SGUTranscripts - User contributions [en]

Main Page

2012-07-30T00:08:05Z

Kadmium: /* 2012 */

__NOTOC__
==Welcome to the SGU Transcripts==

We aim to provide transcripts of the [http://www.theskepticsguide.org/ Skeptics' Guide to the Universe] podcast. We're just getting started, '''please help'''!

If you'd like to transcribe a podcast, just sign up and add a note below to say which episode you're working on. That way we can avoid duplicating work. If you'd like to just try your hand at transcribing, start with an SGU 5x5 as these are much shorter.

For help with creating and editing pages, and other useful information for putting together a transcription page, go to the [[Help:Getting Started|Getting Started]] page.

== The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe Transcripts ==
[[File:LogoSGU.png|right]]
* [http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcast.aspx SGU podcast archive]
* [http://sguforums.com/index.php/board,1.0.html Forum]
* [[Skeptical Quote Collection]]

=== 2012 ===
* [[SGU Episode 367]], Jul 28 2012
* [[SGU Episode 366]], Jul 21 2012 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 365]], Jul 14 2012 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 364]], Jul 7 2012 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 363]], Jun 30 2012
* [[SGU Episode 362]], Jun 23 2012 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 361]], Jun 16 2012
* [[SGU Episode 360]], Jun 9 2012
* [[SGU Episode 359]], Jun 2 2012
* [[SGU Episode 358]], May 26 2012
* [[SGU Episode 357]], May 19 2012
* [[SGU Episode 356]], May 12 2012
* [[SGU Episode 355]], May 5 2012
* [[SGU Episode 354]], Apr 28 2012
* [[SGU Episode 353]], Apr 21 2012
* [[SGU Episode 352]], Apr 14 2012
* [[SGU Episode 351]], Apr 7 2012
* [[SGU Episode 350]], Mar 31 2012
* [[SGU Episode 349]], Mar 24 2012 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 348]], Mar 17 2012
* [[SGU Episode 347]], Mar 10 2012
* [[SGU Episode 346]], Mar 3 2012
* [[SGU Episode 339]], Jan 14 2012
* [[SGU Episode 338]], Jan 7 2012

=== 2011 ===

* [[SGU Episode 328]], Oct 29 2011
* [[SGU Episode 308]], Jun 08 2011 {{i}}

=== 2010 ===
* [[SGU Episode 252]], May 12 2010

=== 2009 ===
* [[SGU Episode 184]], Jan 28 2009

=== 2008 ===
* [[SGU Episode 165]], Sep 17 2008
* [[SGU Episode 156]], Jul 16 2008
* [[SGU Episode 146]], May 7 2008 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 144]], Apr 23 2008

=== 2007 ===
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28, 2007 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24, 2007 {{i}}

=== 2006 ===

* [[SGU Episode 62]], Sep 27 2006
* [[SGU Episode 31]], Feb 22 2006 {{i}}

=== 2005 ===

* [[SGU Episode 5]], Jun 29 2005
* [[SGU Episode 2]], Jun 1 2005
* [[SGU Episode 1]], May 4 2005

== The Skeptics' Guide 5x5 Transcripts ==
[[File:Logo5x5.png|right]]
* [http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcast.aspx?mid=2 SGU 5x5 podcast archive]
* [http://sguforums.com/index.php/board,1.0.html Forum]

=== 2012 ===

* [[5X5 Episode 113]], May 9 2012, What's the Harm?
* [[5X5 Episode 112]], May 2 2012, Anecdotal Evidence {{i}}
* [[5X5 Episode 111]], Apr 25 2012, Facilitated Communication {{i}}
* [[5X5 Episode 110]], Apr 11 2012, Naturalistic Fallacy
* [[5X5 Episode 109]], Apr 4 2012, Celebrity Pseudoscience
* [[5X5 Episode 108]], Mar 28 2012, Cancer Cure
* [[5X5 Episode 107]], Mar 21 2012, Chilean UFO
* [[5X5 Episode 106]], Mar 19 2012, Availability Heuristic
* [[5X5 Episode 105]], Mar 7 2012, Representativeness Heuristic
* [[5X5 Episode 104]], Feb 22 2012, WiFi

=== 2009 ===

* [[5X5 Episode 55]], Jan 28 2009, Skepticism 101 - Poisoning the Well
* [[5X5 Episode 54]], Jan 21 2009, Skepticism 101 - False Dichotomy
* [[5X5 Episode 53]], Jan 13 2009, Anecdotal Evidence
* [[5X5 Episode 52]], Jan 6 2009, Atlantis

