you qualitative abilities, you know, of investigation, of asking questions, of exploration. Right, so it's not just that... you... we're a certain amount farth.. more intelligent than a dog therefore we can understand a certain amount more about the universe

B: Uh, huh.

S: 

== Interview with Daniel Loxton () ==
About his new book: ''Abominable Science''

== Science or Fiction () ==
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612173326.htm Item #1:] New fossil evidence reveals the presence of kangaroo ancestors 25 million years ago in what is now Europe. [http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/15806 Item #2:] Researchers find that male guppies can reproduce up to 10 months after they have died. [http://www.anl.gov/articles/discovery-new-material-state-counterintuitive-laws-physics Item #3:] Scientists have discovered a material that gets larger under pressure, in apparent defiance of the laws of physics.

== Skeptical Quote of the Week () ==
<blockquote>Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing.</blockquote>
Harlan Ellison

== Announcements () ==

{{Outro404}}

== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

SGU Episode 414

2013-09-07T08:56:36Z

Fallible: Transcribed WTN

{{Editing required
|transcription = y

|time-stamps = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 414
|episodeDate = 22nd Jun 2013
|episodeIcon = File:chinese-alien-head.jpg
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 = DL: {{w|Daniel Loxton}}
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-06-22.mp3
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=46390.0
|qowText = Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing
|qowAuthor = {{w|Harlan Ellison}}
|}}

== Introduction ==
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, today is Wednesday, June 19th, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,

B: Hey, everybody

S: Rebecca Watson,

R: Hello, everyone.

S: Jay Novella,

J: Hey, guys.

S: and Evan Bernstein.

E: Salutations, everybody

R: Hello...

S: Salutations and felicitations, Evan.

E: Oh, and felicitations, how could I forget the Squire of Gothos. Shame on me,

S: I don't know (chuckles)

E: shame on me.

R: The hell you guys talking about.

E: Well, Rebecca, aren't you watching the Star Trek series?

R: I guess I haven't gotten up to that point, yet.

E: This is the original series.

R: I'm watching The Next Generation.

S: You know what I saw recently? "Star Trek Continues".

E: Hm?

S: which is a a

J: Wha?

S: fan.. "Star Trek Continues", it's a fan episode, a fan video, where it's as if the ep... the seasons continued as if it wasn't canceled after three seasons. So it's not, it's not like a parody, and it's not an update or a reboot or anything it's like what would a fourth season have actually been like,

B: Oh, cool.

S: and and they do their best to reproduce, the production value, the sets are identical, all the sound effects, the music the acting

R: Hm

S: the whole culture that was definitely embedded in that late '60s you know in terms of everything. And the

?: (inaudible)

S: some of the actors are damn good, the guy who's doing Kirk has his mannerisms down, absolutely down.

B: And it's not a parody of his mannerisms?

S: No, no it's not, it's not a parody, it's an imitation. And it like things like it's like "Yeah, Kirk does do that!" You know, it's like, (laughter) you uh things you wouldn't even think of. Like the

R: That is so Kirk.

S: ways he moves his arms when he walks. Yeah, it's just amazing.

R: Hey, remember that Star Trek episode where, uh, poisonous gas covered most of the planet, and murdered millions of people?

E: Ahhh.

R: Oh, wait, no, that was real life. Oh, my God!

B: (laughs)

E: That's worse.

== This Day in Skepticism (1:58) ==
R: On June 22, 1783, a poisonous cloud caused by the eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland, uh, finally reached France. So this is kind of, um, I really could have picked any date, uh, it's very interesting, it's something that I didn't even realize was the thing, uh, it was one of the most deadly if not the most deadly volcanic eruptions in human history, as I said it happened in Iceland but it spread all over the globe, uh, first of all though in Iceland it killed about 50% of the livestock which lead to a famine which killed a quarter of the population of Iceland. Uh, so it was pretty immediate but then it also went on to possibly cause droughts in India and Africa which lead to millions of more deaths, uh, as well as crop failures in Europe and air pollution and this deadly gas... from this deadly gas. So, all to... all told, it killed probably over 6 million people

?: What?

R: globally. Yeah, 6 million.

E: That's a lot (inaudible)

R: It was a pretty big volcanic eruption.

E: 1783, that's (inaudible) quite a bit.

B: Holy crap.

R: And the cloud was sulfur dioxide that

E: Oh, that'll do it

R: and also the hydrogen... the hydrogen fluoride apparently I think killed most of the people in Iceland but the sulfur dioxide is what drifted into Europe to start murdering people there. But yeah and it also caused severe global temperature change, uh, it was the hottest summer on record followed by really violent winter with hail and storms and all that good stuff which probably lead to more deaths.

S: It was the longest period of below zero temperatures in New England.

R: Oh, yeah, the US... the US area just had some severe weather. They don't... I.. I didn't find a whole of talk about deaths that resulted in it but I think people were just dying left and right anyway, at that point, so

S: A bad winter in 1783 was no joke.

R: Exactly, yeah, that's... that's what I'm sayin'. But...

B: So this gas released it wasn't part of like a.. a pyroclastic flow, it was just this, just this gas that came out and went

S: Just a bubble of gas

B: all over the place

R: Yeah, like a volcanic fart, silent but deadly

E: Probably wasn't too silent, either

R: Too soon?

?: Too soon (laughter)

S: Volcanoes are no joke, that superheated gas that kills people it's not just the lava and the ash, I mean, it's usually the gas, even if it's not poisonous gas if it's superheated it's like your lungs explode, you know. Well, let's move on, uhm, have you guys heard...

?: (stage inhalation)

?: Uh?

== News Items ==
=== Osteoarthritis (4:41)===
* Science-based Medicine: [http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/knee-osteoarthritis-thumbs-down-for-acupuncture-and-glucosamine/ Knee Osteoarthritis: Thumbs Down for Acupuncture and Glucosamine]

S: the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has released their, uh, 1200 page report evaluating evidence for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis

R: Now the last time you led us into one of these and we made all made light-hearted jokes about how boring the topic was, we got a bunch of angry letters from botanists, so, no, Steve, not gonna fall for it, this sounds fascinating, tell me more. (laughter)

S: Yeah, but like last time I convinced you how cool botany was, now I wanna convince you how cool osteoarthritis is.

E: Here come more letters (laughter)

S: Oh, boy. (laughter)

S: um, so osteoarthritis is, essentially degenerative arthritis of a joint, mainly from wear and tear, but there are other obviously biological factors involved, and so knee osteoarthritis, very common, um, as people get into their 40's and 50's they uh, their knees start to ache, you know, and they just wear out, they just don't really last 80 years unfortunately. There are lots of potential treatments for osteoarthritis including many that are not evidence-based. This report is interesting for a number of reasons, not just for the specific recommendations that are made. Harriet Hall writes about this on Science-based Medicine and I recommend that for those who are interested but I just want to highlight some of the interesting things. First of all, it shows that science-based practitioners actually care about evidence, despite all of the propaganda about "Oh, those doctors only want drugs and surgery" here we have a uh a major you know a professional organization in the United States dedicated to orthopedic surgery reviewing thousands of published studies, putting out a 1200 page comprehensive report looking in-depth into the evidence for many different approaches, and here are the highlights of what they found, where there was strong evidence you know for or against. So glucosamine chondroitin you guys are familiar with this, right, this is a dietary supplement that has been and still is promoted, um, has been for years, for arthritis. What do you think they found?

E: It doesn't work.

S: It doesn't work. So it was one of the few things where there was strong evidence against its effectiveness. Glucosamine and chondroitin doesn't work, there have been large studies. Exercise, strong evidence for, in favor of it. Weight loss, moderate evidence in favor of it. Acupuncture, what do you think they concluded?

R: No evidence.

?: Overwhelming evidence.

S: Strong evidence against its effectiveness. So very nice to see that they took a science-based approach to acupuncture research and didn't fall for the bait-and-switch of "Oh, it works like a placebo" you know, they didn't fall for that business. And also, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories strong evidence they are effective, that's not surprising. And here's one: arthroscopy with lavage and debridement --- strong evidence against.

B: Really?

E: Lavage, huh?

S: So lavage is like just washing it out. So arthroscopy is putting the scope into the knee and looking around, you know, for diagnostic, but if you take anything out then it becomes a therapeutic procedure, right, that's debridement, you know, cutting away any fraying pieces of cartilage and then washing out those pieces, that's the lavage part. So, this is a pretty lucrative, popular procedure for orthopedists to do. And here they are, the official organization of orthopedists, coming out with a statement saying there is strong evidence against the effectiveness of this procedure. This is something that we've written about on Science-based Medicine previously when there...there... when a review came out, I think now about two years ago, showing that arthroscopy was not effective, and there was some push-back from some orthopedists, and we said "Hey, this is the evidence, baby, this is, this is what it shows". So it's nice now to see the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons looking at the evidence and honestly saying "Yep, our beloved procedure, that we would love to have work, doesn't work". So it's hard in the face of this, if you look at the bigger picture, it's hard to justify the typical knee-jerk criticisms that alternative medicine proponents have against mainstream medicine

R: Heh, knee-jerk

S: Yeah, knee-jerk. That it's they only care about drugs and surgery, well here they are saying um, their favorite surgical procedure doesn't work, that they don't care about other things, here they're strongly in favor of exercise, moderately in favor of weight loss, Um, and that they're not, they don't care about actually treating people, well, this is, I think this shows their dedication to the evidence to what actually works regardless of what the modality is, and this is, this is, what we see in mainstream medicine all the time. This is a Herculean effort and it's great document, but this is what we see all the time, you know, the... academic professional uh physicians looking at the evidence objectively and the chips fall where they may, in its direct contradiction to all the anti-mainstream medicine conspiracy theories that you're going to hear from the alternative medicine side, so I thought that was worth pointing out. Also, Harriet pointed out something interesting, things like homeopathy didn't even make the list, it wasn't even worth their time to take a look at.

B: Oh, awesome.

E: Good.

S: Yeah.

R. Good (inaudible).

E: I don't know if we'd be able to say that if this were British Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, right? That probably would have made that list.

S: Homeopathy probably would have,

E: Yes

S: just because homeopathy is more popular across the pond, yeah.

B: Uh, Steve, did they mention why it wasn't on the list?

S: No, just... it didn't even... didn't even make the radar. Just wasn't even, yeah, not... not mentioned one way or the other.

B: OK

== Quickie with Bob (10:27)==
* ESO: [http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1326/ New Kind of Variable Star Discovered]

E: Oh, hey, wait, wait. I would like a Quickie with Bob right now.

B: Really?

E: Yes, right this moment.

B: Thank you, Evan, I'm almost certain you will not regret this.

E: (laughs)

B: This is your Quickie with Bob. Astronomers in Chile, guys, have discovered a new type of variable star it was pretty interesting story uh they did detailed observations of 3700 stars in this specific cluster over 7 years. Um, and showed that they found 36 of these stars had very minute changes in their brightness of about only about a tenth of a percent over an hour or as much as over 20 hours. And uh this is... this is big news in the community because variable stars are in... are incredibly common there's lots of different types of variable stars and it's always interesting to... to add another one to the group actually the list of uh of typ... of variable stars um the types themselves was much bigger than... than I remember them being but just to break it down real quick there's... there's two different main types of stars that are variable, there's the intrinsic and extrinsic and it's kind of obvious what they... what that means the intrinsic stars that are variable are variable because of that's just the way they are something about their internal dynamics makes them makes the light output variable whereas the extrinsic... the extrinsic stars... variable stars are variable only because you know say something might move in front of them or... or there might be some... something in the way that changes the light that reaches the Earth. So within these intrinsic stars there's... there's just a few categories there's the pulsating variables, there's the eruptives, and there's the cataclysmic or explosive variable stars. This new one that they found I think is pretty obvious that it's within the... the pulsating variable star category

S: Is there a throbbing category? (laughter)

E: Is there a grooving category?

B: So like I said these variables are most certainly they'll be within the pulsating variety they haven't actually named this type of variable yet but I'm sure it's gonna be within that... that category They're not sure why they pulsate, either, basically because current models say that they should not be variable so this is the real surprise that these... that these varied so much and but one clue that they found is that many of these variables rotate very very fast

S: Yeah, that seems pretty telling

B: Yeah, more than 50% of their critical velocity, in fact, and the critical velocity

E: Wow

B: is a velocity that if they... if they reached 100% they would actually start throwing off mass so they're spinning very very fast and uh this spinning might... may have an effect on the dynamics of their interiors which then would result in the variability of the light output. So, uh, so keep an eye on it, I'm curious to see what they're gonna call it and uh, and... and you know what more they can determine, um, about these types of stars based on uh, on... on this... these studies that they're... these very detailed studies that they're doing. So, uh, so I got guys this has been your Quickie with Bob, I hope it was good for you, too.

== News items continued ==
=== Patenting DNA (13:07)===
* BBC News: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22895161 US Supreme Court says human DNA cannot be patented]

S: Thanks, Bob. OK, Rebecca, you're gonna tell us about a major Supreme Court case regarding patenting genes.

R: Yes, you are correct, Steve. There is a huge decision that just happened in the Supreme Court on, uh, June 13th, the Supreme Court ruled that, uh, companies, particularly Myriad Genetics, in this case, cannot patent a human gene. So in this specific case, it was this company Myriad Genetics which was one of the patent holders on the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes. Now, astute listeners might recall that we were recently talking about these very genes, in the case of Angelina Jolie,

S: Yeah.

R: who came out and said that she had the mutation in her BRCA gene that said she was much much much more likely to get breast cancer and ovarian cancer and so she had her breast removed. Now, we also mentioned that Angelina Jolie had spoken briefly about the fact that not everyone has access to the genetic testing required to find out if you have the mutation, in order to get the life saving operations you would need. Well, the reason why many people don't have access to this genetic testing is because Myriad Genetics was one of the patent holders and... and they were the only company that was allowed to perform this testing on these genes. So, if you wanted to find if you had the mutation you had to go through Myriad Genetics and that increases the price dramatically so they could charge thousands of dollars to people who wanted the testing. What this ruling means in this specific case it's a huge win for women particularly because this means that you... women can go get genetic testing anywhere to find out if they have this mutation they don't have to go through Myriad in order to find out, so, now you have companies competing against each other, prices go down, etc., etc., and more lives are saved because of it, so that's one result of this and one of the reasons why women's rights groups were a huge part of the uh lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court decision it was a unanimous decision the case was led by uh the ACLU um representing women's rights groups as well as scientists and other interest groups but also scientists win from this case because it means that uh any scientist can now pursue research on the... these genes where prior to this only Myriad and the other patent holders would technically be able to do that. Basically the court ruled that you can't patent a human gene however they did leave it open that you could possibly patent a gene that had been fiddled with.

?: Yeah.

R: So uh if you

?: (inaudible) huge

R: come up with your own gene, like a synthetic gene like cDNA... c... cDNA, that could still be eligible for a patent. Uh, but because Myriad the company did not actually create anything, they just researched the gene they're not allowed to patent it.

S: Yeah. So

R: So

S: products of nature cannot be patented and what this decision was exploring specifically was how much modification is necessary before a product of nature is an innovation. An... yeah, this that needed to be explored for the in... for this specific case of genes. And it seems that everyone pos... with the possible exception of Myriad, is happy about this decision this is a... I've seen nothing but universal praise for this decision.

E: Myriad shouldn't be too sad their stock rose that day

S: Is that right? (laughs)

E: as a result, yeah.

R: They have been fighting this

E: That will fade.

R: for a very long time so this is a huge loss for them, but it's... it is a great gain for humanity, we're

S: Yeah, for humanity.

R: literally talking about lives being saved

E: Yeah, absolutely.

R: and more research being done.

B: Yeah, it does seem...

R: So it is a good thing.

B: it does seem (inaudible) to me lots of benefits but what about the idea, the one negative thing that I've heard, that I've seen in a couple of places was that some people are afraid that companies like Myriad, of course, will scale back investment because they're not gonna be rewarded ah with patents for this so I just wonder how much of a genuine concern that aspect of this is.

R: Consider how much research is done by private companies compared to the huge amount of research that's currently being done through government institutions and universities. Private companies have always focussed on what's going to make the most money and that's why we have uh government funding for scientific endeavors. There's one other thing I wanted to mention, a bit of, uh, myth-busting. This... this thing was going around that... uh, Scalia doesn't believe in genetics, or in molecular biology. So, uh, it was a unanimous decision but Justice Scalia wrote a separate thing... ruling...

S: Separate opinion.

R: opinion, thank you, that's the word.

E: Opinion, yeah.

R: Uh, Scalia wrote a separate opinion uh saying that he, uh, agrees to vote with the majority, but he does not agree with one part of the opinion that has no effect on his final vote. What he said was, um, that he wouldn't sign on to Part 1a and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology because he can't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief. So, Part 1a, deal... it's just a list of basic facts about DNA, about genetics, uh it's all kind of just basic level genetic stuff.

E: So was he basically saying I don't know what this is?

R: Yeah, you know, so some...

E: and therefore I can't really

R: some people were

E: say anything about it.

R: taking uh that he wouldn't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief to mean that he didn't believe in genetics or he didn't know about genetics and so he didn't believe them, something like that. But, I've heard from lawyers who have said that this is a bit of legal-speak in a way, that there's this sort of ongoing argument on whether or not they should in... judges should include basic information that's not necessary to the final ruling, and so that's kind of what he was saying, is that this chunk I'm not a scientist, I'm not going to sign my name on this and say that as a Justice I approve of this because I have no idea I'm not a scientist and it has nothing to do with the case.

S: He's being a legal stickler,

R: Yes.

S: not a science denier.

R: Exactly.

B: Oh, OK.

R: That...

E: Right.

R: that's what I'm hearing from... from lawyers, and

S: That makes sense.

R: it makes sense to me.

S: And that's kind of his shtick, too,

R: Yeah.

S: is to be a legal stickler.

B?: Hmmm, OK.

=== Foot Fungus (20:02)===
* Science News: [http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350599/description/Foot_fungi_a_thriving_diverse_community Foot fungi a thriving, diverse community]

S: OK, well thanks, Rebecca. Bob, can you explain to me why my toes occasionally itch? (laughter)

R: Ew, bugs, probably.

B: Well, guys, uh, last May... at the end of last May, uh, the, uh, the issue of Nature, they discuss the... the first census... the very first census of skin-dwelling fungi (fung-ee), that... that's

S: Fungi (fung-guy)?

B: Well, there's three ways to pronounce it as far as I can tell

S: Fungi (fun-jee)?

B: Fungi (fung-ee), fungi (fung-eye), fungi (funj-eye). Those are the three that I came across

R: But "fungi" (fung-eye) is the only one that works with that "mushroom walks into a bar" joke.

B: OK.

S: What about... what about "fungi" (fun-jee)?

B: That's actually my preferred pronunciation and I didn't find it. So, whatever, I'll just go with... I'll just go with one of the ones that I found. So this study reveals

E: (chuckles)

B: there's a fungus among us. OK, somebody had to say it, it's out of the way, I said it. So, actually, it...

E: (laughs)

B: it reveals that there's a little variation... there's very little variation in the fungal communities on our bodies except for our feet which calls home to 80 to 100 different types of fungus, they're just like all

?: (inaudible)

B: over the place down there. So, for... just for a quick

?: (inaudible)

B: high-level refresher uh fungi (fung-ee) are the third type of multi-cellular organisms, they're neither plant nor animals, um, one major difference between them and the other two is that their cell walls contain chitin, now that's (inaudible) that's like the exoskeleton of a crabs and lobsters or... or even the beaks of squid uh made of chitin. Uh, fungi play a pivotal role in decomposing organic matter and cycling uh nutrients in the environment and they also appear to be inordinately fond of feet. So here's a quick quote from the study: "A human's skin surfaces are complex ecosystems for microorganisms including fungi, bacteria and viruses which are known collectively as the skin microbiome". So I was as... I was surprised as I said that this initial study was the first of its kind. It seems, I guess, in terms of... yeah, human cohabitation bacteria and viruses get all.. get all the press and all the research dollars, so one reason why the lowly fungus I guess may have been neglected is that it's notoriously difficult to culture, I didn't know that, unlike bacteria which is easy, culturing a fungus from say uh the toenail can take weeks... weeks for it

S: And yet... and yet it's hard to kill when you wanna get rid of it.

B: (chuckle) Right. So... so how did they do it? They looked... they looked at the DNA, of course. They took ten volunteers and they swabbed 14 sites on their bodies including taking toenail clippings apparently. Uh, they then put them in a DNA sequencer which of course is uh one of the key technologies advanced by leaps and bounds uh by the Human Genome Project. Um, they used these molecular tags that stick only to the fungal DNA, so they wouldn't have to worry about all the human DNA and the bacterial DNA and viral DNA, that... that... that was mixed into the samples, so now they have this pure sample of just... of just fung... uh the fungus DNA. They then examined the tiny bits of fungal DNA uh called the phylogenetic markers to tally up all the different types of... of fungal species and bam, they were done, they had... they had a tally of all the different types of species. So, if you look most anywhere on the head or the torso you... you're likely to find one genus and that's called Malassezia. Uh, different areas have different species uh though, like the crease behind your ear or... or on your forehead there's little variation there. Surprisingly, your hands have tons of bacteria but very few fungal communities. So your feet, though, it's... it's completely different ecosystem, um, on your... on your toenails alone there's forty different uh fungi varieties, sixty between your toes, and eighty live on the bottom of... of your heel, which I think would ac... I wouldn't think that would be the most plentiful spot I would think, like, between your toes would have more but apparently there's lots of 'em on the bottom of your heel. So... so why is... how come? Why... why is this so? And it...

E: Gravity.

B: Yeah, gra... (laughs)

E: (chuckles)

B: Well it's... it's not hard to imagine one... one reason, right, your feet are... are often on contact with surfaces that fungi like to hang out on like your socks or locker room floors. I never walk barefoot at... at the gym, uh, never would do it.

E: Uhhhh,

B: So also

E: gosh... (inaudible) so bad.

B: your... your feet... I didn't know that your feet are cooler than other parts of your body, and... and fungi like cooler places, apparently, they hang out. Um, so... so should we all be grossed out? Are you guys like really grossed out... about this stuff?

R: (inaudible) obviously

?: Ahhh...

E: (inaudible) more grossed out about...

R: It takes more than that to... gross out Steve.

B: Yeah, I... I'm not...

S: Oh, yeah...

B: Yeah, I wouldn't think Steve would be, but I'm not... I'm not

S: I've had my head inside of a corpse

B: Cool, um...

R: Hey, thanks for that...

E: A human corpse? Wait, a human corpse?

B: I di...

S: Yeah.

B: Of course.

S: So has everyone who has gone through medical school.

E: You put your head in the corpse?

S: Well, you gotta get into the anatomy, I mean you gotta... you know you're disecting something...

E: I don't...

S: They... so, you get so grossed out in your first year of medical school you're basically done getting grossed out for life.

?: Yeah.

R: Yeah.

B: Totally desensitized.

R: I don't... I don't find what you've said so gross, Bob, but when in... you're talking I was thinking of that... toenail fungus, uh, commercial where...

E: Oh, yeah.

R: where the germ, like, lifts up

E: Little critters.

B: Yeah, yeah, yeah!

R: the toenail and then climbs inside and that's like the worst... worst commercial ever made.

B: Oh, my God I remember that something about detaching a toenail yes I... I cringe

R: Yeah.

B: every time I saw that, nothing to do with the

R: It's awful.

B: fungus or anything but it's just the lifting that toenail

R: Yeah, like the fungus didn't help

B: was nasty. Yeah right, yes. I mean it doesn't gross me out, the... thinking that there's... em... potentially s... you know... well over a hundred different types of these guys all over us. I thin... it's good... it's good that we're colonized by these critters because they're... they're likely to prevent other nasty... guys from taking hold on our skin so it's good that they're there. Likewise, this.. this research can actually help improve our treatment for skin disease and maybe even help with some types of cancers, some people were saying. So... so I say embrace the... the fungi living on your skin, you really don't have much of a choice until we replace them all with nanobots.

=== Chinese Fake Alien (25:46)===
* The Telegraph: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10115832/Chinese-farmer-jailed-for-making-a-rubber-alien.html Chinese farmer jailed for making a rubber alien]

S: All right, thanks, Bob. Evan, you're gonna tell us about a fake Chinese alien.<ref>[http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130612000078&cid=1103 WantChinaTimes]</ref> (laughter)

?: Oh, God.

E: Now that could mean several different things, I'll... I'll do my best to clarify. Now, there are times when news outlets totally, totally botch their headlines... right, I mean really botch

B: No.

E: We've talked about some real doozies on the show. But rarely do we give them credit when they actually get it right. Let's give The Telegraph its due, because they got this headline spot-on. They wrote: "Chinese farmer jailed for making rubber alien". That kind-a says it all.

?: OK.

E: (chuckles) So it's being reported out of the Shandong province, that, uh, local police recently arrested someone named Mr. Li, a farmer slash alien enthusiast by day and an alien enthusiast farmer... slash farmer by night. And here are his versions of the event, this is Mr. Li.

S: "Mr. Li" 's a pseudonym, probably, by the way.

E: He said: <blockquote>"I was setting an electrical trap for rabbits by the Yellow River, when I saw a bright light. Above my bike, a UFO was floating. One by one, five aliens came down, but one of them stumbled onto one of my rabbit traps and was electricuted. The others went back into their ship and flew away."</blockquote>So that's his story.

S: Quite a tale he's got there. So this alien from who knows how far away from another solar system in super advanced technology and then dies in a rabbit trap.

E: Exa...

S: And his friends leave him behind.

E: And they leave him behind.

R: Was he rabbit shit? (laughter)

E: No.

R: Maybe he was... maybe he was a rabbit, like from another dimension.

E: Well, then rabbits look an awful lot like little grays with Chinese accentuations around the eyes

B?: Yes.

E: and head and stuff. But

B: Plus... plus only mice... only mice are from other dimensions.

E: But how did he go about backing up his claim. Well he does what any true believer does and he post pictures of the ET on the Internet. And in three days these pictures happen to go viral, so after five days of having posted the pictures the local police show up at his door and he's taken in for questioning. Now during the questioning Mr. Li admitted, willingly or otherwise, that the whole thing was a hoax.

S: Shock, shocked.

E: He made an alien, he constructed it himself out of this gluey rubber sort of substance uh tied together with ropes and uh other things and you know... a few... he... he drew his inspiration from the Simon Peg film Paul I don't know if you guys have seen that

?: Hall?

R: Yeah, the one where they go to Comicon.

S: Yes.

E: Right... right.

S: Yes, I saw it.

E: And the alien does a little bit sort of kind of look like that I suppose.

S: But you're right, Evan, the... the uh alien head looks Chinese.

E: It... it does (chuckles).

S: It does... so I mean it's his cultural bias leaking through in his sculpture and he's not aware of it but to these Western you know American eyes it has this... it looks like uh something... that it... like an piece of art that a Chinese person would create.

E: Right.

S: You know, it's not just the eyes it's the mouth it's everything you know it's just there's a subtle sort of Oriental appearance to it. Uh, which is always, I think, a... a very telling sign to look for when people are imagining or faking alien phenomena and their cultural biases come through, and of course we're... you're much more attuned to them when it's from a di... from another culture.

E: But why did he... why did he do it why did you think he did it well he says it with the intent of helping more people believe in aliens. Which is

S: Yeah.

R: Weird.

E: an interesting way to go about doing that... uh, I suppose... um, he claims that and these are his words again:<blockquote>It's still disputed whether or not UFOs and aliens exist but we believe</blockquote>not sure what he means by we<blockquote>they do and we want to expand our group</blockquote>I don't know what group he's part of... uh<blockquote>and make more people believe that aliens do exist.</blockquote> So that's

R: Was this him

E: the approach.

R: saying this or was this

E: That was him.

R: the government saying that he said that.

E: Uh, that is the report from The Telegraph say... uh... which is quoting him as saying that.

R: Hm.

S: Who knows.

E: Yeah you who... who really knows. It's for the conspiry theori... conspiracy theorists,

S: (chuckle)

E: I guess to... to... to sort of figure it

R: Well, you know I mean you don't have to stretch far to come up with a conspiracy involving the Chinese government making a guy say something (chuckle) I mean

E: (chuckle)

R: making a Chinese prisoner say something that they want him to say. Um...

E: That's true.

B: Yeah, my mind all bets are off

R: Yeah, especially if they wanna

B: soo as he... soo as he ga... soo as the government got a hold of him they can well, nothing he says now... really (chuckle) you know whatever

R: Even if it was just a case of they... they wanted to trump up the charge a bit so they didn't look like they were just hassling some farmer, now they've got like a cult that they can

?: Yeah

R: pin on him, you know,

?: Yeah, yeah

E: But

R: 'cuz they're... they hate... they hate the cults.

E: Mr. Li spent five days incarcerated, the crime was fabricating lies and disrupting normal social order.

B: Oh, boy, wow.

E: Yeah, that... that doesn't sound too Orwellian or anything (inaudible)

S: Yeah, disrupting the social order that yeah really Orwellian, I agree

?: scary

E: Now, guys, to wrap this up, I'll say that the rubber alien was examined by scientists and deemed to be a hoax, the dead giveaway is when they broke open the alien and pulled out a slip of paper with a fortune, that's right

S: (laughs)

B: Oh!

E: And it... and the fort... it read "Help I'm being held prisoner in a Chinese bakery

R: Hm, hm.

E: and your lucky numbers are 4, 14, 22, 31, and 49". So

?: Jesus

E: that sort of sealed the deal.

B: Oh, boy.

R: That joke fails, though, on the fact that fortune cookies aren't Chinese.

S: Yeah, that's true.

E: No, that enhances the joke and the... gaw.... (inaudible, possibly expletive) (laughter)

== Who's That Noisy? (31:24)==
S: All right, well Evan, you also have to tell us about Who's That Noisy.

E: I will do that, now, um... what we'll do is next week we're gonna reveal last week's winner.

S: We're recording a little ahead of schedule 'cause of... we're on our TAM recording schedule, so, the... we're gonna have to get caught up on the Who's That Noisy-s t... towards the end

E: Right

R: We might all be dead right now.

S: (chuckles) That's true.

E: Maybe, I mean who knows, another volcano you know might spew

R: Hm

E: sulfur dioxide or whatever the hell's

R: could happen

E: gonna come out of it, however, we do have a puzzle for this week, so that will be this week's Who's That Noisy, is a puzzle and, here we go. So, there is this machine, OK? Now this machine does one thing. It shuffles playing cards. However, this machine always rearranges cards in the same way relative to the original order of the cards. OK, we're talking about a deck of playing cards here. Now all of the hearts arranged in order from ace to king were put into the machine. The cards were shuffled, and then they were put into the machine again. After the second... after the second shuffling, the cards were in the following order: 10, 9, queen, 8, king, 3, 4, ace, 5, jack, 6, 2, 7. So you need to tell us, now, what order were the cards in after the first shuffle.

S: Very tricksy.

R: Eh-hm.

E: It is tricksy, yeah.

B: (inaudible)

E: I don't know if, uh... I don't if Bilbo would have gotten that in the cave while he was dueling it out...

B: Ahhh.

E: (inaudbile) wits with Gollum

S: Not without a pen and paper, I don't think

E: (laughs) that's for sure (laughs). So... think about that

S: Or quill and parchment

E: Qua... yes, of course, Middle Earth and all... wtn@theskepticsguide.org or sguforums.com is the forum's website... so... think about it, give us your best answer, and good luck to everyone.

== Questions and Emails ==
=== Can We Know Everything? (33:23)===
{{transcribing | date = 2013-09-01 | transcriber = Fallible}}

<blockquote>I have been listening to the show for 4 years and although I have always been a sceptic I have learnt a great deal from your show. I would like to hear the rogues view on whether science has the potential to explain the physical world in such a way that we understand everything. Is there a limit to what we can comprehend? For example a dog has no concept of quantum gravity and wouldn’t ask the question of himself “Is space-time fundamentally continuous or discrete?” We have gone from asking ourselves how to grow food to “why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe?” Our brain appears finite in capacity so I would assume that would limit our ability to understand the world around us. Reaching a limit at some stage seems inevitable. Or will our brains develop as we need to solve increasingly more difficult questions, after all our brains appear not to need to store every bit of information we discover perhaps more the ability to solve a problem, and the capacity to grasp the variables at that time. I could be wrong though. Your opinions would be greatly appreciated and interesting.
Mark Dennehy
Melbourne</blockquote>

== Interview with Daniel Loxton () ==
About his new book: ''Abominable Science''

== Science or Fiction () ==
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612173326.htm Item #1:] New fossil evidence reveals the presence of kangaroo ancestors 25 million years ago in what is now Europe. [http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/15806 Item #2:] Researchers find that male guppies can reproduce up to 10 months after they have died. [http://www.anl.gov/articles/discovery-new-material-state-counterintuitive-laws-physics Item #3:] Scientists have discovered a material that gets larger under pressure, in apparent defiance of the laws of physics.

== Skeptical Quote of the Week () ==
<blockquote>Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing.</blockquote>
Harlan Ellison

== Announcements () ==

{{Outro404}}

== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

SGU Episode 414

2013-09-05T22:18:48Z

Fallible: Fix notation for single rogue laughing

{{Editing required
|transcription = y

|time-stamps = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 414
|episodeDate = 22nd Jun 2013
|episodeIcon = File:chinese-alien-head.jpg
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 = DL: {{w|Daniel Loxton}}
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-06-22.mp3
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=46390.0
|qowText = Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing
|qowAuthor = {{w|Harlan Ellison}}
|}}

== Introduction ==
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, today is Wednesday, June 19th, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,

B: Hey, everybody

S: Rebecca Watson,

R: Hello, everyone.

S: Jay Novella,

J: Hey, guys.

S: and Evan Bernstein.

E: Salutations, everybody

R: Hello...

S: Salutations and felicitations, Evan.

E: Oh, and felicitations, how could I forget the Squire of Gothos. Shame on me,

S: I don't know (chuckles)

E: shame on me.

R: The hell you guys talking about.

E: Well, Rebecca, aren't you watching the Star Trek series?

R: I guess I haven't gotten up to that point, yet.

E: This is the original series.

R: I'm watching The Next Generation.

S: You know what I saw recently? "Star Trek Continues".

E: Hm?

S: which is a a

J: Wha?

S: fan.. "Star Trek Continues", it's a fan episode, a fan video, where it's as if the ep... the seasons continued as if it wasn't canceled after three seasons. So it's not, it's not like a parody, and it's not an update or a reboot or anything it's like what would a fourth season have actually been like,

B: Oh, cool.

S: and and they do their best to reproduce, the production value, the sets are identical, all the sound effects, the music the acting

R: Hm

S: the whole culture that was definitely embedded in that late '60s you know in terms of everything. And the

?: (inaudible)

S: some of the actors are damn good, the guy who's doing Kirk has his mannerisms down, absolutely down.

B: And it's not a parody of his mannerisms?

S: No, no it's not, it's not a parody, it's an imitation. And it like things like it's like "Yeah, Kirk does do that!" You know, it's like, (laughter) you uh things you wouldn't even think of. Like the

R: That is so Kirk.

S: ways he moves his arms when he walks. Yeah, it's just amazing.

R: Hey, remember that Star Trek episode where, uh, poisonous gas covered most of the planet, and murdered millions of people?

E: Ahhh.

R: Oh, wait, no, that was real life. Oh, my God!

B: (laughs)

E: That's worse.

== This Day in Skepticism (1:58) ==
R: On June 22, 1783, a poisonous cloud caused by the eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland, uh, finally reached France. So this is kind of, um, I really could have picked any date, uh, it's very interesting, it's something that I didn't even realize was the thing, uh, it was one of the most deadly if not the most deadly volcanic eruptions in human history, as I said it happened in Iceland but it spread all over the globe, uh, first of all though in Iceland it killed about 50% of the livestock which lead to a famine which killed a quarter of the population of Iceland. Uh, so it was pretty immediate but then it also went on to possibly cause droughts in India and Africa which lead to millions of more deaths, uh, as well as crop failures in Europe and air pollution and this deadly gas... from this deadly gas. So, all to... all told, it killed probably over 6 million people

?: What?

R: globally. Yeah, 6 million.

E: That's a lot (inaudible)

R: It was a pretty big volcanic eruption.

E: 1783, that's (inaudible) quite a bit.

B: Holy crap.

R: And the cloud was sulfur dioxide that

E: Oh, that'll do it

R: and also the hydrogen... the hydrogen fluoride apparently I think killed most of the people in Iceland but the sulfur dioxide is what drifted into Europe to start murdering people there. But yeah and it also caused severe global temperature change, uh, it was the hottest summer on record followed by really violent winter with hail and storms and all that good stuff which probably lead to more deaths.

S: It was the longest period of below zero temperatures in New England.

R: Oh, yeah, the US... the US area just had some severe weather. They don't... I.. I didn't find a whole of talk about deaths that resulted in it but I think people were just dying left and right anyway, at that point, so

S: A bad winter in 1783 was no joke.

R: Exactly, yeah, that's... that's what I'm sayin'. But...

B: So this gas released it wasn't part of like a.. a pyroclastic flow, it was just this, just this gas that came out and went

S: Just a bubble of gas

B: all over the place

R: Yeah, like a volcanic fart, silent but deadly

E: Probably wasn't too silent, either

R: Too soon?

?: Too soon (laughter)

S: Volcanoes are no joke, that superheated gas that kills people it's not just the lava and the ash, I mean, it's usually the gas, even if it's not poisonous gas if it's superheated it's like your lungs explode, you know. Well, let's move on, uhm, have you guys heard...

?: (stage inhalation)

?: Uh?

== News Items ==
=== Osteoarthritis (4:41)===
* Science-based Medicine: [http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/knee-osteoarthritis-thumbs-down-for-acupuncture-and-glucosamine/ Knee Osteoarthritis: Thumbs Down for Acupuncture and Glucosamine]

S: the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has released their, uh, 1200 page report evaluating evidence for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis

R: Now the last time you led us into one of these and we made all made light-hearted jokes about how boring the topic was, we got a bunch of angry letters from botanists, so, no, Steve, not gonna fall for it, this sounds fascinating, tell me more. (laughter)

S: Yeah, but like last time I convinced you how cool botany was, now I wanna convince you how cool osteoarthritis is.

E: Here come more letters (laughter)

S: Oh, boy. (laughter)

S: um, so osteoarthritis is, essentially degenerative arthritis of a joint, mainly from wear and tear, but there are other obviously biological factors involved, and so knee osteoarthritis, very common, um, as people get into their 40's and 50's they uh, their knees start to ache, you know, and they just wear out, they just don't really last 80 years unfortunately. There are lots of potential treatments for osteoarthritis including many that are not evidence-based. This report is interesting for a number of reasons, not just for the specific recommendations that are made. Harriet Hall writes about this on Science-based Medicine and I recommend that for those who are interested but I just want to highlight some of the interesting things. First of all, it shows that science-based practitioners actually care about evidence, despite all of the propaganda about "Oh, those doctors only want drugs and surgery" here we have a uh a major you know a professional organization in the United States dedicated to orthopedic surgery reviewing thousands of published studies, putting out a 1200 page comprehensive report looking in-depth into the evidence for many different approaches, and here are the highlights of what they found, where there was strong evidence you know for or against. So glucosamine chondroitin you guys are familiar with this, right, this is a dietary supplement that has been and still is promoted, um, has been for years, for arthritis. What do you think they found?

E: It doesn't work.

S: It doesn't work. So it was one of the few things where there was strong evidence against its effectiveness. Glucosamine and chondroitin doesn't work, there have been large studies. Exercise, strong evidence for, in favor of it. Weight loss, moderate evidence in favor of it. Acupuncture, what do you think they concluded?

R: No evidence.

?: Overwhelming evidence.

S: Strong evidence against its effectiveness. So very nice to see that they took a science-based approach to acupuncture research and didn't fall for the bait-and-switch of "Oh, it works like a placebo" you know, they didn't fall for that business. And also, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories strong evidence they are effective, that's not surprising. And here's one: arthroscopy with lavage and debridement --- strong evidence against.

B: Really?

E: Lavage, huh?

