SGUTranscripts - User contributions [en]

Template:5X5 episode list

2013-01-09T02:01:19Z

Lvovo: #57 status=incomplete removed

<noinclude>This template is used to display the list of 5X5 episodes on the [[Main Page]] and the [[5X5 Episodes]] page. Additions and amendments to this template will be reflected on those pages.

For help on how to add a new row, see [[Template:5X5 list entry]].
</noinclude>

{|class="wikitable sortable" style="margin: 1em 3em;"
!No.!!class="unsortable"|Date!!Status!!Contents!!Categories
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 113
|date = May 9 2012
|contents = What's the Harm?
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
|category3 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 112
|date = May 2 2012
|contents = Anecdotal Evidence
|category1 = Legal Issues & Regulations
|category2 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category3 = Neuroscience & Psychology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 111
|date = Apr 25 2012
|contents = Facilitated Communication
|category1 = Pseudoscience
|category2 = Myths & Misconceptions
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 110
|date = Apr 11 2012
|contents = Naturalistic Fallacy
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 109
|date = Apr 4 2012
|contents = Celebrity Pseudoscience
|category1 = Pseudoscience
|category2 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 108
|date = Mar 28 2012
|contents = Cancer Cure
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Conspiracy Theories
|category3 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 107
|date = Mar 21 2012
|contents = Chilean UFO
|category1 = UFOs & Aliens
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 106
|date = Mar 19 2012
|contents = Availability Heuristic
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 105
|date = Mar 7 2012
|contents = Representativeness Heuristic
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 104
|date = Feb 22 2012
|contents = WiFi
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 103
|date = Feb 15 2012
|contents = Creationism
|category1 = Creationism & ID
|category2 = Science & Education
|category3 = Legal Issues & Regulations
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 102
|date = Feb 8 2012
|contents = Biofuels
|category1 = Technology
|category2 = General Science
|category3 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 101
|date = Jan 26 2011
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Slippery Slope/Post Hoc
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 100
|date = Jan 13 2011
|contents = Testable
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 99
|date = Jan 5 2011
|contents = Graphology
|category1 = History
|category2 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 98
|date = Dec 30 2010
|contents = Harry Houdini
|category1 = History
|category2 = Paranormal
|category3 = Ghosts & Demons
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 97
|date = Dec 20 2010
|contents = Repressed Memories
|category1 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 96
|date = Nov 9 2010
|contents = Magnets
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 95
|date = Sep 21 2010
|contents = Chelation
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Alternative Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 94
|date = Sep 12 2010
|contents = Nostradamus
|category1 = Prophecy
|category2 = History
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 93
|date = Aug 13 2010
|contents = Chiropractic - Part 3
|category1 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 92
|date = Jul 28 2010
|contents = Chiropractic - Part 2
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = History
|category3 = Legal Issues & Regulations
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 91
|date = Jul 13 2010
|contents = Chiropractic - Part 1
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = History
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 90
|date = Jun 29 2010
|contents = The Unification Church
|category1 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 89
|date = Jun 14 2010
|contents = Chemtrails
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 88
|date = May 19 2010
|contents = PSI - Part 2
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 87
|date = Mar 31 2010
|contents = PSI - The Ganzfeld Experiments
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 86
|date = Feb 21 2010
|contents = Psi
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 85
|date = Feb 9 2010
|contents = Prediction
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 84
|date = Jan 25 2010
|contents = Bermuda Triangle
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 83
|date = Dec 20 2009
|contents = Irreducible Complexity
|category1 = Creationism & ID
|category2 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 82
|date = Dec 2 2009
|contents = Psychic Surgery
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 81
|date = Nov 18 2009
|contents = Naturopathy
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 80
|date = Oct 28 2009
|contents = Polygraphs
|category1 = Technology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 79
|date = Oct 14 2009
|contents = The Lunar Effect
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 78
|date = Sep 23 2009
|contents = Crop Circles
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 77
|date = Sep 9 2009
|contents = The Double-Blind Protocol in Science
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 76
|date = Aug 18 2009
|contents = The Argument from Design
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 75
|date = Aug 12 2009
|contents = The Coriolis Effect
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 74
|date = Aug 4 2009
|contents = Perpetual Motion Machines
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 73
|date = Jul 22 2009
|contents = The Age of the Earth
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 72
|date = Jul 16 2009
|contents = Randi Million Dollar Psychic Challenge and Connie Sonne
|category1 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 71
|date = Jul 8 2009
|contents = The Roswell UFO Mythology
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 70
|date = Jun 30 2009
|contents = New Element Discovered
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 69
|date = Jun 5 2009
|contents = Einstein's Eclipse and General Relativity
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 68
|date = May 22 2009
|contents = Near Death Experiences
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 67
|date = Apr 30 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Special Pleading
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 66
|date = Apr 22 2009
|contents = Plausibility in Science
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 65
|date = Apr 16 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Scientific Theory
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 64
|date = Apr 2 2009
|contents = The Clever Hans Effect
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 63
|date = Mar 25 2009
|contents = Possession and Exorcism
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 62
|date = Mar 19 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - How to Argue
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 61
|date = Mar 13 2009
|contents = Friday 13th Superstition
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 60
|date = Mar 5 2009
|contents = Cryptozoology
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 59
|date = Feb 25 2009
|contents = Sprites and other atmospheric phenomena mistaken for UFOs
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 58
|date = Feb 17 2009
|contents = The Self-Corrective Nature of Science
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 57
|date = Feb 10 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Moving the Goalpost
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 56
|date = Feb 4 2009
|contents = Probability
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 55
|date = Jan 28 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Poisoning the Well
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 54
|date = Jan 21 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - False Dichotomy
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 53
|status = verified
|date = Jan 13 2009
|contents = Anecdotal Evidence
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
|category3 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 52
|date = Jan 6 2009
|contents = Atlantis
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 51
|date = Dec 29 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Channeling
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 50
|date = Dec 15 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - The Argument from Ignorance
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 49
|date = Dec 8 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Argument from Authority
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 48
|date = Dec 1 2008
|contents = The 10% Brain Myth
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 47
|date = Nov 24 2008
|contents = Remote Viewing
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 46
|date = Nov 18 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Correlation and Causation
|category1 = General Science
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 45
|date = Nov 11 2008
|contents = Chi and other forms of vitalism
|category1 = Energy Healing
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 44
|date = Nov 4 2008
|contents = Homonculus-based Medical Pseudoscience
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 43
|date = Oct 29 2008
|contents = Holocaust Denial
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = History