=== 2008 ===

* [[5X5 Episode 45]], Nov 11 2008, Chi and other forms of vitalism
* [[5X5 Episode 13]], Mar 30 2008, Man convicted of molestation claims he was raped by Bigfoot
* [[5X5 Episode 5]], Feb 3 2008, Pope Benedict XVI takes on science
* [[5X5 Episode 4]], Jan 28 2008, Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology.
* [[5X5 Episode 3]], Jan 21 2008, Multilevel Marketing and Pyramid Schemes
* [[5X5 Episode 2]], Jan 13 2008, Ghost Photographs
* [[5X5 Episode 1]], Jan 06 2008, The National Health Service of the UK plans to regulate alternative medicine

== Getting started ==
* Consult the [//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents User's Guide] for information on using the wiki software.
* [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Configuration_settings Configuration settings list]
* [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]
* [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce MediaWiki release mailing list]

5X5 Episode 111

2012-07-30T00:07:25Z

Kadmium: Created page with "{{5X5 editing required |proof-reading = y |transcription = y |categories = y |redirect = y |}} {{5X5 infobox |episodeID = 5X5 Episode 111 |Contents = Facilitated Commun..."

{{5X5 editing required
|proof-reading = y
|transcription = y
|categories = y
|redirect = y
|}}
{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 111
|Contents = Facilitated Communication
|episodeDate = 25 April 2012
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52012-04-25.mp3
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=111
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=41519.0
|}}
== Facilitated Communication ==
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and tonight we're talking about facilitated communication. This is a technique in which a facilitator physically helps a client to communicate, either by holding their arm while they point at letters on a letter board or type on a keyboard or perhaps point to pictures on a picture board. This technique has actually been quite controversial since its inception in the late 1970s in Australia, when Rosemary Crossley, a teacher at St. Nicholas Hospital used this technique to communicate with children who were diagnosed with cerebral palsy. The technique was later introduced in the United States mainly through Syracuse University and a practitioner, Douglas Biklen. And here is where the use of the technique became very problematic, because Biklen claimed that he was able to use this technique in order to communicate with children who had cognitive impairment and were uncommunicative or nonverbal, such as for example severely autistic children. The controversy stems from the question of whether or not the client or the child is the actual author of the communication or if its the facilitator themselves. The technique became extremely popular among speech and language therapists and was widely used until the late 1980s and early 1990s, when scientific research demonstrated that in most cases the facilitator is the one doing the actual communication, not the client.

R: So, it's important to differentiate between facilitated communication we're going to be talking about on this show, and facilitators who aid people in communicating, people who have severe physical limitations, but who are not necessarily severely cognitively impaired, that can be people with ALS, cerebral palsy, locked-in syndrome, things like that. These people are perfectly intelligent, however are unable to communicate their thoughts due to their physical limitations, and often times they will require assistance to aid in their communication. There's a huge difference though between the people who are helping the physically impaired and those who are claiming to help those who are cognitively impaired.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

Main Page

2012-07-29T23:26:52Z

Kadmium: /* 2012 */

__NOTOC__
==Welcome to the SGU Transcripts==

We aim to provide transcripts of the [http://www.theskepticsguide.org/ Skeptics' Guide to the Universe] podcast. We're just getting started, '''please help'''!

If you'd like to transcribe a podcast, just sign up and add a note below to say which episode you're working on. That way we can avoid duplicating work. If you'd like to just try your hand at transcribing, start with an SGU 5x5 as these are much shorter.

For help with creating and editing pages, and other useful information for putting together a transcription page, go to the [[Help:Getting Started|Getting Started]] page.

== The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe Transcripts ==
[[File:LogoSGU.png|right]]
* [http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcast.aspx SGU podcast archive]
* [http://sguforums.com/index.php/board,1.0.html Forum]
* [[Skeptical Quote Collection]]