S: So lavage is like just washing it out. So arthroscopy is putting the scope into the knee and looking around, you know, for diagnostic, but if you take anything out then it becomes a therapeutic procedure, right, that's debridement, you know, cutting away any fraying pieces of cartilage and then washing out those pieces, that's the lavage part. So, this is a pretty lucrative, popular procedure for orthopedists to do. And here they are, the official organization of orthopedists, coming out with a statement saying there is strong evidence against the effectiveness of this procedure. This is something that we've written about on Science-based Medicine previously when there...there... when a review came out, I think now about two years ago, showing that arthroscopy was not effective, and there was some push-back from some orthopedists, and we said "Hey, this is the evidence, baby, this is, this is what it shows". So it's nice now to see the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons looking at the evidence and honestly saying "Yep, our beloved procedure, that we would love to have work, doesn't work". So it's hard in the face of this, if you look at the bigger picture, it's hard to justify the typical knee-jerk criticisms that alternative medicine proponents have against mainstream medicine

R: Heh, knee-jerk

S: Yeah, knee-jerk. That it's they only care about drugs and surgery, well here they are saying um, their favorite surgical procedure doesn't work, that they don't care about other things, here they're strongly in favor of exercise, moderately in favor of weight loss, Um, and that they're not, they don't care about actually treating people, well, this is, I think this shows their dedication to the evidence to what actually works regardless of what the modality is, and this is, this is, what we see in mainstream medicine all the time. This is a Herculean effort and it's great document, but this is what we see all the time, you know, the... academic professional uh physicians looking at the evidence objectively and the chips fall where they may, in its direct contradiction to all the anti-mainstream medicine conspiracy theories that you're going to hear from the alternative medicine side, so I thought that was worth pointing out. Also, Harriet pointed out something interesting, things like homeopathy didn't even make the list, it wasn't even worth their time to take a look at.

B: Oh, awesome.

E: Good.

S: Yeah.

R. Good (inaudible).

E: I don't know if we'd be able to say that if this were British Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, right? That probably would have made that list.

S: Homeopathy probably would have,

E: Yes

S: just because homeopathy is more popular across the pond, yeah.

B: Uh, Steve, did they mention why it wasn't on the list?

S: No, just... it didn't even... didn't even make the radar. Just wasn't even, yeah, not... not mentioned one way or the other.

B: OK

== Quickie with Bob (10:27)==
* ESO: [http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1326/ New Kind of Variable Star Discovered]

E: Oh, hey, wait, wait. I would like a Quickie with Bob right now.

B: Really?

E: Yes, right this moment.

B: Thank you, Evan, I'm almost certain you will not regret this.

E: (laughs)

B: This is your Quickie with Bob. Astronomers in Chile, guys, have discovered a new type of variable star it was pretty interesting story uh they did detailed observations of 3700 stars in this specific cluster over 7 years. Um, and showed that they found 36 of these stars had very minute changes in their brightness of about only about a tenth of a percent over an hour or as much as over 20 hours. And uh this is... this is big news in the community because variable stars are in... are incredibly common there's lots of different types of variable stars and it's always interesting to... to add another one to the group actually the list of uh of typ... of variable stars um the types themselves was much bigger than... than I remember them being but just to break it down real quick there's... there's two different main types of stars that are variable, there's the intrinsic and extrinsic and it's kind of obvious what they... what that means the intrinsic stars that are variable are variable because of that's just the way they are something about their internal dynamics makes them makes the light output variable whereas the extrinsic... the extrinsic stars... variable stars are variable only because you know say something might move in front of them or... or there might be some... something in the way that changes the light that reaches the Earth. So within these intrinsic stars there's... there's just a few categories there's the pulsating variables, there's the eruptives, and there's the cataclysmic or explosive variable stars. This new one that they found I think is pretty obvious that it's within the... the pulsating variable star category

S: Is there a throbbing category? (laughter)

E: Is there a grooving category?

B: So like I said these variables are most certainly they'll be within the pulsating variety they haven't actually named this type of variable yet but I'm sure it's gonna be within that... that category They're not sure why they pulsate, either, basically because current models say that they should not be variable so this is the real surprise that these... that these varied so much and but one clue that they found is that many of these variables rotate very very fast

S: Yeah, that seems pretty telling

B: Yeah, more than 50% of their critical velocity, in fact, and the critical velocity

E: Wow

B: is a velocity that if they... if they reached 100% they would actually start throwing off mass so they're spinning very very fast and uh this spinning might... may have an effect on the dynamics of their interiors which then would result in the variability of the light output. So, uh, so keep an eye on it, I'm curious to see what they're gonna call it and uh, and... and you know what more they can determine, um, about these types of stars based on uh, on... on this... these studies that they're... these very detailed studies that they're doing. So, uh, so I got guys this has been your Quickie with Bob, I hope it was good for you, too.

== News items continued ==
=== Patenting DNA (13:07)===
* BBC News: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22895161 US Supreme Court says human DNA cannot be patented]

S: Thanks, Bob. OK, Rebecca, you're gonna tell us about a major Supreme Court case regarding patenting genes.

R: Yes, you are correct, Steve. There is a huge decision that just happened in the Supreme Court on, uh, June 13th, the Supreme Court ruled that, uh, companies, particularly Myriad Genetics, in this case, cannot patent a human gene. So in this specific case, it was this company Myriad Genetics which was one of the patent holders on the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes. Now, astute listeners might recall that we were recently talking about these very genes, in the case of Angelina Jolie,

S: Yeah.

R: who came out and said that she had the mutation in her BRCA gene that said she was much much much more likely to get breast cancer and ovarian cancer and so she had her breast removed. Now, we also mentioned that Angelina Jolie had spoken briefly about the fact that not everyone has access to the genetic testing required to find out if you have the mutation, in order to get the life saving operations you would need. Well, the reason why many people don't have access to this genetic testing is because Myriad Genetics was one of the patent holders and... and they were the only company that was allowed to perform this testing on these genes. So, if you wanted to find if you had the mutation you had to go through Myriad Genetics and that increases the price dramatically so they could charge thousands of dollars to people who wanted the testing. What this ruling means in this specific case it's a huge win for women particularly because this means that you... women can go get genetic testing anywhere to find out if they have this mutation they don't have to go through Myriad in order to find out, so, now you have companies competing against each other, prices go down, etc., etc., and more lives are saved because of it, so that's one result of this and one of the reasons why women's rights groups were a huge part of the uh lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court decision it was a unanimous decision the case was led by uh the ACLU um representing women's rights groups as well as scientists and other interest groups but also scientists win from this case because it means that uh any scientist can now pursue research on the... these genes where prior to this only Myriad and the other patent holders would technically be able to do that. Basically the court ruled that you can't patent a human gene however they did leave it open that you could possibly patent a gene that had been fiddled with.

?: Yeah.

R: So uh if you

?: (inaudible) huge

R: come up with your own gene, like a synthetic gene like cDNA... c... cDNA, that could still be eligible for a patent. Uh, but because Myriad the company did not actually create anything, they just researched the gene they're not allowed to patent it.

S: Yeah. So

R: So

S: products of nature cannot be patented and what this decision was exploring specifically was how much modification is necessary before a product of nature is an innovation. An... yeah, this that needed to be explored for the in... for this specific case of genes. And it seems that everyone pos... with the possible exception of Myriad, is happy about this decision this is a... I've seen nothing but universal praise for this decision.

E: Myriad shouldn't be too sad their stock rose that day

S: Is that right? (laughs)

E: as a result, yeah.

R: They have been fighting this

E: That will fade.

R: for a very long time so this is a huge loss for them, but it's... it is a great gain for humanity, we're

S: Yeah, for humanity.

R: literally talking about lives being saved

E: Yeah, absolutely.

R: and more research being done.

B: Yeah, it does seem...

R: So it is a good thing.

B: it does seem (inaudible) to me lots of benefits but what about the idea, the one negative thing that I've heard, that I've seen in a couple of places was that some people are afraid that companies like Myriad, of course, will scale back investment because they're not gonna be rewarded ah with patents for this so I just wonder how much of a genuine concern that aspect of this is.

R: Consider how much research is done by private companies compared to the huge amount of research that's currently being done through government institutions and universities. Private companies have always focussed on what's going to make the most money and that's why we have uh government funding for scientific endeavors. There's one other thing I wanted to mention, a bit of, uh, myth-busting. This... this thing was going around that... uh, Scalia doesn't believe in genetics, or in molecular biology. So, uh, it was a unanimous decision but Justice Scalia wrote a separate thing... ruling...

S: Separate opinion.

R: opinion, thank you, that's the word.

E: Opinion, yeah.

R: Uh, Scalia wrote a separate opinion uh saying that he, uh, agrees to vote with the majority, but he does not agree with one part of the opinion that has no effect on his final vote. What he said was, um, that he wouldn't sign on to Part 1a and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology because he can't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief. So, Part 1a, deal... it's just a list of basic facts about DNA, about genetics, uh it's all kind of just basic level genetic stuff.

E: So was he basically saying I don't know what this is?

R: Yeah, you know, so some...

E: and therefore I can't really

R: some people were

E: say anything about it.

R: taking uh that he wouldn't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief to mean that he didn't believe in genetics or he didn't know about genetics and so he didn't believe them, something like that. But, I've heard from lawyers who have said that this is a bit of legal-speak in a way, that there's this sort of ongoing argument on whether or not they should in... judges should include basic information that's not necessary to the final ruling, and so that's kind of what he was saying, is that this chunk I'm not a scientist, I'm not going to sign my name on this and say that as a Justice I approve of this because I have no idea I'm not a scientist and it has nothing to do with the case.

S: He's being a legal stickler,

R: Yes.

S: not a science denier.

R: Exactly.

B: Oh, OK.

R: That...

E: Right.

R: that's what I'm hearing from... from lawyers, and

S: That makes sense.

R: it makes sense to me.

S: And that's kind of his shtick, too,

R: Yeah.

S: is to be a legal stickler.

B?: Hmmm, OK.

=== Foot Fungus (20:02)===
* Science News: [http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350599/description/Foot_fungi_a_thriving_diverse_community Foot fungi a thriving, diverse community]

S: OK, well thanks, Rebecca. Bob, can you explain to me why my toes occasionally itch? (laughter)

R: Ew, bugs, probably.

B: Well, guys, uh, last May... at the end of last May, uh, the, uh, the issue of Nature, they discuss the... the first census... the very first census of skin-dwelling fungi (fung-ee), that... that's

S: Fungi (fung-guy)?

B: Well, there's three ways to pronounce it as far as I can tell

S: Fungi (fun-jee)?

B: Fungi (fung-ee), fungi (fung-eye), fungi (funj-eye). Those are the three that I came across

R: But "fungi" (fung-eye) is the only one that works with that "mushroom walks into a bar" joke.

B: OK.

S: What about... what about "fungi" (fun-jee)?

B: That's actually my preferred pronunciation and I didn't find it. So, whatever, I'll just go with... I'll just go with one of the ones that I found. So this study reveals

E: (chuckles)

B: there's a fungus among us. OK, somebody had to say it, it's out of the way, I said it. So, actually, it...

E: (laughs)

B: it reveals that there's a little variation... there's very little variation in the fungal communities on our bodies except for our feet which calls home to 80 to 100 different types of fungus, they're just like all

?: (inaudible)

B: over the place down there. So, for... just for a quick

?: (inaudible)

B: high-level refresher uh fungi (fung-ee) are the third type of multi-cellular organisms, they're neither plant nor animals, um, one major difference between them and the other two is that their cell walls contain chitin, now that's (inaudible) that's like the exoskeleton of a crabs and lobsters or... or even the beaks of squid uh made of chitin. Uh, fungi play a pivotal role in decomposing organic matter and cycling uh nutrients in the environment and they also appear to be inordinately fond of feet. So here's a quick quote from the study: "A human's skin surfaces are complex ecosystems for microorganisms including fungi, bacteria and viruses which are known collectively as the skin microbiome". So I was as... I was surprised as I said that this initial study was the first of its kind. It seems, I guess, in terms of... yeah, human cohabitation bacteria and viruses get all.. get all the press and all the research dollars, so one reason why the lowly fungus I guess may have been neglected is that it's notoriously difficult to culture, I didn't know that, unlike bacteria which is easy, culturing a fungus from say uh the toenail can take weeks... weeks for it

S: And yet... and yet it's hard to kill when you wanna get rid of it.

B: (chuckle) Right. So... so how did they do it? They looked... they looked at the DNA, of course. They took ten volunteers and they swabbed 14 sites on their bodies including taking toenail clippings apparently. Uh, they then put them in a DNA sequencer which of course is uh one of the key technologies advanced by leaps and bounds uh by the Human Genome Project. Um, they used these molecular tags that stick only to the fungal DNA, so they wouldn't have to worry about all the human DNA and the bacterial DNA and viral DNA, that... that... that was mixed into the samples, so now they have this pure sample of just... of just fung... uh the fungus DNA. They then examined the tiny bits of fungal DNA uh called the phylogenetic markers to tally up all the different types of... of fungal species and bam, they were done, they had... they had a tally of all the different types of species. So, if you look most anywhere on the head or the torso you... you're likely to find one genus and that's called Malassezia. Uh, different areas have different species uh though, like the crease behind your ear or... or on your forehead there's little variation there. Surprisingly, your hands have tons of bacteria but very few fungal communities. So your feet, though, it's... it's completely different ecosystem, um, on your... on your toenails alone there's forty different uh fungi varieties, sixty between your toes, and eighty live on the bottom of... of your heel, which I think would ac... I wouldn't think that would be the most plentiful spot I would think, like, between your toes would have more but apparently there's lots of 'em on the bottom of your heel. So... so why is... how come? Why... why is this so? And it...

E: Gravity.

B: Yeah, gra... (laughs)

E: (chuckles)

B: Well it's... it's not hard to imagine one... one reason, right, your feet are... are often on contact with surfaces that fungi like to hang out on like your socks or locker room floors. I never walk barefoot at... at the gym, uh, never would do it.

E: Uhhhh,

B: So also

E: gosh... (inaudible) so bad.

B: your... your feet... I didn't know that your feet are cooler than other parts of your body, and... and fungi like cooler places, apparently, they hang out. Um, so... so should we all be grossed out? Are you guys like really grossed out... about this stuff?

R: (inaudible) obviously

?: Ahhh...

E: (inaudible) more grossed out about...

R: It takes more than that to... gross out Steve.

B: Yeah, I... I'm not...

S: Oh, yeah...

B: Yeah, I wouldn't think Steve would be, but I'm not... I'm not

S: I've had my head inside of a corpse

B: Cool, um...

R: Hey, thanks for that...

E: A human corpse? Wait, a human corpse?

B: I di...

S: Yeah.

B: Of course.

S: So has everyone who has gone through medical school.

E: You put your head in the corpse?

S: Well, you gotta get into the anatomy, I mean you gotta... you know you're disecting something...

E: I don't...

S: They... so, you get so grossed out in your first year of medical school you're basically done getting grossed out for life.

?: Yeah.

R: Yeah.

B: Totally desensitized.

R: I don't... I don't find what you've said so gross, Bob, but when in... you're talking I was thinking of that... toenail fungus, uh, commercial where...

E: Oh, yeah.

R: where the germ, like, lifts up

E: Little critters.

B: Yeah, yeah, yeah!

R: the toenail and then climbs inside and that's like the worst... worst commercial ever made.

B: Oh, my God I remember that something about detaching a toenail yes I... I cringe

R: Yeah.

B: every time I saw that, nothing to do with the

R: It's awful.

B: fungus or anything but it's just the lifting that toenail

R: Yeah, like the fungus didn't help

B: was nasty. Yeah right, yes. I mean it doesn't gross me out, the... thinking that there's... em... potentially s... you know... well over a hundred different types of these guys all over us. I thin... it's good... it's good that we're colonized by these critters because they're... they're likely to prevent other nasty... guys from taking hold on our skin so it's good that they're there. Likewise, this.. this research can actually help improve our treatment for skin disease and maybe even help with some types of cancers, some people were saying. So... so I say embrace the... the fungi living on your skin, you really don't have much of a choice until we replace them all with nanobots.

=== Chinese Fake Alien (25:46)===
* The Telegraph: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10115832/Chinese-farmer-jailed-for-making-a-rubber-alien.html Chinese farmer jailed for making a rubber alien]

S: All right, thanks, Bob. Evan, you're gonna tell us about a fake Chinese alien.<ref>[http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130612000078&cid=1103 WantChinaTimes]</ref> (laughter)

?: Oh, God.

E: Now that could mean several different things, I'll... I'll do my best to clarify. Now, there are times when news outlets totally, totally botch their headlines... right, I mean really botch

B: No.

E: We've talked about some real doozies on the show. But rarely do we give them credit when they actually get it right. Let's give The Telegraph its due, because they got this headline spot-on. They wrote: "Chinese farmer jailed for making rubber alien". That kind-a says it all.

?: OK.

E: (chuckles) So it's being reported out of the Shandong province, that, uh, local police recently arrested someone named Mr. Li, a farmer slash alien enthusiast by day and an alien enthusiast farmer... slash farmer by night. And here are his versions of the event, this is Mr. Li.

S: "Mr. Li" 's a pseudonym, probably, by the way.

E: He said: <blockquote>"I was setting an electrical trap for rabbits by the Yellow River, when I saw a bright light. Above my bike, a UFO was floating. One by one, five aliens came down, but one of them stumbled onto one of my rabbit traps and was electricuted. The others went back into their ship and flew away."</blockquote>So that's his story.

S: Quite a tale he's got there. So this alien from who knows how far away from another solar system in super advanced technology and then dies in a rabbit trap.

E: Exa...

S: And his friends leave him behind.

E: And they leave him behind.

R: Was he rabbit shit? (laughter)

E: No.

R: Maybe he was... maybe he was a rabbit, like from another dimension.

E: Well, then rabbits look an awful lot like little grays with Chinese accentuations around the eyes

B?: Yes.

E: and head and stuff. But

B: Plus... plus only mice... only mice are from other dimensions.

E: But how did he go about backing up his claim. Well he does what any true believer does and he post pictures of the ET on the Internet. And in three days these pictures happen to go viral, so after five days of having posted the pictures the local police show up at his door and he's taken in for questioning. Now during the questioning Mr. Li admitted, willingly or otherwise, that the whole thing was a hoax.

S: Shock, shocked.

E: He made an alien, he constructed it himself out of this gluey rubber sort of substance uh tied together with ropes and uh other things and you know... a few... he... he drew his inspiration from the Simon Peg film Paul I don't know if you guys have seen that

?: Hall?

R: Yeah, the one where they go to Comicon.

S: Yes.

E: Right... right.

S: Yes, I saw it.

E: And the alien does a little bit sort of kind of look like that I suppose.

S: But you're right, Evan, the... the uh alien head looks Chinese.

E: It... it does (chuckles).

S: It does... so I mean it's his cultural bias leaking through in his sculpture and he's not aware of it but to these Western you know American eyes it has this... it looks like uh something... that it... like an piece of art that a Chinese person would create.

E: Right.

S: You know, it's not just the eyes it's the mouth it's everything you know it's just there's a subtle sort of Oriental appearance to it. Uh, which is always, I think, a... a very telling sign to look for when people are imagining or faking alien phenomena and their cultural biases come through, and of course we're... you're much more attuned to them when it's from a di... from another culture.

E: But why did he... why did he do it why did you think he did it well he says it with the intent of helping more people believe in aliens. Which is

S: Yeah.

R: Weird.

E: an interesting way to go about doing that... uh, I suppose... um, he claims that and these are his words again:<blockquote>It's still disputed whether or not UFOs and aliens exist but we believe</blockquote>not sure what he means by we<blockquote>they do and we want to expand our group</blockquote>I don't know what group he's part of... uh<blockquote>and make more people believe that aliens do exist.</blockquote> So that's

R: Was this him

E: the approach.

R: saying this or was this

E: That was him.

R: the government saying that he said that.

E: Uh, that is the report from The Telegraph say... uh... which is quoting him as saying that.

R: Hm.

S: Who knows.

E: Yeah you who... who really knows. It's for the conspiry theori... conspiracy theorists,

S: (chuckle)

E: I guess to... to... to sort of figure it

R: Well, you know I mean you don't have to stretch far to come up with a conspiracy involving the Chinese government making a guy say something (chuckle) I mean

E: (chuckle)

R: making a Chinese prisoner say something that they want him to say. Um...

E: That's true.

B: Yeah, my mind all bets are off

R: Yeah, especially if they wanna

B: soo as he... soo as he ga... soo as the government got a hold of him they can well, nothing he says now... really (chuckle) you know whatever

R: Even if it was just a case of they... they wanted to trump up the charge a bit so they didn't look like they were just hassling some farmer, now they've got like a cult that they can

?: Yeah

R: pin on him, you know,

?: Yeah, yeah

E: But

R: 'cuz they're... they hate... they hate the cults.

E: Mr. Li spent five days incarcerated, the crime was fabricating lies and disrupting normal social order.

B: Oh, boy, wow.

E: Yeah, that... that doesn't sound too Orwellian or anything (inaudible)

S: Yeah, disrupting the social order that yeah really Orwellian, I agree

?: scary

E: Now, guys, to wrap this up, I'll say that the rubber alien was examined by scientists and deemed to be a hoax, the dead giveaway is when they broke open the alien and pulled out a slip of paper with a fortune, that's right

S: (laughs)

B: Oh!

E: And it... and the fort... it read "Help I'm being held prisoner in a Chinese bakery

R: Hm, hm.

E: and your lucky numbers are 4, 14, 22, 31, and 49". So

?: Jesus

E: that sort of sealed the deal.

B: Oh, boy.

R: That joke fails, though, on the fact that fortune cookies aren't Chinese.

S: Yeah, that's true.

E: No, that enhances the joke and the... gaw.... (inaudible, possibly expletive) (laughter)

== Who's That Noisy? (31:24)==
{{transcribing | date = 2013-09-01 | transcriber = Fallible}}

== Questions and Emails () ==
=== Can We Know Everything? ()===
<blockquote>I have been listening to the show for 4 years and although I have always been a sceptic I have learnt a great deal from your show. I would like to hear the rogues view on whether science has the potential to explain the physical world in such a way that we understand everything. Is there a limit to what we can comprehend? For example a dog has no concept of quantum gravity and wouldn’t ask the question of himself “Is space-time fundamentally continuous or discrete?” We have gone from asking ourselves how to grow food to “why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe?” Our brain appears finite in capacity so I would assume that would limit our ability to understand the world around us. Reaching a limit at some stage seems inevitable. Or will our brains develop as we need to solve increasingly more difficult questions, after all our brains appear not to need to store every bit of information we discover perhaps more the ability to solve a problem, and the capacity to grasp the variables at that time. I could be wrong though. Your opinions would be greatly appreciated and interesting.
Mark Dennehy
Melbourne</blockquote>

== Interview with Daniel Loxton () ==
About his new book: ''Abominable Science''

== Science or Fiction () ==
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612173326.htm Item #1:] New fossil evidence reveals the presence of kangaroo ancestors 25 million years ago in what is now Europe. [http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/15806 Item #2:] Researchers find that male guppies can reproduce up to 10 months after they have died. [http://www.anl.gov/articles/discovery-new-material-state-counterintuitive-laws-physics Item #3:] Scientists have discovered a material that gets larger under pressure, in apparent defiance of the laws of physics.

== Skeptical Quote of the Week () ==
<blockquote>Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing.</blockquote>
Harlan Ellison

== Announcements () ==

{{Outro404}}

== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

SGUTranscripts:Community portal

2013-09-05T22:01:03Z

Fallible: /* Formatting */ Reply to Av8rmike

Welcome to the community portal, this is the place to make suggestions and ask questions.

Add new topics at the top, and add comments to current topics in chronological order.

== Speech recognition software ==
Could we use the YouTube API and auto captions to get a rough draft? --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 23:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
: I'd love to see the results. From what I've read the accuracy is low enough as to not be useful but it'd certainly be interesting to see. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 08:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, it looks like there are some interesting things going on with Google speech recognition. There's a [https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/demos/speech.html demo app] that lets you talk for as long as you like. The first thing I'm going to have to do is to work out how to get chunks of the SGU podcast into it. I'm sure there's a way to couple the audio out and audio in on my linux machine, and if not, a simple cable from the headphone to the mic jack aught to do the trick. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 09:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
: So, after doing two episodes this way, what's your assessment of the process? I looked at [[SGU Episode 402|episode 402]], and it looks like it'll be almost as much work to decipher that wall o' text as it would have been to just type it in from scratch. Is it easy to set up, technically? -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 13:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
:: I'll have to go through and do the proof reading process before I know. Technically speaking, it's super easy. All I have is my headphones right next to the mic on my laptop, then I go to that google page, click the button and press play in vlc. So I imagine that it woudl be possible to get better results by either using a dedicated cable from the headphone jack into the mic jack, or by using some kind of software solution to pipe the sound into this web app. As far as I can see the quality varies. When one rogue is speaking clearly it does really well. When they talk over each other it's basically useless. Also, foreign accents completely confuse it. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 15:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
::: I tried it, but for whatever reason, the Google speech test page just didn't work for me; It kept asking for permission to use the microphone but wouldn't start recording. It doesn't matter; there's still stuff like categorization and formatting that has to be done manually anyway. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 14:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

There's also a [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/transcribe-transcribe-aud/ogokenmicnjdfhmhocanoemnddmpcjjm chrome extension for transcription] that allows you to speed up, slow down, pause etc the audio all from the same window as your text editor. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 08:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

== Sci or Fi stats ==
Hello everyone. I have an idea that is not completely relevant to SGU Transcripts, but I thought this would be the best place to ask this question. For a while now I have been wanting to have a little more fun with the results of Science or Fiction, beyond the simple annual tabulation of scores. Most importantly, I would like to measure the GWB Effect! Specifically, I would like to begin tabulating data on each Science or Fiction, and making it available to anyone who wants to perform an analysis on it. Things we could measure are: result for each player (right/wrong), order of answers given, number of "science" options, existence of theme, etc. There are other things as well. I think it would be a fun project for SGU fans who are also stats geeks. Anyone else interested? --[[User:Manyou07|Manyou07]] ([[User talk:Manyou07|talk]]) 08:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
: Sounds great! I know that [[User:Teleuteskitty]] has done some stuff. Would it be possible to do something cool with google docs? It'd be nice to do some graphs too. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 14:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
: Thanks! I opened a thread at the SGU Forums for further discussion: http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,44888.0.html[http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,44888.0.html] --[[User:Manyou07|Manyou07]] ([[User talk:Manyou07|talk]]) 06:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

== Word count ==
Hey. I've seen the [[Special:Statistics|Statistics]] page, but I've also noticed that when I search, it tells me the word count of pages. Is it possible to get some sort of Total word/character count? I personally would like to see. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 01:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
: There's also [[Special:ContributionScores]] but I think it has a tendency to massively overvalue small changes over larger ones, so people who do a lot of small corrections get higher scores than those who have transcribed a lot of text which is obviously not what we want. I haven't been able to find an extension that gives a total word count, but a while back I did do it manually by dumping all of the pages to text using some bodgy scripts on my linux box, then doing a word count on those text pages. It was on 2012-11-28 and we had transcribed 910,050 words, 5,128,984 characters, and we had completed 57 of 384 (15%) full SGU episodes and 78 of 113 (69%) 5x5 episodes. I'll do a refresh of these stats when I get a chance, but it's quite laborious. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 10:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
: Just casting my eye down the episode lists, I get 65 SGU (17%) and 83 5x5 (73%) episodes complete right now. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 10:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
: OK, I just did another run: 1,055,851 words, 5,937,159 characters. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 12:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

== Dead episode links ==
Quoted from [[Talk:SGU_Episode_127]] for general discussion:
<blockquote>If we just put in dead links to episodes that don't exist, wouldn't that create a list of the most referenced yet to be made episode pages? Wouldn't that possibly be good? --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 02:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
</blockquote>
:True, it would add them to [[Special:WantedPages]], although the numbers there are bumped up by having consecutive episodes transcribed with automatic navigation links etc. . I like the idea of noting the most needed episodes, but I personally think it's best to avoid dead links in text where possible, even though these would automatically update when the page becomes available. I proposed a slightly different way on [[Template talk:Link needed]] a while back - we could use that method to add a reference with the dead link, bumping them up the 'Wanted' list, whilst keeping an eye on [[:Category:Needs internal links]]. Which isn't perfect. Alternatively, we could:
#create the referenced pages and add a 'priority pages'category
#make a page listing all episodes to be transcribed, marking which are referenced
:What do you think? --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 02:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
::I'm a big fan of whatever is easiest. Am I right in thinking that this would be the broken (red) link approach? --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
:::I think so, yep. And just for the record, if that's what you guys think is best, I'm more than happy to go back through pages switching 'link needed' templates to dead links – I'm more motivated to take a uniform approach than to get any of my over-complicated ideas in place :) --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 22:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
::::I'll offer my reasoning on the "Link needed" template, since I'm the one that created it. My idea for it was just as a "placeholder" for when I was transcribing/proof-reading and one of the rogues makes reference to something from a previous episode, but I ''didn't'' know which episode it is, indicating for someone to find it at a subsequent date. If you know what episode is being referenced and there isn't a page created already, I'd say by all means go ahead and put in the dead link to save another person the trouble of figuring out which episode it should be. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 04:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::Ah, I see! That makes sense. Looks like that's the probably the consensus, so I'll start switching them over --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 07:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

== Steve Novella Show ==
'''Call for volunteers''': I've posted a framework for [[SGU_Episode_49|episode 49]] and did the first segments, then marked it as "open" to try to attract some more help. This one is The Steve Novella Show, as in the one he did all by himself, including Science or Fiction and Name That Logical Fallacy. It should be very easy to do, especially for someone who has trouble telling different voices apart. Sorry I can't offer any T-shirts. =)
: What exactly needs doing on this episode? I don't want to listen to everything if I don't have to. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::Oops, I just now noticed I never signed my comment. D= You don't have to transcribe the entire thing if you don't want to; you can do just a segment here or there. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 22:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:::Well, maybe it's more trouble than it's worth but if you know that there's nothing missing up until some point, what that point is would be nice. It's a little unclear just looking at the transcript so far... at least to me. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 00:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
::::It's been transcribed up to the [[SGU_Episode_49#Agnosticism_.289:03.29|Agnosticism]] e-mail. The rest has just been copied over from the show notes page. I haven't even formatted the text to break it into paragraphs, which may be what made it unclear to you. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 16:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

== Mike Lacelle ==
Hey everyone. Was thinking we should maybe try to do something in honor of Mike Lacelle. The only thing I came up with was marking episodes in which he appears as priority and getting them transcribed as soon as we can. If someone found the episodes and marked them I know I personally would work on them before other episodes. Any other ideas? --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 07:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
: That sounds good to me. How about I put a highlight on the front page to replace the t-shirt competition, seeing as that's been won now ;) --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 17:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
:As far as I can tell, he was mostly on around the year-in-review episodes, so I went through them:
:* 2011 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-31.mp3 337 - Dec 31 2011] - Mike is on this.
:* 2010 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-12-29.mp3 285 - Dec 29 2010] - Mike is on this.
:* 2009 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-01-01.mp3 232 - Jan 1 2010] - Mike is on this.
:* 2008 in review: 180 - Dec 30 2008 - Mike is NOT on this.
:* 2007 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-12-26.mp3 127 - Dec 26 2007] - Mike is on this.
:* 2006 in review: 75 - Dec 27 2006 - Mike is NOT on this.

::Hiya, I've started listing the episodes Mike was on here: [[Mike Lacelle - In memoriam‎]]. I don't think that's all of them though. I've also created pages for some of the episodes, I agree it would be good to prioritise these. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 19:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

== New starters' questions ==
Hey, guys! I'm new here (heard about the project on the recent episode) and today added two sections in episode 349: [[SGU Episode 349#Nuclear Clock (34:53)|Nuclear Clock]] and [[SGU Episode 349#NDE and Lucid Dreaming (40:44)|NDE and Lucid Dreaming]]. Let me know how they look! It's my first time transcribing anything on this scale, and I think I'm getting the hang of it, but I have to admit that I'm a bit of a perfectionist and I feel strange not having ''more'' direction as far as formatting (I realize it would probably be very difficult/time-consuming to enforce super-specific standards at this stage). I looked at some of the completed transcripts to get an idea of what others were doing and tried to use my best judgment from there. I think I'm ready to attack a full episode, but it might take me a while to get through it. There are still some things I'm not entirely clear on, including exactly how the categories/redirects work, so I'm sure I'll ask for some help once I've finished transcribing a full episode (and probably while I'm in the middle of it). Also, I wanted to say that I usually don't have any trouble distinguishing voices (including Jay's and Bob's), so if there are any episodes/sections that need a second pair of ears for that specifically, I can definitely help out. Going forward, is this page the best way to communicate with other members? Thanks! --[[User:Jacquie o|Jacquie o]] ([[User talk:Jacquie o|talk]]) 11:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Jacquie! Those transcripts you've done look absolutely fantastic! In terms of direction, we're just feeling our way though here. :) I suppose the most important thing is to get as much of the content done, and so long as the meaning is accurate, that's the most important thing. I also try to think "what if someone was running this through google translate?", i.e. would it translate well? That's leading me to leave out "you know" and "um" and those types of things to make the transcript flow better.Great to hear you can tell Jay and Bob apart, if you have time and want some lighter work, doing some proof reading might be right up your alley then. Some people do transcripts and leave, say B?: or J?: if they're not sure, so you could possibly go through and fix those.Going forward, we're trying to work on a place to help members communicate. The best I've got so far is this: [[Special:WikiForum]], but it's a bit bare bones, so when I get some time I'm going to try to integrate something a little more sophisticated.--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello all. I just joined. Jumped in and proofread [[SGU Episode 3]], some very minor copy edits, added a fair number of links, and subdivided a particularly long interview. I also added some "dead links" to pages I was figuring we should have locally: NESS and JREF. Or should I go back and change them to external links to THE Wikipedia? --[[User:Bshirley|Bshirley]] ([[User talk:Bshirley|talk]]) 03:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
: Hi Bshirley. Thanks for the proof reading, it's very appreciated. It's always fun to add links during the proof reading process, I find I do that a lot too. I really like the subdivisions within the interview breaking it into its topics, that's something I might try to do in future; it would really help with deep linking to a particular subject of discussion. As for the dead links, I'm not so sure. I guess I see our site as not so much providing pages on particular topics à la Wikipedia, and am more inclined to link off to Wikipedia for those kinds of things. We can always improve them on Wikipedia if need be. Just my opinion tho. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 15:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone, HNY and thanks for all the great work you're doing here. I'm new to transcribing and to this whole Wiki editing stuff but hope I won't make too much of a mess. I posted a [[5X5_Episode_37|5x5 Episode 37]] for a start so I guess it's ready for proof-reading. I didn't go through the whole Help section yet, just copied the formatting from another verified episode. So if anyone can take a look and check what I got wrong, I'd appreciate it. I'm not an English native speaker, so: (a) Though I tried to stick to the American spelling, there may be some impurities; (b) I'm never sure about punctuation. Guess I tend to abuse/misuse/misplace it. One more thing: I wasn't sure what to do with all the "likes", "you knows"' etc. so I left them in. Don't know what the best practice is. Oh, and I didn't have too much trouble telling Jay and Bob apart. Beginner's luck? ;) Keep up the good work! --[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 00:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
:Great stuff! Welcome on board. I've proof read 5x5 #37 for you and I must say, I take my hat off to you. As someone who has some familiarity with a foreign language (having lived in France for a year), I must say you did an amazingly good job. I'd say your error rate is pretty much the same as transcripts done by native speakers. :)
:* Re: American/British spelling: I don't really care, but I'm a bit more laissez faire than most other people on here. :)
:* Re: likes/you knows: I tend to leave them out unless they modify the meaning of the sentence.
:* Re: Bob/Jay: I'm beginning to suspect that this is a talent, as well as a skill.
:One thing that might help is the [[Help:Contents#Useful_pages|skeleton pages]]. These are blank templates you can use when starting a new transcript. Cheers for your help! --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 12:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
::Wow! Appreciate the thumbs up. That's very encouraging. And thanks for the proof read. Apart from obvious misspellings, you corrected the very bits I was least sure of and that's a good sign, I guess :) Care to look at [[5X5_Episode_41|5x5 #41]]? Hope it's not worse than the first one. Cheers! --[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 13:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Yep, done. That was even better than the first one, just one change really: [http://www.future-perfect.co.uk/grammartips/grammar-tip-practise-practice.asp practise vs practice]. I'm a native speaker and I still get those mixed up. :) --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 15:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
::::Thanks :) And now [[5X5_Episode_42|#42]] is up for grabs. This is fun ;) --[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 18:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

== Formatting ==
Is there a way to get <nowiki><blockquote></nowiki> formatted a little bit. Maybe a light background color and/or some automatic large quote marks? Right now it's not necessarily worth using, imho. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
:Yep, we could probably change the CSS. I'll see what I can do. Do you have a site in mind that I could use as a basis (i.e. to steal the css from)? --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
::It looks like something has changed to add a light beige background, which achieves the goal. Personally I think it could be a little more distinct, by my aesthetic tastes are poorly defined and not widely popular. I didn't have any examples in mind, but the first one on [http://css-tricks.com/examples/Blockquotes/ this] site looks good to me. It shows an example of what I meant by the "large quote marks". I am okay with having issues I bring up be un-addressed. I just write down things I think of. I leave the risk/reward analysis to those with better information on the subject. Still, I think the better looking the site is the more likely people are to use it. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 21:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Did the way the diffs display change? They look good. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 02:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
: They ''do'' look good. :) I didn't intentionally change them, but perhaps they changed with the new 1.20 mediawiki version (along with user registration briefly being broken). --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 13:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Design request: make the left pane logo and links float down the page when scrolling. Just another idea I'm throwing out there. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 21:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Help! I'm totally green and have a question: what am I supposed to do about "Quickies with Bob"? The one in Episode 414 comes in the middle of the news segments... and maybe this issue should be addressed in a Help section somewhere (sorry if I missed it)? --[[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 16:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
:Hi Fallible, thanks for helping out on the site. It's a good question, and we don't yet have a set format for that. I searched through what's already been done, and I like the format in [[SGU Episode 387]] and [[SGU Episode 400]]. In these, it's treated as a new, 2nd level segment, followed by a 2nd level header "News items continued", and 3rd level headers for the remaining news items. If people agree this format works, I'll go back and change the other transcripts, and add a note in the help section. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks for the quick reply! I like it (the formatting proposal). The only comment I have is, are "Quickies with Bob" always in the news items section of the podcast? Because if not, we should agree on a format for how to interrupt a second level item with no sub-items (I suppose the same "X continued (time-stamp)" would work). -- [[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 22:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
: G'day Fallible. What I do is start a new second-level heading for the quickie with Bob. If the quickie occurs in the middle of the news items or whatever, I just do a "News items continued" afterwards, see: http://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_414. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 08:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
:: Yeah, if there's no objections, I'll change the others over to this format in a couple of days. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 20:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Another question about formatting(?): the news items sometimes include links to references which have been copied from the episode notes. If I think there are additional references which add more information, how can I (or even, should I) add them to the episode transcription? One possibility is to add more links at the start of a news item, but somehow that seems inelegant to me (because there is no distinction between the original link or links from the episode notes and additional links). -- [[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 19:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
:Good question, I often add them as references to the relevant bit, eg. when they introduce that bit of the story. That way they're clearly not from the SGU guys, which is important, as you say, as it takes a value judgement on what to link to. Hope that helps. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 20:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

And yet another question about formatting. In my episode, Bob, Steve, and Rebecca talk about the various ways the word "fungi" can be pronounced, but I currently have no way to distinguish between these pronunciations in the transcription. Would it be OK if I added IPA as is sometimes done in Wikipedia? The drawback is that this might break searching for phrases. --[[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 19:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
:This hasn't been formally acknowledged before, but I think we usually do an approximation of the sounds in speech marks, eg. "Fun-guy", "Funjee" or "Fungee". This is more accessible than IPA, which I personally had to look up and would have no idea how to use. That's my thoughts, anyhow. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 20:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks, Teleuteskitty, I ended up adding the "speech markup" inside parentheses. My impression is that there's a partially declared convention that anything in parentheses is descriptive text added by the transcriber and not anything spoken by the rogues. Please correct me if I am wrong, and consider making this an officially declared convention. --[[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 20:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
:::You're right, I've definitely done that. So far, we've tried not to be too prescriptive about formatting as this might inhibit contributions. I personally prefer guidelines and uniformity, but there are others who find it too constrictive. In this instance, I think you're right that we should agree a standard for descriptive text to separate it from the actual episode. I'm revising the help section soon, and will address this. does anyone have feedback about using regular parentheses for descriptive text? e.g. (imitating Schwarzenegger) --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 21:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
:::I usually use parentheses as well, mostly because I haven't run into too many situations where parentheticals might be confusing. For things like ''[sic]''s where someone misspeaks or I need to indicate an editorial change, I usually use square brackets. I forgot to mention that I also tend to use italics, as in ''(laughs)'' just to further indicate it's not part of the speech. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 21:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Ah, thanks Av8rmike, your comment "made the light bulb over my head light up" that I've been using "(laughter)" wrong. A lot of the time I should have used "(laughs)" because I meant that the particular rogue who was currently being transcribed laughed and the help explicitly states that "(laughter)" indicates general laughter of all or most of the rogues. As for the italics, I'll have to think about it and get back to you if I think it's worth the extra effort. (Oh, and wow, I didn't think of adding [sic] and admire you for having the energy for it, the rogues are misspeaking soooo much in my episode...) [[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 22:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

== Interviews ==
Question regarding interviews. When an interview is incorporated into a segment, such as Dr Rachie's interview in SGU 366, does that make her a guest? It doesn't seem like a black and white distinction. --[[User:Zambuck|Zambuck]] ([[User talk:Zambuck|talk]]) 22:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Zambuck, we use the 'Guest' section in the infobox as a key for non-Rogue speakers, so you're right to add her in there. Thanks for your help! --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 10:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

== External links ==
I've posted the transcript for [[5X5 Episode 30]] so it's ready for a proof. Any takers? Tried my best to keep to US spelling. Mostly wiki links but some external, any preference? --[[User:tnewsome|tnewsome]] ([[User talk:tnewsome|talk]]) 23:19, 18 October 2012 (EST)
:We've mostly used wiki links, as it keeps a general standard of reference, they're often updated and they reference out to other sites. It's also very handy when you've got lots of linkable points, and it would take forever to find the ''best'' website for each. If readers are interested, it's generally a good place for them to start. Thanks for your help! --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to have certain text automatically become a link? Like 'Skeptic's Guide to the Universe' or 'New England Skeptic's Society' or the rogues' names for example? --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
:Not that I know of, other than perhaps using a template --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

== Index of core concepts ==
Had an idea for a project we could work on in conjunction with the transcription. We should keep track of places where the rogues explain a core concept in detail (a lot of 5x5 episodes I imagine) and link to that explanation from other places in the transcription. Paradolia, Occam's razor, selection bias, things like that. We could centralize them into a single page, as well. Within the canonical rogue explanation we can link out to wikipedia or other sources. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
: Sounds like a great idea, somewhat compatible with the TIL (Today I Learned) sections. I think centralising them into a single page would make them much easier to find... I know that when I'm transcribing and I hear someone say "we discussed that on a previous podcast" it'd be nice to have a place to go to find that, though perhaps searching would be sufficient. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

== Example page(s) ==
Hi all. I think it would be a good idea to pick an episode that is the canonical one. One where whatever the current agreed upon standard is implemented that can be pointed to or referenced whenever needed. Just a thought. Oo... also, we should be careful about links. We need to use nofollow when appropriate so quacks don't get any google juice from our work. 
--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 03:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
:Good idea on the example episode, we're trying to figure out which one would be best. Suggestions welcome! --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
::It might be that we'll have to splice together a few episodes to get all the various elements in one place. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Hi, Geneocide! I think that the transcripts from episodes 350-365 (even the unverified ones) are probably as close to canonical as we're going to get. Those were done in the time when TK, RWH, and I had a little bit more time to devote to the pages and before we started to fall behind. (I'm particular to [[SGU_Episode_365|365]], since that's one I did almost entirely myself. =) --[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 02:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

== Proof reading ==
The [[5X5 Episode 6]] transcript has just gone up and is begging for a proof-read and voice check. Any takers? :) --[[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 04:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
:I got it covered. Thanks, Skepticat! -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 02:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I heard Rob on the SGU and it sounded like a fantastic idea to contribute here. I transcribed a 5x5 episode to start (#39), and I'll probably do a few more before I go whole hog and tackle a full SGU episode. If anyone wants to proof-read that episode I did, that would be fantastic. I know the punctuation is way off there. Thanks in advance, and If you need my help specifically, don't be afraid to message me. Have fun! --[[User:Thevipermike|Thevipermike]] ([[User talk:Thevipermike|talk]]) 05:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
:Great, thanks! I'll take a look when I get a chance. :) --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

== Time formats ==
Hi guys, I've noticed we've used 2 different time-stamp formats. When it gets past the hour mark, I use the h:mm:ss format, but some pages use mm:ss, e.g. 78:12. As the time-stamps form the links for sections, I figure this is pretty important. My argument for using h:mm:ss is that, in my experience, that's what the majority of audio software and mp3 players use, plus I think it's more natural for us to think of time this way. What do you guys think? --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 17:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
:Kitty, the only reason I was using mm:ss was because that's what was already in use on the existing pages. =P I agree that h:mm:ss makes more intuitive sense and is used in more places, so I'm all in favor of switching over. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 13:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks for responding. Rwh86's away this week, so I'm gonna be cheeky, assume he's cool with it and change them over. We can always change them back if anyone comes up with a good argument for the mm:ss format. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

== Categories ==
Hi guys, and thanks for starting this project! I don't have a lot of time to devote to doing whole transcripts, but I'd like to start categorizing the wiki pages, like "SGU Transcripts", "Live Episodes", etc. I think it would also be helpful to have next/previous episode links on each page, either at the bottom or in the infobox. Any opinions? --[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 15:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

:Hi Av8rmike, thanks for your interest, any help is always appreciated, big or small. We were thinking of using the categories from the [http://theness.com/roguesgallery/ Rogues gallery], plus others more specific to the podcast, e.g. guests. I think adding a category for live episodes is a great idea. We're also considering using redirect pages for categorizing podcast sections separately.
:I agree, previous/next buttons would be good (in fact I was just playing with some graphics for them). However, I'm not sure how to get a wiki template to recognise the episode number and add/subtract automatically, do you have any ideas about that? Otherwise we can just input them manually. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 16:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

::I took a stab at adding some categories to [[SGU_Episode_354]] to give an idea of how that would work. I don't know offhand how to do the auto-numbering in wiki templates, but from looking at the help pages for templates, you can do almost anything with them. I could probably do some experimenting and see how far I get. --[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 18:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

== Who's who? Recognising the Rogues==
I'd like to help, but I ''cannot'' tell Jay and Bob's voices apart. Am I useless? --[[User:Jenpohl|Jenpohl]] 20:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:I often find this difficult, and it's quite likely I've already made mistakes based on this, but mb you'll get better as you're listening closely. I find Bob more nasal. Another good indicator is whether they're referencing nanotechnology or porn. :) --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 21:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:That may be a problem, but all it took for me to tell their voices apart was a little time. --[[User:Jay One|Jay One]] 21:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:Just a thought: if you want to put up a <ins>transcription page including</ins> timestamps in comments (using "< !--" and "-->" without spaces in them) for the points you're unsure about, you could flag the pages up here for me (or whoever) to see if we can help out. <ins>This way we can easily search for problem points.</ins> --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 06:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC) [edited:16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)]

:You're definitely not useless! The most important thing is to get a first pass of the transcription done, corrections are then much quicker/easier. How about you put a question mark after the letter if you can't work out who's speaking? So like:
:
:B?: Stuff that Bob or Jay said
:
:Then someone else can go fix them later, should be pretty quick to do. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys...First time transcriber here! I was inspired by Tim Farley's presentation at TAM 2012 to see where I could help out - and figured I could at least try this. I just transcribed and posted [[5X5_Episode_4]], but I'm not familiar enough with the Rogues to distinguish voice identities. The only voice IDs I'm somewhat sure of are Steve's and Rebecca's (the others I guessed at). If anyone can help with voice IDs in Ep. 4, that would be great. (Maybe I'll get better at the voices in the future -grin-) --[[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 03:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Skepticat, and (as Av8rmike said) welcome to the team! I proof-read [[5X5 Episode 4]] and added the speakers. The page is great, took me no time to add them. In future, if there's a lot of lines you can't attribute, don't worry about adding times to each, just the first in a cluster. Hopefully that will save you a bit of time too :) I often find Bob and Jay hard to distinguish, but I think Bob's just a little more nasal, and it sounds like Jay might use a desktop mic instead of one close by his mouth. I don't know if that's any help. Thanks for your help, I'm very jealous you got to go to Tam, if you have any feedback for the site, do let us know. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks for the proof-read! Care to take a whack at [[5X5 Episode 5]], which I just posted? I don't think I'm going to have much luck with voice IDs (other than S & R) unless someone specifically says who's who, so I'll leave that to much more experienced folks, such as yourself, for now. Heck, I ended up riding down in the same elevator with the SGU crew at TAM (I think it was the first morning?) and I didn't fully realize who they were until later. As I was a "first TAMMER", that happened to me a few times with other skeptic notables there. :) --[[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 04:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

:::Done! And just for the record, I definitely don't get the voices right ''all'' the time. That's just one of the reasons to have subsequent contributors as proof-readers :) --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 12:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

::Skepticat: Some things that may help you get more familiar with the voices:
::* Listen to an episode and follow along with the transcript (assuming it's been verified), paying attention to who's speaking when.
::* Transcribe some of the earlier episodes. Perry is easy to distinguish, and Jay (and sometimes Bob) aren't in all the early ones because of software limitations. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 14:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

== Professional transcribers ==
Has anyone explored the idea of hiring a professional transcriptionist to do the work? This could be much faster, but there would be a cost involved. Perhaps a donation fund could be set up for SGU listeners to pay for it. Another podcast that goes this route is the "Security Now" podcast from Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte. -- [[User:128.200.139.53|128.200.139.53]] ([[User talk:128.200.139.53|talk]]) 17:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:I'm a professional trascriber and I would love to contribute towards this project. VLC is good but not optimized for transcription purpose. I would suggest NCH's ExpressScribe software and it's free. Also if you are spending a lot of time on this project, I would recommend investing on a foot pedal. It shouldn't cost you more than $25. With these two things, I am sure you can double your productivity. --[[User:Eupraxsophic|Eupraxsophic]] ([[User talk:Eupraxsophic|talk]]) 02:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

== Fact lists ==
Hi guys, I'm guessing this is the best place to put project discussions, let me know if there's another way - I'm new to Wiki editing.

Regarding time stamps for the sections, I've entered them into the headings of [[SGU_Episode_348]] using tags. This shows them smaller in the actual headings, but the same size in the contents list. What do you guys think?

I've also been thinking of ways to make these transcript pages as useful as poss without causing ourselves too much extra work. One way might be to include a kind of bullet-point list of facts from the episode, as they often have throw-away comments that are interesting. E.g. in ep.348, they talk about nut allergies, and that cashew nuts contain the same allergy-inducing resin as poison-ivy. We could lift these from the main text as we go and build a list at the end. It wouldn't make much difference if someone's reading the whole transcript, but it might make a nice feature for flicking through them.
Just a thought, I figured it would be better said earlier than later. What do you think?
 Cheers, --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 04:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

:I like the idea of compiling a fact list at the end of the transcription for each episode. It's just up to the individual transcriber I suppose. Regarding the tags, I definitely think it would help to have the timestamps in these transcriptions, and having it in the section title makes it visible in the table of contents. The other option is to use the wikibox on your user page, which I think is very nice, containing the image, quote, times and links in one place. It just depends on whether or not other people like it too. --[[User:Jay One|Jay One]] 20:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks, I have no experience making wikibox templates, so if someone else knows more about these, mb they'd like to build one? (although I'm happy to try) we should probably come to some agreement about whether we want them and what they should contain. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 20:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've inserted a rough draft of a fact list at the bottom of [[SGU_Episode_348]]. What do you guys think? It was easy to put together, but I didn't know what to call it.
 --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 05:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:I originally thought it was a bad idea until I went and looked at your example. Now I think it's ''awesome'', I love it! :) Currently you've called it "Today I Learned..." which I think is good, but can anyone think of a title that's better? Like maybe "Interesting ideas from the podcast" except not that as it sounds terrible. ;) --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::Yay! Thanks. For the name, the only thing I thought, was I wanted to be careful not to assert them as hard facts. Also, we should mb point out that they are not part of the transcript, but taken from it after. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

== Objectives ==
Hi guys like others I've often thought about this as a project but put off by the amount of time that it would have taken one person, the main reason I thought about doing this was to be able to search the transcripts when needed, example: if someone asked me a question on Homoeopathy I would be able to use my smartphone to give an answer based on what the SGU have talked about in the past, as I generally take what the guys say as fact.

Do you think that what I'm taking about would be possible using this WIKI project??

Looking forward to starting and completing my first SGU Transcript :-) --[[User:Manontop|Manontop]] 09:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

:Hi Manontop.
:Sure, I think that would be one of the most important uses of these transcripts. My ideas for having transcripts of the SGU episodes are to facilitate linking, searching and accessibility:
:
:* Linking. We have headings throughout the podcasts so that it's possible to link directly to a specific segment, for example [[SGU_Episode_352#Aristolochia_Nephropathy|Aristolochia Nephropathy]] (internal wiki link) or [http://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_352#Aristolochia_Nephropathy Aristolochia Nephropathy] (external link).
:* Searching. Currently there are (at least) two ways to search. Either using Google or the built-in search box in the top right. If you want to use Google to search only this site, you can do so by using the "site:" term in your query. E.g. your Google query would be [https://www.google.com/search?q=site:sgutranscripts.org+titanic+disaster "site:sgutranscripts.org titanic disaster"]. Google is the king of them all, so I have installed proper semantic web (SEO) support. When a transcript is completed I go through and insert tags to important concepts that are covered in the podcast. This helps Google (and other search engines) know what is important about that page. You can see these by opening a transcript and viewing the source of the page. Then look for the <meta name="keywords" content="..."> tag. There are two components to this, tags that are site-wide such as "skeptics, sceptics, scepticism" etc. followed by tags that are local to a particular page such as "titanic, tragedy, ss, californian, space, junk" etc. Of course, Google also uses the page content when indexing.
:* Accessibility. Quite simple really; people who can't listen to the podcast for any reason (deafness etc.) can now read the transcripts instead.
:
:Great to have you on board! :) --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 11:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

SGUTranscripts:Community portal

2013-09-05T20:27:33Z

Fallible: /* Formatting */ Reply to Teleuteskitty

Welcome to the community portal, this is the place to make suggestions and ask questions.

Add new topics at the top, and add comments to current topics in chronological order.

== Speech recognition software ==
Could we use the YouTube API and auto captions to get a rough draft? --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 23:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
: I'd love to see the results. From what I've read the accuracy is low enough as to not be useful but it'd certainly be interesting to see. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 08:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, it looks like there are some interesting things going on with Google speech recognition. There's a [https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/demos/speech.html demo app] that lets you talk for as long as you like. The first thing I'm going to have to do is to work out how to get chunks of the SGU podcast into it. I'm sure there's a way to couple the audio out and audio in on my linux machine, and if not, a simple cable from the headphone to the mic jack aught to do the trick. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 09:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
: So, after doing two episodes this way, what's your assessment of the process? I looked at [[SGU Episode 402|episode 402]], and it looks like it'll be almost as much work to decipher that wall o' text as it would have been to just type it in from scratch. Is it easy to set up, technically? -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 13:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
:: I'll have to go through and do the proof reading process before I know. Technically speaking, it's super easy. All I have is my headphones right next to the mic on my laptop, then I go to that google page, click the button and press play in vlc. So I imagine that it woudl be possible to get better results by either using a dedicated cable from the headphone jack into the mic jack, or by using some kind of software solution to pipe the sound into this web app. As far as I can see the quality varies. When one rogue is speaking clearly it does really well. When they talk over each other it's basically useless. Also, foreign accents completely confuse it. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 15:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
::: I tried it, but for whatever reason, the Google speech test page just didn't work for me; It kept asking for permission to use the microphone but wouldn't start recording. It doesn't matter; there's still stuff like categorization and formatting that has to be done manually anyway. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 14:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

There's also a [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/transcribe-transcribe-aud/ogokenmicnjdfhmhocanoemnddmpcjjm chrome extension for transcription] that allows you to speed up, slow down, pause etc the audio all from the same window as your text editor. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 08:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

== Sci or Fi stats ==
Hello everyone. I have an idea that is not completely relevant to SGU Transcripts, but I thought this would be the best place to ask this question. For a while now I have been wanting to have a little more fun with the results of Science or Fiction, beyond the simple annual tabulation of scores. Most importantly, I would like to measure the GWB Effect! Specifically, I would like to begin tabulating data on each Science or Fiction, and making it available to anyone who wants to perform an analysis on it. Things we could measure are: result for each player (right/wrong), order of answers given, number of "science" options, existence of theme, etc. There are other things as well. I think it would be a fun project for SGU fans who are also stats geeks. Anyone else interested? 
--[[User:Manyou07|Manyou07]] ([[User talk:Manyou07|talk]]) 08:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
: Sounds great! I know that [[User:Teleuteskitty]] has done some stuff. Would it be possible to do something cool with google docs? It'd be nice to do some graphs too. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 14:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
: Thanks! I opened a thread at the SGU Forums for further discussion: http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,44888.0.html[http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,44888.0.html] --[[User:Manyou07|Manyou07]] ([[User talk:Manyou07|talk]]) 06:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

== Word count ==
Hey. I've seen the [[Special:Statistics|Statistics]] page, but I've also noticed that when I search, it tells me the word count of pages. Is it possible to get some sort of Total word/character count? I personally would like to see. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 01:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
: There's also [[Special:ContributionScores]] but I think it has a tendency to massively overvalue small changes over larger ones, so people who do a lot of small corrections get higher scores than those who have transcribed a lot of text which is obviously not what we want. I haven't been able to find an extension that gives a total word count, but a while back I did do it manually by dumping all of the pages to text using some bodgy scripts on my linux box, then doing a word count on those text pages. It was on 2012-11-28 and we had transcribed 910,050 words, 5,128,984 characters, and we had completed 57 of 384 (15%) full SGU episodes and 78 of 113 (69%) 5x5 episodes. I'll do a refresh of these stats when I get a chance, but it's quite laborious. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 10:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
: Just casting my eye down the episode lists, I get 65 SGU (17%) and 83 5x5 (73%) episodes complete right now. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 10:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
: OK, I just did another run: 1,055,851 words, 5,937,159 characters. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 12:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

== Dead episode links ==
Quoted from [[Talk:SGU_Episode_127]] for general discussion:
<blockquote>If we just put in dead links to episodes that don't exist, wouldn't that create a list of the most referenced yet to be made episode pages? Wouldn't that possibly be good? --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 02:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
</blockquote>
:True, it would add them to [[Special:WantedPages]], although the numbers there are bumped up by having consecutive episodes transcribed with automatic navigation links etc. . I like the idea of noting the most needed episodes, but I personally think it's best to avoid dead links in text where possible, even though these would automatically update when the page becomes available. I proposed a slightly different way on [[Template talk:Link needed]] a while back - we could use that method to add a reference with the dead link, bumping them up the 'Wanted' list, whilst keeping an eye on [[:Category:Needs internal links]]. Which isn't perfect. Alternatively, we could:
#create the referenced pages and add a 'priority pages'category
#make a page listing all episodes to be transcribed, marking which are referenced
:What do you think? --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 02:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
::I'm a big fan of whatever is easiest. Am I right in thinking that this would be the broken (red) link approach? --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
:::I think so, yep. And just for the record, if that's what you guys think is best, I'm more than happy to go back through pages switching 'link needed' templates to dead links – I'm more motivated to take a uniform approach than to get any of my over-complicated ideas in place :) --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 22:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
::::I'll offer my reasoning on the "Link needed" template, since I'm the one that created it. My idea for it was just as a "placeholder" for when I was transcribing/proof-reading and one of the rogues makes reference to something from a previous episode, but I ''didn't'' know which episode it is, indicating for someone to find it at a subsequent date. If you know what episode is being referenced and there isn't a page created already, I'd say by all means go ahead and put in the dead link to save another person the trouble of figuring out which episode it should be. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 04:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::Ah, I see! That makes sense. Looks like that's the probably the consensus, so I'll start switching them over --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 07:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

== Steve Novella Show ==
'''Call for volunteers''': I've posted a framework for [[SGU_Episode_49|episode 49]] and did the first segments, then marked it as "open" to try to attract some more help. This one is The Steve Novella Show, as in the one he did all by himself, including Science or Fiction and Name That Logical Fallacy. It should be very easy to do, especially for someone who has trouble telling different voices apart. Sorry I can't offer any T-shirts. =)
: What exactly needs doing on this episode? I don't want to listen to everything if I don't have to. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::Oops, I just now noticed I never signed my comment. D= You don't have to transcribe the entire thing if you don't want to; you can do just a segment here or there. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 22:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:::Well, maybe it's more trouble than it's worth but if you know that there's nothing missing up until some point, what that point is would be nice. It's a little unclear just looking at the transcript so far... at least to me. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 00:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
::::It's been transcribed up to the [[SGU_Episode_49#Agnosticism_.289:03.29|Agnosticism]] e-mail. The rest has just been copied over from the show notes page. I haven't even formatted the text to break it into paragraphs, which may be what made it unclear to you. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 16:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

== Mike Lacelle ==
Hey everyone. Was thinking we should maybe try to do something in honor of Mike Lacelle. The only thing I came up with was marking episodes in which he appears as priority and getting them transcribed as soon as we can. If someone found the episodes and marked them I know I personally would work on them before other episodes. Any other ideas? --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 07:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
: That sounds good to me. How about I put a highlight on the front page to replace the t-shirt competition, seeing as that's been won now ;) --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 17:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
:As far as I can tell, he was mostly on around the year-in-review episodes, so I went through them:
:* 2011 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-31.mp3 337 - Dec 31 2011] - Mike is on this.
:* 2010 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-12-29.mp3 285 - Dec 29 2010] - Mike is on this.
:* 2009 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-01-01.mp3 232 - Jan 1 2010] - Mike is on this.
:* 2008 in review: 180 - Dec 30 2008 - Mike is NOT on this.
:* 2007 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-12-26.mp3 127 - Dec 26 2007] - Mike is on this.
:* 2006 in review: 75 - Dec 27 2006 - Mike is NOT on this.

::Hiya, I've started listing the episodes Mike was on here: [[Mike Lacelle - In memoriam‎]]. I don't think that's all of them though. I've also created pages for some of the episodes, I agree it would be good to prioritise these. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 19:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

== New starters' questions ==
Hey, guys! I'm new here (heard about the project on the recent episode) and today added two sections in episode 349: [[SGU Episode 349#Nuclear Clock (34:53)|Nuclear Clock]] and [[SGU Episode 349#NDE and Lucid Dreaming (40:44)|NDE and Lucid Dreaming]]. Let me know how they look! It's my first time transcribing anything on this scale, and I think I'm getting the hang of it, but I have to admit that I'm a bit of a perfectionist and I feel strange not having ''more'' direction as far as formatting (I realize it would probably be very difficult/time-consuming to enforce super-specific standards at this stage). I looked at some of the completed transcripts to get an idea of what others were doing and tried to use my best judgment from there. I think I'm ready to attack a full episode, but it might take me a while to get through it. There are still some things I'm not entirely clear on, including exactly how the categories/redirects work, so I'm sure I'll ask for some help once I've finished transcribing a full episode (and probably while I'm in the middle of it). Also, I wanted to say that I usually don't have any trouble distinguishing voices (including Jay's and Bob's), so if there are any episodes/sections that need a second pair of ears for that specifically, I can definitely help out. Going forward, is this page the best way to communicate with other members? Thanks!
--[[User:Jacquie o|Jacquie o]] ([[User talk:Jacquie o|talk]]) 11:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Jacquie! Those transcripts you've done look absolutely fantastic! In terms of direction, we're just feeling our way though here. :) I suppose the most important thing is to get as much of the content done, and so long as the meaning is accurate, that's the most important thing. I also try to think "what if someone was running this through google translate?", i.e. would it translate well? That's leading me to leave out "you know" and "um" and those types of things to make the transcript flow better.Great to hear you can tell Jay and Bob apart, if you have time and want some lighter work, doing some proof reading might be right up your alley then. Some people do transcripts and leave, say B?: or J?: if they're not sure, so you could possibly go through and fix those.Going forward, we're trying to work on a place to help members communicate. The best I've got so far is this: [[Special:WikiForum]], but it's a bit bare bones, so when I get some time I'm going to try to integrate something a little more sophisticated.--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello all. I just joined. Jumped in and proofread [[SGU Episode 3]], some very minor copy edits, added a fair number of links, and subdivided a particularly long interview. I also added some "dead links" to pages I was figuring we should have locally: NESS and JREF. Or should I go back and change them to external links to THE Wikipedia?
--[[User:Bshirley|Bshirley]] ([[User talk:Bshirley|talk]]) 03:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
: Hi Bshirley. Thanks for the proof reading, it's very appreciated. It's always fun to add links during the proof reading process, I find I do that a lot too. I really like the subdivisions within the interview breaking it into its topics, that's something I might try to do in future; it would really help with deep linking to a particular subject of discussion. As for the dead links, I'm not so sure. I guess I see our site as not so much providing pages on particular topics à la Wikipedia, and am more inclined to link off to Wikipedia for those kinds of things. We can always improve them on Wikipedia if need be. Just my opinion tho. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 15:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone, HNY and thanks for all the great work you're doing here. I'm new to transcribing and to this whole Wiki editing stuff but hope I won't make too much of a mess. I posted a [[5X5_Episode_37|5x5 Episode 37]] for a start so I guess it's ready for proof-reading. I didn't go through the whole Help section yet, just copied the formatting from another verified episode. So if anyone can take a look and check what I got wrong, I'd appreciate it. I'm not an English native speaker, so: (a) Though I tried to stick to the American spelling, there may be some impurities; (b) I'm never sure about punctuation. Guess I tend to abuse/misuse/misplace it. One more thing: I wasn't sure what to do with all the "likes", "you knows"' etc. so I left them in. Don't know what the best practice is. Oh, and I didn't have too much trouble telling Jay and Bob apart. Beginner's luck? ;) Keep up the good work! --[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 00:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
:Great stuff! Welcome on board. I've proof read 5x5 #37 for you and I must say, I take my hat off to you. As someone who has some familiarity with a foreign language (having lived in France for a year), I must say you did an amazingly good job. I'd say your error rate is pretty much the same as transcripts done by native speakers. :)
:* Re: American/British spelling: I don't really care, but I'm a bit more laissez faire than most other people on here. :)
:* Re: likes/you knows: I tend to leave them out unless they modify the meaning of the sentence.
:* Re: Bob/Jay: I'm beginning to suspect that this is a talent, as well as a skill.
:One thing that might help is the [[Help:Contents#Useful_pages|skeleton pages]]. These are blank templates you can use when starting a new transcript. Cheers for your help! --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 12:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
::Wow! Appreciate the thumbs up. That's very encouraging. And thanks for the proof read. Apart from obvious misspellings, you corrected the very bits I was least sure of and that's a good sign, I guess :) Care to look at [[5X5_Episode_41|5x5 #41]]? Hope it's not worse than the first one. Cheers! --[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 13:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Yep, done. That was even better than the first one, just one change really: [http://www.future-perfect.co.uk/grammartips/grammar-tip-practise-practice.asp practise vs practice]. I'm a native speaker and I still get those mixed up. :) --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 15:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
::::Thanks :) And now [[5X5_Episode_42|#42]] is up for grabs. This is fun ;) --[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 18:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

== Formatting ==
Is there a way to get <nowiki><blockquote></nowiki> formatted a little bit. Maybe a light background color and/or some automatic large quote marks? Right now it's not necessarily worth using, imho. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
:Yep, we could probably change the CSS. I'll see what I can do. Do you have a site in mind that I could use as a basis (i.e. to steal the css from)?--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
::It looks like something has changed to add a light beige background, which achieves the goal. Personally I think it could be a little more distinct, by my aesthetic tastes are poorly defined and not widely popular. I didn't have any examples in mind, but the first one on [http://css-tricks.com/examples/Blockquotes/ this] site looks good to me. It shows an example of what I meant by the "large quote marks". I am okay with having issues I bring up be un-addressed. I just write down things I think of. I leave the risk/reward analysis to those with better information on the subject. Still, I think the better looking the site is the more likely people are to use it. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 21:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Did the way the diffs display change? They look good. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 02:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
: They ''do'' look good. :) I didn't intentionally change them, but perhaps they changed with the new 1.20 mediawiki version (along with user registration briefly being broken). --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 13:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Design request: make the left pane logo and links float down the page when scrolling. Just another idea I'm throwing out there. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 21:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Help! I'm totally green and have a question: what am I supposed to do about "Quickies with Bob"? The one in Episode 414 comes in the middle of the news segments... and maybe this issue should be addressed in a Help section somewhere (sorry if I missed it)? -- [[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 16:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
:Hi Fallible, thanks for helping out on the site. It's a good question, and we don't yet have a set format for that. I searched through what's already been done, and I like the format in [[SGU Episode 387]] and [[SGU Episode 400]]. In these, it's treated as a new, 2nd level segment, followed by a 2nd level header "News items continued", and 3rd level headers for the remaining news items. If people agree this format works, I'll go back and change the other transcripts, and add a note in the help section. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks for the quick reply! I like it (the formatting proposal). The only comment I have is, are "Quickies with Bob" always in the news items section of the podcast? Because if not, we should agree on a format for how to interrupt a second level item with no sub-items (I suppose the same "X continued (time-stamp)" would work). -- [[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 22:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
: G'day Fallible. What I do is start a new second-level heading for the quickie with Bob. If the quickie occurs in the middle of the news items or whatever, I just do a "News items continued" afterwards, see: http://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_414. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 08:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
:: Yeah, if there's no objections, I'll change the others over to this format in a couple of days.--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 20:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Another question about formatting(?): the news items sometimes include links to references which have been copied from the episode notes. If I think there are additional references which add more information, how can I (or even, should I) add them to the episode transcription? One possibility is to add more links at the start of a news item, but somehow that seems inelegant to me (because there is no distinction between the original link or links from the episode notes and additional links). [[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 19:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
:Good question, I often add them as references to the relevant bit, eg. when they introduce that bit of the story. That way they're clearly not from the SGU guys, which is important, as you say, as it takes a value judgement on what to link to. Hope that helps.--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 20:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

And yet another question about formatting. In my episode, Bob, Steve, and Rebecca talk about the various ways the word "fungi" can be pronounced, but I currently have no way to distinguish between these pronunciations in the transcription. Would it be OK if I added IPA as is sometimes done in Wikipedia? The drawback is that this might break searching for phrases. [[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 19:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
:This hasn't been formally acknowledged before, but I think we usually do an approximation of the sounds in speech marks, eg. "Fun-guy", "Funjee" or "Fungee". This is more accessible than IPA, which I personally had to look up and would have no idea how to use. That's my thoughts, anyhow.--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 20:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks, Teleuteskitty, I ended up adding the "speech markup" inside parentheses. My impression is that there's a partially declared convention that anything in parentheses is descriptive text added by the transcriber and not anything spoken by the rogues. Please correct me if I am wrong, and consider making this an officially declared convention. [[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 20:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

== Interviews ==
Question regarding interviews. When an interview is incorporated into a segment, such as Dr Rachie's interview in SGU 366, does that make her a guest? It doesn't seem like a black and white distinction. [[User:Zambuck|Zambuck]] ([[User talk:Zambuck|talk]]) 22:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Zambuck, we use the 'Guest' section in the infobox as a key for non-Rogue speakers, so you're right to add her in there. Thanks for your help!--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 10:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

== External links ==
I've posted the transcript for [[5X5 Episode 30]] so it's ready for a proof. Any takers? Tried my best to keep to US spelling. Mostly wiki links but some external, any preference? [[User:tnewsome|tnewsome]] ([[User talk:tnewsome|talk]]) 23:19, 18 October 2012 (EST)
:We've mostly used wiki links, as it keeps a general standard of reference, they're often updated and they reference out to other sites. It's also very handy when you've got lots of linkable points, and it would take forever to find the ''best'' website for each. If readers are interested, it's generally a good place for them to start. Thanks for your help! --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to have certain text automatically become a link? Like 'Skeptic's Guide to the Universe' or 'New England Skeptic's Society' or the rogues' names for example? --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
:Not that I know of, other than perhaps using a template --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

== Index of core concepts ==
Had an idea for a project we could work on in conjunction with the transcription. We should keep track of places where the rogues explain a core concept in detail (a lot of 5x5 episodes I imagine) and link to that explanation from other places in the transcription. Paradolia, Occam's razor, selection bias, things like that. We could centralize them into a single page, as well. Within the canonical rogue explanation we can link out to wikipedia or other sources. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
: Sounds like a great idea, somewhat compatible with the TIL (Today I Learned) sections. I think centralising them into a single page would make them much easier to find... I know that when I'm transcribing and I hear someone say "we discussed that on a previous podcast" it'd be nice to have a place to go to find that, though perhaps searching would be sufficient. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

== Example page(s) ==
Hi all. I think it would be a good idea to pick an episode that is the canonical one. One where whatever the current agreed upon standard is implemented that can be pointed to or referenced whenever needed. Just a thought. Oo... also, we should be careful about links. We need to use nofollow when appropriate so quacks don't get any google juice from our work. 
--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 03:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
:Good idea on the example episode, we're trying to figure out which one would be best. Suggestions welcome! --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
::It might be that we'll have to splice together a few episodes to get all the various elements in one place. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Hi, Geneocide! I think that the transcripts from episodes 350-365 (even the unverified ones) are probably as close to canonical as we're going to get. Those were done in the time when TK, RWH, and I had a little bit more time to devote to the pages and before we started to fall behind. (I'm particular to [[SGU_Episode_365|365]], since that's one I did almost entirely myself. =) --[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 02:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

== Proof reading ==
The [[5X5 Episode 6]] transcript has just gone up and is begging for a proof-read and voice check. Any takers? :) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 04:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
:I got it covered. Thanks, Skepticat! -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 02:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I heard Rob on the SGU and it sounded like a fantastic idea to contribute here. I transcribed a 5x5 episode to start (#39), and I'll probably do a few more before I go whole hog and tackle a full SGU episode. If anyone wants to proof-read that episode I did, that would be fantastic. I know the punctuation is way off there. Thanks in advance, and If you need my help specifically, don't be afraid to message me. Have fun! [[User:Thevipermike|Thevipermike]] ([[User talk:Thevipermike|talk]]) 05:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
:Great, thanks! I'll take a look when I get a chance. :) --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

== Time formats ==
Hi guys, I've noticed we've used 2 different time-stamp formats. When it gets past the hour mark, I use the h:mm:ss format, but some pages use mm:ss, e.g. 78:12. As the time-stamps form the links for sections, I figure this is pretty important. My argument for using h:mm:ss is that, in my experience, that's what the majority of audio software and mp3 players use, plus I think it's more natural for us to think of time this way. What do you guys think? --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 17:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
:Kitty, the only reason I was using mm:ss was because that's what was already in use on the existing pages. =P I agree that h:mm:ss makes more intuitive sense and is used in more places, so I'm all in favor of switching over. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 13:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks for responding. Rwh86's away this week, so I'm gonna be cheeky, assume he's cool with it and change them over. We can always change them back if anyone comes up with a good argument for the mm:ss format. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

== Categories ==
Hi guys, and thanks for starting this project! I don't have a lot of time to devote to doing whole transcripts, but I'd like to start categorizing the wiki pages, like "SGU Transcripts", "Live Episodes", etc. I think it would also be helpful to have next/previous episode links on each page, either at the bottom or in the infobox. Any opinions? --[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 15:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

:Hi Av8rmike, thanks for your interest, any help is always appreciated, big or small. We were thinking of using the categories from the [http://theness.com/roguesgallery/ Rogues gallery], plus others more specific to the podcast, e.g. guests. I think adding a category for live episodes is a great idea. We're also considering using redirect pages for categorizing podcast sections separately.
:I agree, previous/next buttons would be good (in fact I was just playing with some graphics for them). However, I'm not sure how to get a wiki template to recognise the episode number and add/subtract automatically, do you have any ideas about that? Otherwise we can just input them manually. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 16:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

::I took a stab at adding some categories to [[SGU_Episode_354]] to give an idea of how that would work. I don't know offhand how to do the auto-numbering in wiki templates, but from looking at the help pages for templates, you can do almost anything with them. I could probably do some experimenting and see how far I get.
::[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 18:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

== Who's who? Recognising the Rogues==
I'd like to help, but I ''cannot'' tell Jay and Bob's voices apart. Am I useless?
 --[[User:Jenpohl|Jenpohl]] 20:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:I often find this difficult, and it's quite likely I've already made mistakes based on this, but mb you'll get better as you're listening closely. I find Bob more nasal. Another good indicator is whether they're referencing nanotechnology or porn. :)
:--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 21:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:That may be a problem, but all it took for me to tell their voices apart was a little time.
:--[[User:Jay One|Jay One]] 21:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:Just a thought: if you want to put up a <ins>transcription page including</ins> timestamps in comments (using "< !--" and "-->" without spaces in them) for the points you're unsure about, you could flag the pages up here for me (or whoever) to see if we can help out. <ins>This way we can easily search for problem points.</ins>
:--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 06:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC) [edited:16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)]

:You're definitely not useless! The most important thing is to get a first pass of the transcription done, corrections are then much quicker/easier. How about you put a question mark after the letter if you can't work out who's speaking? So like:
:
:B?: Stuff that Bob or Jay said
:
:Then someone else can go fix them later, should be pretty quick to do.
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys...First time transcriber here! I was inspired by Tim Farley's presentation at TAM 2012 to see where I could help out - and figured I could at least try this. I just transcribed and posted [[5X5_Episode_4]], but I'm not familiar enough with the Rogues to distinguish voice identities. The only voice IDs I'm somewhat sure of are Steve's and Rebecca's (the others I guessed at). If anyone can help with voice IDs in Ep. 4, that would be great. (Maybe I'll get better at the voices in the future -grin-) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 03:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Skepticat, and (as Av8rmike said) welcome to the team! I proof-read [[5X5 Episode 4]] and added the speakers. The page is great, took me no time to add them. In future, if there's a lot of lines you can't attribute, don't worry about adding times to each, just the first in a cluster. Hopefully that will save you a bit of time too :) I often find Bob and Jay hard to distinguish, but I think Bob's just a little more nasal, and it sounds like Jay might use a desktop mic instead of one close by his mouth. I don't know if that's any help. Thanks for your help, I'm very jealous you got to go to Tam, if you have any feedback for the site, do let us know. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks for the proof-read! Care to take a whack at [[5X5 Episode 5]], which I just posted? I don't think I'm going to have much luck with voice IDs (other than S & R) unless someone specifically says who's who, so I'll leave that to much more experienced folks, such as yourself, for now. Heck, I ended up riding down in the same elevator with the SGU crew at TAM (I think it was the first morning?) and I didn't fully realize who they were until later. As I was a "first TAMMER", that happened to me a few times with other skeptic notables there. :) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 04:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

:::Done! And just for the record, I definitely don't get the voices right ''all'' the time. That's just one of the reasons to have subsequent contributors as proof-readers :) --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 12:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

::Skepticat: Some things that may help you get more familiar with the voices:
::* Listen to an episode and follow along with the transcript (assuming it's been verified), paying attention to who's speaking when.
::* Transcribe some of the earlier episodes. Perry is easy to distinguish, and Jay (and sometimes Bob) aren't in all the early ones because of software limitations. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 14:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

== Professional transcribers ==
Has anyone explored the idea of hiring a professional transcriptionist to do the work? This could be much faster, but there would be a cost involved. Perhaps a donation fund could be set up for SGU listeners to pay for it. Another podcast that goes this route is the "Security Now" podcast from Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte.
 -- [[User:128.200.139.53|128.200.139.53]] ([[User talk:128.200.139.53|talk]]) 17:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:I'm a professional trascriber and I would love to contribute towards this project. VLC is good but not optimized for transcription purpose. I would suggest NCH's ExpressScribe software and it's free. Also if you are spending a lot of time on this project, I would recommend investing on a foot pedal. It shouldn't cost you more than $25. With these two things, I am sure you can double your productivity.
:--[[User:Eupraxsophic|Eupraxsophic]] ([[User talk:Eupraxsophic|talk]]) 02:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

== Fact lists ==
Hi guys, I'm guessing this is the best place to put project discussions, let me know if there's another way - I'm new to Wiki editing.

Regarding time stamps for the sections, I've entered them into the headings of [[SGU_Episode_348]] using tags. This shows them smaller in the actual headings, but the same size in the contents list.
What do you guys think?