=== 2012 ===
* [[SGU Episode 367]], Jul 28 2012
* [[SGU Episode 366]], Jul 21 2012 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 365]], Jul 14 2012 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 364]], Jul 7 2012 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 363]], Jun 30 2012
* [[SGU Episode 362]], Jun 23 2012 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 361]], Jun 16 2012
* [[SGU Episode 360]], Jun 9 2012
* [[SGU Episode 359]], Jun 2 2012
* [[SGU Episode 358]], May 26 2012
* [[SGU Episode 357]], May 19 2012
* [[SGU Episode 356]], May 12 2012
* [[SGU Episode 355]], May 5 2012
* [[SGU Episode 354]], Apr 28 2012
* [[SGU Episode 353]], Apr 21 2012
* [[SGU Episode 352]], Apr 14 2012
* [[SGU Episode 351]], Apr 7 2012
* [[SGU Episode 350]], Mar 31 2012
* [[SGU Episode 349]], Mar 24 2012 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 348]], Mar 17 2012
* [[SGU Episode 347]], Mar 10 2012
* [[SGU Episode 346]], Mar 3 2012
* [[SGU Episode 339]], Jan 14 2012
* [[SGU Episode 338]], Jan 7 2012

=== 2011 ===

* [[SGU Episode 328]], Oct 29 2011
* [[SGU Episode 308]], Jun 08 2011 {{i}}

=== 2010 ===
* [[SGU Episode 252]], May 12 2010

=== 2009 ===
* [[SGU Episode 184]], Jan 28 2009

=== 2008 ===
* [[SGU Episode 165]], Sep 17 2008
* [[SGU Episode 156]], Jul 16 2008
* [[SGU Episode 146]], May 7 2008 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 144]], Apr 23 2008

=== 2007 ===
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28, 2007 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24, 2007 {{i}}

=== 2006 ===

* [[SGU Episode 62]], Sep 27 2006
* [[SGU Episode 31]], Feb 22 2006 {{i}}

=== 2005 ===

* [[SGU Episode 5]], Jun 29 2005
* [[SGU Episode 2]], Jun 1 2005
* [[SGU Episode 1]], May 4 2005

== The Skeptics' Guide 5x5 Transcripts ==
[[File:Logo5x5.png|right]]
* [http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcast.aspx?mid=2 SGU 5x5 podcast archive]
* [http://sguforums.com/index.php/board,1.0.html Forum]

=== 2012 ===

* [[5X5 Episode 113]], May 9 2012, What's the Harm?
* [[5X5 Episode 112]], May 2 2012, Anecdotal Evidence {{i}}
* [[5X5 Episode 111]], Apr 25 2012, Facilitated Communication
* [[5X5 Episode 110]], Apr 11 2012, Naturalistic Fallacy
* [[5X5 Episode 109]], Apr 4 2012, Celebrity Pseudoscience
* [[5X5 Episode 108]], Mar 28 2012, Cancer Cure
* [[5X5 Episode 107]], Mar 21 2012, Chilean UFO
* [[5X5 Episode 106]], Mar 19 2012, Availability Heuristic
* [[5X5 Episode 105]], Mar 7 2012, Representativeness Heuristic
* [[5X5 Episode 104]], Feb 22 2012, WiFi

=== 2009 ===

* [[5X5 Episode 55]], Jan 28 2009, Skepticism 101 - Poisoning the Well
* [[5X5 Episode 54]], Jan 21 2009, Skepticism 101 - False Dichotomy
* [[5X5 Episode 53]], Jan 13 2009, Anecdotal Evidence
* [[5X5 Episode 52]], Jan 6 2009, Atlantis

=== 2008 ===

* [[5X5 Episode 45]], Nov 11 2008, Chi and other forms of vitalism
* [[5X5 Episode 13]], Mar 30 2008, Man convicted of molestation claims he was raped by Bigfoot
* [[5X5 Episode 5]], Feb 3 2008, Pope Benedict XVI takes on science
* [[5X5 Episode 4]], Jan 28 2008, Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology.
* [[5X5 Episode 3]], Jan 21 2008, Multilevel Marketing and Pyramid Schemes
* [[5X5 Episode 2]], Jan 13 2008, Ghost Photographs
* [[5X5 Episode 1]], Jan 06 2008, The National Health Service of the UK plans to regulate alternative medicine

== Getting started ==
* Consult the [//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents User's Guide] for information on using the wiki software.
* [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Configuration_settings Configuration settings list]
* [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]
* [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce MediaWiki release mailing list]

5X5 Episode 112

2012-07-29T23:26:15Z

Kadmium:

{{5X5 editing required
|proof-reading = y
|transcription = y
|categories = y
|redirect = y
|}}
{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 112
|Contents = Anecdotal Evidence
|episodeDate = 2 May 2012
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52012-05-02.mp3
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=112
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=41624.0
|}}
== Anecdotal Evidence ==
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and tonight we're talking about anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is a causal observation, one that is not done under any strict scientific protocol. There are extreme limitations to using anecdotal evidence as evidence, and it does not qualify as scientific evidence for these reasons. For example, anecdotes can not be statistically analyzed, because they are not gathered in a systematic or a thorough way. Therefore they're subject to so-called cherry picking. People may remember or just point to those anecdotes that tend to support something that they wish to believe in. This leads to what we call confirmation bias, selecting only confirming evidence, and dismissing or forgetting disconfirming evidence. There are lots of logical fallacies inherent in anecdotal evidence as well, such as the hasty generalization. Because anecdotes are not controlled or systematic, there is no way to know if anecdotal experiences are typical. Therefore, they, trying to generalize from an anecdote is a form of hasty generalization. So, anecdotal experience is not the same as scientific evidence, because a scientific study endeavours to capture all of the information on a relevant question systematically, so that it is possible to do statistical analysis, outcomes are randomized and efforts are made to make sure that there is a representative sample, so that the outcome can be generalized to whatever the population in question is. In short; scientific studies allow for the control of variables, controlling for possible confounding factors, whereas anecdotal experience does not. It's quirky, it's biased, and it is not therefore a source of reliable evidence.

R: That said, there are instances in which a particular type of anecdotal evidence can be useful to science. For instance what we call case studies. Case studies are in-depth analyses of specific events, taking into account the context in which those events happen. Now, this is not in any way to be considered, for instance, a scientific study on its own. However can be useful in for instance falsifying certain hypotheses. Karl Popper, a famous philosopher of science, came up with a famous example, in which he said "all swans are white" and then proposed that one single observation of a black swan would be enough to falsify that proposition, and that observation of the black swan would be the case study. A case study is very good for finding those black swans and detailing them, and that type of case study can be very helpful in forming a hypothesis, from which you can then go and do more scientific research using more evidence that you can gather.

S: Yeah, I think a good way to summarize the role of anecdotes in science is that they are useful for generating hypotheses, they are just not useful for testing hypotheses, for that you need scientific data.

Unknown: Steve, another problem with anecdotal evidence has to do with the fallibility of human memory. People are innately poor historians, our memories have limitations and over time our memories tend to decay, or warp, or merge with other memories. In the case for example of a person suffering from some sort of medical illness, anecdotes can become contaminated with false memories and exaggerations due to the sensitive and deeply personal nature of the experience. There's a tendency for details to evolve over time and make a story sound more clean and profound. So in a patients own memory, they might exaggerate certain things, such as the severity of the symptoms prior to the treatment or exaggerate the response to the actual treatment.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

5X5 Episode 112

2012-07-29T22:26:29Z

Kadmium: /* Anecdotal Evidence */

{{5X5 editing required
|proof-reading = y
|categories = y
|redirect = y
|}}
{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 112
|Contents = Anecdotal Evidence
|episodeDate = 2 May 2012
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52012-05-02.mp3
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=112
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=41624.0
|}}
== Anecdotal Evidence ==
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and tonight we're talking about anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is a causal observation, one that is not done under any strict scientific protocol. There are extreme limitations to using anecdotal evidence as evidence, and it does not qualify as scientific evidence for these reasons. For example, anecdotes can not be statistically analyzed, because they are not gathered in a systematic or a thorough way. Therefore they're subject to so-called cherry picking. People may remember or just point to those anecdotes that tend to support something that they wish to believe in. This leads to what we call confirmation bias, selecting only confirming evidence, and dismissing or forgetting disconfirming evidence. There are lots of logical fallacies inherent in anecdotal evidence as well, such as the hasty generalization. Because anecdotes are not controlled or systematic, there is no way to know if anecdotal experiences are typical. Therefore, they, trying to generalize from an anecdote is a form of hasty generalization. So, anecdotal experience is not the same as scientific evidence, because a scientific study endeavours to capture all of the information on a relevant question systematically, so that it is possible to do statistical analysis, outcomes are randomized and efforts are made to make sure that there is a representative sample, so that the outcome can be generalized to whatever the population in question is. In short; scientific studies allow for the control of variables, controlling for possible confounding factors, whereas anecdotal experience does not. It's quirky, it's biased, and it is not therefore a source of reliable evidence.