I've also been thinking of ways to make these transcript pages as useful as poss without causing ourselves too much extra work. One way might be to include a kind of bullet-point list of facts from the episode, as they often have throw-away comments that are interesting. E.g. in ep.348, they talk about nut allergies, and that cashew nuts contain the same allergy-inducing resin as poison-ivy. We could lift these from the main text as we go and build a list at the end. It wouldn't make much difference if someone's reading the whole transcript, but it might make a nice feature for flicking through them.
Just a thought, I figured it would be better said earlier than later. What do you think?
 Cheers,

--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 04:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

:I like the idea of compiling a fact list at the end of the transcription for each episode. It's just up to the individual transcriber I suppose. Regarding the tags, I definitely think it would help to have the timestamps in these transcriptions, and having it in the section title makes it visible in the table of contents. The other option is to use the wikibox on your user page, which I think is very nice, containing the image, quote, times and links in one place. It just depends on whether or not other people like it too.
:--[[User:Jay One|Jay One]] 20:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks, I have no experience making wikibox templates, so if someone else knows more about these, mb they'd like to build one? (although I'm happy to try) we should probably come to some agreement about whether we want them and what they should contain.
::--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 20:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've inserted a rough draft of a fact list at the bottom of [[SGU_Episode_348]]. What do you guys think? It was easy to put together, but I didn't know what to call it.
 --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 05:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:I originally thought it was a bad idea until I went and looked at your example. Now I think it's ''awesome'', I love it! :) Currently you've called it "Today I Learned..." which I think is good, but can anyone think of a title that's better? Like maybe "Interesting ideas from the podcast" except not that as it sounds terrible. ;)
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::Yay! Thanks. For the name, the only thing I thought, was I wanted to be careful not to assert them as hard facts. Also, we should mb point out that they are not part of the transcript, but taken from it after. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

== Objectives ==
Hi guys like others I've often thought about this as a project but put off by the amount of time that it would have taken one person, the main reason I thought about doing this was to be able to search the transcripts when needed, example: if someone asked me a question on Homoeopathy I would be able to use my smartphone to give an answer based on what the SGU have talked about in the past, as I generally take what the guys say as fact.

Do you think that what I'm taking about would be possible using this WIKI project??

Looking forward to starting and completing my first SGU Transcript :-)

--[[User:Manontop|Manontop]] 09:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

:Hi Manontop.
:Sure, I think that would be one of the most important uses of these transcripts. My ideas for having transcripts of the SGU episodes are to facilitate linking, searching and accessibility:
:
:* Linking. We have headings throughout the podcasts so that it's possible to link directly to a specific segment, for example [[SGU_Episode_352#Aristolochia_Nephropathy|Aristolochia Nephropathy]] (internal wiki link) or [http://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_352#Aristolochia_Nephropathy Aristolochia Nephropathy] (external link).
:* Searching. Currently there are (at least) two ways to search. Either using Google or the built-in search box in the top right. If you want to use Google to search only this site, you can do so by using the "site:" term in your query. E.g. your Google query would be [https://www.google.com/search?q=site:sgutranscripts.org+titanic+disaster "site:sgutranscripts.org titanic disaster"]. Google is the king of them all, so I have installed proper semantic web (SEO) support. When a transcript is completed I go through and insert tags to important concepts that are covered in the podcast. This helps Google (and other search engines) know what is important about that page. You can see these by opening a transcript and viewing the source of the page. Then look for the <meta name="keywords" content="..."> tag. There are two components to this, tags that are site-wide such as "skeptics, sceptics, scepticism" etc. followed by tags that are local to a particular page such as "titanic, tragedy, ss, californian, space, junk" etc. Of course, Google also uses the page content when indexing.
:* Accessibility. Quite simple really; people who can't listen to the podcast for any reason (deafness etc.) can now read the transcripts instead.
:
:Great to have you on board! :)
:
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 11:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

SGU Episode 414

2013-09-05T20:13:43Z

Fallible: /* Foot Fungus (20:02) */ Minor fixes

{{Editing required
|transcription = y

|time-stamps = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 414
|episodeDate = 22nd Jun 2013
|episodeIcon = File:chinese-alien-head.jpg
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 = DL: {{w|Daniel Loxton}}
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-06-22.mp3
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=46390.0
|qowText = Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing
|qowAuthor = {{w|Harlan Ellison}}
|}}

== Introduction ==
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, today is Wednesday, June 19th, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,

B: Hey, everybody

S: Rebecca Watson,

R: Hello, everyone.

S: Jay Novella,

J: Hey, guys.

S: and Evan Bernstein.

E: Salutations, everybody

R: Hello...

S: Salutations and felicitations, Evan.

E: Oh, and felicitations, how could I forget the Squire of Gothos. Shame on me,

S: I don't know (chuckles)

E: shame on me.

R: The hell you guys talking about.

E: Well, Rebecca, aren't you watching the Star Trek series?

R: I guess I haven't gotten up to that point, yet.

E: This is the original series.

R: I'm watching The Next Generation.

S: You know what I saw recently? "Star Trek Continues".

E: Hm?

S: which is a a

J: Wha?

S: fan.. "Star Trek Continues", it's a fan episode, a fan video, where it's as if the ep... the seasons continued as if it wasn't canceled after three seasons. So it's not, it's not like a parody, and it's not an update or a reboot or anything it's like what would a fourth season have actually been like,

B: Oh, cool.

S: and and they do their best to reproduce, the production value, the sets are identical, all the sound effects, the music the acting

R: Hm

S: the whole culture that was definitely embedded in that late '60s you know in terms of everything. And the

?: (inaudible)

S: some of the actors are damn good, the guy who's doing Kirk has his mannerisms down, absolutely down.

B: And it's not a parody of his mannerisms?

S: No, no it's not, it's not a parody, it's an imitation. And it like things like it's like "Yeah, Kirk does do that!" You know, it's like, (laughter) you uh things you wouldn't even think of. Like the

R: That is so Kirk.

S: ways he moves his arms when he walks. Yeah, it's just amazing.

R: Hey, remember that Star Trek episode where, uh, poisonous gas covered most of the planet, and murdered millions of people?

E: Ahhh.

R: Oh, wait, no, that was real life. Oh, my God!

B: (laughter)

E: That's worse.

== This Day in Skepticism (1:58) ==
R: On June 22, 1783, a poisonous cloud caused by the eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland, uh, finally reached France. So this is kind of, um, I really could have picked any date, uh, it's very interesting, it's something that I didn't even realize was the thing, uh, it was one of the most deadly if not the most deadly volcanic eruptions in human history, as I said it happened in Iceland but it spread all over the globe, uh, first of all though in Iceland it killed about 50% of the livestock which lead to a famine which killed a quarter of the population of Iceland. Uh, so it was pretty immediate but then it also went on to possibly cause droughts in India and Africa which lead to millions of more deaths, uh, as well as crop failures in Europe and air pollution and this deadly gas... from this deadly gas. So, all to... all told, it killed probably over 6 million people

?: What?

R: globally. Yeah, 6 million.

E: That's a lot (inaudible)

R: It was a pretty big volcanic eruption.

E: 1783, that's (inaudible) quite a bit.

B: Holy crap.

R: And the cloud was sulfur dioxide that

E: Oh, that'll do it

R: and also the hydrogen... the hydrogen fluoride apparently I think killed most of the people in Iceland but the sulfur dioxide is what drifted into Europe to start murdering people there. But yeah and it also caused severe global temperature change, uh, it was the hottest summer on record followed by really violent winter with hail and storms and all that good stuff which probably lead to more deaths.

S: It was the longest period of below zero temperatures in New England.

R: Oh, yeah, the US... the US area just had some severe weather. They don't... I.. I didn't find a whole of talk about deaths that resulted in it but I think people were just dying left and right anyway, at that point, so

S: A bad winter in 1783 was no joke.

R: Exactly, yeah, that's... that's what I'm sayin'. But...

B: So this gas released it wasn't part of like a.. a pyroclastic flow, it was just this, just this gas that came out and went

S: Just a bubble of gas

B: all over the place

R: Yeah, like a volcanic fart, silent but deadly

E: Probably wasn't too silent, either

R: Too soon?

?: Too soon (laughter)

S: Volcanoes are no joke, that superheated gas that kills people it's not just the lava and the ash, I mean, it's usually the gas, even if it's not poisonous gas if it's superheated it's like your lungs explode, you know. Well, let's move on, uhm, have you guys heard...

?: (stage inhalation)

?: Uh?

== News Items ==
=== Osteoarthritis (4:41)===
* Science-based Medicine: [http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/knee-osteoarthritis-thumbs-down-for-acupuncture-and-glucosamine/ Knee Osteoarthritis: Thumbs Down for Acupuncture and Glucosamine]

S: the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has released their, uh, 1200 page report evaluating evidence for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis

R: Now the last time you led us into one of these and we made all made light-hearted jokes about how boring the topic was, we got a bunch of angry letters from botanists, so, no, Steve, not gonna fall for it, this sounds fascinating, tell me more. (laughter)

S: Yeah, but like last time I convinced you how cool botany was, now I wanna convince you how cool osteoarthritis is.

E: Here come more letters (laughter)

S: Oh, boy. (laughter)

S: um, so osteoarthritis is, essentially degenerative arthritis of a joint, mainly from wear and tear, but there are other obviously biological factors involved, and so knee osteoarthritis, very common, um, as people get into their 40's and 50's they uh, their knees start to ache, you know, and they just wear out, they just don't really last 80 years unfortunately. There are lots of potential treatments for osteoarthritis including many that are not evidence-based. This report is interesting for a number of reasons, not just for the specific recommendations that are made. Harriet Hall writes about this on Science-based Medicine and I recommend that for those who are interested but I just want to highlight some of the interesting things. First of all, it shows that science-based practitioners actually care about evidence, despite all of the propaganda about "Oh, those doctors only want drugs and surgery" here we have a uh a major you know a professional organization in the United States dedicated to orthopedic surgery reviewing thousands of published studies, putting out a 1200 page comprehensive report looking in-depth into the evidence for many different approaches, and here are the highlights of what they found, where there was strong evidence you know for or against. So glucosamine chondroitin you guys are familiar with this, right, this is a dietary supplement that has been and still is promoted, um, has been for years, for arthritis. What do you think they found?

E: It doesn't work.

S: It doesn't work. So it was one of the few things where there was strong evidence against its effectiveness. Glucosamine and chondroitin doesn't work, there have been large studies. Exercise, strong evidence for, in favor of it. Weight loss, moderate evidence in favor of it. Acupuncture, what do you think they concluded?

R: No evidence.

?: Overwhelming evidence.

S: Strong evidence against its effectiveness. So very nice to see that they took a science-based approach to acupuncture research and didn't fall for the bait-and-switch of "Oh, it works like a placebo" you know, they didn't fall for that business. And also, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories strong evidence they are effective, that's not surprising. And here's one: arthroscopy with lavage and debridement --- strong evidence against.

B: Really?

E: Lavage, huh?

S: So lavage is like just washing it out. So arthroscopy is putting the scope into the knee and looking around, you know, for diagnostic, but if you take anything out then it becomes a therapeutic procedure, right, that's debridement, you know, cutting away any fraying pieces of cartilage and then washing out those pieces, that's the lavage part. So, this is a pretty lucrative, popular procedure for orthopedists to do. And here they are, the official organization of orthopedists, coming out with a statement saying there is strong evidence against the effectiveness of this procedure. This is something that we've written about on Science-based Medicine previously when there...there... when a review came out, I think now about two years ago, showing that arthroscopy was not effective, and there was some push-back from some orthopedists, and we said "Hey, this is the evidence, baby, this is, this is what it shows". So it's nice now to see the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons looking at the evidence and honestly saying "Yep, our beloved procedure, that we would love to have work, doesn't work". So it's hard in the face of this, if you look at the bigger picture, it's hard to justify the typical knee-jerk criticisms that alternative medicine proponents have against mainstream medicine

R: Heh, knee-jerk

S: Yeah, knee-jerk. That it's they only care about drugs and surgery, well here they are saying um, their favorite surgical procedure doesn't work, that they don't care about other things, here they're strongly in favor of exercise, moderately in favor of weight loss, Um, and that they're not, they don't care about actually treating people, well, this is, I think this shows their dedication to the evidence to what actually works regardless of what the modality is, and this is, this is, what we see in mainstream medicine all the time. This is a Herculean effort and it's great document, but this is what we see all the time, you know, the... academic professional uh physicians looking at the evidence objectively and the chips fall where they may, in its direct contradiction to all the anti-mainstream medicine conspiracy theories that you're going to hear from the alternative medicine side, so I thought that was worth pointing out. Also, Harriet pointed out something interesting, things like homeopathy didn't even make the list, it wasn't even worth their time to take a look at.

B: Oh, awesome.

E: Good.

S: Yeah.

R. Good (inaudible).

E: I don't know if we'd be able to say that if this were British Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, right? That probably would have made that list.

S: Homeopathy probably would have,

E: Yes

S: just because homeopathy is more popular across the pond, yeah.

B: Uh, Steve, did they mention why it wasn't on the list?

S: No, just... it didn't even... didn't even make the radar. Just wasn't even, yeah, not... not mentioned one way or the other.

B: OK

== Quickie with Bob (10:27)==
* ESO: [http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1326/ New Kind of Variable Star Discovered]

E: Oh, hey, wait, wait. I would like a Quickie with Bob right now.

B: Really?

E: Yes, right this moment.

B: Thank you, Evan, I'm almost certain you will not regret this.

E: (laughter)

B: This is your Quickie with Bob. Astronomers in Chile, guys, have discovered a new type of variable star it was pretty interesting story uh they did detailed observations of 3700 stars in this specific cluster over 7 years. Um, and showed that they found 36 of these stars had very minute changes in their brightness of about only about a tenth of a percent over an hour or as much as over 20 hours. And uh this is... this is big news in the community because variable stars are in... are incredibly common there's lots of different types of variable stars and it's always interesting to... to add another one to the group actually the list of uh of typ... of variable stars um the types themselves was much bigger than... than I remember them being but just to break it down real quick there's... there's two different main types of stars that are variable, there's the intrinsic and extrinsic and it's kind of obvious what they... what that means the intrinsic stars that are variable are variable because of that's just the way they are something about their internal dynamics makes them makes the light output variable whereas the extrinsic... the extrinsic stars... variable stars are variable only because you know say something might move in front of them or... or there might be some... something in the way that changes the light that reaches the Earth. So within these intrinsic stars there's... there's just a few categories there's the pulsating variables, there's the eruptives, and there's the cataclysmic or explosive variable stars. This new one that they found I think is pretty obvious that it's within the... the pulsating variable star category

S: Is there a throbbing category? (laughter)

E: Is there a grooving category?

B: So like I said these variables are most certainly they'll be within the pulsating variety they haven't actually named this type of variable yet but I'm sure it's gonna be within that... that category They're not sure why they pulsate, either, basically because current models say that they should not be variable so this is the real surprise that these... that these varied so much and but one clue that they found is that many of these variables rotate very very fast

S: Yeah, that seems pretty telling

B: Yeah, more than 50% of their critical velocity, in fact, and the critical velocity

E: Wow

B: is a velocity that if they... if they reached 100% they would actually start throwing off mass so they're spinning very very fast and uh this spinning might... may have an effect on the dynamics of their interiors which then would result in the variability of the light output. So, uh, so keep an eye on it, I'm curious to see what they're gonna call it and uh, and... and you know what more they can determine, um, about these types of stars based on uh, on... on this... these studies that they're... these very detailed studies that they're doing. So, uh, so I got guys this has been your Quickie with Bob, I hope it was good for you, too.

== News items continued ==
=== Patenting DNA (13:07)===
* BBC News: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22895161 US Supreme Court says human DNA cannot be patented]

S: Thanks, Bob. OK, Rebecca, you're gonna tell us about a major Supreme Court case regarding patenting genes.

R: Yes, you are correct, Steve. There is a huge decision that just happened in the Supreme Court on, uh, June 13th, the Supreme Court ruled that, uh, companies, particularly Myriad Genetics, in this case, cannot patent a human gene. So in this specific case, it was this company Myriad Genetics which was one of the patent holders on the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes. Now, astute listeners might recall that we were recently talking about these very genes, in the case of Angelina Jolie,

S: Yeah.

R: who came out and said that she had the mutation in her BRCA gene that said she was much much much more likely to get breast cancer and ovarian cancer and so she had her breast removed. Now, we also mentioned that Angelina Jolie had spoken briefly about the fact that not everyone has access to the genetic testing required to find out if you have the mutation, in order to get the life saving operations you would need. Well, the reason why many people don't have access to this genetic testing is because Myriad Genetics was one of the patent holders and... and they were the only company that was allowed to perform this testing on these genes. So, if you wanted to find if you had the mutation you had to go through Myriad Genetics and that increases the price dramatically so they could charge thousands of dollars to people who wanted the testing. What this ruling means in this specific case it's a huge win for women particularly because this means that you... women can go get genetic testing anywhere to find out if they have this mutation they don't have to go through Myriad in order to find out, so, now you have companies competing against each other, prices go down, etc., etc., and more lives are saved because of it, so that's one result of this and one of the reasons why women's rights groups were a huge part of the uh lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court decision it was a unanimous decision the case was led by uh the ACLU um representing women's rights groups as well as scientists and other interest groups but also scientists win from this case because it means that uh any scientist can now pursue research on the... these genes where prior to this only Myriad and the other patent holders would technically be able to do that. Basically the court ruled that you can't patent a human gene however they did leave it open that you could possibly patent a gene that had been fiddled with.

?: Yeah.

R: So uh if you

?: (inaudible) huge

R: come up with your own gene, like a synthetic gene like cDNA... c... cDNA, that could still be eligible for a patent. Uh, but because Myriad the company did not actually create anything, they just researched the gene they're not allowed to patent it.

S: Yeah. So

R: So

S: products of nature cannot be patented and what this decision was exploring specifically was how much modification is necessary before a product of nature is an innovation. An... yeah, this that needed to be explored for the in... for this specific case of genes. And it seems that everyone pos... with the possible exception of Myriad, is happy about this decision this is a... I've seen nothing but universal praise for this decision.

E: Myriad shouldn't be too sad their stock rose that day

S: Is that right? (laughter)

E: as a result, yeah.

R: They have been fighting this

E: That will fade.

R: for a very long time so this is a huge loss for them, but it's... it is a great gain for humanity, we're

S: Yeah, for humanity.

R: literally talking about lives being saved

E: Yeah, absolutely.

R: and more research being done.

B: Yeah, it does seem...

R: So it is a good thing.

B: it does seem (inaudible) to me lots of benefits but what about the idea, the one negative thing that I've heard, that I've seen in a couple of places was that some people are afraid that companies like Myriad, of course, will scale back investment because they're not gonna be rewarded ah with patents for this so I just wonder how much of a genuine concern that aspect of this is.

R: Consider how much research is done by private companies compared to the huge amount of research that's currently being done through government institutions and universities. Private companies have always focussed on what's going to make the most money and that's why we have uh government funding for scientific endeavors. There's one other thing I wanted to mention, a bit of, uh, myth-busting. This... this thing was going around that... uh, Scalia doesn't believe in genetics, or in molecular biology. So, uh, it was a unanimous decision but Justice Scalia wrote a separate thing... ruling...

S: Separate opinion.

R: opinion, thank you, that's the word.

E: Opinion, yeah.

R: Uh, Scalia wrote a separate opinion uh saying that he, uh, agrees to vote with the majority, but he does not agree with one part of the opinion that has no effect on his final vote. What he said was, um, that he wouldn't sign on to Part 1a and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology because he can't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief. So, Part 1a, deal... it's just a list of basic facts about DNA, about genetics, uh it's all kind of just basic level genetic stuff.

E: So was he basically saying I don't know what this is?

R: Yeah, you know, so some...

E: and therefore I can't really

R: some people were

E: say anything about it.

R: taking uh that he wouldn't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief to mean that he didn't believe in genetics or he didn't know about genetics and so he didn't believe them, something like that. But, I've heard from lawyers who have said that this is a bit of legal-speak in a way, that there's this sort of ongoing argument on whether or not they should in... judges should include basic information that's not necessary to the final ruling, and so that's kind of what he was saying, is that this chunk I'm not a scientist, I'm not going to sign my name on this and say that as a Justice I approve of this because I have no idea I'm not a scientist and it has nothing to do with the case.

S: He's being a legal stickler,

R: Yes.

S: not a science denier.

R: Exactly.

B: Oh, OK.

R: That...

E: Right.

R: that's what I'm hearing from... from lawyers, and

S: That makes sense.

R: it makes sense to me.

S: And that's kind of his shtick, too,

R: Yeah.

S: is to be a legal stickler.

B?: Hmmm, OK.

=== Foot Fungus (20:02)===
* Science News: [http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350599/description/Foot_fungi_a_thriving_diverse_community Foot fungi a thriving, diverse community]

S: OK, well thanks, Rebecca. Bob, can you explain to me why my toes occasionally itch? (laughter)

R: Ew, bugs, probably.

B: Well, guys, uh, last May... at the end of last May, uh, the, uh, the issue of Nature, they discuss the... the first census... the very first census of skin-dwelling fungi (fung-ee), that... that's

S: Fungi (fung-guy)?

B: Well, there's three ways to pronounce it as far as I can tell

S: Fungi (fun-jee)?

B: Fungi (fung-ee), fungi (fung-eye), fungi (funj-eye). Those are the three that I came across

R: But "fungi" (fung-eye) is the only one that works with that "mushroom walks into a bar" joke.

B: OK.

S: What about... what about "fungi" (fun-jee)?

B: That's actually my preferred pronunciation and I didn't find it. So, whatever, I'll just go with... I'll just go with one of the ones that I found. So this study reveals

E: (chuckle)

B: there's a fungus among us. OK, somebody had to say it, it's out of the way, I said it. So, actually, it...

E: (laughter)

B: it reveals that there's a little variation... there's very little variation in the fungal communities on our bodies except for our feet which calls home to 80 to 100 different types of fungus, they're just like all

?: (inaudible)

B: over the place down there. So, for... just for a quick

?: (inaudible)

B: high-level refresher uh fungi (fung-ee) are the third type of multi-cellular organisms, they're neither plant nor animals, um, one major difference between them and the other two is that their cell walls contain chitin, now that's (inaudible) that's like the exoskeleton of a crabs and lobsters or... or even the beaks of squid uh made of chitin. Uh, fungi play a pivotal role in decomposing organic matter and cycling uh nutrients in the environment and they also appear to be inordinately fond of feet. So here's a quick quote from the study: "A human's skin surfaces are complex ecosystems for microorganisms including fungi, bacteria and viruses which are known collectively as the skin microbiome". So I was as... I was surprised as I said that this initial study was the first of its kind. It seems, I guess, in terms of... yeah, human cohabitation bacteria and viruses get all.. get all the press and all the research dollars, so one reason why the lowly fungus I guess may have been neglected is that it's notoriously difficult to culture, I didn't know that, unlike bacteria which is easy, culturing a fungus from say uh the toenail can take weeks... weeks for it

S: And yet... and yet it's hard to kill when you wanna get rid of it.

B: (chuckle) Right. So... so how did they do it? They looked... they looked at the DNA, of course. They took ten volunteers and they swabbed 14 sites on their bodies including taking toenail clippings apparently. Uh, they then put them in a DNA sequencer which of course is uh one of the key technologies advanced by leaps and bounds uh by the Human Genome Project. Um, they used these molecular tags that stick only to the fungal DNA, so they wouldn't have to worry about all the human DNA and the bacterial DNA and viral DNA, that... that... that was mixed into the samples, so now they have this pure sample of just... of just fung... uh the fungus DNA. They then examined the tiny bits of fungal DNA uh called the phylogenetic markers to tally up all the different types of... of fungal species and bam, they were done, they had... they had a tally of all the different types of species. So, if you look most anywhere on the head or the torso you... you're likely to find one genus and that's called Malassezia. Uh, different areas have different species uh though, like the crease behind your ear or... or on your forehead there's little variation there. Surprisingly, your hands have tons of bacteria but very few fungal communities. So your feet, though, it's... it's completely different ecosystem, um, on your... on your toenails alone there's forty different uh fungi varieties, sixty between your toes, and eighty live on the bottom of... of your heel, which I think would ac... I wouldn't think that would be the most plentiful spot I would think, like, between your toes would have more but apparently there's lots of 'em on the bottom of your heel. So... so why is... how come? Why... why is this so? And it...

E: Gravity.

B: Yeah, gra... (laughter) Well it's... it's not hard to imagine one... one reason, right, your feet are... are often on contact with surfaces that fungi like to hang out on like your socks or locker room floors. I never walk barefoot at... at the gym, uh, never would do it.

E: Uhhhh,

B: So also

E: gosh... (inaudible) so bad.

B: your... your feet... I didn't know that your feet are cooler than other parts of your body, and... and fungi like cooler places, apparently, they hang out. Um, so... so should we all be grossed out? Are you guys like really grossed out... about this stuff?

R: (inaudible) obviously

?: Ahhh...

E: (inaudible) more grossed out about...

R: It takes more than that to... gross out Steve.

B: Yeah, I... I'm not...

S: Oh, yeah...

B: Yeah, I wouldn't think Steve would be, but I'm not... I'm not

S: I've had my head inside of a corpse

B: Cool, um...

R: Hey, thanks for that...

E: A human corpse? Wait, a human corpse?

B: I di...

S: Yeah.

B: Of course.

S: So has everyone who has gone through medical school.

E: You put your head in the corpse?

S: Well, you gotta get into the anatomy, I mean you gotta... you know you're disecting something...

E: I don't...

S: They... so, you get so grossed out in your first year of medical school you're basically done getting grossed out for life.

?: Yeah.

R: Yeah.

B: Totally desensitized.

R: I don't... I don't find what you've said so gross, Bob, but when in... you're talking I was thinking of that... toenail fungus, uh, commercial where...

E: Oh, yeah.

R: where the germ, like, lifts up

E: Little critters.

B: Yeah, yeah, yeah!

R: the toenail and then climbs inside and that's like the worst... worst commercial ever made.

B: Oh, my God I remember that something about detaching a toenail yes I... I cringe

R: Yeah.

B: every time I saw that, nothing to do with the

R: It's awful.

B: fungus or anything but it's just the lifting that toenail

R: Yeah, like the fungus didn't help

B: was nasty. Yeah right, yes. I mean it doesn't gross me out, the... thinking that there's... em... potentially s... you know... well over a hundred different types of these guys all over us. I thin... it's good... it's good that we're colonized by these critters because they're... they're likely to prevent other nasty... guys from taking hold on our skin so it's good that they're there. Likewise, this.. this research can actually help improve our treatment for skin disease and maybe even help with some types of cancers, some people were saying. So... so I say embrace the... the fungi living on your skin, you really don't have much of a choice until we replace them all with nanobots.

=== Chinese Fake Alien (25:46)===
* The Telegraph: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10115832/Chinese-farmer-jailed-for-making-a-rubber-alien.html Chinese farmer jailed for making a rubber alien]

S: All right, thanks, Bob. Evan, you're gonna tell us about a fake Chinese alien.<ref>[http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130612000078&cid=1103 WantChinaTimes]</ref>

''(laughter)''

?: Oh, God.

E: Now that could mean several different things, I'll... I'll do my best to clarify. Now, there are times when news outlets totally, totally botch their headlines... right, I mean really botch

B: No.

E: We've talked about some real doozies on the show. But rarely do we give them credit when they actually get it right. Let's give The Telegraph its due, because they got this headline spot-on. They wrote: "Chinese farmer jailed for making rubber alien". That kind-a says it all.

?: OK.

E: (chuckles) So it's being reported out of the Shandong province, that, uh, local police recently arrested someone named Mr. Li, a farmer slash alien enthusiast by day and an alien enthusiast farmer... slash farmer by night. And here are his versions of the event, this is Mr. Li.

S: "Mr. Li" 's a pseudonym, probably, by the way.

E: He said: <blockquote>"I was setting an electrical trap for rabbits by the Yellow River, when I saw a bright light. Above my bike, a UFO was floating. One by one, five aliens came down, but one of them stumbled onto one of my rabbit traps and was electricuted. The others went back into their ship and flew away."</blockquote>So that's his story.

S: Quite a tale he's got there. So this alien from who knows how far away from another solar system in super advanced technology and then dies in a rabbit trap.

E: Exa...

S: And his friends leave him behind.

E: And they leave him behind.

R: Was he rabbit shit? (laughter)

E: No.

R: Maybe he was... maybe he was a rabbit, like from another dimension.

E: Well, then rabbits look an awful lot like little grays with Chinese accentuations around the eyes

B?: Yes.

E: and head and stuff. But

B: Plus... plus only mice... only mice are from other dimensions.

E: But how did he go about backing up his claim. Well he does what any true believer does and he post pictures of the ET on the Internet. And in three days these pictures happen to go viral, so after five days of having posted the pictures the local police show up at his door and he's taken in for questioning. Now during the questioning Mr. Li admitted, willingly or otherwise, that the whole thing was a hoax.

S: Shock, shocked.

E: He made an alien, he constructed it himself out of this gluey rubber sort of substance uh tied together with ropes and uh other things and you know... a few... he... he drew his inspiration from the Simon Peg film Paul I don't know if you guys have seen that

?: Hall?

R: Yeah, the one where they go to Comicon.

S: Yes.

E: Right... right.

S: Yes, I saw it.

E: And the alien does a little bit sort of kind of look like that I suppose.

S: But you're right, Evan, the... the uh alien head looks Chinese.

E: It... it does (chuckles).

S: It does... so I mean it's his cultural bias leaking through in his sculpture and he's not aware of it but to these Western you know American eyes it has this... it looks like uh something... that it... like an piece of art that a Chinese person would create.

E: Right.

S: You know, it's not just the eyes it's the mouth it's everything you know it's just there's a subtle sort of Oriental appearance to it. Uh, which is always, I think, a... a very telling sign to look for when people are imagining or faking alien phenomena and their cultural biases come through, and of course we're... you're much more attuned to them when it's from a di... from another culture.

E: But why did he... why did he do it why did you think he did it well he says it with the intent of helping more people believe in aliens. Which is

S: Yeah.

R: Weird.

E: an interesting way to go about doing that... uh, I suppose... um, he claims that and these are his words again:<blockquote>It's still disputed whether or not UFOs and aliens exist but we believe</blockquote>not sure what he means by we<blockquote>they do and we want to expand our group</blockquote>I don't know what group he's part of... uh<blockquote>and make more people believe that aliens do exist.</blockquote> So that's

R: Was this him

E: the approach.

R: saying this or was this

E: That was him.

R: the government saying that he said that.

E: Uh, that is the report from The Telegraph say... uh... which is quoting him as saying that.

R: Hm.

S: Who knows.

E: Yeah you who... who really knows. It's for the conspiry theori... conspiracy theorists,

S: (chuckle)

E: I guess to... to... to sort of figure it

R: Well, you know I mean you don't have to stretch far to come up with a conspiracy involving the Chinese government making a guy say something (chuckle) I mean

E: (chuckle)

R: making a Chinese prisoner say something that they want him to say. Um...

E: That's true.

B: Yeah, my mind all bets are off

R: Yeah, especially if they wanna

B: soo as he... soo as he ga... soo as the government got a hold of him they can well, nothing he says now... really (chuckle) you know whatever

R: Even if it was just a case of they... they wanted to trump up the charge a bit so they didn't look like they were just hassling some farmer, now they've got like a cult that they can

?: Yeah

R: pin on him, you know,

?: Yeah, yeah

E: But

R: 'cuz they're... they hate... they hate the cults.

E: Mr. Li spent five days incarcerated, the crime was fabricating lies and disrupting normal social order.

B: Oh, boy, wow.

E: Yeah, that... that doesn't sound too Orwellian or anything (inaudible)

S: Yeah, disrupting the social order that yeah really Orwellian, I agree

?: scary

E: Now, guys, to wrap this up, I'll say that the rubber alien was examined by scientists and deemed to be a hoax, the dead giveaway is when they broke open the alien and pulled out a slip of paper with a fortune, that's right

S: (laughter)

B: Oh!

E: And it... and the fort... it read "Help I'm being held prisoner in a Chinese bakery

R: Hm, hm.

E: and your lucky numbers are 4, 14, 22, 31, and 49". So

?: Jesus

E: that sort of sealed the deal.

B: Oh, boy.

R: That joke fails, though, on the fact that fortune cookies aren't Chinese.

S: Yeah, that's true.

E: No, that enhances the joke and the gaw.... (inaudible, possibly expletive)

== Who's That Noisy? (31:24)==
{{transcribing | date = 2013-09-01 | transcriber = Fallible}}

== Questions and Emails () ==
=== Can We Know Everything? ()===
<blockquote>I have been listening to the show for 4 years and although I have always been a sceptic I have learnt a great deal from your show. I would like to hear the rogues view on whether science has the potential to explain the physical world in such a way that we understand everything. Is there a limit to what we can comprehend? For example a dog has no concept of quantum gravity and wouldn’t ask the question of himself “Is space-time fundamentally continuous or discrete?” We have gone from asking ourselves how to grow food to “why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe?” Our brain appears finite in capacity so I would assume that would limit our ability to understand the world around us. Reaching a limit at some stage seems inevitable. Or will our brains develop as we need to solve increasingly more difficult questions, after all our brains appear not to need to store every bit of information we discover perhaps more the ability to solve a problem, and the capacity to grasp the variables at that time. I could be wrong though. Your opinions would be greatly appreciated and interesting.
Mark Dennehy
Melbourne</blockquote>

== Interview with Daniel Loxton () ==
About his new book: ''Abominable Science''

== Science or Fiction () ==
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612173326.htm Item #1:] New fossil evidence reveals the presence of kangaroo ancestors 25 million years ago in what is now Europe. [http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/15806 Item #2:] Researchers find that male guppies can reproduce up to 10 months after they have died. [http://www.anl.gov/articles/discovery-new-material-state-counterintuitive-laws-physics Item #3:] Scientists have discovered a material that gets larger under pressure, in apparent defiance of the laws of physics.

== Skeptical Quote of the Week () ==
<blockquote>Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing.</blockquote>
Harlan Ellison

== Announcements () ==

{{Outro404}}

== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

SGU Episode 414

2013-09-05T20:04:11Z

Fallible: Minor additional fixes

{{Editing required
|transcription = y

|time-stamps = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 414
|episodeDate = 22nd Jun 2013
|episodeIcon = File:chinese-alien-head.jpg
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 = DL: {{w|Daniel Loxton}}
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-06-22.mp3
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=46390.0
|qowText = Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing
|qowAuthor = {{w|Harlan Ellison}}
|}}

== Introduction ==
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, today is Wednesday, June 19th, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,

B: Hey, everybody

S: Rebecca Watson,

R: Hello, everyone.

S: Jay Novella,

J: Hey, guys.

S: and Evan Bernstein.

E: Salutations, everybody

R: Hello...

S: Salutations and felicitations, Evan.

E: Oh, and felicitations, how could I forget the Squire of Gothos. Shame on me,

S: I don't know (chuckles)

E: shame on me.

R: The hell you guys talking about.

E: Well, Rebecca, aren't you watching the Star Trek series?

R: I guess I haven't gotten up to that point, yet.

E: This is the original series.

R: I'm watching The Next Generation.

S: You know what I saw recently? "Star Trek Continues".

E: Hm?

S: which is a a

J: Wha?

S: fan.. "Star Trek Continues", it's a fan episode, a fan video, where it's as if the ep... the seasons continued as if it wasn't canceled after three seasons. So it's not, it's not like a parody, and it's not an update or a reboot or anything it's like what would a fourth season have actually been like,

B: Oh, cool.

S: and and they do their best to reproduce, the production value, the sets are identical, all the sound effects, the music the acting

R: Hm

S: the whole culture that was definitely embedded in that late '60s you know in terms of everything. And the

?: (inaudible)

S: some of the actors are damn good, the guy who's doing Kirk has his mannerisms down, absolutely down.

B: And it's not a parody of his mannerisms?

S: No, no it's not, it's not a parody, it's an imitation. And it like things like it's like "Yeah, Kirk does do that!" You know, it's like, (laughter) you uh things you wouldn't even think of. Like the

R: That is so Kirk.

S: ways he moves his arms when he walks. Yeah, it's just amazing.

R: Hey, remember that Star Trek episode where, uh, poisonous gas covered most of the planet, and murdered millions of people?

E: Ahhh.

R: Oh, wait, no, that was real life. Oh, my God!

B: (laughter)

E: That's worse.

== This Day in Skepticism (1:58) ==
R: On June 22, 1783, a poisonous cloud caused by the eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland, uh, finally reached France. So this is kind of, um, I really could have picked any date, uh, it's very interesting, it's something that I didn't even realize was the thing, uh, it was one of the most deadly if not the most deadly volcanic eruptions in human history, as I said it happened in Iceland but it spread all over the globe, uh, first of all though in Iceland it killed about 50% of the livestock which lead to a famine which killed a quarter of the population of Iceland. Uh, so it was pretty immediate but then it also went on to possibly cause droughts in India and Africa which lead to millions of more deaths, uh, as well as crop failures in Europe and air pollution and this deadly gas... from this deadly gas. So, all to... all told, it killed probably over 6 million people

?: What?

R: globally. Yeah, 6 million.

E: That's a lot (inaudible)

R: It was a pretty big volcanic eruption.

E: 1783, that's (inaudible) quite a bit.

B: Holy crap.

R: And the cloud was sulfur dioxide that

E: Oh, that'll do it

R: and also the hydrogen... the hydrogen fluoride apparently I think killed most of the people in Iceland but the sulfur dioxide is what drifted into Europe to start murdering people there. But yeah and it also caused severe global temperature change, uh, it was the hottest summer on record followed by really violent winter with hail and storms and all that good stuff which probably lead to more deaths.

S: It was the longest period of below zero temperatures in New England.

R: Oh, yeah, the US... the US area just had some severe weather. They don't... I.. I didn't find a whole of talk about deaths that resulted in it but I think people were just dying left and right anyway, at that point, so

S: A bad winter in 1783 was no joke.

R: Exactly, yeah, that's... that's what I'm sayin'. But...

B: So this gas released it wasn't part of like a.. a pyroclastic flow, it was just this, just this gas that came out and went

S: Just a bubble of gas

B: all over the place

R: Yeah, like a volcanic fart, silent but deadly

E: Probably wasn't too silent, either

R: Too soon?

?: Too soon (laughter)

S: Volcanoes are no joke, that superheated gas that kills people it's not just the lava and the ash, I mean, it's usually the gas, even if it's not poisonous gas if it's superheated it's like your lungs explode, you know. Well, let's move on, uhm, have you guys heard...

?: (stage inhalation)

?: Uh?

== News Items ==
=== Osteoarthritis (4:41)===
* Science-based Medicine: [http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/knee-osteoarthritis-thumbs-down-for-acupuncture-and-glucosamine/ Knee Osteoarthritis: Thumbs Down for Acupuncture and Glucosamine]

S: the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has released their, uh, 1200 page report evaluating evidence for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis

R: Now the last time you led us into one of these and we made all made light-hearted jokes about how boring the topic was, we got a bunch of angry letters from botanists, so, no, Steve, not gonna fall for it, this sounds fascinating, tell me more. (laughter)

S: Yeah, but like last time I convinced you how cool botany was, now I wanna convince you how cool osteoarthritis is.

E: Here come more letters (laughter)

S: Oh, boy. (laughter)

S: um, so osteoarthritis is, essentially degenerative arthritis of a joint, mainly from wear and tear, but there are other obviously biological factors involved, and so knee osteoarthritis, very common, um, as people get into their 40's and 50's they uh, their knees start to ache, you know, and they just wear out, they just don't really last 80 years unfortunately. There are lots of potential treatments for osteoarthritis including many that are not evidence-based. This report is interesting for a number of reasons, not just for the specific recommendations that are made. Harriet Hall writes about this on Science-based Medicine and I recommend that for those who are interested but I just want to highlight some of the interesting things. First of all, it shows that science-based practitioners actually care about evidence, despite all of the propaganda about "Oh, those doctors only want drugs and surgery" here we have a uh a major you know a professional organization in the United States dedicated to orthopedic surgery reviewing thousands of published studies, putting out a 1200 page comprehensive report looking in-depth into the evidence for many different approaches, and here are the highlights of what they found, where there was strong evidence you know for or against. So glucosamine chondroitin you guys are familiar with this, right, this is a dietary supplement that has been and still is promoted, um, has been for years, for arthritis. What do you think they found?

E: It doesn't work.

S: It doesn't work. So it was one of the few things where there was strong evidence against its effectiveness. Glucosamine and chondroitin doesn't work, there have been large studies. Exercise, strong evidence for, in favor of it. Weight loss, moderate evidence in favor of it. Acupuncture, what do you think they concluded?

R: No evidence.

?: Overwhelming evidence.

S: Strong evidence against its effectiveness. So very nice to see that they took a science-based approach to acupuncture research and didn't fall for the bait-and-switch of "Oh, it works like a placebo" you know, they didn't fall for that business. And also, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories strong evidence they are effective, that's not surprising. And here's one: arthroscopy with lavage and debridement --- strong evidence against.

B: Really?

E: Lavage, huh?

S: So lavage is like just washing it out. So arthroscopy is putting the scope into the knee and looking around, you know, for diagnostic, but if you take anything out then it becomes a therapeutic procedure, right, that's debridement, you know, cutting away any fraying pieces of cartilage and then washing out those pieces, that's the lavage part. So, this is a pretty lucrative, popular procedure for orthopedists to do. And here they are, the official organization of orthopedists, coming out with a statement saying there is strong evidence against the effectiveness of this procedure. This is something that we've written about on Science-based Medicine previously when there...there... when a review came out, I think now about two years ago, showing that arthroscopy was not effective, and there was some push-back from some orthopedists, and we said "Hey, this is the evidence, baby, this is, this is what it shows". So it's nice now to see the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons looking at the evidence and honestly saying "Yep, our beloved procedure, that we would love to have work, doesn't work". So it's hard in the face of this, if you look at the bigger picture, it's hard to justify the typical knee-jerk criticisms that alternative medicine proponents have against mainstream medicine

R: Heh, knee-jerk

S: Yeah, knee-jerk. That it's they only care about drugs and surgery, well here they are saying um, their favorite surgical procedure doesn't work, that they don't care about other things, here they're strongly in favor of exercise, moderately in favor of weight loss, Um, and that they're not, they don't care about actually treating people, well, this is, I think this shows their dedication to the evidence to what actually works regardless of what the modality is, and this is, this is, what we see in mainstream medicine all the time. This is a Herculean effort and it's great document, but this is what we see all the time, you know, the... academic professional uh physicians looking at the evidence objectively and the chips fall where they may, in its direct contradiction to all the anti-mainstream medicine conspiracy theories that you're going to hear from the alternative medicine side, so I thought that was worth pointing out. Also, Harriet pointed out something interesting, things like homeopathy didn't even make the list, it wasn't even worth their time to take a look at.

B: Oh, awesome.

E: Good.

S: Yeah.

R. Good (inaudible).

E: I don't know if we'd be able to say that if this were British Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, right? That probably would have made that list.

S: Homeopathy probably would have,

E: Yes

S: just because homeopathy is more popular across the pond, yeah.

B: Uh, Steve, did they mention why it wasn't on the list?

S: No, just... it didn't even... didn't even make the radar. Just wasn't even, yeah, not... not mentioned one way or the other.

B: OK

== Quickie with Bob (10:27)==
* ESO: [http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1326/ New Kind of Variable Star Discovered]

E: Oh, hey, wait, wait. I would like a Quickie with Bob right now.

B: Really?

E: Yes, right this moment.

B: Thank you, Evan, I'm almost certain you will not regret this.

E: (laughter)

B: This is your Quickie with Bob. Astronomers in Chile, guys, have discovered a new type of variable star it was pretty interesting story uh they did detailed observations of 3700 stars in this specific cluster over 7 years. Um, and showed that they found 36 of these stars had very minute changes in their brightness of about only about a tenth of a percent over an hour or as much as over 20 hours. And uh this is... this is big news in the community because variable stars are in... are incredibly common there's lots of different types of variable stars and it's always interesting to... to add another one to the group actually the list of uh of typ... of variable stars um the types themselves was much bigger than... than I remember them being but just to break it down real quick there's... there's two different main types of stars that are variable, there's the intrinsic and extrinsic and it's kind of obvious what they... what that means the intrinsic stars that are variable are variable because of that's just the way they are something about their internal dynamics makes them makes the light output variable whereas the extrinsic... the extrinsic stars... variable stars are variable only because you know say something might move in front of them or... or there might be some... something in the way that changes the light that reaches the Earth. So within these intrinsic stars there's... there's just a few categories there's the pulsating variables, there's the eruptives, and there's the cataclysmic or explosive variable stars. This new one that they found I think is pretty obvious that it's within the... the pulsating variable star category

S: Is there a throbbing category? (laughter)

E: Is there a grooving category?

B: So like I said these variables are most certainly they'll be within the pulsating variety they haven't actually named this type of variable yet but I'm sure it's gonna be within that... that category They're not sure why they pulsate, either, basically because current models say that they should not be variable so this is the real surprise that these... that these varied so much and but one clue that they found is that many of these variables rotate very very fast

S: Yeah, that seems pretty telling

B: Yeah, more than 50% of their critical velocity, in fact, and the critical velocity

E: Wow

B: is a velocity that if they... if they reached 100% they would actually start throwing off mass so they're spinning very very fast and uh this spinning might... may have an effect on the dynamics of their interiors which then would result in the variability of the light output. So, uh, so keep an eye on it, I'm curious to see what they're gonna call it and uh, and... and you know what more they can determine, um, about these types of stars based on uh, on... on this... these studies that they're... these very detailed studies that they're doing. So, uh, so I got guys this has been your Quickie with Bob, I hope it was good for you, too.

== News items continued ==
=== Patenting DNA (13:07)===
* BBC News: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22895161 US Supreme Court says human DNA cannot be patented]

S: Thanks, Bob. OK, Rebecca, you're gonna tell us about a major Supreme Court case regarding patenting genes.

R: Yes, you are correct, Steve. There is a huge decision that just happened in the Supreme Court on, uh, June 13th, the Supreme Court ruled that, uh, companies, particularly Myriad Genetics, in this case, cannot patent a human gene. So in this specific case, it was this company Myriad Genetics which was one of the patent holders on the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes. Now, astute listeners might recall that we were recently talking about these very genes, in the case of Angelina Jolie,

S: Yeah.

R: who came out and said that she had the mutation in her BRCA gene that said she was much much much more likely to get breast cancer and ovarian cancer and so she had her breast removed. Now, we also mentioned that Angelina Jolie had spoken briefly about the fact that not everyone has access to the genetic testing required to find out if you have the mutation, in order to get the life saving operations you would need. Well, the reason why many people don't have access to this genetic testing is because Myriad Genetics was one of the patent holders and... and they were the only company that was allowed to perform this testing on these genes. So, if you wanted to find if you had the mutation you had to go through Myriad Genetics and that increases the price dramatically so they could charge thousands of dollars to people who wanted the testing. What this ruling means in this specific case it's a huge win for women particularly because this means that you... women can go get genetic testing anywhere to find out if they have this mutation they don't have to go through Myriad in order to find out, so, now you have companies competing against each other, prices go down, etc., etc., and more lives are saved because of it, so that's one result of this and one of the reasons why women's rights groups were a huge part of the uh lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court decision it was a unanimous decision the case was led by uh the ACLU um representing women's rights groups as well as scientists and other interest groups but also scientists win from this case because it means that uh any scientist can now pursue research on the... these genes where prior to this only Myriad and the other patent holders would technically be able to do that. Basically the court ruled that you can't patent a human gene however they did leave it open that you could possibly patent a gene that had been fiddled with.

?: Yeah.

R: So uh if you

?: (inaudible) huge

R: come up with your own gene, like a synthetic gene like cDNA... c... cDNA, that could still be eligible for a patent. Uh, but because Myriad the company did not actually create anything, they just researched the gene they're not allowed to patent it.

S: Yeah. So

R: So

S: products of nature cannot be patented and what this decision was exploring specifically was how much modification is necessary before a product of nature is an innovation. An... yeah, this that needed to be explored for the in... for this specific case of genes. And it seems that everyone pos... with the possible exception of Myriad, is happy about this decision this is a... I've seen nothing but universal praise for this decision.

E: Myriad shouldn't be too sad their stock rose that day

S: Is that right? (laughter)

E: as a result, yeah.

R: They have been fighting this

E: That will fade.

R: for a very long time so this is a huge loss for them, but it's... it is a great gain for humanity, we're

S: Yeah, for humanity.

R: literally talking about lives being saved

E: Yeah, absolutely.

R: and more research being done.

B: Yeah, it does seem...

R: So it is a good thing.

B: it does seem (inaudible) to me lots of benefits but what about the idea, the one negative thing that I've heard, that I've seen in a couple of places was that some people are afraid that companies like Myriad, of course, will scale back investment because they're not gonna be rewarded ah with patents for this so I just wonder how much of a genuine concern that aspect of this is.

R: Consider how much research is done by private companies compared to the huge amount of research that's currently being done through government institutions and universities. Private companies have always focussed on what's going to make the most money and that's why we have uh government funding for scientific endeavors. There's one other thing I wanted to mention, a bit of, uh, myth-busting. This... this thing was going around that... uh, Scalia doesn't believe in genetics, or in molecular biology. So, uh, it was a unanimous decision but Justice Scalia wrote a separate thing... ruling...

S: Separate opinion.

R: opinion, thank you, that's the word.

E: Opinion, yeah.

R: Uh, Scalia wrote a separate opinion uh saying that he, uh, agrees to vote with the majority, but he does not agree with one part of the opinion that has no effect on his final vote. What he said was, um, that he wouldn't sign on to Part 1a and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology because he can't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief. So, Part 1a, deal... it's just a list of basic facts about DNA, about genetics, uh it's all kind of just basic level genetic stuff.

E: So was he basically saying I don't know what this is?

R: Yeah, you know, so some...

E: and therefore I can't really

R: some people were

E: say anything about it.

R: taking uh that he wouldn't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief to mean that he didn't believe in genetics or he didn't know about genetics and so he didn't believe them, something like that. But, I've heard from lawyers who have said that this is a bit of legal-speak in a way, that there's this sort of ongoing argument on whether or not they should in... judges should include basic information that's not necessary to the final ruling, and so that's kind of what he was saying, is that this chunk I'm not a scientist, I'm not going to sign my name on this and say that as a Justice I approve of this because I have no idea I'm not a scientist and it has nothing to do with the case.

S: He's being a legal stickler,

R: Yes.

S: not a science denier.

R: Exactly.

B: Oh, OK.

R: That...

E: Right.

R: that's what I'm hearing from... from lawyers, and

S: That makes sense.

R: it makes sense to me.

S: And that's kind of his shtick, too,

R: Yeah.

S: is to be a legal stickler.

B?: Hmmm, OK.

=== Foot Fungus (20:02)===
* Science News: [http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350599/description/Foot_fungi_a_thriving_diverse_community Foot fungi a thriving, diverse community]

S: OK, well thanks, Rebecca. Bob, can you explain to me why my toes occasionally itch? (laughter)

R: Ew, bugs, probably.

B: Well, guys, uh, last May... at the end of last May, uh, the, uh, the issue of Nature, they discuss the... the first census... the very first census of skin-dwelling fungi, that... that's

S: Fungi?

B: Well, there's three ways to pronounce it as far as I can tell

S: Fungi?

B: Fungi, fungi, fungi. Those are the three that I came across

R: But "fungi" is the only one that works with that "mushroom walks into a bar" joke.

B: OK.

S: What about... what about "fungi"?

B: That's actually my preferred pronounciation and I didn't find it. So, whatever, I'll just go with... I'll just go with one of the ones that I found. So this study reveals

E: (chuckle)

B: there's a fungus among us. OK, somebody had to say it, it's out of the way, I said it. So, actually, it... it reveals that there's a little variation... there's very little variation in the fungal communities on our bodies except for our feet which calls home to 80 to 100 different types of fungus, they're just like all over the place down there. So, for... just for a quick high-level refresher uh fungi are the third type of multi-cellular organisms, they're neither plant nor animals, um, one major difference between them and the other two is that their cell walls contain chitin, now that's (inaudible) that's like the exoskeleton of a crabs and lobsters or... or even the beaks of squid uh made of chitin. Uh, fungi play a pivotal role in decomposing organic matter and cycling uh nutrients in the environment and they also appear to be inordinately fond of feet. So here's a quick quote from the study: "A human's skin surfaces are complex ecosystems for microorganisms including fungi, bacteria and viruses which are known collectively as the skin microbiome". So I was as... I was surprised as I said that this initial study was the first of its kind. It seems, I guess, in terms of... yeah, human cohabitation bacteria and viruses get all.. get all the press and all the research dollars, so one reason why the lowly fungus I guess may have been neglected is that it's notoriously difficult to culture, I didn't know that, unlike bacteria which is easy, culturing a fungus from say uh the toenail can take weeks... weeks for it

S: And yet... and yet it's hard to kill when you wanna get rid of it.

B: (chuckle) Right. So... so how did they do it? They looked... they looked at the DNA, of course. They took ten volunteers and they swabbed 14 sites on their bodies including taking toenail clippings apparently. Uh, they then put them in a DNA sequencer which of course is uh one of the key technologies advanced by leaps and bounds uh by the Human Genome Project. Um, they used these molecular tags that stick only to the fungal DNA, so they wouldn't have to worry about all the human DNA and the bacterial DNA and viral DNA, that... that... that was mixed into the samples, so now they have this pure sample of just... of just fung... uh the fungus DNA. They then examined the tiny bits of fungal DNA uh called the phylogenetic markers to tally up all the different types of... of fungal species and bam, they were done, they had... they had a tally of all the different types of species. So, if you look most anywhere on the head or the torso you... you're likely to find one genus and that's called Malassezia. Uh, different areas have different species uh though, like the crease behind your ear or... or on your forehead there's little variation there. Surprisingly, your hands have tons of bacteria but very few fungal communities. So your feet, though, it's... it's completely different ecosystem, um, on your... on your toenails alone there's forty different uh fungi varieties, sixty between your toes, and eighty live on the bottom of... of your heel, which I think would ac... I wouldn't think that would be the most plentiful spot I would think, like, between your toes would have more but apparently there's lots of 'em on the bottom of your heel. So... so why is... how come? Why... why is this so? And it...

E: Gravity.

B: Yeah, gra... (laughter) Well it's... it's not hard to imagine one... one reason, right, your feet are... are often on contact with surfaces that fungi like to hang out on like your socks or locker room floors. I never walk barefoot at... at the gym, uh, never would do it.

E: Uhhhh,

B: So also

E: gosh... (inaudible) so bad.

B: your... your feet... I didn't know that your feet are cooler than other parts of your body, and... and fungi like cooler places, apparently, they hang out. Um, so... so should we all be grossed out? Are you guys like really grossed out... about this stuff?

R: (inaudible) obviously

?: Ahhh...

E: (inaudible) more grossed out about...

R: It takes more than that to... gross out Steve.

B: Yeah, I... I'm not...

S: Oh, yeah...

B: Yeah, I wouldn't think Steve would be, but I'm not... I'm not

S: I've had my head inside of a corpse

B: Cool, um...

R: Hey, thanks for that...

E: A human corpse? Wait, a human corpse?

B: I di...

S: Yeah.

B: Of course.

S: So has everyone who has gone through medical school.

E: You put your head in the corpse?

S: Well, you gotta get into the anatomy, I mean you gotta... you know you're disecting something...

E: I don't...

S: They... so, you get so grossed out in your first year of medical school you're basically done getting grossed out for life.

?: Yeah.

R: Yeah.

B: Totally desensitized.

R: I don't... I don't find what you've said so gross, Bob, but when in... you're talking I was thinking of that... toenail fungus, uh, commercial where...

E: Oh, yeah.

R: where the germ, like, lifts up

E: Little critters.

B: Yeah, yeah, yeah!

R: the toenail and then climbs inside and that's like the worst... worst commercial ever made.

B: Oh, my God I remember that something about detaching a toenail yes I... I cringe

R: Yeah.

B: every time I saw that, nothing to do with the

R: It's awful.

B: fungus or anything but it's just the lifting that toenail

R: Yeah, like the fungus didn't help

B: was nasty. Yeah right, yes. I mean it doesn't gross me out, the... thinking that there's... em... potentially s... you know... well over a hundred different types of these guys all over us. I thin... it's good... it's good that we're colonized by these critters because they're... they're likely to prevent other nasty... guys from taking hold on our skin so it's good that they're there. Likewise, this.. this research can actually help improve our treatment for skin disease and maybe even help with some types of cancers, some people were saying. So... so I say embrace the... the fungi living on your skin, you really don't have much of a choice until we replace them all with nanobots.

=== Chinese Fake Alien (25:46)===
* The Telegraph: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10115832/Chinese-farmer-jailed-for-making-a-rubber-alien.html Chinese farmer jailed for making a rubber alien]

S: All right, thanks, Bob. Evan, you're gonna tell us about a fake Chinese alien.<ref>[http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130612000078&cid=1103 WantChinaTimes]</ref>

''(laughter)''

?: Oh, God.

E: Now that could mean several different things, I'll... I'll do my best to clarify. Now, there are times when news outlets totally, totally botch their headlines... right, I mean really botch

B: No.

E: We've talked about some real doozies on the show. But rarely do we give them credit when they actually get it right. Let's give The Telegraph its due, because they got this headline spot-on. They wrote: "Chinese farmer jailed for making rubber alien". That kind-a says it all.

?: OK.

E: (chuckles) So it's being reported out of the Shandong province, that, uh, local police recently arrested someone named Mr. Li, a farmer slash alien enthusiast by day and an alien enthusiast farmer... slash farmer by night. And here are his versions of the event, this is Mr. Li.

S: "Mr. Li" 's a pseudonym, probably, by the way.

E: He said: <blockquote>"I was setting an electrical trap for rabbits by the Yellow River, when I saw a bright light. Above my bike, a UFO was floating. One by one, five aliens came down, but one of them stumbled onto one of my rabbit traps and was electricuted. The others went back into their ship and flew away."</blockquote>So that's his story.

S: Quite a tale he's got there. So this alien from who knows how far away from another solar system in super advanced technology and then dies in a rabbit trap.

E: Exa...

S: And his friends leave him behind.

E: And they leave him behind.

R: Was he rabbit shit? (laughter)

E: No.

R: Maybe he was... maybe he was a rabbit, like from another dimension.

E: Well, then rabbits look an awful lot like little grays with Chinese accentuations around the eyes

B?: Yes.

E: and head and stuff. But

B: Plus... plus only mice... only mice are from other dimensions.

E: But how did he go about backing up his claim. Well he does what any true believer does and he post pictures of the ET on the Internet. And in three days these pictures happen to go viral, so after five days of having posted the pictures the local police show up at his door and he's taken in for questioning. Now during the questioning Mr. Li admitted, willingly or otherwise, that the whole thing was a hoax.

S: Shock, shocked.

E: He made an alien, he constructed it himself out of this gluey rubber sort of substance uh tied together with ropes and uh other things and you know... a few... he... he drew his inspiration from the Simon Peg film Paul I don't know if you guys have seen that

?: Hall?

R: Yeah, the one where they go to Comicon.

S: Yes.

E: Right... right.

S: Yes, I saw it.

E: And the alien does a little bit sort of kind of look like that I suppose.

S: But you're right, Evan, the... the uh alien head looks Chinese.

E: It... it does (chuckles).

S: It does... so I mean it's his cultural bias leaking through in his sculpture and he's not aware of it but to these Western you know American eyes it has this... it looks like uh something... that it... like an piece of art that a Chinese person would create.

E: Right.

S: You know, it's not just the eyes it's the mouth it's everything you know it's just there's a subtle sort of Oriental appearance to it. Uh, which is always, I think, a... a very telling sign to look for when people are imagining or faking alien phenomena and their cultural biases come through, and of course we're... you're much more attuned to them when it's from a di... from another culture.

E: But why did he... why did he do it why did you think he did it well he says it with the intent of helping more people believe in aliens. Which is

S: Yeah.

R: Weird.

E: an interesting way to go about doing that... uh, I suppose... um, he claims that and these are his words again:<blockquote>It's still disputed whether or not UFOs and aliens exist but we believe</blockquote>not sure what he means by we<blockquote>they do and we want to expand our group</blockquote>I don't know what group he's part of... uh<blockquote>and make more people believe that aliens do exist.</blockquote> So that's

R: Was this him

E: the approach.

R: saying this or was this

E: That was him.

R: the government saying that he said that.

E: Uh, that is the report from The Telegraph say... uh... which is quoting him as saying that.

R: Hm.

S: Who knows.

E: Yeah you who... who really knows. It's for the conspiry theori... conspiracy theorists,

S: (chuckle)

E: I guess to... to... to sort of figure it

R: Well, you know I mean you don't have to stretch far to come up with a conspiracy involving the Chinese government making a guy say something (chuckle) I mean

E: (chuckle)

R: making a Chinese prisoner say something that they want him to say. Um...

E: That's true.

B: Yeah, my mind all bets are off

R: Yeah, especially if they wanna

B: soo as he... soo as he ga... soo as the government got a hold of him they can well, nothing he says now... really (chuckle) you know whatever

R: Even if it was just a case of they... they wanted to trump up the charge a bit so they didn't look like they were just hassling some farmer, now they've got like a cult that they can

?: Yeah

R: pin on him, you know,

?: Yeah, yeah

E: But

R: 'cuz they're... they hate... they hate the cults.

E: Mr. Li spent five days incarcerated, the crime was fabricating lies and disrupting normal social order.

B: Oh, boy, wow.

E: Yeah, that... that doesn't sound too Orwellian or anything (inaudible)

S: Yeah, disrupting the social order that yeah really Orwellian, I agree

?: scary

E: Now, guys, to wrap this up, I'll say that the rubber alien was examined by scientists and deemed to be a hoax, the dead giveaway is when they broke open the alien and pulled out a slip of paper with a fortune, that's right

S: (laughter)

B: Oh!

E: And it... and the fort... it read "Help I'm being held prisoner in a Chinese bakery

R: Hm, hm.

E: and your lucky numbers are 4, 14, 22, 31, and 49". So

?: Jesus

E: that sort of sealed the deal.

B: Oh, boy.

R: That joke fails, though, on the fact that fortune cookies aren't Chinese.

S: Yeah, that's true.

E: No, that enhances the joke and the gaw.... (inaudible, possibly expletive)

== Who's That Noisy? (31:24)==
{{transcribing | date = 2013-09-01 | transcriber = Fallible}}

== Questions and Emails () ==
=== Can We Know Everything? ()===
<blockquote>I have been listening to the show for 4 years and although I have always been a sceptic I have learnt a great deal from your show. I would like to hear the rogues view on whether science has the potential to explain the physical world in such a way that we understand everything. Is there a limit to what we can comprehend? For example a dog has no concept of quantum gravity and wouldn’t ask the question of himself “Is space-time fundamentally continuous or discrete?” We have gone from asking ourselves how to grow food to “why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe?” Our brain appears finite in capacity so I would assume that would limit our ability to understand the world around us. Reaching a limit at some stage seems inevitable. Or will our brains develop as we need to solve increasingly more difficult questions, after all our brains appear not to need to store every bit of information we discover perhaps more the ability to solve a problem, and the capacity to grasp the variables at that time. I could be wrong though. Your opinions would be greatly appreciated and interesting.
Mark Dennehy
Melbourne</blockquote>

== Interview with Daniel Loxton () ==
About his new book: ''Abominable Science''

== Science or Fiction () ==
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612173326.htm Item #1:] New fossil evidence reveals the presence of kangaroo ancestors 25 million years ago in what is now Europe. [http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/15806 Item #2:] Researchers find that male guppies can reproduce up to 10 months after they have died. [http://www.anl.gov/articles/discovery-new-material-state-counterintuitive-laws-physics Item #3:] Scientists have discovered a material that gets larger under pressure, in apparent defiance of the laws of physics.

== Skeptical Quote of the Week () ==
<blockquote>Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing.</blockquote>
Harlan Ellison

== Announcements () ==

{{Outro404}}

== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

SGU Episode 414

2013-09-05T19:41:45Z

Fallible: /* Chinese Fake Alien (25:46) */ transcription

{{Editing required
|transcription = y

|time-stamps = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 414
|episodeDate = 22nd Jun 2013
|episodeIcon = File:chinese-alien-head.jpg
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 = DL: {{w|Daniel Loxton}}
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-06-22.mp3
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=46390.0
|qowText = Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing
|qowAuthor = {{w|Harlan Ellison}}
|}}

== Introduction ==
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, today is Wednesday, June 19th, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,

B: Hey, everybody

S: Rebecca Watson,

R: Hello, everyone.

S: Jay Novella,

J: Hey, guys.

S: and Evan Bernstein.

E: Salutations, everybody

R: Hello...

S: Salutations and felicitations, Evan.

E: Oh, and felicitations, how could I forget the Squire of Gothos. Shame on me,

S: I don't know (chuckles)

E: shame on me.

R: The hell you guys talking about.

E: Well, Rebecca, aren't you watching the Star Trek series?

R: I guess I haven't gotten up to that point, yet.

E: This is the original series.

R: I'm watching The Next Generation.

S: You know what I saw recently? "Star Trek Continues".

E: Hm?

S: which is a a

J: Wha?

S: fan.. "Star Trek Continues", it's a fan episode, a fan video, where it's as if the ep... the seasons continued as if it wasn't canceled after three seasons. So it's not, it's not like a parody, and it's not an update or a reboot or anything it's like what would a fourth season have actually been like,

B: Oh, cool.

S: and and they do their best to reproduce, the production value, the sets are identical, all the sound effects, the music the acting

R: Hm

S: the whole culture that was definitely embedded in that late '60s you know in terms of everything. And the

?: (inaudible)

S: some of the actors are damn good, the guy who's doing Kirk has his mannerisms down, absolutely down.

B: And it's not a parody of his mannerisms?

S: No, no it's not, it's not a parody, it's an imitation. And it like things like it's like "Yeah, Kirk does do that!" You know, it's like, (laughter) you uh things you wouldn't even think of. Like the

R: That is so Kirk.

S: ways he moves his arms when he walks. Yeah, it's just amazing.

R: Hey, remember that Star Trek episode where, uh, poisonous gas covered most of the planet, and murdered millions of people?

E: Ahhh.

R: Oh, wait, no, that was real life. Oh, my God!

B: (laughter)

E: That's worse.

== This Day in Skepticism (1:58) ==
R: On June 22, 1783, a poisonous cloud caused by the eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland, uh, finally reached France. So this is kind of, um, I really could have picked any date, uh, it's very interesting, it's something that I didn't even realize was the thing, uh, it was one of the most deadly if not the most deadly volcanic eruptions in human history, as I said it happened in Iceland but it spread all over the globe, uh, first of all though in Iceland it killed about 50% of the livestock which lead to a famine which killed a quarter of the population of Iceland. Uh, so it was pretty immediate but then it also went on to possibly cause droughts in India and Africa which lead to millions of more deaths, uh, as well as crop failures in Europe and air pollution and this deadly gas... from this deadly gas. So, all to... all told, it killed probably over 6 million people

?: What?

R: globally. Yeah, 6 million.

E: That's a lot (inaudible)

R: It was a pretty big volcanic eruption.

E: 1783, that's (inaudible) quite a bit.

B: Holy crap.

R: And the cloud was sulfur dioxide that

E: Oh, that'll do it

R: and also the hydrogen... the hydrogen fluoride apparently I think killed most of the people in Iceland but the sulfur dioxide is what drifted into Europe to start murdering people there. But yeah and it also caused severe global temperature change, uh, it was the hottest summer on record followed by really violent winter with hail and storms and all that good stuff which probably lead to more deaths.

S: It was the longest period of below zero temperatures in New England.

R: Oh, yeah, the US... the US area just had some severe weather. They don't... I.. I didn't find a whole of talk about deaths that resulted in it but I think people were just dying left and right anyway, at that point, so

S: A bad winter in 1783 was no joke.

R: Exactly, yeah, that's... that's what I'm sayin'. But...

B: So this gas released it wasn't part of like a.. a pyroclastic flow, it was just this, just this gas that came out and went

S: Just a bubble of gas

B: all over the place

R: Yeah, like a volcanic fart, silent but deadly

E: Probably wasn't too silent, either

R: Too soon?

?: Too soon (laughter)

S: Volcanoes are no joke, that superheated gas that kills people it's not just the lava and the ash, I mean, it's usually the gas, even if it's not poisonous gas if it's superheated it's like your lungs explode, you know. Well, let's move on, uhm, have you guys heard...

?: (stage inhalation)

?: Uh?

== News Items ==
=== Osteoarthritis (4:41)===
* Science-based Medicine: [http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/knee-osteoarthritis-thumbs-down-for-acupuncture-and-glucosamine/ Knee Osteoarthritis: Thumbs Down for Acupuncture and Glucosamine]

S: the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has released their, uh, 1200 page report evaluating evidence for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis

R: Now the last time you led us into one of these and we made all made light-hearted jokes about how boring the topic was, we got a bunch of angry letters from botanists, so, no, Steve, not gonna fall for it, this sounds fascinating, tell me more. (laughter)

S: Yeah, but like last time I convinced you how cool botany was, now I wanna convince you how cool osteoarthritis is.

E: Here come more letters (laughter)

S: Oh, boy. (laughter)

S: um, so osteoarthritis is, essentially degenerative arthritis of a joint, mainly from wear and tear, but there are other obviously biological factors involved, and so knee osteoarthritis, very common, um, as people get into their 40's and 50's they uh, their knees start to ache, you know, and they just wear out, they just don't really last 80 years unfortunately. There are lots of potential treatments for osteoarthritis including many that are not evidence-based. This report is interesting for a number of reasons, not just for the specific recommendations that are made. Harriet Hall writes about this on Science-based Medicine and I recommend that for those who are interested but I just want to highlight some of the interesting things. First of all, it shows that science-based practitioners actually care about evidence, despite all of the propaganda about "Oh, those doctors only want drugs and surgery" here we have a uh a major you know a professional organization in the United States dedicated to orthopedic surgery reviewing thousands of published studies, putting out a 1200 page comprehensive report looking in-depth into the evidence for many different approaches, and here are the highlights of what they found, where there was strong evidence you know for or against. So glucosamine chondroitin you guys are familiar with this, right, this is a dietary supplement that has been and still is promoted, um, has been for years, for arthritis. What do you think they found?

E: It doesn't work.

S: It doesn't work. So it was one of the few things where there was strong evidence against its effectiveness. Glucosamine and chondroitin doesn't work, there have been large studies. Exercise, strong evidence for, in favor of it. Weight loss, moderate evidence in favor of it. Acupuncture, what do you think they concluded?

R: No evidence.

?: Overwhelming evidence.

S: Strong evidence against its effectiveness. So very nice to see that they took a science-based approach to acupuncture research and didn't fall for the bait-and-switch of "Oh, it works like a placebo" you know, they didn't fall for that business. And also, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories strong evidence they are effective, that's not surprising. And here's one: arthroscopy with lavage and debridement --- strong evidence against.

B: Really?

E: Lavage, huh?

S: So lavage is like just washing it out. So arthroscopy is putting the scope into the knee and looking around, you know, for diagnostic, but if you take anything out then it becomes a therapeutic procedure, right, that's debridement, you know, cutting away any fraying pieces of cartilage and then washing out those pieces, that's the lavage part. So, this is a pretty lucrative, popular procedure for orthopedists to do. And here they are, the official organization of orthopedists, coming out with a statement saying there is strong evidence against the effectiveness of this procedure. This is something that we've written about on Science-based Medicine previously when there...there... when a review came out, I think now about two years ago, showing that arthroscopy was not effective, and there was some push-back from some orthopedists, and we said "Hey, this is the evidence, baby, this is, this is what it shows". So it's nice now to see the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons looking at the evidence and honestly saying "Yep, our beloved procedure, that we would love to have work, doesn't work". So it's hard in the face of this, if you look at the bigger picture, it's hard to justify the typical knee-jerk criticisms that alternative medicine proponents have against mainstream medicine

R: Heh, knee-jerk

S: Yeah, knee-jerk. That it's they only care about drugs and surgery, well here they are saying um, their favorite surgical procedure doesn't work, that they don't care about other things, here they're strongly in favor of exercise, moderately in favor of weight loss, Um, and that they're not, they don't care about actually treating people, well, this is, I think this shows their dedication to the evidence to what actually works regardless of what the modality is, and this is, this is, what we see in mainstream medicine all the time. This is a Herculean effort and it's great document, but this is what we see all the time, you know, the... academic professional uh physicians looking at the evidence objectively and the chips fall where they may, in its direct contradiction to all the anti-mainstream medicine conspiracy theories that you're going to hear from the alternative medicine side, so I thought that was worth pointing out. Also, Harriet pointed out something interesting, things like homeopathy didn't even make the list, it wasn't even worth their time to take a look at.

B: Oh, awesome.

E: Good.

S: Yeah.

R. Good (inaudible).

E: I don't know if we'd be able to say that if this were British Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, right? That probably would have made that list.

S: Homeopathy probably would have,

E: Yes

S: just because homeopathy is more popular across the pond, yeah.

B: Uh, Steve, did they mention why it wasn't on the list?

S: No, just... it didn't even... didn't even make the radar. Just wasn't even, yeah, not... not mentioned one way or the other.

B: OK

== Quickie with Bob (10:27)==
* ESO: [http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1326/ New Kind of Variable Star Discovered]

E: Oh, hey, wait, wait. I would like a Quickie with Bob right now.

B: Really?

E: Yes, right this moment.

B: Thank you, Evan, I'm almost certain you will not regret this.

E: (laughter)

B: This is your Quickie with Bob. Astronomers in Chile, guys, have discovered a new type of variable star it was pretty interesting story uh they did detailed observations of 3700 stars in this specific cluster over 7 years. Um, and showed that they found 36 of these stars had very minute changes in their brightness of about only about a tenth of a percent over an hour or as much as over 20 hours. And uh this is... this is big news in the community because variable stars are in... are incredibly common there's lots of different types of variable stars and it's always interesting to... to add another one to the group actually the list of uh of typ... of variable stars um the types themselves was much bigger than... than I remember them being but just to break it down real quick there's... there's two different main types of stars that are variable, there's the intrinsic and extrinsic and it's kind of obvious what they... what that means the intrinsic stars that are variable are variable because of that's just the way they are something about their internal dynamics makes them makes the light output variable whereas the extrinsic... the extrinsic stars... variable stars are variable only because you know say something might move in front of them or... or there might be some... something in the way that changes the light that reaches the Earth. So within these intrinsic stars there's... there's just a few categories there's the pulsating variables, there's the eruptives, and there's the cataclysmic or explosive variable stars. This new one that they found I think is pretty obvious that it's within the... the pulsating variable star category

S: Is there a throbbing category? (laughter)

E: Is there a grooving category?

B: So like I said these variables are most certainly they'll be within the pulsating variety they haven't actually named this type of variable yet but I'm sure it's gonna be within that... that category They're not sure why they pulsate, either, basically because current models say that they should not be variable so this is the real surprise that these... that these varied so much and but one clue that they found is that many of these variables rotate very very fast

S: Yeah, that seems pretty telling

B: Yeah, more than 50% of their critical velocity, in fact, and the critical velocity

E: Wow

B: is a velocity that if they... if they reached 100% they would actually start throwing off mass so they're spinning very very fast and uh this spinning might... may have an effect on the dynamics of their interiors which then would result in the variability of the light output. So, uh, so keep an eye on it, I'm curious to see what they're gonna call it and uh, and... and you know what more they can determine, um, about these types of stars based on uh, on... on this... these studies that they're... these very detailed studies that they're doing. So, uh, so I got guys this has been your Quickie with Bob, I hope it was good for you, too.

== News items continued ==
=== Patenting DNA (13:07)===
* BBC News: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22895161 US Supreme Court says human DNA cannot be patented]

S: Thanks, Bob. OK, Rebecca, you're gonna tell us about a major Supreme Court case regarding patenting genes.

R: Yes, you are correct, Steve. There is a huge decision that just happened in the Supreme Court on, uh, June 13th, the Supreme Court ruled that, uh, companies, particularly Myriad Genetics, in this case, cannot patent a human gene. So in this specific case, it was this company Myriad Genetics which was one of the patent holders on the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes. Now, astute listeners might recall that we were recently talking about these very genes, in the case of Angelina Jolie,

S: Yeah.

R: who came out and said that she had the mutation in her BRCA gene that said she was much much much more likely to get breast cancer and ovarian cancer and so she had her breast removed. Now, we also mentioned that Angelina Jolie had spoken briefly about the fact that not everyone has access to the genetic testing required to find out if you have the mutation, in order to get the life saving operations you would need. Well, the reason why many people don't have access to this genetic testing is because Myriad Genetics was one of the patent holders and... and they were the only company that was allowed to perform this testing on these genes. So, if you wanted to find if you had the mutation you had to go through Myriad Genetics and that increases the price dramatically so they could charge thousands of dollars to people who wanted the testing. What this ruling means in this specific case it's a huge win for women particularly because this means that you... women can go get genetic testing anywhere to find out if they have this mutation they don't have to go through Myriad in order to find out, so, now you have companies competing against each other, prices go down, etc., etc., and more lives are saved because of it, so that's one result of this and one of the reasons why women's rights groups were a huge part of the uh lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court decision it was a unanimous decision the case was led by uh the ACLU um representing women's rights groups as well as scientists and other interest groups but also scientists win from this case because it means that uh any scientist can now pursue research on the... these genes where prior to this only Myriad and the other patent holders would technically be able to do that. Basically the court ruled that you can't patent a human gene however they did leave it open that you could possibly patent a gene that had been fiddled with.

?: Yeah.

R: So uh if you

?: (inaudible) huge

R: come up with your own gene, like a synthetic gene like cDNA... c... cDNA, that could still be eligible for a patent. Uh, but because Myriad the company did not actually create anything, they just researched the gene they're not allowed to patent it.

S: Yeah. So

R: So

S: products of nature cannot be patented and what this decision was exploring specifically was how much modification is necessary before a product of nature is an innovation. An... yeah, this that needed to be explored for the in... for this specific case of genes. And it seems that everyone pos... with the possible exception of Myriad, is happy about this decision this is a... I've seen nothing but universal praise for this decision.

E: Myriad shouldn't be too sad their stock rose that day

S: Is that right? (laughter)

E: as a result, yeah.

R: They have been fighting this

E: That will fade.

R: for a very long time so this is a huge loss for them, but it's... it is a great gain for humanity, we're

S: Yeah, for humanity.

R: literally talking about lives being saved

E: Yeah, absolutely.

R: and more research being done.

B: Yeah, it does seem...

R: So it is a good thing.

B: it does seem (inaudible) to me lots of benefits but what about the idea, the one negative thing that I've heard, that I've seen in a couple of places was that some people are afraid that companies like Myriad, of course, will scale back investment because they're not gonna be rewarded ah with patents for this so I just wonder how much of a genuine concern that aspect of this is.

R: Consider how much research is done by private companies compared to the huge amount of research that's currently being done through government institutions and universities. Private companies have always focussed on what's going to make the most money and that's why we have uh government funding for scientific endeavors. There's one other thing I wanted to mention, a bit of, uh, myth-busting. This... this thing was going around that... uh, Scalia doesn't believe in genetics, or in molecular biology. So, uh, it was a unanimous decision but Justice Scalia wrote a separate thing... ruling...

S: Separate opinion.

R: opinion, thank you, that's the word.

E: Opinion, yeah.

R: Uh, Scalia wrote a separate opinion uh saying that he, uh, agrees to vote with the majority, but he does not agree with one part of the opinion that has no effect on his final vote. What he said was, um, that he wouldn't sign on to Part 1a and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology because he can't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief. So, Part 1a, deal... it's just a list of basic facts about DNA, about genetics, uh it's all kind of just basic level genetic stuff.

E: So was he basically saying I don't know what this is?

R: Yeah, you know, so some...

E: and therefore I can't really

R: some people were

E: say anything about it.

R: taking uh that he wouldn't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief to mean that he didn't believe in genetics or he didn't know about genetics and so he didn't believe them, something like that. But, I've heard from lawyers who have said that this is a bit of legal-speak in a way, that there's this sort of ongoing argument on whether or not they should in... judges should include basic information that's not necessary to the final ruling, and so that's kind of what he was saying, is that this chunk I'm not a scientist, I'm not going to sign my name on this and say that as a Justice I approve of this because I have no idea I'm not a scientist and it has nothing to do with the case.

S: He's being a legal stickler,

R: Yes.

S: not a science denier.

R: Exactly.

B: Oh, OK.

R: That...

E: Right.

R: that's what I'm hearing from... from lawyers, and

S: That makes sense.

R: it makes sense to me.

S: And that's kind of his shtick, too,

R: Yeah.

S: is to be a legal stickler.

B?: Hmmm, OK.

=== Foot Fungus (20:02)===
* Science News: [http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350599/description/Foot_fungi_a_thriving_diverse_community Foot fungi a thriving, diverse community]

S: OK, well thanks, Rebecca. Bob, can you explain to me why my toes occasionally itch? (laughter)

R: Ew, bugs, probably.

B: Well, guys, uh, last May... at the end of last May, uh, the, uh, the issue of Nature, they discuss the... the first census... the very first census of skin-dwelling fungi, that... that's

S: Fungi?

B: Well, there's three ways to pronounce it as far as I can tell

S: Fungi?