R: That said, there are instances in which a particular type of anecdotal evidence can be useful to science. For instance what we call case studies. Case studies are in-depth analyses of specific events, taking into account the context in which those events happen. Now, this is not in any way to be considered, for instance, a scientific study on its own. However can be useful in for instance falsifying certain hypotheses. Karl Popper, a famous philosopher of science, came up with a famous example, in which he said "all swans are white" and then proposed that one single observation of a black swan would be enough to falsify that proposition, and that observation of the black swan would be the case study. A case study is very good for finding those black swans and detailing them, and that type of case study can be very helpful in forming a hypothesis, from which you can then go and do more scientific research using more evidence that you can gather.

S: Yeah, I think a good way to summarize the role of anecdotes in science is that they are useful for generating hypotheses, they are just not useful for testing hypotheses, for that you need scientific data.

Unknown: Steve, another problem with anecdotal evidence has to do with the fallibility of human memory. People are innately poor historians, our memories have limitations and over time our memories tend to decay, or warp, or merge with other memories. In the case for example of a person suffering from some sort of medical illness, anecdotes can become contaminated with false memories and exaggerations due to the sensitive and deeply personal nature of the experience. There's a tendency for details to evolve over time and make a story sound more clean and profound. So in a patients own memory, they might exaggerate certain things, such as the severity of the symptoms prior to the treatment or exaggerate the response to the actual treatment.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

5X5 Episode 112

2012-07-29T22:25:14Z

Kadmium: Created page with "{{5X5 editing required |proof-reading = y |categories = y |redirect = y |}} {{5X5 infobox |episodeID = 5X5 Episode 112 |Contents = Anecdotal Evidence |episodeDate = ..."

{{5X5 editing required
|proof-reading = y
|categories = y
|redirect = y
|}}
{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 112
|Contents = Anecdotal Evidence
|episodeDate = 2 May 2012
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52012-05-02.mp3
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=112
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=41624.0
|}}
== Anecdotal Evidence ==
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and tonight we're talking about anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is a causal observation, one that is not done under any strict scientific protocol. There are extreme limitations to using anecdotal evidence as evidence, and it does not qualify as scientific evidence for these reasons. For example, anecdotes can not be statistically analyzed, because they are not gathered in a systematic or a thorough way. Therefore they're subject to so-called cherry picking. People may remember or just point to those anecdotes that tend to support something that they wish to believe in. This leads to what we call confirmation bias, selecting only confirming evidence, and dismissing or forgetting disconfirming evidence. There are lots of logical fallacies inherent in anecdotal evidence as well, such as the hasty generalization. Because anecdotes are not controlled or systematic, there is no way to know if anecdotal experiences are typical. Therefore, they, trying to generalize from an anecdote is a form of hasty generalization. So, anecdotal experience is not the same as scientific evidence, because a scientific study endeavours to capture all of the information on a relevant question systematically, so that it is possible to do statistical analysis, outcomes are randomized and efforts are made to make sure that there is a representative sample, so that the outcome can be generalized to whatever the population in question is. In short; scientific studies allow for the control of variables, controlling for possible confounding factors, whereas anecdotal experience does not. It's quirky, it's biased, and it is not therefore a source of reliable evidence.

R: That said, there are instances in which a particular type of anecdotal evidence can be useful to science. For instance what we call case studies. Case studies are in-depth analyses of specific events, taking into account the context in which those events happen. Now, this is not in any way to be considered, for instance, a scientific study on its own. However can be useful in for instance falsifying certain hypotheses. Karl Popper, a famous philosopher of science, came up with a famous example, in which he said "all swans are white" and then proposed that one single observation of a black swan would be enough to falsify that proposition, and that observation of the black swan would be the case study. A case study is very good for finding those black swans and detailing them, and that type of case study can be very helpful in forming a hypothesis, from which you can then go and do more scientific research using more evidence that you can gather.

S: Yeah, I think a good way to summarize the role of anecdotes in science is that they are useful for generating hypotheses, they are just not useful for testing hypotheses, for that you need scientific data.

Unknown: Steve, another problem with anecdotal evidence has to do with the fallability of human memory. People are innately poor historians, our memories have limitations and over time our memories tend to decay, or warp, or merge with other memories. In the case for example of a person suffering from some sort of medical illness, anecdotes can become contaminated with false memories and exaggerations due to the sensitive and deeply personal nature of the experience. There's a tendency for details to evolve over time and make a story sound more clean and profound. So in a patients own memory, they might exaggerate certain things, such as the severity of the symptoms prior to the treatment or exaggerate the response to the actual treatment.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}