B: Fungi, fungi, fungi. Those are the three that I came across

R: But "fungi" is the only one that works with that "mushroom walks into a bar" joke.

B: OK.

S: What about... what about "fungi"?

B: That's actually my preferred pronounciation and I didn't find it. So, whatever, I'll just go with... I'll just go with one of the ones that I found. So this study reveals

E: (chuckle)

B: there's a fungus among us. OK, somebody had to say it, it's out of the way, I said it. So, actually, it... it reveals that there's a little variation... there's very little variation in the fungal communities on our bodies except for our feet which calls home to 80 to 100 different types of fungus, they're just like all over the place down there. So, for... just for a quick high-level refresher uh fungi are the third type of multi-cellular organisms, they're neither plant nor animals, um, one major difference between them and the other two is that their cell walls contain chitin, now that's (inaudible) that's like the exoskeleton of a crabs and lobsters or... or even the beaks of squid uh made of chitin. Uh, fungi play a pivotal role in decomposing organic matter and cycling uh nutrients in the environment and they also appear to be inordinately fond of feet. So here's a quick quote from the study: "A human's skin surfaces are complex ecosystems for microorganisms including fungi, bacteria and viruses which are known collectively as the skin microbiome". So I was as... I was surprised as I said that this initial study was the first of its kind. It seems, I guess, in terms of... yeah, human cohabitation bacteria and viruses get all.. get all the press and all the research dollars, so one reason why the lowly fungus I guess may have been neglected is that it's notoriously difficult to culture, I didn't know that, unlike bacteria which is easy, culturing a fungus from say uh the toenail can take weeks... weeks for it

S: And yet... and yet it's hard to kill when you wanna get rid of it.

B: (chuckle) Right. So... so how did they do it? They looked... they looked at the DNA, of course. They took ten volunteers and they swabbed 14 sites on their bodies including taking toenail clippings apparently. Uh, they then put them in a DNA sequencer which of course is uh one of the key technologies advanced by leaps and bounds uh by the Human Genome Project. Um, they used these molecular tags that stick only to the fungal DNA, so they wouldn't have to worry about all the human DNA and the bacterial DNA and viral DNA, that... that... that was mixed into the samples, so now they have this pure sample of just... of just fung... uh the fungus DNA. They then examined the tiny bits of fungal DNA uh called the phylogenetic markers to tally up all the different types of... of fungal species and bam, they were done, they had... they had a tally of all the different types of species. So, if you look most anywhere on the head or the torso you... you're likely to find one genus and that's called Malassezia. Uh, different areas have different species uh though, like the crease behind your ear or... or on your forehead there's little variation there. Surprisingly, your hands have tons of bacteria but very few fungal communities. So your feet, though, it's... it's completely different ecosystem, um, on your... on your toenails alone there's forty different uh fungi varieties, sixty between your toes, and eighty live on the bottom of... of your heel, which I think would ac... I wouldn't think that would be the most plentiful spot I would think, like, between your toes would have more but apparently there's lots of 'em on the bottom of your heel. So... so why is... how come? Why... why is this so? And it...

E: Gravity.

B: Yeah, gra... (laughter) Well it's... it's not hard to imagine one... one reason, right, your feet are... are often on contact with surfaces that fungi like to hang out on like your socks or locker room floors. I never walk barefoot at... at the gym, uh, never would do it.

E: Uhhhh,

B: So also

E: gosh... (inaudible) so bad.

B: your... your feet... I didn't know that your feet are cooler than other parts of your body, and... and fungi like cooler places, apparently, they hang out. Um, so... so should we all be grossed out? Are you guys like really grossed out... about this stuff?

R: (inaudible) obviously

?: Ahhh...

E: (inaudible) more grossed out about...

R: It takes more than that to... gross out Steve.

B: Yeah, I... I'm not...

S: Oh, yeah...

B: Yeah, I wouldn't think Steve would be, but I'm not... I'm not

S: I've had my head inside of a corpse

B: Cool, um...

R: Hey, thanks for that...

E: A human corpse? Wait, a human corpse?

B: I di...

S: Yeah.

B: Of course.

S: So has everyone who has gone through medical school.

E: You put your head in the corpse?

S: Well, you gotta get into the anatomy, I mean you gotta... you know you're disecting something...

E: I don't...

S: They... so, you get so grossed out in your first year of medical school you're basically done getting grossed out for life.

?: Yeah.

R: Yeah.

B: Totally desensitized.

R: I don't... I don't find what you've said so gross, Bob, but when in... you're talking I was thinking of that... toenail fungus, uh, commercial where...

E: Oh, yeah.

R: where the germ, like, lifts up

E: Little critters.

B: Yeah, yeah, yeah!

R: the toenail and then climbs inside and that's like the worst... worst commercial ever made.

B: Oh, my God I remember that something about detaching a toenail yes I... I cringe

R: Yeah.

B: every time I saw that, nothing to do with the

R: It's awful.

B: fungus or anything but it's just the lifting that toenail

R: Yeah, like the fungus didn't help

B: was nasty. Yeah right, yes. I mean it doesn't gross me out, the... thinking that there's... em... potentially s... you know... well over a hundred different types of these guys all over us. I thin... it's good... it's good that we're colonized by these critters because they're... they're likely to prevent other nasty... guys from taking hold on our skin so it's good that they're there. Likewise, this.. this research can actually help improve our treatment for skin disease and maybe even help with some types of cancers, some people were saying. So... so I say embrace the... the fungi living on your skin, you really don't have much of a choice until we replace them all with nanobots.

=== Chinese Fake Alien (25:46)===
* The Telegraph: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10115832/Chinese-farmer-jailed-for-making-a-rubber-alien.html Chinese farmer jailed for making a rubber alien]

S: All right, thanks, Bob. Evan, you're gonna tell us about a fake Chinese alien.<ref>[http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130612000078&cid=1103 WantChinaTimes] (laughter)

?: Oh, God.

E: Now that could mean several different things, I'll... I'll do my best to clarify. Now, there are times when news outlets totally, totally botch their headlines... right, I mean really botch

B: No.

E: We've talked about some real doozies on the show. But rarely do we give them credit when they actually get it right. Let's give The Telegraph it's due, because they got this headline spot-on. They wrote: "Chinese farmer jailed for making rubber alien". That kind-a says it all.

?: OK.

E: (chuckles) So it's being reported out of the Shandong province, that, uh, local police recently arrested someone named Mr. Li, a farmer slash alien enthusiast by day and an alien enthusiast farmer... slash farmer by night. And here are his versions of the event, this is Mr. Li.

S: "Mr. Li" 's a pseudonym, probably, by the way.

E: He said: <blockquote>"I was setting an electrical trap for rabbits by the Yellow River, when I saw a bright light. Above my bike, a UFO was floating. One by one, five aliens came down, but one of them stumbled onto one of my rabbit traps and was electricuted. The others went back into their ship and flew away."</blockquote>So that's his story.

S: Quite a tale he's got there. So this alien from who knows how far away from another solar system in super advanced technology and then dies in a rabbit trap.

E: Exa...

S: And his friends leave him behind.

E: And they leave him behind.

R: Was he rabbit shit? (laughter)

E: No.

R: Maybe he was... maybe he was a rabbit, like from another dimension.

E: Well, then rabbits look an awful lot like little grays with Chinese accentuations around the eyes

B?: Yes.

E: and head and stuff. But

B: Plus... plus only mice... only mice are from other dimensions.

E: But how did he go about backing up his claim. Well he does what any true believer does and he post pictures of the ET on the Internet. And in three days these pictures happen to go viral, so after five days of having posted the pictures the local police show up at his door and he's taken in for questioning. Now during the questioning Mr. Li admitted, willingly or otherwise, that the whole thing was a hoax.

S: Shock, shocked.

E: He made an alien, he constructed it himself out of this gluey rubber sort of substance uh tied together with ropes and uh other things and you know... a few... he... he drew his inspiration from the Simon Peg film Paul I don't know if you guys have seen that

?: Hall?

R: Yeah, the one where they go to Comicon.

S: Yes.

E: Right... right.

S: Yes, I saw it.

E: And the alien does a little bit sort of kind of look like that I suppose.

S: But you're right, Evan, the... the uh alien head looks Chinese.

E: It... it does (chuckles).

S: It does... so I mean it's his cultural bias leaking through in his sculpture and he's not aware of it but to these Western you know American eyes it has this... it looks like uh something... that it... like an piece of art that a Chinese person would create.

E: Right.

S: You know, it's not just the eyes it's the mouth it's everything you know it's just there's a subtle sort of Oriental appearance to it. Uh, which is always, I think, a... a very telling sign to look for when people are imagining or faking alien phenomena and their cultural biases come through, and of course we're... you're much more attuned to them when it's from a di... from another culture.

E: But why did he... why did he do it why did you think he did it well he says it with the intent of helping more people believe in aliens. Which is

S: Yeah.

R: Weird.

E: an interesting way to go about doing that... uh, I suppose... um, he claims that and these are his words again, it's still disputed whether or not UFOs and aliens exist but we believe... not sure what he means by we... they do and we want to expand our group... I don't know what group he's part of... uh, and make more people believe that aliens do exist. So that's

R: Was this him

E: the approach.

R: saying this or was this

E: That was him.

R: the government saying that he said that.

E: Uh, that is the report from The Telegraph say... uh... which is quoting him as saying that.

R: Hm.

S: Who knows.

E: Yeah you who... who really knows. It's for the conspiry theori... conspiracy theorists,

S: (chuckle)

E: I guess to... to... to sort of figure it

R: Well, you know I mean you don't have to stretch far to come up with a conspiracy involving the Chinese government making a guy say something (chuckle) I mean

E: (chuckle)

R: making a Chinese prisoner say something that they want him to say. Um...

E: That's true.

B: Yeah, my mind all bets are off

R: Yeah, especially if they wanna

B: soo as he... soo as he ga... soo as the government got a hold of him they can well, nothing he says now... really (chuckle) you know whatever

R: Even if it was just a case of they... they wanted to trump up the charge a bit so they didn't look like they were just hassling some farmer, now they've got like a cult that they can

?: Yeah

R: pin on him, you know,

?: Yeah, yeah

E: But

R: 'cuz they're... they hate... they hate the cults.

E: Mr. Li spent five days incarcerated, the crime was fabricating lies and disrupting normal social order.

B: Oh, boy, wow.

E: Yeah, that... that doesn't sound too Orwellian or anything (inaudible)

S: Yeah, disrupting the social order that yeah really Orwellian, I agree

?: scary

E: Now, guys, to wrap this up, I'll say that the rubber alien was examined by scientists and deemed to be a hoax, the dead giveaway is when they broke open the alien and pulled out a slip of paper with a fortune, that's right

S: (laughter)

B: Oh!

E: And it... and the fort... it read "Help I'm being held prisoner in a Chinese bakery

R: Hm, hm.

E: and your lucky numbers are 4, 14, 22, 31, and 49". So

?: Jesus

E: that sort of sealed the deal.

B: Oh, boy.

R: That joke fails, though, on the fact that fortune cookies aren't Chinese.

S: Yeah, that's true.

E: No, that enhances the joke and the gaw.... (inaudible, possibly expletive)

== Who's That Noisy? ()==

== Questions and Emails () ==
=== Can We Know Everything? ()===
<blockquote>I have been listening to the show for 4 years and although I have always been a sceptic I have learnt a great deal from your show. I would like to hear the rogues view on whether science has the potential to explain the physical world in such a way that we understand everything. Is there a limit to what we can comprehend? For example a dog has no concept of quantum gravity and wouldn’t ask the question of himself “Is space-time fundamentally continuous or discrete?” We have gone from asking ourselves how to grow food to “why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe?” Our brain appears finite in capacity so I would assume that would limit our ability to understand the world around us. Reaching a limit at some stage seems inevitable. Or will our brains develop as we need to solve increasingly more difficult questions, after all our brains appear not to need to store every bit of information we discover perhaps more the ability to solve a problem, and the capacity to grasp the variables at that time. I could be wrong though. Your opinions would be greatly appreciated and interesting.
Mark Dennehy
Melbourne</blockquote>

== Interview with Daniel Loxton () ==
About his new book: ''Abominable Science''

== Science or Fiction () ==
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612173326.htm Item #1:] New fossil evidence reveals the presence of kangaroo ancestors 25 million years ago in what is now Europe. [http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/15806 Item #2:] Researchers find that male guppies can reproduce up to 10 months after they have died. [http://www.anl.gov/articles/discovery-new-material-state-counterintuitive-laws-physics Item #3:] Scientists have discovered a material that gets larger under pressure, in apparent defiance of the laws of physics.

== Skeptical Quote of the Week () ==
<blockquote>Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing.</blockquote>
Harlan Ellison

== Announcements () ==

{{Outro404}}

== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

SGUTranscripts:Community portal

2013-09-01T19:36:25Z

Fallible: /* Formatting */ Two more questions...

Welcome to the community portal, this is the place to make suggestions and ask questions.

Add new topics at the top, and add comments to current topics in chronological order.

== Speech recognition software ==
Could we use the YouTube API and auto captions to get a rough draft? --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 23:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
: I'd love to see the results. From what I've read the accuracy is low enough as to not be useful but it'd certainly be interesting to see. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 08:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, it looks like there are some interesting things going on with Google speech recognition. There's a [https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/demos/speech.html demo app] that lets you talk for as long as you like. The first thing I'm going to have to do is to work out how to get chunks of the SGU podcast into it. I'm sure there's a way to couple the audio out and audio in on my linux machine, and if not, a simple cable from the headphone to the mic jack aught to do the trick. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 09:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
: So, after doing two episodes this way, what's your assessment of the process? I looked at [[SGU Episode 402|episode 402]], and it looks like it'll be almost as much work to decipher that wall o' text as it would have been to just type it in from scratch. Is it easy to set up, technically? -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 13:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
:: I'll have to go through and do the proof reading process before I know. Technically speaking, it's super easy. All I have is my headphones right next to the mic on my laptop, then I go to that google page, click the button and press play in vlc. So I imagine that it woudl be possible to get better results by either using a dedicated cable from the headphone jack into the mic jack, or by using some kind of software solution to pipe the sound into this web app. As far as I can see the quality varies. When one rogue is speaking clearly it does really well. When they talk over each other it's basically useless. Also, foreign accents completely confuse it. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 15:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
::: I tried it, but for whatever reason, the Google speech test page just didn't work for me; It kept asking for permission to use the microphone but wouldn't start recording. It doesn't matter; there's still stuff like categorization and formatting that has to be done manually anyway. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 14:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

There's also a [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/transcribe-transcribe-aud/ogokenmicnjdfhmhocanoemnddmpcjjm chrome extension for transcription] that allows you to speed up, slow down, pause etc the audio all from the same window as your text editor. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 08:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

== Sci or Fi stats ==
Hello everyone. I have an idea that is not completely relevant to SGU Transcripts, but I thought this would be the best place to ask this question. For a while now I have been wanting to have a little more fun with the results of Science or Fiction, beyond the simple annual tabulation of scores. Most importantly, I would like to measure the GWB Effect! Specifically, I would like to begin tabulating data on each Science or Fiction, and making it available to anyone who wants to perform an analysis on it. Things we could measure are: result for each player (right/wrong), order of answers given, number of "science" options, existence of theme, etc. There are other things as well. I think it would be a fun project for SGU fans who are also stats geeks. Anyone else interested? 
--[[User:Manyou07|Manyou07]] ([[User talk:Manyou07|talk]]) 08:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
: Sounds great! I know that [[User:Teleuteskitty]] has done some stuff. Would it be possible to do something cool with google docs? It'd be nice to do some graphs too. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 14:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
: Thanks! I opened a thread at the SGU Forums for further discussion: http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,44888.0.html[http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,44888.0.html] --[[User:Manyou07|Manyou07]] ([[User talk:Manyou07|talk]]) 06:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

== Word count ==
Hey. I've seen the [[Special:Statistics|Statistics]] page, but I've also noticed that when I search, it tells me the word count of pages. Is it possible to get some sort of Total word/character count? I personally would like to see. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 01:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
: There's also [[Special:ContributionScores]] but I think it has a tendency to massively overvalue small changes over larger ones, so people who do a lot of small corrections get higher scores than those who have transcribed a lot of text which is obviously not what we want. I haven't been able to find an extension that gives a total word count, but a while back I did do it manually by dumping all of the pages to text using some bodgy scripts on my linux box, then doing a word count on those text pages. It was on 2012-11-28 and we had transcribed 910,050 words, 5,128,984 characters, and we had completed 57 of 384 (15%) full SGU episodes and 78 of 113 (69%) 5x5 episodes. I'll do a refresh of these stats when I get a chance, but it's quite laborious. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 10:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
: Just casting my eye down the episode lists, I get 65 SGU (17%) and 83 5x5 (73%) episodes complete right now. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 10:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
: OK, I just did another run: 1,055,851 words, 5,937,159 characters. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 12:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

== Dead episode links ==
Quoted from [[Talk:SGU_Episode_127]] for general discussion:
<blockquote>If we just put in dead links to episodes that don't exist, wouldn't that create a list of the most referenced yet to be made episode pages? Wouldn't that possibly be good? --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 02:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
</blockquote>
:True, it would add them to [[Special:WantedPages]], although the numbers there are bumped up by having consecutive episodes transcribed with automatic navigation links etc. . I like the idea of noting the most needed episodes, but I personally think it's best to avoid dead links in text where possible, even though these would automatically update when the page becomes available. I proposed a slightly different way on [[Template talk:Link needed]] a while back - we could use that method to add a reference with the dead link, bumping them up the 'Wanted' list, whilst keeping an eye on [[:Category:Needs internal links]]. Which isn't perfect. Alternatively, we could:
#create the referenced pages and add a 'priority pages'category
#make a page listing all episodes to be transcribed, marking which are referenced
:What do you think? --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 02:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
::I'm a big fan of whatever is easiest. Am I right in thinking that this would be the broken (red) link approach? --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
:::I think so, yep. And just for the record, if that's what you guys think is best, I'm more than happy to go back through pages switching 'link needed' templates to dead links – I'm more motivated to take a uniform approach than to get any of my over-complicated ideas in place :) --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 22:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
::::I'll offer my reasoning on the "Link needed" template, since I'm the one that created it. My idea for it was just as a "placeholder" for when I was transcribing/proof-reading and one of the rogues makes reference to something from a previous episode, but I ''didn't'' know which episode it is, indicating for someone to find it at a subsequent date. If you know what episode is being referenced and there isn't a page created already, I'd say by all means go ahead and put in the dead link to save another person the trouble of figuring out which episode it should be. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 04:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::Ah, I see! That makes sense. Looks like that's the probably the consensus, so I'll start switching them over --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 07:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

== Steve Novella Show ==
'''Call for volunteers''': I've posted a framework for [[SGU_Episode_49|episode 49]] and did the first segments, then marked it as "open" to try to attract some more help. This one is The Steve Novella Show, as in the one he did all by himself, including Science or Fiction and Name That Logical Fallacy. It should be very easy to do, especially for someone who has trouble telling different voices apart. Sorry I can't offer any T-shirts. =)
: What exactly needs doing on this episode? I don't want to listen to everything if I don't have to. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::Oops, I just now noticed I never signed my comment. D= You don't have to transcribe the entire thing if you don't want to; you can do just a segment here or there. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 22:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:::Well, maybe it's more trouble than it's worth but if you know that there's nothing missing up until some point, what that point is would be nice. It's a little unclear just looking at the transcript so far... at least to me. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 00:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
::::It's been transcribed up to the [[SGU_Episode_49#Agnosticism_.289:03.29|Agnosticism]] e-mail. The rest has just been copied over from the show notes page. I haven't even formatted the text to break it into paragraphs, which may be what made it unclear to you. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 16:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

== Mike Lacelle ==
Hey everyone. Was thinking we should maybe try to do something in honor of Mike Lacelle. The only thing I came up with was marking episodes in which he appears as priority and getting them transcribed as soon as we can. If someone found the episodes and marked them I know I personally would work on them before other episodes. Any other ideas? --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 07:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
: That sounds good to me. How about I put a highlight on the front page to replace the t-shirt competition, seeing as that's been won now ;) --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 17:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
:As far as I can tell, he was mostly on around the year-in-review episodes, so I went through them:
:* 2011 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-31.mp3 337 - Dec 31 2011] - Mike is on this.
:* 2010 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-12-29.mp3 285 - Dec 29 2010] - Mike is on this.
:* 2009 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-01-01.mp3 232 - Jan 1 2010] - Mike is on this.
:* 2008 in review: 180 - Dec 30 2008 - Mike is NOT on this.
:* 2007 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-12-26.mp3 127 - Dec 26 2007] - Mike is on this.
:* 2006 in review: 75 - Dec 27 2006 - Mike is NOT on this.

::Hiya, I've started listing the episodes Mike was on here: [[Mike Lacelle - In memoriam‎]]. I don't think that's all of them though. I've also created pages for some of the episodes, I agree it would be good to prioritise these. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 19:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

== New starters' questions ==
Hey, guys! I'm new here (heard about the project on the recent episode) and today added two sections in episode 349: [[SGU Episode 349#Nuclear Clock (34:53)|Nuclear Clock]] and [[SGU Episode 349#NDE and Lucid Dreaming (40:44)|NDE and Lucid Dreaming]]. Let me know how they look! It's my first time transcribing anything on this scale, and I think I'm getting the hang of it, but I have to admit that I'm a bit of a perfectionist and I feel strange not having ''more'' direction as far as formatting (I realize it would probably be very difficult/time-consuming to enforce super-specific standards at this stage). I looked at some of the completed transcripts to get an idea of what others were doing and tried to use my best judgment from there. I think I'm ready to attack a full episode, but it might take me a while to get through it. There are still some things I'm not entirely clear on, including exactly how the categories/redirects work, so I'm sure I'll ask for some help once I've finished transcribing a full episode (and probably while I'm in the middle of it). Also, I wanted to say that I usually don't have any trouble distinguishing voices (including Jay's and Bob's), so if there are any episodes/sections that need a second pair of ears for that specifically, I can definitely help out. Going forward, is this page the best way to communicate with other members? Thanks!
--[[User:Jacquie o|Jacquie o]] ([[User talk:Jacquie o|talk]]) 11:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Jacquie! Those transcripts you've done look absolutely fantastic! In terms of direction, we're just feeling our way though here. :) I suppose the most important thing is to get as much of the content done, and so long as the meaning is accurate, that's the most important thing. I also try to think "what if someone was running this through google translate?", i.e. would it translate well? That's leading me to leave out "you know" and "um" and those types of things to make the transcript flow better.Great to hear you can tell Jay and Bob apart, if you have time and want some lighter work, doing some proof reading might be right up your alley then. Some people do transcripts and leave, say B?: or J?: if they're not sure, so you could possibly go through and fix those.Going forward, we're trying to work on a place to help members communicate. The best I've got so far is this: [[Special:WikiForum]], but it's a bit bare bones, so when I get some time I'm going to try to integrate something a little more sophisticated.--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello all. I just joined. Jumped in and proofread [[SGU Episode 3]], some very minor copy edits, added a fair number of links, and subdivided a particularly long interview. I also added some "dead links" to pages I was figuring we should have locally: NESS and JREF. Or should I go back and change them to external links to THE Wikipedia?
--[[User:Bshirley|Bshirley]] ([[User talk:Bshirley|talk]]) 03:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
: Hi Bshirley. Thanks for the proof reading, it's very appreciated. It's always fun to add links during the proof reading process, I find I do that a lot too. I really like the subdivisions within the interview breaking it into its topics, that's something I might try to do in future; it would really help with deep linking to a particular subject of discussion. As for the dead links, I'm not so sure. I guess I see our site as not so much providing pages on particular topics à la Wikipedia, and am more inclined to link off to Wikipedia for those kinds of things. We can always improve them on Wikipedia if need be. Just my opinion tho. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 15:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone, HNY and thanks for all the great work you're doing here. I'm new to transcribing and to this whole Wiki editing stuff but hope I won't make too much of a mess. I posted a [[5X5_Episode_37|5x5 Episode 37]] for a start so I guess it's ready for proof-reading. I didn't go through the whole Help section yet, just copied the formatting from another verified episode. So if anyone can take a look and check what I got wrong, I'd appreciate it. I'm not an English native speaker, so: (a) Though I tried to stick to the American spelling, there may be some impurities; (b) I'm never sure about punctuation. Guess I tend to abuse/misuse/misplace it. One more thing: I wasn't sure what to do with all the "likes", "you knows"' etc. so I left them in. Don't know what the best practice is. Oh, and I didn't have too much trouble telling Jay and Bob apart. Beginner's luck? ;) Keep up the good work! --[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 00:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
:Great stuff! Welcome on board. I've proof read 5x5 #37 for you and I must say, I take my hat off to you. As someone who has some familiarity with a foreign language (having lived in France for a year), I must say you did an amazingly good job. I'd say your error rate is pretty much the same as transcripts done by native speakers. :)
:* Re: American/British spelling: I don't really care, but I'm a bit more laissez faire than most other people on here. :)
:* Re: likes/you knows: I tend to leave them out unless they modify the meaning of the sentence.
:* Re: Bob/Jay: I'm beginning to suspect that this is a talent, as well as a skill.
:One thing that might help is the [[Help:Contents#Useful_pages|skeleton pages]]. These are blank templates you can use when starting a new transcript. Cheers for your help! --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 12:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
::Wow! Appreciate the thumbs up. That's very encouraging. And thanks for the proof read. Apart from obvious misspellings, you corrected the very bits I was least sure of and that's a good sign, I guess :) Care to look at [[5X5_Episode_41|5x5 #41]]? Hope it's not worse than the first one. Cheers! --[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 13:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Yep, done. That was even better than the first one, just one change really: [http://www.future-perfect.co.uk/grammartips/grammar-tip-practise-practice.asp practise vs practice]. I'm a native speaker and I still get those mixed up. :) --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 15:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
::::Thanks :) And now [[5X5_Episode_42|#42]] is up for grabs. This is fun ;) --[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 18:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

== Formatting ==
Is there a way to get <nowiki><blockquote></nowiki> formatted a little bit. Maybe a light background color and/or some automatic large quote marks? Right now it's not necessarily worth using, imho. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
:Yep, we could probably change the CSS. I'll see what I can do. Do you have a site in mind that I could use as a basis (i.e. to steal the css from)?--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
::It looks like something has changed to add a light beige background, which achieves the goal. Personally I think it could be a little more distinct, by my aesthetic tastes are poorly defined and not widely popular. I didn't have any examples in mind, but the first one on [http://css-tricks.com/examples/Blockquotes/ this] site looks good to me. It shows an example of what I meant by the "large quote marks". I am okay with having issues I bring up be un-addressed. I just write down things I think of. I leave the risk/reward analysis to those with better information on the subject. Still, I think the better looking the site is the more likely people are to use it. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 21:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Did the way the diffs display change? They look good. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 02:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
: They ''do'' look good. :) I didn't intentionally change them, but perhaps they changed with the new 1.20 mediawiki version (along with user registration briefly being broken). --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 13:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Design request: make the left pane logo and links float down the page when scrolling. Just another idea I'm throwing out there. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 21:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Help! I'm totally green and have a question: what am I supposed to do about "Quickies with Bob"? The one in Episode 414 comes in the middle of the news segments... and maybe this issue should be addressed in a Help section somewhere (sorry if I missed it)? -- [[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 16:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
:Hi Fallible, thanks for helping out on the site. It's a good question, and we don't yet have a set format for that. I searched through what's already been done, and I like the format in [[SGU Episode 387]] and [[SGU Episode 400]]. In these, it's treated as a new, 2nd level segment, followed by a 2nd level header "News items continued", and 3rd level headers for the remaining news items. If people agree this format works, I'll go back and change the other transcripts, and add a note in the help section. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks for the quick reply! I like it (the formatting proposal). The only comment I have is, are "Quickies with Bob" always in the news items section of the podcast? Because if not, we should agree on a format for how to interrupt a second level item with no sub-items (I suppose the same "X continued (time-stamp)" would work). -- [[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 22:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
: G'day Fallible. What I do is start a new second-level heading for the quickie with Bob. If the quickie occurs in the middle of the news items or whatever, I just do a "News items continued" afterwards, see: http://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_414. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 08:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Another question about formatting(?): the news items sometimes include links to references which have been copied from the episode notes. If I think there are additional references which add more information, how can I (or even, should I) add them to the episode transcription? One possibility is to add more links at the start of a news item, but somehow that seems inelegant to me (because there is no distinction between the original link or links from the episode notes and additional links). [[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 19:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

And yet another question about formatting. In my episode, Bob, Steve, and Rebecca talk about the various ways the word "fungi" can be pronounced, but I currently have no way to distinguish between these pronunciations in the transcription. Would it be OK if I added IPA as is sometimes done in Wikipedia? The drawback is that this might break searching for phrases. [[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 19:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

== Interviews ==
Question regarding interviews. When an interview is incorporated into a segment, such as Dr Rachie's interview in SGU 366, does that make her a guest? It doesn't seem like a black and white distinction. [[User:Zambuck|Zambuck]] ([[User talk:Zambuck|talk]]) 22:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Zambuck, we use the 'Guest' section in the infobox as a key for non-Rogue speakers, so you're right to add her in there. Thanks for your help!--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 10:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

== External links ==
I've posted the transcript for [[5X5 Episode 30]] so it's ready for a proof. Any takers? Tried my best to keep to US spelling. Mostly wiki links but some external, any preference? [[User:tnewsome|tnewsome]] ([[User talk:tnewsome|talk]]) 23:19, 18 October 2012 (EST)
:We've mostly used wiki links, as it keeps a general standard of reference, they're often updated and they reference out to other sites. It's also very handy when you've got lots of linkable points, and it would take forever to find the ''best'' website for each. If readers are interested, it's generally a good place for them to start. Thanks for your help! --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to have certain text automatically become a link? Like 'Skeptic's Guide to the Universe' or 'New England Skeptic's Society' or the rogues' names for example? --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
:Not that I know of, other than perhaps using a template --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

== Index of core concepts ==
Had an idea for a project we could work on in conjunction with the transcription. We should keep track of places where the rogues explain a core concept in detail (a lot of 5x5 episodes I imagine) and link to that explanation from other places in the transcription. Paradolia, Occam's razor, selection bias, things like that. We could centralize them into a single page, as well. Within the canonical rogue explanation we can link out to wikipedia or other sources. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
: Sounds like a great idea, somewhat compatible with the TIL (Today I Learned) sections. I think centralising them into a single page would make them much easier to find... I know that when I'm transcribing and I hear someone say "we discussed that on a previous podcast" it'd be nice to have a place to go to find that, though perhaps searching would be sufficient. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

== Example page(s) ==
Hi all. I think it would be a good idea to pick an episode that is the canonical one. One where whatever the current agreed upon standard is implemented that can be pointed to or referenced whenever needed. Just a thought. Oo... also, we should be careful about links. We need to use nofollow when appropriate so quacks don't get any google juice from our work. 
--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 03:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
:Good idea on the example episode, we're trying to figure out which one would be best. Suggestions welcome! --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
::It might be that we'll have to splice together a few episodes to get all the various elements in one place. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Hi, Geneocide! I think that the transcripts from episodes 350-365 (even the unverified ones) are probably as close to canonical as we're going to get. Those were done in the time when TK, RWH, and I had a little bit more time to devote to the pages and before we started to fall behind. (I'm particular to [[SGU_Episode_365|365]], since that's one I did almost entirely myself. =) --[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 02:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

== Proof reading ==
The [[5X5 Episode 6]] transcript has just gone up and is begging for a proof-read and voice check. Any takers? :) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 04:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
:I got it covered. Thanks, Skepticat! -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 02:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I heard Rob on the SGU and it sounded like a fantastic idea to contribute here. I transcribed a 5x5 episode to start (#39), and I'll probably do a few more before I go whole hog and tackle a full SGU episode. If anyone wants to proof-read that episode I did, that would be fantastic. I know the punctuation is way off there. Thanks in advance, and If you need my help specifically, don't be afraid to message me. Have fun! [[User:Thevipermike|Thevipermike]] ([[User talk:Thevipermike|talk]]) 05:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
:Great, thanks! I'll take a look when I get a chance. :) --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

== Time formats ==
Hi guys, I've noticed we've used 2 different time-stamp formats. When it gets past the hour mark, I use the h:mm:ss format, but some pages use mm:ss, e.g. 78:12. As the time-stamps form the links for sections, I figure this is pretty important. My argument for using h:mm:ss is that, in my experience, that's what the majority of audio software and mp3 players use, plus I think it's more natural for us to think of time this way. What do you guys think? --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 17:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
:Kitty, the only reason I was using mm:ss was because that's what was already in use on the existing pages. =P I agree that h:mm:ss makes more intuitive sense and is used in more places, so I'm all in favor of switching over. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 13:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks for responding. Rwh86's away this week, so I'm gonna be cheeky, assume he's cool with it and change them over. We can always change them back if anyone comes up with a good argument for the mm:ss format. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

== Categories ==
Hi guys, and thanks for starting this project! I don't have a lot of time to devote to doing whole transcripts, but I'd like to start categorizing the wiki pages, like "SGU Transcripts", "Live Episodes", etc. I think it would also be helpful to have next/previous episode links on each page, either at the bottom or in the infobox. Any opinions? --[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 15:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

:Hi Av8rmike, thanks for your interest, any help is always appreciated, big or small. We were thinking of using the categories from the [http://theness.com/roguesgallery/ Rogues gallery], plus others more specific to the podcast, e.g. guests. I think adding a category for live episodes is a great idea. We're also considering using redirect pages for categorizing podcast sections separately.
:I agree, previous/next buttons would be good (in fact I was just playing with some graphics for them). However, I'm not sure how to get a wiki template to recognise the episode number and add/subtract automatically, do you have any ideas about that? Otherwise we can just input them manually. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 16:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

::I took a stab at adding some categories to [[SGU_Episode_354]] to give an idea of how that would work. I don't know offhand how to do the auto-numbering in wiki templates, but from looking at the help pages for templates, you can do almost anything with them. I could probably do some experimenting and see how far I get.
::[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 18:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

== Who's who? Recognising the Rogues==
I'd like to help, but I ''cannot'' tell Jay and Bob's voices apart. Am I useless?
 --[[User:Jenpohl|Jenpohl]] 20:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:I often find this difficult, and it's quite likely I've already made mistakes based on this, but mb you'll get better as you're listening closely. I find Bob more nasal. Another good indicator is whether they're referencing nanotechnology or porn. :)
:--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 21:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:That may be a problem, but all it took for me to tell their voices apart was a little time.
:--[[User:Jay One|Jay One]] 21:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:Just a thought: if you want to put up a <ins>transcription page including</ins> timestamps in comments (using "< !--" and "-->" without spaces in them) for the points you're unsure about, you could flag the pages up here for me (or whoever) to see if we can help out. <ins>This way we can easily search for problem points.</ins>
:--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 06:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC) [edited:16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)]

:You're definitely not useless! The most important thing is to get a first pass of the transcription done, corrections are then much quicker/easier. How about you put a question mark after the letter if you can't work out who's speaking? So like:
:
:B?: Stuff that Bob or Jay said
:
:Then someone else can go fix them later, should be pretty quick to do.
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys...First time transcriber here! I was inspired by Tim Farley's presentation at TAM 2012 to see where I could help out - and figured I could at least try this. I just transcribed and posted [[5X5_Episode_4]], but I'm not familiar enough with the Rogues to distinguish voice identities. The only voice IDs I'm somewhat sure of are Steve's and Rebecca's (the others I guessed at). If anyone can help with voice IDs in Ep. 4, that would be great. (Maybe I'll get better at the voices in the future -grin-) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 03:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Skepticat, and (as Av8rmike said) welcome to the team! I proof-read [[5X5 Episode 4]] and added the speakers. The page is great, took me no time to add them. In future, if there's a lot of lines you can't attribute, don't worry about adding times to each, just the first in a cluster. Hopefully that will save you a bit of time too :) I often find Bob and Jay hard to distinguish, but I think Bob's just a little more nasal, and it sounds like Jay might use a desktop mic instead of one close by his mouth. I don't know if that's any help. Thanks for your help, I'm very jealous you got to go to Tam, if you have any feedback for the site, do let us know. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks for the proof-read! Care to take a whack at [[5X5 Episode 5]], which I just posted? I don't think I'm going to have much luck with voice IDs (other than S & R) unless someone specifically says who's who, so I'll leave that to much more experienced folks, such as yourself, for now. Heck, I ended up riding down in the same elevator with the SGU crew at TAM (I think it was the first morning?) and I didn't fully realize who they were until later. As I was a "first TAMMER", that happened to me a few times with other skeptic notables there. :) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 04:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

:::Done! And just for the record, I definitely don't get the voices right ''all'' the time. That's just one of the reasons to have subsequent contributors as proof-readers :) --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 12:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

::Skepticat: Some things that may help you get more familiar with the voices:
::* Listen to an episode and follow along with the transcript (assuming it's been verified), paying attention to who's speaking when.
::* Transcribe some of the earlier episodes. Perry is easy to distinguish, and Jay (and sometimes Bob) aren't in all the early ones because of software limitations. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 14:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

== Professional transcribers ==
Has anyone explored the idea of hiring a professional transcriptionist to do the work? This could be much faster, but there would be a cost involved. Perhaps a donation fund could be set up for SGU listeners to pay for it. Another podcast that goes this route is the "Security Now" podcast from Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte.
 -- [[User:128.200.139.53|128.200.139.53]] ([[User talk:128.200.139.53|talk]]) 17:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:I'm a professional trascriber and I would love to contribute towards this project. VLC is good but not optimized for transcription purpose. I would suggest NCH's ExpressScribe software and it's free. Also if you are spending a lot of time on this project, I would recommend investing on a foot pedal. It shouldn't cost you more than $25. With these two things, I am sure you can double your productivity.
:--[[User:Eupraxsophic|Eupraxsophic]] ([[User talk:Eupraxsophic|talk]]) 02:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

== Fact lists ==
Hi guys, I'm guessing this is the best place to put project discussions, let me know if there's another way - I'm new to Wiki editing.

Regarding time stamps for the sections, I've entered them into the headings of [[SGU_Episode_348]] using tags. This shows them smaller in the actual headings, but the same size in the contents list.
What do you guys think?

I've also been thinking of ways to make these transcript pages as useful as poss without causing ourselves too much extra work. One way might be to include a kind of bullet-point list of facts from the episode, as they often have throw-away comments that are interesting. E.g. in ep.348, they talk about nut allergies, and that cashew nuts contain the same allergy-inducing resin as poison-ivy. We could lift these from the main text as we go and build a list at the end. It wouldn't make much difference if someone's reading the whole transcript, but it might make a nice feature for flicking through them.
Just a thought, I figured it would be better said earlier than later. What do you think?
 Cheers,

--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 04:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

:I like the idea of compiling a fact list at the end of the transcription for each episode. It's just up to the individual transcriber I suppose. Regarding the tags, I definitely think it would help to have the timestamps in these transcriptions, and having it in the section title makes it visible in the table of contents. The other option is to use the wikibox on your user page, which I think is very nice, containing the image, quote, times and links in one place. It just depends on whether or not other people like it too.
:--[[User:Jay One|Jay One]] 20:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks, I have no experience making wikibox templates, so if someone else knows more about these, mb they'd like to build one? (although I'm happy to try) we should probably come to some agreement about whether we want them and what they should contain.
::--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 20:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've inserted a rough draft of a fact list at the bottom of [[SGU_Episode_348]]. What do you guys think? It was easy to put together, but I didn't know what to call it.
 --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 05:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:I originally thought it was a bad idea until I went and looked at your example. Now I think it's ''awesome'', I love it! :) Currently you've called it "Today I Learned..." which I think is good, but can anyone think of a title that's better? Like maybe "Interesting ideas from the podcast" except not that as it sounds terrible. ;)
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::Yay! Thanks. For the name, the only thing I thought, was I wanted to be careful not to assert them as hard facts. Also, we should mb point out that they are not part of the transcript, but taken from it after. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

== Objectives ==
Hi guys like others I've often thought about this as a project but put off by the amount of time that it would have taken one person, the main reason I thought about doing this was to be able to search the transcripts when needed, example: if someone asked me a question on Homoeopathy I would be able to use my smartphone to give an answer based on what the SGU have talked about in the past, as I generally take what the guys say as fact.

Do you think that what I'm taking about would be possible using this WIKI project??

Looking forward to starting and completing my first SGU Transcript :-)

--[[User:Manontop|Manontop]] 09:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

:Hi Manontop.
:Sure, I think that would be one of the most important uses of these transcripts. My ideas for having transcripts of the SGU episodes are to facilitate linking, searching and accessibility:
:
:* Linking. We have headings throughout the podcasts so that it's possible to link directly to a specific segment, for example [[SGU_Episode_352#Aristolochia_Nephropathy|Aristolochia Nephropathy]] (internal wiki link) or [http://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_352#Aristolochia_Nephropathy Aristolochia Nephropathy] (external link).
:* Searching. Currently there are (at least) two ways to search. Either using Google or the built-in search box in the top right. If you want to use Google to search only this site, you can do so by using the "site:" term in your query. E.g. your Google query would be [https://www.google.com/search?q=site:sgutranscripts.org+titanic+disaster "site:sgutranscripts.org titanic disaster"]. Google is the king of them all, so I have installed proper semantic web (SEO) support. When a transcript is completed I go through and insert tags to important concepts that are covered in the podcast. This helps Google (and other search engines) know what is important about that page. You can see these by opening a transcript and viewing the source of the page. Then look for the <meta name="keywords" content="..."> tag. There are two components to this, tags that are site-wide such as "skeptics, sceptics, scepticism" etc. followed by tags that are local to a particular page such as "titanic, tragedy, ss, californian, space, junk" etc. Of course, Google also uses the page content when indexing.
:* Accessibility. Quite simple really; people who can't listen to the podcast for any reason (deafness etc.) can now read the transcripts instead.
:
:Great to have you on board! :)
:
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 11:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

SGU Episode 414

2013-09-01T18:59:33Z

Fallible: Mark my territory (but less messily than a cat)

{{Editing required
|transcription = y

|time-stamps = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 414
|episodeDate = 22nd Jun 2013
|episodeIcon = File:chinese-alien-head.jpg
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 = DL: {{w|Daniel Loxton}}
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-06-22.mp3
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=46390.0
|qowText = Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing
|qowAuthor = {{w|Harlan Ellison}}
|}}

== Introduction ==
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, today is Wednesday, June 19th, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,

B: Hey, everybody

S: Rebecca Watson,

R: Hello, everyone.

S: Jay Novella,

J: Hey, guys.

S: and Evan Bernstein.

E: Salutations, everybody

R: Hello...

S: Salutations and felicitations, Evan.

E: Oh, and felicitations, how could I forget the Squire of Gothos. Shame on me,

S: I don't know (chuckles)

E: shame on me.

R: The hell you guys talking about.

E: Well, Rebecca, aren't you watching the Star Trek series?

R: I guess I haven't gotten up to that point, yet.

E: This is the original series.

R: I'm watching The Next Generation.

S: You know what I saw recently? "Star Trek Continues".

E: Hm?

S: which is a a

J: Wha?

S: fan.. "Star Trek Continues", it's a fan episode, a fan video, where it's as if the ep... the seasons continued as if it wasn't canceled after three seasons. So it's not, it's not like a parody, and it's not an update or a reboot or anything it's like what would a fourth season have actually been like,

B: Oh, cool.

S: and and they do their best to reproduce, the production value, the sets are identical, all the sound effects, the music the acting

R: Hm

S: the whole culture that was definitely embedded in that late '60s you know in terms of everything. And the

?: (inaudible)

S: some of the actors are damn good, the guy who's doing Kirk has his mannerisms down, absolutely down.

B: And it's not a parody of his mannerisms?

S: No, no it's not, it's not a parody, it's an imitation. And it like things like it's like "Yeah, Kirk does do that!" You know, it's like, (laughter) you uh things you wouldn't even think of. Like the

R: That is so Kirk.

S: ways he moves his arms when he walks. Yeah, it's just amazing.

R: Hey, remember that Star Trek episode where, uh, poisonous gas covered most of the planet, and murdered millions of people?

E: Ahhh.

R: Oh, wait, no, that was real life. Oh, my God!

B: (laughter)

E: That's worse.

== This Day in Skepticism (1:58) ==
R: On June 22, 1783, a poisonous cloud caused by the eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland, uh, finally reached France. So this is kind of, um, I really could have picked any date, uh, it's very interesting, it's something that I didn't even realize was the thing, uh, it was one of the most deadly if not the most deadly volcanic eruptions in human history, as I said it happened in Iceland but it spread all over the globe, uh, first of all though in Iceland it killed about 50% of the livestock which lead to a famine which killed a quarter of the population of Iceland. Uh, so it was pretty immediate but then it also went on to possibly cause droughts in India and Africa which lead to millions of more deaths, uh, as well as crop failures in Europe and air pollution and this deadly gas... from this deadly gas. So, all to... all told, it killed probably over 6 million people

?: What?

R: globally. Yeah, 6 million.

E: That's a lot (inaudible)

R: It was a pretty big volcanic eruption.

E: 1783, that's (inaudible) quite a bit.

B: Holy crap.

R: And the cloud was sulfur dioxide that

E: Oh, that'll do it

R: and also the hydrogen... the hydrogen fluoride apparently I think killed most of the people in Iceland but the sulfur dioxide is what drifted into Europe to start murdering people there. But yeah and it also caused severe global temperature change, uh, it was the hottest summer on record followed by really violent winter with hail and storms and all that good stuff which probably lead to more deaths.

S: It was the longest period of below zero temperatures in New England.

R: Oh, yeah, the US... the US area just had some severe weather. They don't... I.. I didn't find a whole of talk about deaths that resulted in it but I think people were just dying left and right anyway, at that point, so

S: A bad winter in 1783 was no joke.

R: Exactly, yeah, that's... that's what I'm sayin'. But...

B: So this gas released it wasn't part of like a.. a pyroclastic flow, it was just this, just this gas that came out and went

S: Just a bubble of gas

B: all over the place

R: Yeah, like a volcanic fart, silent but deadly

E: Probably wasn't too silent, either

R: Too soon?

?: Too soon (laughter)

S: Volcanoes are no joke, that superheated gas that kills people it's not just the lava and the ash, I mean, it's usually the gas, even if it's not poisonous gas if it's superheated it's like your lungs explode, you know. Well, let's move on, uhm, have you guys heard...

?: (stage inhalation)

?: Uh?

== News Items ==
=== Osteoarthritis (4:41)===
* Science-based Medicine: [http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/knee-osteoarthritis-thumbs-down-for-acupuncture-and-glucosamine/ Knee Osteoarthritis: Thumbs Down for Acupuncture and Glucosamine]

S: the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has released their, uh, 1200 page report evaluating evidence for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis

R: Now the last time you led us into one of these and we made all made light-hearted jokes about how boring the topic was, we got a bunch of angry letters from botanists, so, no, Steve, not gonna fall for it, this sounds fascinating, tell me more. (laughter)

S: Yeah, but like last time I convinced you how cool botany was, now I wanna convince you how cool osteoarthritis is.

E: Here come more letters (laughter)

S: Oh, boy. (laughter)

S: um, so osteoarthritis is, essentially degenerative arthritis of a joint, mainly from wear and tear, but there are other obviously biological factors involved, and so knee osteoarthritis, very common, um, as people get into their 40's and 50's they uh, their knees start to ache, you know, and they just wear out, they just don't really last 80 years unfortunately. There are lots of potential treatments for osteoarthritis including many that are not evidence-based. This report is interesting for a number of reasons, not just for the specific recommendations that are made. Harriet Hall writes about this on Science-based Medicine and I recommend that for those who are interested but I just want to highlight some of the interesting things. First of all, it shows that science-based practitioners actually care about evidence, despite all of the propaganda about "Oh, those doctors only want drugs and surgery" here we have a uh a major you know a professional organization in the United States dedicated to orthopedic surgery reviewing thousands of published studies, putting out a 1200 page comprehensive report looking in-depth into the evidence for many different approaches, and here are the highlights of what they found, where there was strong evidence you know for or against. So glucosamine chondroitin you guys are familiar with this, right, this is a dietary supplement that has been and still is promoted, um, has been for years, for arthritis. What do you think they found?

E: It doesn't work.

S: It doesn't work. So it was one of the few things where there was strong evidence against its effectiveness. Glucosamine and chondroitin doesn't work, there have been large studies. Exercise, strong evidence for, in favor of it. Weight loss, moderate evidence in favor of it. Acupuncture, what do you think they concluded?

R: No evidence.

?: Overwhelming evidence.

S: Strong evidence against its effectiveness. So very nice to see that they took a science-based approach to acupuncture research and didn't fall for the bait-and-switch of "Oh, it works like a placebo" you know, they didn't fall for that business. And also, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories strong evidence they are effective, that's not surprising. And here's one: arthroscopy with lavage and debridement --- strong evidence against.

B: Really?

E: Lavage, huh?

S: So lavage is like just washing it out. So arthroscopy is putting the scope into the knee and looking around, you know, for diagnostic, but if you take anything out then it becomes a therapeutic procedure, right, that's debridement, you know, cutting away any fraying pieces of cartilage and then washing out those pieces, that's the lavage part. So, this is a pretty lucrative, popular procedure for orthopedists to do. And here they are, the official organization of orthopedists, coming out with a statement saying there is strong evidence against the effectiveness of this procedure. This is something that we've written about on Science-based Medicine previously when there...there... when a review came out, I think now about two years ago, showing that arthroscopy was not effective, and there was some push-back from some orthopedists, and we said "Hey, this is the evidence, baby, this is, this is what it shows". So it's nice now to see the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons looking at the evidence and honestly saying "Yep, our beloved procedure, that we would love to have work, doesn't work". So it's hard in the face of this, if you look at the bigger picture, it's hard to justify the typical knee-jerk criticisms that alternative medicine proponents have against mainstream medicine

R: Heh, knee-jerk

S: Yeah, knee-jerk. That it's they only care about drugs and surgery, well here they are saying um, their favorite surgical procedure doesn't work, that they don't care about other things, here they're strongly in favor of exercise, moderately in favor of weight loss, Um, and that they're not, they don't care about actually treating people, well, this is, I think this shows their dedication to the evidence to what actually works regardless of what the modality is, and this is, this is, what we see in mainstream medicine all the time. This is a Herculean effort and it's great document, but this is what we see all the time, you know, the... academic professional uh physicians looking at the evidence objectively and the chips fall where they may, in its direct contradiction to all the anti-mainstream medicine conspiracy theories that you're going to hear from the alternative medicine side, so I thought that was worth pointing out. Also, Harriet pointed out something interesting, things like homeopathy didn't even make the list, it wasn't even worth their time to take a look at.

B: Oh, awesome.

E: Good.

S: Yeah.

R. Good (inaudible).

E: I don't know if we'd be able to say that if this were British Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, right? That probably would have made that list.

S: Homeopathy probably would have,

E: Yes

S: just because homeopathy is more popular across the pond, yeah.

B: Uh, Steve, did they mention why it wasn't on the list?

S: No, just... it didn't even... didn't even make the radar. Just wasn't even, yeah, not... not mentioned one way or the other.

B: OK

== Quickie with Bob (10:27)==
* ESO: [http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1326/ New Kind of Variable Star Discovered]

E: Oh, hey, wait, wait. I would like a Quickie with Bob right now.

B: Really?

E: Yes, right this moment.

B: Thank you, Evan, I'm almost certain you will not regret this.

E: (laughter)

B: This is your Quickie with Bob. Astronomers in Chile, guys, have discovered a new type of variable star it was pretty interesting story uh they did detailed observations of 3700 stars in this specific cluster over 7 years. Um, and showed that they found 36 of these stars had very minute changes in their brightness of about only about a tenth of a percent over an hour or as much as over 20 hours. And uh this is... this is big news in the community because variable stars are in... are incredibly common there's lots of different types of variable stars and it's always interesting to... to add another one to the group actually the list of uh of typ... of variable stars um the types themselves was much bigger than... than I remember them being but just to break it down real quick there's... there's two different main types of stars that are variable, there's the intrinsic and extrinsic and it's kind of obvious what they... what that means the intrinsic stars that are variable are variable because of that's just the way they are something about their internal dynamics makes them makes the light output variable whereas the extrinsic... the extrinsic stars... variable stars are variable only because you know say something might move in front of them or... or there might be some... something in the way that changes the light that reaches the Earth. So within these intrinsic stars there's... there's just a few categories there's the pulsating variables, there's the eruptives, and there's the cataclysmic or explosive variable stars. This new one that they found I think is pretty obvious that it's within the... the pulsating variable star category

S: Is there a throbbing category? (laughter)

E: Is there a grooving category?

B: So like I said these variables are most certainly they'll be within the pulsating variety they haven't actually named this type of variable yet but I'm sure it's gonna be within that... that category They're not sure why they pulsate, either, basically because current models say that they should not be variable so this is the real surprise that these... that these varied so much and but one clue that they found is that many of these variables rotate very very fast

S: Yeah, that seems pretty telling

B: Yeah, more than 50% of their critical velocity, in fact, and the critical velocity

E: Wow

B: is a velocity that if they... if they reached 100% they would actually start throwing off mass so they're spinning very very fast and uh this spinning might... may have an effect on the dynamics of their interiors which then would result in the variability of the light output. So, uh, so keep an eye on it, I'm curious to see what they're gonna call it and uh, and... and you know what more they can determine, um, about these types of stars based on uh, on... on this... these studies that they're... these very detailed studies that they're doing. So, uh, so I got guys this has been your Quickie with Bob, I hope it was good for you, too.

== News items continued ==
=== Patenting DNA (13:07)===
* BBC News: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22895161 US Supreme Court says human DNA cannot be patented]

S: Thanks, Bob. OK, Rebecca, you're gonna tell us about a major Supreme Court case regarding patenting genes.

R: Yes, you are correct, Steve. There is a huge decision that just happened in the Supreme Court on, uh, June 13th, the Supreme Court ruled that, uh, companies, particularly Myriad Genetics, in this case, cannot patent a human gene. So in this specific case, it was this company Myriad Genetics which was one of the patent holders on the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes. Now, astute listeners might recall that we were recently talking about these very genes, in the case of Angelina Jolie,

S: Yeah.

R: who came out and said that she had the mutation in her BRCA gene that said she was much much much more likely to get breast cancer and ovarian cancer and so she had her breast removed. Now, we also mentioned that Angelina Jolie had spoken briefly about the fact that not everyone has access to the genetic testing required to find out if you have the mutation, in order to get the life saving operations you would need. Well, the reason why many people don't have access to this genetic testing is because Myriad Genetics was one of the patent holders and... and they were the only company that was allowed to perform this testing on these genes. So, if you wanted to find if you had the mutation you had to go through Myriad Genetics and that increases the price dramatically so they could charge thousands of dollars to people who wanted the testing. What this ruling means in this specific case it's a huge win for women particularly because this means that you... women can go get genetic testing anywhere to find out if they have this mutation they don't have to go through Myriad in order to find out, so, now you have companies competing against each other, prices go down, etc., etc., and more lives are saved because of it, so that's one result of this and one of the reasons why women's rights groups were a huge part of the uh lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court decision it was a unanimous decision the case was led by uh the ACLU um representing women's rights groups as well as scientists and other interest groups but also scientists win from this case because it means that uh any scientist can now pursue research on the... these genes where prior to this only Myriad and the other patent holders would technically be able to do that. Basically the court ruled that you can't patent a human gene however they did leave it open that you could possibly patent a gene that had been fiddled with.

?: Yeah.

R: So uh if you

?: (inaudible) huge

R: come up with your own gene, like a synthetic gene like cDNA... c... cDNA, that could still be eligible for a patent. Uh, but because Myriad the company did not actually create anything, they just researched the gene they're not allowed to patent it.

S: Yeah. So

R: So

S: products of nature cannot be patented and what this decision was exploring specifically was how much modification is necessary before a product of nature is an innovation. An... yeah, this that needed to be explored for the in... for this specific case of genes. And it seems that everyone pos... with the possible exception of Myriad, is happy about this decision this is a... I've seen nothing but universal praise for this decision.

E: Myriad shouldn't be too sad their stock rose that day

S: Is that right? (laughter)

E: as a result, yeah.

R: They have been fighting this

E: That will fade.

R: for a very long time so this is a huge loss for them, but it's... it is a great gain for humanity, we're

S: Yeah, for humanity.

R: literally talking about lives being saved

E: Yeah, absolutely.

R: and more research being done.

B: Yeah, it does seem...

R: So it is a good thing.

B: it does seem (inaudible) to me lots of benefits but what about the idea, the one negative thing that I've heard, that I've seen in a couple of places was that some people are afraid that companies like Myriad, of course, will scale back investment because they're not gonna be rewarded ah with patents for this so I just wonder how much of a genuine concern that aspect of this is.

R: Consider how much research is done by private companies compared to the huge amount of research that's currently being done through government institutions and universities. Private companies have always focussed on what's going to make the most money and that's why we have uh government funding for scientific endeavors. There's one other thing I wanted to mention, a bit of, uh, myth-busting. This... this thing was going around that... uh, Scalia doesn't believe in genetics, or in molecular biology. So, uh, it was a unanimous decision but Justice Scalia wrote a separate thing... ruling...

S: Separate opinion.

R: opinion, thank you, that's the word.

E: Opinion, yeah.

R: Uh, Scalia wrote a separate opinion uh saying that he, uh, agrees to vote with the majority, but he does not agree with one part of the opinion that has no effect on his final vote. What he said was, um, that he wouldn't sign on to Part 1a and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology because he can't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief. So, Part 1a, deal... it's just a list of basic facts about DNA, about genetics, uh it's all kind of just basic level genetic stuff.

E: So was he basically saying I don't know what this is?

R: Yeah, you know, so some...

E: and therefore I can't really

R: some people were

E: say anything about it.

R: taking uh that he wouldn't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief to mean that he didn't believe in genetics or he didn't know about genetics and so he didn't believe them, something like that. But, I've heard from lawyers who have said that this is a bit of legal-speak in a way, that there's this sort of ongoing argument on whether or not they should in... judges should include basic information that's not necessary to the final ruling, and so that's kind of what he was saying, is that this chunk I'm not a scientist, I'm not going to sign my name on this and say that as a Justice I approve of this because I have no idea I'm not a scientist and it has nothing to do with the case.

S: He's being a legal stickler,

R: Yes.

S: not a science denier.

R: Exactly.

B: Oh, OK.

R: That...

E: Right.

R: that's what I'm hearing from... from lawyers, and

S: That makes sense.

R: it makes sense to me.

S: And that's kind of his shtick, too,

R: Yeah.

S: is to be a legal stickler.

B?: Hmmm, OK.

=== Foot Fungus (20:02)===
* Science News: [http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350599/description/Foot_fungi_a_thriving_diverse_community Foot fungi a thriving, diverse community]

S: OK, well thanks, Rebecca. Bob, can you explain to me why my toes occasionally itch? (laughter)

R: Ew, bugs, probably.

B: Well, guys, uh, last May... at the end of last May, uh, the, uh, the issue of Nature, they discuss the... the first census... the very first census of skin-dwelling fungi, that... that's

S: Fungi?

B: Well, there's three ways to pronounce it as far as I can tell

S: Fungi?

B: Fungi, fungi, fungi. Those are the three that I came across

R: But "fungi" is the only one that works with that "mushroom walks into a bar" joke.

B: OK.

S: What about... what about "fungi"?

B: That's actually my preferred pronounciation and I didn't find it. So, whatever, I'll just go with... I'll just go with one of the ones that I found. So this study reveals

E: (chuckle)

B: there's a fungus among us. OK, somebody had to say it, it's out of the way, I said it. So, actually, it... it reveals that there's a little variation... there's very little variation in the fungal communities on our bodies except for our feet which calls home to 80 to 100 different types of fungus, they're just like all over the place down there. So, for... just for a quick high-level refresher uh fungi are the third type of multi-cellular organisms, they're neither plant nor animals, um, one major difference between them and the other two is that their cell walls contain chitin, now that's (inaudible) that's like the exoskeleton of a crabs and lobsters or... or even the beaks of squid uh made of chitin. Uh, fungi play a pivotal role in decomposing organic matter and cycling uh nutrients in the environment and they also appear to be inordinately fond of feet. So here's a quick quote from the study: "A human's skin surfaces are complex ecosystems for microorganisms including fungi, bacteria and viruses which are known collectively as the skin microbiome". So I was as... I was surprised as I said that this initial study was the first of its kind. It seems, I guess, in terms of... yeah, human cohabitation bacteria and viruses get all.. get all the press and all the research dollars, so one reason why the lowly fungus I guess may have been neglected is that it's notoriously difficult to culture, I didn't know that, unlike bacteria which is easy, culturing a fungus from say uh the toenail can take weeks... weeks for it

S: And yet... and yet it's hard to kill when you wanna get rid of it.

B: (chuckle) Right. So... so how did they do it? They looked... they looked at the DNA, of course. They took ten volunteers and they swabbed 14 sites on their bodies including taking toenail clippings apparently. Uh, they then put them in a DNA sequencer which of course is uh one of the key technologies advanced by leaps and bounds uh by the Human Genome Project. Um, they used these molecular tags that stick only to the fungal DNA, so they wouldn't have to worry about all the human DNA and the bacterial DNA and viral DNA, that... that... that was mixed into the samples, so now they have this pure sample of just... of just fung... uh the fungus DNA. They then examined the tiny bits of fungal DNA uh called the phylogenetic markers to tally up all the different types of... of fungal species and bam, they were done, they had... they had a tally of all the different types of species. So, if you look most anywhere on the head or the torso you... you're likely to find one genus and that's called Malassezia. Uh, different areas have different species uh though, like the crease behind your ear or... or on your forehead there's little variation there. Surprisingly, your hands have tons of bacteria but very few fungal communities. So your feet, though, it's... it's completely different ecosystem, um, on your... on your toenails alone there's forty different uh fungi varieties, sixty between your toes, and eighty live on the bottom of... of your heel, which I think would ac... I wouldn't think that would be the most plentiful spot I would think, like, between your toes would have more but apparently there's lots of 'em on the bottom of your heel. So... so why is... how come? Why... why is this so? And it...

E: Gravity.

B: Yeah, gra... (laughter) Well it's... it's not hard to imagine one... one reason, right, your feet are... are often on contact with surfaces that fungi like to hang out on like your socks or locker room floors. I never walk barefoot at... at the gym, uh, never would do it.

E: Uhhhh,

B: So also

E: gosh... (inaudible) so bad.

B: your... your feet... I didn't know that your feet are cooler than other parts of your body, and... and fungi like cooler places, apparently, they hang out. Um, so... so should we all be grossed out? Are you guys like really grossed out... about this stuff?

R: (inaudible) obviously

?: Ahhh...

E: (inaudible) more grossed out about...

R: It takes more than that to... gross out Steve.

B: Yeah, I... I'm not...

S: Oh, yeah...

B: Yeah, I wouldn't think Steve would be, but I'm not... I'm not

S: I've had my head inside of a corpse

B: Cool, um...

R: Hey, thanks for that...

E: A human corpse? Wait, a human corpse?

B: I di...

S: Yeah.

B: Of course.

S: So has everyone who has gone through medical school.

E: You put your head in the corpse?

S: Well, you gotta get into the anatomy, I mean you gotta... you know you're disecting something...

E: I don't...

S: They... so, you get so grossed out in your first year of medical school you're basically done getting grossed out for life.

?: Yeah.

R: Yeah.

B: Totally desensitized.

R: I don't... I don't find what you've said so gross, Bob, but when in... you're talking I was thinking of that... toenail fungus, uh, commercial where...

E: Oh, yeah.

R: where the germ, like, lifts up

E: Little critters.

B: Yeah, yeah, yeah!

R: the toenail and then climbs inside and that's like the worst... worst commercial ever made.

B: Oh, my God I remember that something about detaching a toenail yes I... I cringe

R: Yeah.

B: every time I saw that, nothing to do with the

R: It's awful.

B: fungus or anything but it's just the lifting that toenail

R: Yeah, like the fungus didn't help

B: was nasty. Yeah right, yes. I mean it doesn't gross me out, the... thinking that there's... em... potentially s... you know... well over a hundred different types of these guys all over us. I thin... it's good... it's good that we're colonized by these critters because they're... they're likely to prevent other nasty... guys from taking hold on our skin so it's good that they're there. Likewise, this.. this research can actually help improve our treatment for skin disease and maybe even help with some types of cancers, some people were saying. So... so I say embrace the... the fungi living on your skin, you really don't have much of a choice until we replace them all with nanobots.

=== Chinese Fake Alien (25:46)===
* The Telegraph: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10115832/Chinese-farmer-jailed-for-making-a-rubber-alien.html Chinese farmer jailed for making a rubber alien]
{{transcribing | date = 2013-09-01 | transcriber = Fallible}}

== Who's That Noisy? ()==

== Questions and Emails () ==
=== Can We Know Everything? ()===
<blockquote>I have been listening to the show for 4 years and although I have always been a sceptic I have learnt a great deal from your show. I would like to hear the rogues view on whether science has the potential to explain the physical world in such a way that we understand everything. Is there a limit to what we can comprehend? For example a dog has no concept of quantum gravity and wouldn’t ask the question of himself “Is space-time fundamentally continuous or discrete?” We have gone from asking ourselves how to grow food to “why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe?” Our brain appears finite in capacity so I would assume that would limit our ability to understand the world around us. Reaching a limit at some stage seems inevitable. Or will our brains develop as we need to solve increasingly more difficult questions, after all our brains appear not to need to store every bit of information we discover perhaps more the ability to solve a problem, and the capacity to grasp the variables at that time. I could be wrong though. Your opinions would be greatly appreciated and interesting.
Mark Dennehy
Melbourne</blockquote>

== Interview with Daniel Loxton () ==
About his new book: ''Abominable Science''

== Science or Fiction () ==
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612173326.htm Item #1:] New fossil evidence reveals the presence of kangaroo ancestors 25 million years ago in what is now Europe. [http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/15806 Item #2:] Researchers find that male guppies can reproduce up to 10 months after they have died. [http://www.anl.gov/articles/discovery-new-material-state-counterintuitive-laws-physics Item #3:] Scientists have discovered a material that gets larger under pressure, in apparent defiance of the laws of physics.

== Skeptical Quote of the Week () ==
<blockquote>Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing.</blockquote>
Harlan Ellison

== Announcements () ==

{{Outro404}}

== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

SGU Episode 414

2013-08-30T20:21:30Z

Fallible: Foot fungus section transcribed.

{{Editing required
|transcription = y

|time-stamps = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 414
|episodeDate = 22nd Jun 2013
|episodeIcon = File:chinese-alien-head.jpg
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 = DL: {{w|Daniel Loxton}}
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-06-22.mp3
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=46390.0
|qowText = Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing
|qowAuthor = {{w|Harlan Ellison}}
|}}

== Introduction ==
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''

S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, today is Wednesday, June 19th, 2013, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella,

B: Hey, everybody

S: Rebecca Watson,

R: Hello, everyone.

S: Jay Novella,

J: Hey, guys.

S: and Evan Bernstein.

E: Salutations, everybody

R: Hello...

S: Salutations and felicitations, Evan.

E: Oh, and felicitations, how could I forget the Squire of Gothos. Shame on me,

S: I don't know (chuckles)

E: shame on me.

R: The hell you guys talking about.

E: Well, Rebecca, aren't you watching the Star Trek series?

R: I guess I haven't gotten up to that point, yet.

E: This is the original series.

R: I'm watching The Next Generation.

S: You know what I saw recently? "Star Trek Continues".

E: Hm?

S: which is a a

J: Wha?

S: fan.. "Star Trek Continues", it's a fan episode, a fan video, where it's as if the ep... the seasons continued as if it wasn't canceled after three seasons. So it's not, it's not like a parody, and it's not an update or a reboot or anything it's like what would a fourth season have actually been like,

B: Oh, cool.

S: and and they do their best to reproduce, the production value, the sets are identical, all the sound effects, the music the acting

R: Hm

S: the whole culture that was definitely embedded in that late '60s you know in terms of everything. And the

?: (inaudible)

S: some of the actors are damn good, the guy who's doing Kirk has his mannerisms down, absolutely down.

B: And it's not a parody of his mannerisms?

S: No, no it's not, it's not a parody, it's an imitation. And it like things like it's like "Yeah, Kirk does do that!" You know, it's like, (laughter) you uh things you wouldn't even think of. Like the

R: That is so Kirk.

S: ways he moves his arms when he walks. Yeah, it's just amazing.

R: Hey, remember that Star Trek episode where, uh, poisonous gas covered most of the planet, and murdered millions of people?

E: Ahhh.

R: Oh, wait, no, that was real life. Oh, my God!

B: (laughter)

E: That's worse.

== This Day in Skepticism (1:58) ==
R: On June 22, 1783, a poisonous cloud caused by the eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland, uh, finally reached France. So this is kind of, um, I really could have picked any date, uh, it's very interesting, it's something that I didn't even realize was the thing, uh, it was one of the most deadly if not the most deadly volcanic eruptions in human history, as I said it happened in Iceland but it spread all over the globe, uh, first of all though in Iceland it killed about 50% of the livestock which lead to a famine which killed a quarter of the population of Iceland. Uh, so it was pretty immediate but then it also went on to possibly cause droughts in India and Africa which lead to millions of more deaths, uh, as well as crop failures in Europe and air pollution and this deadly gas... from this deadly gas. So, all to... all told, it killed probably over 6 million people

?: What?

R: globally. Yeah, 6 million.

E: That's a lot (inaudible)

R: It was a pretty big volcanic eruption.

E: 1783, that's (inaudible) quite a bit.

B: Holy crap.

R: And the cloud was sulfur dioxide that

E: Oh, that'll do it

R: and also the hydrogen... the hydrogen fluoride apparently I think killed most of the people in Iceland but the sulfur dioxide is what drifted into Europe to start murdering people there. But yeah and it also caused severe global temperature change, uh, it was the hottest summer on record followed by really violent winter with hail and storms and all that good stuff which probably lead to more deaths.

S: It was the longest period of below zero temperatures in New England.

R: Oh, yeah, the US... the US area just had some severe weather. They don't... I.. I didn't find a whole of talk about deaths that resulted in it but I think people were just dying left and right anyway, at that point, so

S: A bad winter in 1783 was no joke.

R: Exactly, yeah, that's... that's what I'm sayin'. But...

B: So this gas released it wasn't part of like a.. a pyroclastic flow, it was just this, just this gas that came out and went

S: Just a bubble of gas

B: all over the place

R: Yeah, like a volcanic fart, silent but deadly

E: Probably wasn't too silent, either

R: Too soon?

?: Too soon (laughter)

S: Volcanoes are no joke, that superheated gas that kills people it's not just the lava and the ash, I mean, it's usually the gas, even if it's not poisonous gas if it's superheated it's like your lungs explode, you know. Well, let's move on, uhm, have you guys heard...

?: (stage inhalation)

?: Uh?

== News Items ==
=== Osteoarthritis (4:41)===
* Science-based Medicine: [http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/knee-osteoarthritis-thumbs-down-for-acupuncture-and-glucosamine/ Knee Osteoarthritis: Thumbs Down for Acupuncture and Glucosamine]

S: the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has released their, uh, 1200 page report evaluating evidence for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis

R: Now the last time you led us into one of these and we made all made light-hearted jokes about how boring the topic was, we got a bunch of angry letters from botanists, so, no, Steve, not gonna fall for it, this sounds fascinating, tell me more. (laughter)

S: Yeah, but like last time I convinced you how cool botany was, now I wanna convince you how cool osteoarthritis is.

E: Here come more letters (laughter)

S: Oh, boy. (laughter)

S: um, so osteoarthritis is, essentially degenerative arthritis of a joint, mainly from wear and tear, but there are other obviously biological factors involved, and so knee osteoarthritis, very common, um, as people get into their 40's and 50's they uh, their knees start to ache, you know, and they just wear out, they just don't really last 80 years unfortunately. There are lots of potential treatments for osteoarthritis including many that are not evidence-based. This report is interesting for a number of reasons, not just for the specific recommendations that are made. Harriet Hall writes about this on Science-based Medicine and I recommend that for those who are interested but I just want to highlight some of the interesting things. First of all, it shows that science-based practitioners actually care about evidence, despite all of the propaganda about "Oh, those doctors only want drugs and surgery" here we have a uh a major you know a professional organization in the United States dedicated to orthopedic surgery reviewing thousands of published studies, putting out a 1200 page comprehensive report looking in-depth into the evidence for many different approaches, and here are the highlights of what they found, where there was strong evidence you know for or against. So glucosamine chondroitin you guys are familiar with this, right, this is a dietary supplement that has been and still is promoted, um, has been for years, for arthritis. What do you think they found?

E: It doesn't work.

S: It doesn't work. So it was one of the few things where there was strong evidence against its effectiveness. Glucosamine and chondroitin doesn't work, there have been large studies. Exercise, strong evidence for, in favor of it. Weight loss, moderate evidence in favor of it. Acupuncture, what do you think they concluded?

R: No evidence.

?: Overwhelming evidence.

S: Strong evidence against its effectiveness. So very nice to see that they took a science-based approach to acupuncture research and didn't fall for the bait-and-switch of "Oh, it works like a placebo" you know, they didn't fall for that business. And also, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories strong evidence they are effective, that's not surprising. And here's one: arthroscopy with lavage and debridement --- strong evidence against.

B: Really?

E: Lavage, huh?

S: So lavage is like just washing it out. So arthroscopy is putting the scope into the knee and looking around, you know, for diagnostic, but if you take anything out then it becomes a therapeutic procedure, right, that's debridement, you know, cutting away any fraying pieces of cartilage and then washing out those pieces, that's the lavage part. So, this is a pretty lucrative, popular procedure for orthopedists to do. And here they are, the official organization of orthopedists, coming out with a statement saying there is strong evidence against the effectiveness of this procedure. This is something that we've written about on Science-based Medicine previously when there...there... when a review came out, I think now about two years ago, showing that arthroscopy was not effective, and there was some push-back from some orthopedists, and we said "Hey, this is the evidence, baby, this is, this is what it shows". So it's nice now to see the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons looking at the evidence and honestly saying "Yep, our beloved procedure, that we would love to have work, doesn't work". So it's hard in the face of this, if you look at the bigger picture, it's hard to justify the typical knee-jerk criticisms that alternative medicine proponents have against mainstream medicine

R: Heh, knee-jerk

S: Yeah, knee-jerk. That it's they only care about drugs and surgery, well here they are saying um, their favorite surgical procedure doesn't work, that they don't care about other things, here they're strongly in favor of exercise, moderately in favor of weight loss, Um, and that they're not, they don't care about actually treating people, well, this is, I think this shows their dedication to the evidence to what actually works regardless of what the modality is, and this is, this is, what we see in mainstream medicine all the time. This is a Herculean effort and it's great document, but this is what we see all the time, you know, the... academic professional uh physicians looking at the evidence objectively and the chips fall where they may, in its direct contradiction to all the anti-mainstream medicine conspiracy theories that you're going to hear from the alternative medicine side, so I thought that was worth pointing out. Also, Harriet pointed out something interesting, things like homeopathy didn't even make the list, it wasn't even worth their time to take a look at.

B: Oh, awesome.

E: Good.

S: Yeah.

R. Good (inaudible).

E: I don't know if we'd be able to say that if this were British Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, right? That probably would have made that list.

S: Homeopathy probably would have,

E: Yes

S: just because homeopathy is more popular across the pond, yeah.

B: Uh, Steve, did they mention why it wasn't on the list?

S: No, just... it didn't even... didn't even make the radar. Just wasn't even, yeah, not... not mentioned one way or the other.

B: OK

== Quickie with Bob (10:27)==
* ESO: [http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1326/ New Kind of Variable Star Discovered]

E: Oh, hey, wait, wait. I would like a Quickie with Bob right now.

B: Really?

E: Yes, right this moment.

B: Thank you, Evan, I'm almost certain you will not regret this.

E: (laughter)

B: This is your Quickie with Bob. Astronomers in Chile, guys, have discovered a new type of variable star it was pretty interesting story uh they did detailed observations of 3700 stars in this specific cluster over 7 years. Um, and showed that they found 36 of these stars had very minute changes in their brightness of about only about a tenth of a percent over an hour or as much as over 20 hours. And uh this is... this is big news in the community because variable stars are in... are incredibly common there's lots of different types of variable stars and it's always interesting to... to add another one to the group actually the list of uh of typ... of variable stars um the types themselves was much bigger than... than I remember them being but just to break it down real quick there's... there's two different main types of stars that are variable, there's the intrinsic and extrinsic and it's kind of obvious what they... what that means the intrinsic stars that are variable are variable because of that's just the way they are something about their internal dynamics makes them makes the light output variable whereas the extrinsic... the extrinsic stars... variable stars are variable only because you know say something might move in front of them or... or there might be some... something in the way that changes the light that reaches the Earth. So within these intrinsic stars there's... there's just a few categories there's the pulsating variables, there's the eruptives, and there's the cataclysmic or explosive variable stars. This new one that they found I think is pretty obvious that it's within the... the pulsating variable star category

S: Is there a throbbing category? (laughter)

E: Is there a grooving category?

B: So like I said these variables are most certainly they'll be within the pulsating variety they haven't actually named this type of variable yet but I'm sure it's gonna be within that... that category They're not sure why they pulsate, either, basically because current models say that they should not be variable so this is the real surprise that these... that these varied so much and but one clue that they found is that many of these variables rotate very very fast

S: Yeah, that seems pretty telling

B: Yeah, more than 50% of their critical velocity, in fact, and the critical velocity

E: Wow

B: is a velocity that if they... if they reached 100% they would actually start throwing off mass so they're spinning very very fast and uh this spinning might... may have an effect on the dynamics of their interiors which then would result in the variability of the light output. So, uh, so keep an eye on it, I'm curious to see what they're gonna call it and uh, and... and you know what more they can determine, um, about these types of stars based on uh, on... on this... these studies that they're... these very detailed studies that they're doing. So, uh, so I got guys this has been your Quickie with Bob, I hope it was good for you, too.

== News items continued ==
=== Patenting DNA (13:07)===
* BBC News: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22895161 US Supreme Court says human DNA cannot be patented]

S: Thanks, Bob. OK, Rebecca, you're gonna tell us about a major Supreme Court case regarding patenting genes.

R: Yes, you are correct, Steve. There is a huge decision that just happened in the Supreme Court on, uh, June 13th, the Supreme Court ruled that, uh, companies, particularly Myriad Genetics, in this case, cannot patent a human gene. So in this specific case, it was this company Myriad Genetics which was one of the patent holders on the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes. Now, astute listeners might recall that we were recently talking about these very genes, in the case of Angelina Jolie,

S: Yeah.

R: who came out and said that she had the mutation in her BRCA gene that said she was much much much more likely to get breast cancer and ovarian cancer and so she had her breast removed. Now, we also mentioned that Angelina Jolie had spoken briefly about the fact that not everyone has access to the genetic testing required to find out if you have the mutation, in order to get the life saving operations you would need. Well, the reason why many people don't have access to this genetic testing is because Myriad Genetics was one of the patent holders and... and they were the only company that was allowed to perform this testing on these genes. So, if you wanted to find if you had the mutation you had to go through Myriad Genetics and that increases the price dramatically so they could charge thousands of dollars to people who wanted the testing. What this ruling means in this specific case it's a huge win for women particularly because this means that you... women can go get genetic testing anywhere to find out if they have this mutation they don't have to go through Myriad in order to find out, so, now you have companies competing against each other, prices go down, etc., etc., and more lives are saved because of it, so that's one result of this and one of the reasons why women's rights groups were a huge part of the uh lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court decision it was a unanimous decision the case was led by uh the ACLU um representing women's rights groups as well as scientists and other interest groups but also scientists win from this case because it means that uh any scientist can now pursue research on the... these genes where prior to this only Myriad and the other patent holders would technically be able to do that. Basically the court ruled that you can't patent a human gene however they did leave it open that you could possibly patent a gene that had been fiddled with.

?: Yeah.

R: So uh if you

?: (inaudible) huge

R: come up with your own gene, like a synthetic gene like cDNA... c... cDNA, that could still be eligible for a patent. Uh, but because Myriad the company did not actually create anything, they just researched the gene they're not allowed to patent it.

S: Yeah. So

R: So

S: products of nature cannot be patented and what this decision was exploring specifically was how much modification is necessary before a product of nature is an innovation. An... yeah, this that needed to be explored for the in... for this specific case of genes. And it seems that everyone pos... with the possible exception of Myriad, is happy about this decision this is a... I've seen nothing but universal praise for this decision.

E: Myriad shouldn't be too sad their stock rose that day

S: Is that right? (laughter)

E: as a result, yeah.

R: They have been fighting this

E: That will fade.

R: for a very long time so this is a huge loss for them, but it's... it is a great gain for humanity, we're

S: Yeah, for humanity.

R: literally talking about lives being saved

E: Yeah, absolutely.

R: and more research being done.

B: Yeah, it does seem...

R: So it is a good thing.

B: it does seem (inaudible) to me lots of benefits but what about the idea, the one negative thing that I've heard, that I've seen in a couple of places was that some people are afraid that companies like Myriad, of course, will scale back investment because they're not gonna be rewarded ah with patents for this so I just wonder how much of a genuine concern that aspect of this is.

R: Consider how much research is done by private companies compared to the huge amount of research that's currently being done through government institutions and universities. Private companies have always focussed on what's going to make the most money and that's why we have uh government funding for scientific endeavors. There's one other thing I wanted to mention, a bit of, uh, myth-busting. This... this thing was going around that... uh, Scalia doesn't believe in genetics, or in molecular biology. So, uh, it was a unanimous decision but Justice Scalia wrote a separate thing... ruling...

S: Separate opinion.

R: opinion, thank you, that's the word.

E: Opinion, yeah.

R: Uh, Scalia wrote a separate opinion uh saying that he, uh, agrees to vote with the majority, but he does not agree with one part of the opinion that has no effect on his final vote. What he said was, um, that he wouldn't sign on to Part 1a and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology because he can't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief. So, Part 1a, deal... it's just a list of basic facts about DNA, about genetics, uh it's all kind of just basic level genetic stuff.

E: So was he basically saying I don't know what this is?

R: Yeah, you know, so some...

E: and therefore I can't really

R: some people were

E: say anything about it.

R: taking uh that he wouldn't affirm those details on his own knowledge or his own belief to mean that he didn't believe in genetics or he didn't know about genetics and so he didn't believe them, something like that. But, I've heard from lawyers who have said that this is a bit of legal-speak in a way, that there's this sort of ongoing argument on whether or not they should in... judges should include basic information that's not necessary to the final ruling, and so that's kind of what he was saying, is that this chunk I'm not a scientist, I'm not going to sign my name on this and say that as a Justice I approve of this because I have no idea I'm not a scientist and it has nothing to do with the case.

S: He's being a legal stickler,

R: Yes.

S: not a science denier.

R: Exactly.

B: Oh, OK.

R: That...

E: Right.

R: that's what I'm hearing from... from lawyers, and

S: That makes sense.

R: it makes sense to me.

S: And that's kind of his shtick, too,

R: Yeah.

S: is to be a legal stickler.

B?: Hmmm, OK.

=== Foot Fungus (20:02)===
* Science News: [http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/350599/description/Foot_fungi_a_thriving_diverse_community Foot fungi a thriving, diverse community]

S: OK, well thanks, Rebecca. Bob, can you explain to me why my toes occasionally itch? (laughter)

R: Ew, bugs, probably.

B: Well, guys, uh, last May... at the end of last May, uh, the, uh, the issue of Nature, they discuss the... the first census... the very first census of skin-dwelling fungi, that... that's

S: Fungi?

B: Well, there's three ways to pronounce it as far as I can tell

S: Fungi?

B: Fungi, fungi, fungi. Those are the three that I came across

R: But "fungi" is the only one that works with that "mushroom walks into a bar" joke.

B: OK.

S: What about... what about "fungi"?

B: That's actually my preferred pronounciation and I didn't find it. So, whatever, I'll just go with... I'll just go with one of the ones that I found. So this study reveals

E: (chuckle)

B: there's a fungus among us. OK, somebody had to say it, it's out of the way, I said it. So, actually, it... it reveals that there's a little variation... there's very little variation in the fungal communities on our bodies except for our feet which calls home to 80 to 100 different types of fungus, they're just like all over the place down there. So, for... just for a quick high-level refresher uh fungi are the third type of multi-cellular organisms, they're neither plant nor animals, um, one major difference between them and the other two is that their cell walls contain chitin, now that's (inaudible) that's like the exoskeleton of a crabs and lobsters or... or even the beaks of squid uh made of chitin. Uh, fungi play a pivotal role in decomposing organic matter and cycling uh nutrients in the environment and they also appear to be inordinately fond of feet. So here's a quick quote from the study: "A human's skin surfaces are complex ecosystems for microorganisms including fungi, bacteria and viruses which are known collectively as the skin microbiome". So I was as... I was surprised as I said that this initial study was the first of its kind. It seems, I guess, in terms of... yeah, human cohabitation bacteria and viruses get all.. get all the press and all the research dollars, so one reason why the lowly fungus I guess may have been neglected is that it's notoriously difficult to culture, I didn't know that, unlike bacteria which is easy, culturing a fungus from say uh the toenail can take weeks... weeks for it

S: And yet... and yet it's hard to kill when you wanna get rid of it.

B: (chuckle) Right. So... so how did they do it? They looked... they looked at the DNA, of course. They took ten volunteers and they swabbed 14 sites on their bodies including taking toenail clippings apparently. Uh, they then put them in a DNA sequencer which of course is uh one of the key technologies advanced by leaps and bounds uh by the Human Genome Project. Um, they used these molecular tags that stick only to the fungal DNA, so they wouldn't have to worry about all the human DNA and the bacterial DNA and viral DNA, that... that... that was mixed into the samples, so now they have this pure sample of just... of just fung... uh the fungus DNA. They then examined the tiny bits of fungal DNA uh called the phylogenetic markers to tally up all the different types of... of fungal species and bam, they were done, they had... they had a tally of all the different types of species. So, if you look most anywhere on the head or the torso you... you're likely to find one genus and that's called Malassezia. Uh, different areas have different species uh though, like the crease behind your ear or... or on your forehead there's little variation there. Surprisingly, your hands have tons of bacteria but very few fungal communities. So your feet, though, it's... it's completely different ecosystem, um, on your... on your toenails alone there's forty different uh fungi varieties, sixty between your toes, and eighty live on the bottom of... of your heel, which I think would ac... I wouldn't think that would be the most plentiful spot I would think, like, between your toes would have more but apparently there's lots of 'em on the bottom of your heel. So... so why is... how come? Why... why is this so? And it...

E: Gravity.

B: Yeah, gra... (laughter) Well it's... it's not hard to imagine one... one reason, right, your feet are... are often on contact with surfaces that fungi like to hang out on like your socks or locker room floors. I never walk barefoot at... at the gym, uh, never would do it.

E: Uhhhh,

B: So also

E: gosh... (inaudible) so bad.

B: your... your feet... I didn't know that your feet are cooler than other parts of your body, and... and fungi like cooler places, apparently, they hang out. Um, so... so should we all be grossed out? Are you guys like really grossed out... about this stuff?

R: (inaudible) obviously

?: Ahhh...

E: (inaudible) more grossed out about...

R: It takes more than that to... gross out Steve.

B: Yeah, I... I'm not...

S: Oh, yeah...

B: Yeah, I wouldn't think Steve would be, but I'm not... I'm not

S: I've had my head inside of a corpse

B: Cool, um...

R: Hey, thanks for that...

E: A human corpse? Wait, a human corpse?

B: I di...

S: Yeah.

B: Of course.

S: So has everyone who has gone through medical school.

E: You put your head in the corpse?

S: Well, you gotta get into the anatomy, I mean you gotta... you know you're disecting something...

E: I don't...

S: They... so, you get so grossed out in your first year of medical school you're basically done getting grossed out for life.

?: Yeah.

R: Yeah.

B: Totally desensitized.

R: I don't... I don't find what you've said so gross, Bob, but when in... you're talking I was thinking of that... toenail fungus, uh, commercial where...

E: Oh, yeah.

R: where the germ, like, lifts up

E: Little critters.

B: Yeah, yeah, yeah!

R: the toenail and then climbs inside and that's like the worst... worst commercial ever made.

B: Oh, my God I remember that something about detaching a toenail yes I... I cringe

R: Yeah.

B: every time I saw that, nothing to do with the

R: It's awful.

B: fungus or anything but it's just the lifting that toenail

R: Yeah, like the fungus didn't help

B: was nasty. Yeah right, yes. I mean it doesn't gross me out, the... thinking that there's... em... potentially s... you know... well over a hundred different types of these guys all over us. I thin... it's good... it's good that we're colonized by these critters because they're... they're likely to prevent other nasty... guys from taking hold on our skin so it's good that they're there. Likewise, this.. this research can actually help improve our treatment for skin disease and maybe even help with some types of cancers, some people were saying. So... so I say embrace the... the fungi living on your skin, you really don't have much of a choice until we replace them all with nanobots.

=== Chinese Fake Alien (25:46)===
* The Telegraph: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10115832/Chinese-farmer-jailed-for-making-a-rubber-alien.html Chinese farmer jailed for making a rubber alien]

== Who's That Noisy? ()==

== Questions and Emails () ==
=== Can We Know Everything? ()===
<blockquote>I have been listening to the show for 4 years and although I have always been a sceptic I have learnt a great deal from your show. I would like to hear the rogues view on whether science has the potential to explain the physical world in such a way that we understand everything. Is there a limit to what we can comprehend? For example a dog has no concept of quantum gravity and wouldn’t ask the question of himself “Is space-time fundamentally continuous or discrete?” We have gone from asking ourselves how to grow food to “why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe?” Our brain appears finite in capacity so I would assume that would limit our ability to understand the world around us. Reaching a limit at some stage seems inevitable. Or will our brains develop as we need to solve increasingly more difficult questions, after all our brains appear not to need to store every bit of information we discover perhaps more the ability to solve a problem, and the capacity to grasp the variables at that time. I could be wrong though. Your opinions would be greatly appreciated and interesting.
Mark Dennehy
Melbourne</blockquote>

== Interview with Daniel Loxton () ==
About his new book: ''Abominable Science''

== Science or Fiction () ==
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612173326.htm Item #1:] New fossil evidence reveals the presence of kangaroo ancestors 25 million years ago in what is now Europe. [http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/15806 Item #2:] Researchers find that male guppies can reproduce up to 10 months after they have died. [http://www.anl.gov/articles/discovery-new-material-state-counterintuitive-laws-physics Item #3:] Scientists have discovered a material that gets larger under pressure, in apparent defiance of the laws of physics.

== Skeptical Quote of the Week () ==
<blockquote>Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing.</blockquote>
Harlan Ellison

== Announcements () ==

{{Outro404}}

== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

SGUTranscripts:Community portal

2013-08-23T21:38:19Z

Fallible: Assuming erasure of others' conversation was unintentional, reinstating...

Hi guys like others I've often thought about this as a project but put off by the amount of time that it would have taken one person, the main reason I thought about doing this was to be able to search the transcripts when needed, example: if someone asked me a question on Homoeopathy I would be able to use my smartphone to give an answer based on what the SGU have talked about in the past, as I generally take what the guys say as fact.

Do you think that what I'm taking about would be possible using this WIKI project??

Looking forward to starting and completing my first SGU Transcript :-)

--[[User:Manontop|Manontop]] 09:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

:Hi Manontop.
:
:Sure, I think that would be one of the most important uses of these transcripts. My ideas for having transcripts of the SGU episodes are to facilitate linking, searching and accessibility:
:
:* Linking. We have headings throughout the podcasts so that it's possible to link directly to a specific segment, for example [[SGU_Episode_352#Aristolochia_Nephropathy|Aristolochia Nephropathy]] (internal wiki link) or [http://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_352#Aristolochia_Nephropathy Aristolochia Nephropathy] (external link).
:* Searching. Currently there are (at least) two ways to search. Either using Google or the built-in search box in the top right. If you want to use Google to search only this site, you can do so by using the "site:" term in your query. E.g. your Google query would be [https://www.google.com/search?q=site:sgutranscripts.org+titanic+disaster "site:sgutranscripts.org titanic disaster"]. Google is the king of them all, so I have installed proper semantic web (SEO) support. When a transcript is completed I go through and insert tags to important concepts that are covered in the podcast. This helps Google (and other search engines) know what is important about that page. You can see these by opening a transcript and viewing the source of the page. Then look for the <meta name="keywords" content="..."> tag. There are two components to this, tags that are site-wide such as "skeptics, sceptics, scepticism" etc. followed by tags that are local to a particular page such as "titanic, tragedy, ss, californian, space, junk" etc. Of course, Google also uses the page content when indexing.
:* Accessibility. Quite simple really; people who can't listen to the podcast for any reason (deafness etc.) can now read the transcripts instead.
:
:Great to have you on board! :)
:
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 11:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys,

I'm guessing this is the best place to put project discussions, let me know if there's another way - I'm new to Wiki editing.

Regarding time stamps for the sections, I've entered them into the headings of [[SGU_Episode_348]] using tags. This shows them smaller in the actual headings, but the same size in the contents list.
What do you guys think?

I've also been thinking of ways to make these transcript pages as useful as poss without causing ourselves too much extra work. One way might be to include a kind of bullet-point list of facts from the episode, as they often have throw-away comments that are interesting. E.g. in ep.348, they talk about nut allergies, and that cashew nuts contain the same allergy-inducing resin as poison-ivy. We could lift these from the main text as we go and build a list at the end. It wouldn't make much difference if someone's reading the whole transcript, but it might make a nice feature for flicking through them.
Just a thought, I figured it would be better said earlier than later. What do you think?
 Cheers,

--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 04:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

:I like the idea of compiling a fact list at the end of the transcription for each episode. It's just up to the individual transcriber I suppose. Regarding the tags, I definitely think it would help to have the timestamps in these transcriptions, and having it in the section title makes it visible in the table of contents. The other option is to use the wikibox on your user page, which I think is very nice, containing the image, quote, times and links in one place. It just depends on whether or not other people like it too.
:--[[User:Jay One|Jay One]] 20:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks, I have no experience making wikibox templates, so if someone else knows more about these, mb they'd like to build one? (although I'm happy to try) we should probably come to some agreement about whether we want them and what they should contain.
::--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 20:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone explored the idea of hiring a professional transcriptionist to do the work? This could be much faster, but there would be a cost involved. Perhaps a donation fund could be set up for SGU listeners to pay for it. Another podcast that goes this route is the "Security Now" podcast from Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte.
 -- [[User:128.200.139.53|128.200.139.53]] ([[User talk:128.200.139.53|talk]]) 17:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:I'm a professional trascriber and I would love to contribute towards this project. VLC is good but not optimized for transcription purpose. I would suggest NCH's ExpressScribe software and it's free. Also if you are spending a lot of time on this project, I would recommend investing on a foot pedal. It shouldn't cost you more than $25. With these two things, I am sure you can double your productivity.
:--[[User:Eupraxsophic|Eupraxsophic]] ([[User talk:Eupraxsophic|talk]]) 02:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to help, but I ''cannot'' tell Jay and Bob's voices apart. Am I useless?
 --[[User:Jenpohl|Jenpohl]] 20:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:I often find this difficult, and it's quite likely I've already made mistakes based on this, but mb you'll get better as you're listening closely. I find Bob more nasal. Another good indicator is whether they're referencing nanotechnology or porn. :)
:--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 21:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:That may be a problem, but all it took for me to tell their voices apart was a little time.
:--[[User:Jay One|Jay One]] 21:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:Just a thought: if you want to put up a <ins>transcription page including</ins> timestamps in comments (using "< !--" and "-->" without spaces in them) for the points you're unsure about, you could flag the pages up here for me (or whoever) to see if we can help out. <ins>This way we can easily search for problem points.</ins>
:--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 06:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC) [edited:16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)]

:You're definitely not useless! The most important thing is to get a first pass of the transcription done, corrections are then much quicker/easier. How about you put a question mark after the letter if you can't work out who's speaking? So like:
:
:B?: Stuff that Bob or Jay said
:
:Then someone else can go fix them later, should be pretty quick to do.
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've inserted a rough draft of a fact list at the bottom of [[SGU_Episode_348]]. What do you guys think? It was easy to put together, but I didn't know what to call it.
 --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 05:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:I originally thought it was a bad idea until I went and looked at your example. Now I think it's ''awesome'', I love it! :) Currently you've called it "Today I Learned..." which I think is good, but can anyone think of a title that's better? Like maybe "Interesting ideas from the podcast" except not that as it sounds terrible. ;)
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::Yay! Thanks. For the name, the only thing I thought, was I wanted to be careful not to assert them as hard facts. Also, we should mb point out that they are not part of the transcript, but taken from it after. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, and thanks for starting this project! I don't have a lot of time to devote to doing whole transcripts, but I'd like to start categorizing the wiki pages, like "SGU Transcripts", "Live Episodes", etc. I think it would also be helpful to have next/previous episode links on each page, either at the bottom or in the infobox. Any opinions? --[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 15:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

:Hi Av8rmike, thanks for your interest, any help is always appreciated, big or small. We were thinking of using the categories from the [http://theness.com/roguesgallery/ Rogues gallery], plus others more specific to the podcast, e.g. guests. I think adding a category for live episodes is a great idea. We're also considering using redirect pages for categorizing podcast sections separately.
:I agree, previous/next buttons would be good (in fact I was just playing with some graphics for them). However, I'm not sure how to get a wiki template to recognise the episode number and add/subtract automatically, do you have any ideas about that? Otherwise we can just input them manually. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 16:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

::I took a stab at adding some categories to [[SGU_Episode_354]] to give an idea of how that would work. I don't know offhand how to do the auto-numbering in wiki templates, but from looking at the help pages for templates, you can do almost anything with them. I could probably do some experimenting and see how far I get.
::[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 18:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, I've noticed we've used 2 different time-stamp formats. When it gets past the hour mark, I use the h:mm:ss format, but some pages use mm:ss, e.g. 78:12. As the time-stamps form the links for sections, I figure this is pretty important. My argument for using h:mm:ss is that, in my experience, that's what the majority of audio software and mp3 players use, plus I think it's more natural for us to think of time this way. What do you guys think? --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 17:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
:Kitty, the only reason I was using mm:ss was because that's what was already in use on the existing pages. =P I agree that h:mm:ss makes more intuitive sense and is used in more places, so I'm all in favor of switching over. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 13:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks for responding. Rwh86's away this week, so I'm gonna be cheeky, assume he's cool with it and change them over. We can always change them back if anyone comes up with a good argument for the mm:ss format. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys...First time transcriber here! I was inspired by Tim Farley's presentation at TAM 2012 to see where I could help out - and figured I could at least try this. I just transcribed and posted [[5X5_Episode_4]], but I'm not familiar enough with the Rogues to distinguish voice identities. The only voice IDs I'm somewhat sure of are Steve's and Rebecca's (the others I guessed at). If anyone can help with voice IDs in Ep. 4, that would be great. (Maybe I'll get better at the voices in the future -grin-) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 03:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Skepticat, and (as Av8rmike said) welcome to the team! I proof-read [[5X5 Episode 4]] and added the speakers. The page is great, took me no time to add them. In future, if there's a lot of lines you can't attribute, don't worry about adding times to each, just the first in a cluster. Hopefully that will save you a bit of time too :) I often find Bob and Jay hard to distinguish, but I think Bob's just a little more nasal, and it sounds like Jay might use a desktop mic instead of one close by his mouth. I don't know if that's any help. Thanks for your help, I'm very jealous you got to go to Tam, if you have any feedback for the site, do let us know. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks for the proof-read! Care to take a whack at [[5X5 Episode 5]], which I just posted? I don't think I'm going to have much luck with voice IDs (other than S & R) unless someone specifically says who's who, so I'll leave that to much more experienced folks, such as yourself, for now. Heck, I ended up riding down in the same elevator with the SGU crew at TAM (I think it was the first morning?) and I didn't fully realize who they were until later. As I was a "first TAMMER", that happened to me a few times with other skeptic notables there. :) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 04:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

:::Done! And just for the record, I definitely don't get the voices right ''all'' the time. That's just one of the reasons to have subsequent contributors as proof-readers :) --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 12:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

::Skepticat: Some things that may help you get more familiar with the voices:
::* Listen to an episode and follow along with the transcript (assuming it's been verified), paying attention to who's speaking when.
::* Transcribe some of the earlier episodes. Perry is easy to distinguish, and Jay (and sometimes Bob) aren't in all the early ones because of software limitations. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 14:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, there's a few things I could do with getting some feedback on:
# Using [[User:Teleuteskitty/Draft_main_layout|this page]] for the main page. (Av8rmike, I know you're pro)
# Adding explanatory footnotes with the [[Template:Link needed]] (I explain this in more detail on the [[Template_talk:Link_needed|talk page]])
# [[Help:How to Contribute]] page. Does this make sense to everyone?
Could you please leave any feedback (positive/constructively critical/short/long) on the talk pages for these? --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 12:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The [[5X5 Episode 6]] transcript has just gone up and is begging for a proof-read and voice check. Any takers? :) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 04:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
:I got it covered. Thanks, Skepticat! -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 02:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You may have noticed a few changes in the site layout, including restriction of the [[Main Page]] editing to admin only. To add/amend transcript page links on the new main page and the dedicated [[SGU Episodes]] and [[5X5 Episodes]] pages, use [[Template:SGU episode list]] and [[Template:5X5 episode list]]. Links to these templates and the skeleton pages are on the [[Help:Contents]] page, and instructions on [[Help:Getting Started]] have been updated accordingly.
 --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 10:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. I think it would be a good idea to pick an episode that is the canonical one. One where whatever the current agreed upon standard is implemented that can be pointed to or referenced whenever needed. Just a thought. Oo... also, we should be careful about links. We need to use nofollow when appropriate so quacks don't get any google juice from our work. 
--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 03:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
:Good idea on the example episode, we're trying to figure out which one would be best. Suggestions welcome! --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
::It might be that we'll have to splice together a few episodes to get all the various elements in one place. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Hi, Geneocide! I think that the transcripts from episodes 350-365 (even the unverified ones) are probably as close to canonical as we're going to get. Those were done in the time when TK, RWH, and I had a little bit more time to devote to the pages and before we started to fall behind. (I'm particular to [[SGU_Episode_365|365]], since that's one I did almost entirely myself. =) --[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 02:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've posted the transcript for [[5X5 Episode 30]] so it's ready for a proof. Any takers? Tried my best to keep to US spelling. Mostly wiki links but some external, any preference? [[User:tnewsome|tnewsome]] ([[User talk:tnewsome|talk]]) 23:19, 18 October 2012 (EST)
:We've mostly used wiki links, as it keeps a general standard of reference, they're often updated and they reference out to other sites. It's also very handy when you've got lots of linkable points, and it would take forever to find the ''best'' website for each. If readers are interested, it's generally a good place for them to start. Thanks for your help! --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Had an idea for a project we could work on in conjunction with the transcription. We should keep track of places where the rogues explain a core concept in detail (a lot of 5x5 episodes I imagine) and link to that explanation from other places in the transcription. Paradolia, Occam's razor, selection bias, things like that. We could centralize them into a single page, as well. Within the canonical rogue explanation we can link out to wikipedia or other sources. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
: Sounds like a great idea, somewhat compatible with the TIL (Today I Learned) sections. I think centralising them into a single page would make them much easier to find... I know that when I'm transcribing and I hear someone say "we discussed that on a previous podcast" it'd be nice to have a place to go to find that, though perhaps searching would be sufficient. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to have certain text automatically become a link? Like 'Skeptic's Guide to the Universe' or 'New England Skeptic's Society' or the rogues' names for example? --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
:Not that I know of, other than perhaps using a template --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding interviews. When an interview is incorporated into a segment, such as Dr Rachie's interview in SGU 366, does that make her a guest? It doesn't seem like a black and white distinction. [[User:Zambuck|Zambuck]] ([[User talk:Zambuck|talk]]) 22:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Zambuck, we use the 'Guest' section in the infobox as a key for non-Rogue speakers, so you're right to add her in there. Thanks for your help!--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 10:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to get <nowiki><blockquote></nowiki> formatted a little bit. Maybe a light background color and/or some automatic large quote marks? Right now it's not necessarily worth using, imho. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
:Yep, we could probably change the CSS. I'll see what I can do. Do you have a site in mind that I could use as a basis (i.e. to steal the css from)?--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
::It looks like something has changed to add a light beige background, which achieves the goal. Personally I think it could be a little more distinct, by my aesthetic tastes are poorly defined and not widely popular. I didn't have any examples in mind, but the first one on [http://css-tricks.com/examples/Blockquotes/ this] site looks good to me. It shows an example of what I meant by the "large quote marks". I am okay with having issues I bring up be un-addressed. I just write down things I think of. I leave the risk/reward analysis to those with better information on the subject. Still, I think the better looking the site is the more likely people are to use it. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 21:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys! I'm new here (heard about the project on the recent episode) and today added two sections in episode 349: [[SGU Episode 349#Nuclear Clock (34:53)|Nuclear Clock]] and [[SGU Episode 349#NDE and Lucid Dreaming (40:44)|NDE and Lucid Dreaming]]. Let me know how they look! It's my first time transcribing anything on this scale, and I think I'm getting the hang of it, but I have to admit that I'm a bit of a perfectionist and I feel strange not having ''more'' direction as far as formatting (I realize it would probably be very difficult/time-consuming to enforce super-specific standards at this stage). I looked at some of the completed transcripts to get an idea of what others were doing and tried to use my best judgment from there. I think I'm ready to attack a full episode, but it might take me a while to get through it. There are still some things I'm not entirely clear on, including exactly how the categories/redirects work, so I'm sure I'll ask for some help once I've finished transcribing a full episode (and probably while I'm in the middle of it). Also, I wanted to say that I usually don't have any trouble distinguishing voices (including Jay's and Bob's), so if there are any episodes/sections that need a second pair of ears for that specifically, I can definitely help out. Going forward, is this page the best way to communicate with other members? Thanks!
--[[User:Jacquie o|Jacquie o]] ([[User talk:Jacquie o|talk]]) 11:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Jacquie! Those transcripts you've done look absolutely fantastic! In terms of direction, we're just feeling our way though here. :) I suppose the most important thing is to get as much of the content done, and so long as the meaning is accurate, that's the most important thing. I also try to think "what if someone was running this through google translate?", i.e. would it translate well? That's leading me to leave out "you know" and "um" and those types of things to make the transcript flow better.Great to hear you can tell Jay and Bob apart, if you have time and want some lighter work, doing some proof reading might be right up your alley then. Some people do transcripts and leave, say B?: or J?: if they're not sure, so you could possibly go through and fix those.Going forward, we're trying to work on a place to help members communicate. The best I've got so far is this: [[Special:WikiForum]], but it's a bit bare bones, so when I get some time I'm going to try to integrate something a little more sophisticated.--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I heard Rob on the SGU and it sounded like a fantastic idea to contribute here. I transcribed a 5x5 episode to start (#39), and I'll probably do a few more before I go whole hog and tackle a full SGU episode. If anyone wants to proof-read that episode I did, that would be fantastic. I know the punctuation is way off there. Thanks in advance, and If you need my help specifically, don't be afraid to message me. Have fun! [[User:Thevipermike|Thevipermike]] ([[User talk:Thevipermike|talk]]) 05:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
:Great, thanks! I'll take a look when I get a chance. :) --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey everyone. Was thinking we should maybe try to do something in honor of Mike Lacelle. The only thing I came up with was marking episodes in which he appears as priority and getting them transcribed as soon as we can. If someone found the episodes and marked them I know I personally would work on them before other episodes. Any other ideas? --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 07:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
: That sounds good to me. How about I put a highlight on the front page to replace the t-shirt competition, seeing as that's been won now ;) --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 17:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
:As far as I can tell, he was mostly on around the year-in-review episodes, so I went through them:
:* 2011 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-31.mp3 337 - Dec 31 2011] - Mike is on this.
:* 2010 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-12-29.mp3 285 - Dec 29 2010] - Mike is on this.
:* 2009 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-01-01.mp3 232 - Jan 1 2010] - Mike is on this.
:* 2008 in review: 180 - Dec 30 2008 - Mike is NOT on this.
:* 2007 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-12-26.mp3 127 - Dec 26 2007] - Mike is on this.
:* 2006 in review: 75 - Dec 27 2006 - Mike is NOT on this.

::Hiya, I've started listing the episodes Mike was on here: [[Mike Lacelle - In memoriam‎]]. I don't think that's all of them though. I've also created pages for some of the episodes, I agree it would be good to prioritise these. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 19:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello all. I just joined. Jumped in and proofread [[SGU Episode 3]], some very minor copy edits, added a fair number of links, and subdivided a particularly long interview. I also added some "dead links" to pages I was figuring we should have locally: NESS and JREF. Or should I go back and change them to external links to THE Wikipedia?

--[[User:Bshirley|Bshirley]] ([[User talk:Bshirley|talk]]) 03:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
: Hi Bshirley. Thanks for the proof reading, it's very appreciated. It's always fun to add links during the proof reading process, I find I do that a lot too. I really like the subdivisions within the interview breaking it into its topics, that's something I might try to do in future; it would really help with deep linking to a particular subject of discussion. As for the dead links, I'm not so sure. I guess I see our site as not so much providing pages on particular topics à la Wikipedia, and am more inclined to link off to Wikipedia for those kinds of things. We can always improve them on Wikipedia if need be. Just my opinion tho. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 15:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Did the way the diffs display change? They look good. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 02:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
: They ''do'' look good. :) I didn't intentionally change them, but perhaps they changed with the new 1.20 mediawiki version (along with user registration briefly being broken). --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 13:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

'''Call for volunteers''': I've posted a framework for [[SGU_Episode_49|episode 49]] and did the first segments, then marked it as "open" to try to attract some more help. This one is The Steve Novella Show, as in the one he did all by himself, including Science or Fiction and Name That Logical Fallacy. It should be very easy to do, especially for someone who has trouble telling different voices apart. Sorry I can't offer any T-shirts. =)
: What exactly needs doing on this episode? I don't want to listen to everything if I don't have to. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::Oops, I just now noticed I never signed my comment. D= You don't have to transcribe the entire thing if you don't want to; you can do just a segment here or there. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 22:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:::Well, maybe it's more trouble than it's worth but if you know that there's nothing missing up until some point, what that point is would be nice. It's a little unclear just looking at the transcript so far... at least to me. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 00:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
::::It's been transcribed up to the [[SGU_Episode_49#Agnosticism_.289:03.29|Agnosticism]] e-mail. The rest has just been copied over from the show notes page. I haven't even formatted the text to break it into paragraphs, which may be what made it unclear to you. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 16:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Quoted from [[Talk:SGU_Episode_127]] for general discussion:
<blockquote>If we just put in dead links to episodes that don't exist, wouldn't that create a list of the most referenced yet to be made episode pages? Wouldn't that possibly be good? --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 02:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
</blockquote>
:True, it would add them to [[Special:WantedPages]], although the numbers there are bumped up by having consecutive episodes transcribed with automatic navigation links etc. . I like the idea of noting the most needed episodes, but I personally think it's best to avoid dead links in text where possible, even though these would automatically update when the page becomes available. I proposed a slightly different way on [[Template talk:Link needed]] a while back - we could use that method to add a reference with the dead link, bumping them up the 'Wanted' list, whilst keeping an eye on [[:Category:Needs internal links]]. Which isn't perfect. Alternatively, we could:
#create the referenced pages and add a 'priority pages'category
#make a page listing all episodes to be transcribed, marking which are referenced
:What do you think? --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 02:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
::I'm a big fan of whatever is easiest. Am I right in thinking that this would be the broken (red) link approach? --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
:::I think so, yep. And just for the record, if that's what you guys think is best, I'm more than happy to go back through pages switching 'link needed' templates to dead links – I'm more motivated to take a uniform approach than to get any of my over-complicated ideas in place :) --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 22:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
::::I'll offer my reasoning on the "Link needed" template, since I'm the one that created it. My idea for it was just as a "placeholder" for when I was transcribing/proof-reading and one of the rogues makes reference to something from a previous episode, but I ''didn't'' know which episode it is, indicating for someone to find it at a subsequent date. If you know what episode is being referenced and there isn't a page created already, I'd say by all means go ahead and put in the dead link to save another person the trouble of figuring out which episode it should be. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 04:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::Ah, I see! That makes sense. Looks like that's the probably the consensus, so I'll start switching them over tonight --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 07:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone, HNY and thanks for all the great work you're doing here. I'm new to transcribing and to this whole Wiki editing stuff but hope I won't make too much of a mess. I posted a [[5X5_Episode_37|5x5 Episode 37]] for a start so I guess it's ready for proof-reading. I didn't go through the whole Help section yet, just copied the formatting from another verified episode. So if anyone can take a look and check what I got wrong, I'd appreciate it. I'm not an English native speaker, so: (a) Though I tried to stick to the American spelling, there may be some impurities; (b) I'm never sure about punctuation. Guess I tend to abuse/misuse/misplace it. One more thing: I wasn't sure what to do with all the "likes", "you knows"' etc. so I left them in. Don't know what the best practice is. Oh, and I didn't have too much trouble telling Jay and Bob apart. Beginner's luck? ;) Keep up the good work! --[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 00:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
:Great stuff! Welcome on board. I've proof read 5x5 #37 for you and I must say, I take my hat off to you. As someone who has some familiarity with a foreign language (having lived in France for a year), I must say you did an amazingly good job. I'd say your error rate is pretty much the same as transcripts done by native speakers. :)
:* Re: American/British spelling: I don't really care, but I'm a bit more laissez faire than most other people on here. :)
:* Re: likes/you knows: I tend to leave them out unless they modify the meaning of the sentence.
:* Re: Bob/Jay: I'm beginning to suspect that this is a talent, as well as a skill.
:One thing that might help is the [[Help:Contents#Useful_pages|skeleton pages]]. These are blank templates you can use when starting a new transcript. Cheers for your help! --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 12:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
::Wow! Appreciate the thumbs up. That's very encouraging. And thanks for the proof read. Apart from obvious misspellings, you corrected the very bits I was least sure of and that's a good sign, I guess :) Care to look at [[5X5_Episode_41|5x5 #41]]? Hope it's not worse than the first one. Cheers! --[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 13:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Yep, done. That was even better than the first one, just one change really: [http://www.future-perfect.co.uk/grammartips/grammar-tip-practise-practice.asp practise vs practice]. I'm a native speaker and I still get those mixed up. :) --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 15:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
::::Thanks :) And now [[5X5_Episode_42|#42]] is up for grabs. This is fun ;) --[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 18:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey. I've seen the [[Special:Statistics|Statistics]] page, but I've also noticed that when I search, it tells me the word count of pages. Is it possible to get some sort of Total word/character count? I personally would like to see. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 01:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
: There's also [[Special:ContributionScores]] but I think it has a tendency to massively overvalue small changes over larger ones, so people who do a lot of small corrections get higher scores than those who have transcribed a lot of text which is obviously not what we want. I haven't been able to find an extension that gives a total word count, but a while back I did do it manually by dumping all of the pages to text using some bodgy scripts on my linux box, then doing a word count on those text pages. It was on 2012-11-28 and we had transcribed 910,050 words, 5,128,984 characters, and we had completed 57 of 384 (15%) full SGU episodes and 78 of 113 (69%) 5x5 episodes. I'll do a refresh of these stats when I get a chance, but it's quite laborious. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 10:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
: Just casting my eye down the episode lists, I get 65 SGU (17%) and 83 5x5 (73%) episodes complete right now. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 10:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
: OK, I just did another run: 1,055,851 words, 5,937,159 characters. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 12:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Design request: make the left pane logo and links float down the page when scrolling. Just another idea I'm throwing out there. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 21:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I have an idea that is not completely relevant to SGU Transcripts, but I thought this would be the best place to ask this question. For a while now I have been wanting to have a little more fun with the results of Science or Fiction, beyond the simple annual tabulation of scores. Most importantly, I would like to measure the GWB Effect! Specifically, I would like to begin tabulating data on each Science or Fiction, and making it available to anyone who wants to perform an analysis on it. Things we could measure are: result for each player (right/wrong), order of answers given, number of "science" options, existence of theme, etc. There are other things as well. I think it would be a fun project for SGU fans who are also stats geeks. Anyone else interested? 
--[[User:Manyou07|Manyou07]] ([[User talk:Manyou07|talk]]) 08:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
: Sounds great! I know that [[User:Teleuteskitty]] has done some stuff. Would it be possible to do something cool with google docs? It'd be nice to do some graphs too. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 14:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
: Thanks! I opened a thread at the SGU Forums for further discussion: http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,44888.0.html[http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,44888.0.html] --[[User:Manyou07|Manyou07]] ([[User talk:Manyou07|talk]]) 06:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Could we use the YouTube API and auto captions to get a rough draft? --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 23:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
: I'd love to see the results. From what I've read the accuracy is low enough as to not be useful but it'd certainly be interesting to see. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 08:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, it looks like there are some interesting things going on with Google speech recognition. There's a [https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/demos/speech.html demo app] that lets you talk for as long as you like. The first thing I'm going to have to do is to work out how to get chunks of the SGU podcast into it. I'm sure there's a way to couple the audio out and audio in on my linux machine, and if not, a simple cable from the headphone to the mic jack aught to do the trick. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 09:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
: So, after doing two episodes this way, what's your assessment of the process? I looked at [[SGU Episode 402|episode 402]], and it looks like it'll be almost as much work to decipher that wall o' text as it would have been to just type it in from scratch. Is it easy to set up, technically? -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 13:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
:: I'll have to go through and do the proof reading process before I know. Technically speaking, it's super easy. All I have is my headphones right next to the mic on my laptop, then I go to that google page, click the button and press play in vlc. So I imagine that it woudl be possible to get better results by either using a dedicated cable from the headphone jack into the mic jack, or by using some kind of software solution to pipe the sound into this web app. As far as I can see the quality varies. When one rogue is speaking clearly it does really well. When they talk over each other it's basically useless. Also, foreign accents completely confuse it. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 15:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
::: I tried it, but for whatever reason, the Google speech test page just didn't work for me; It kept asking for permission to use the microphone but wouldn't start recording. It doesn't matter; there's still stuff like categorization and formatting that has to be done manually anyway. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 14:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

There's also a [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/transcribe-transcribe-aud/ogokenmicnjdfhmhocanoemnddmpcjjm chrome extension for transcription] that allows you to speed up, slow down, pause etc the audio all from the same window as your text editor. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 08:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Help! I'm totally green and have a question: what am I supposed to do about "Quickies with Bob"? The one in Episode 414 comes in the middle of the news segments... and maybe this issue should be addressed in a Help section somewhere (sorry if I missed it)? -- [[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 16:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
:Hi Fallible, thanks for helping out on the site. It's a good question, and we don't yet have a set format for that. I searched through what's already been done, and I like the format in [[SGU Episode 387]] and [[SGU Episode 400]]. In these, it's treated as a new, 2nd level segment, followed by a 2nd level header "News items continued", and 3rd level headers for the remaining news items. If people agree this format works, I'll go back and change the other transcripts, and add a note in the help section. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks for the quick reply! I like it (the formatting proposal). The only comment I have is, are "Quickies with Bob" always in the news items section of the podcast? Because if not, we should agree on a format for how to interrupt a second level item with no sub-items (I suppose the same "X continued (time-stamp)" would work). -- [[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 22:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
: G'day Fallible. What I do is start a new second-level heading for the quickie with Bob. If the quickie occurs in the middle of the news items or whatever, I just do a "News items continued" afterwards, see: http://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_414. --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 08:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

SGU Episode 414

2013-08-23T21:06:16Z

Fallible: Transcribed "Patenting DNA" section

SGU Episode 414

2013-08-23T11:42:50Z

Fallible: Quickie with Bob transcribed

SGU Episode 414

2013-08-19T23:52:03Z

Fallible: Fix skeleton

SGUTranscripts:Community portal

2013-08-18T22:31:14Z

Fallible: Response to Teleuteskitty

SGU Episode 414

2013-08-18T22:21:35Z

Fallible: Fix episode skeleton

SGU Episode 414

2013-08-18T22:18:53Z

Fallible: /* Osteoarthritis (4:41) */ fix minor typos

SGUTranscripts:Community portal

2013-08-18T16:47:32Z

Fallible: Question about"Quickie with Bob"

SGU Episode 414

2013-08-18T16:31:46Z

Fallible: /* Osteoarthritis (4:41) */

Talk:SGU Episodes

2013-08-18T14:25:44Z

Fallible: Added list of episodes tangentially associated with Mike

==Other episodes connected with Mike==
This topic is for listing other episodes which possibly should be prioritized because Mike is mentioned. Please feel free to edit the list without regards to the usual conventions of talk page topics ([[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 14:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC))
* In Episode #227 the rogues talk about Mike at the end of the episode.

SGU Episode 414

2013-08-16T11:56:02Z

Fallible: This Day in Skepticism (initial transcription)

User:Fallible

2013-08-16T10:51:53Z

Fallible: Yes, vanity is a weakness indeed. (Along with pedantry, I suppose.)

In the morning I went on 4, in the afternoon on 2, and in the evening on 3 (actually, not quite yet... still enjoying the afternoon).

Or, perhaps not. I am Fallible, of course.

SGU Episode 414

2013-08-16T10:06:44Z

Fallible: Introduction transcribed (first attempt)