}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 42
|status = verified
|date = Oct 22 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Confirmation Bias
|category1 = Neuroscience & Psychology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 41
|status = verified
|date = Oct 15 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 40
|date = Oct 8 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 39
|date = Aug 1 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - The Ideomotor Effect
|category1 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category2 = Paranormal
|category3 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 38
|date = Sep 24 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Pareidolia
|category1 = Nature & Evolution
|category2 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category3 = Paranormal
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 37
|date = Sep 17 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - The Scientific Method
|category1 = General Science
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = incomplete
|episode = 36
|date = Sep 10 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Cold Reading
|category1 = Paranormal
|category2 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category3 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 35
|date = Sep 3 2008
|contents = No sunspots in August - will this lead to a period of solar cooling?
|category1 =
|category2 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 34
|date = Aug 27 2008
|contents = Woman claims wires grow out of her body
|category1 =
|category2 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 33
|date = Aug 20 2008
|contents = The Shroud of Turin - Shroud scientists try to resurrect the controversy
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 32
|date = Aug 11 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Occam's Razor
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 31
|date = Aug 4 2008
|contents = Digital Homeopathy 20 years after Benveniste
|category1 = Homeopathy
|category2 = Pseudoscience
|category3 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 30
|date = Jul 29 2008
|contents = Evaluation of a UCONN study of therapeutic touch on bone cells in culture
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = New Age
|category3 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 29
|date = July 20 2008
|contents = The SGU celebrates the 39th anniversary of Apollo 11 by debunking some moon landing hoax myths, and they are joined by Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer
|category1 = Astronomy & Space Science
|category2 = Conspiracy Theories
|category3 = History
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 28
|date = July 13 2008
|contents = Exposing the logical fallacy of equating faith healing with medical care
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
|category2 = Pseudoscience
|category3 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 27
|date = July 06 2008
|contents = Cracking the Dogu Code - Ancient Astronauts
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = UFOs & Aliens
|category3 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 26
|date = June 29 2008
|contents = New study sheds light on genetic vs environmental contributions to sexuality
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 25
|date = June 22 2008
|contents = NASA Plans Probe to the Sun
|category1 = Astronomy & Space Science
|category2 = Technology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 24
|date = June 15 2008
|contents = New strategy for SETI - The Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence
|category1 = Astronomy & Space Science
|category2 = Technology
|category3 = UFOs & Aliens
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 23
|date = June 08 2008
|contents = Lame car design analogy to intelligent design from the Discovery Institute
|category1 = Creationism & ID
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
|category3 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 22
|date = June 01 2008
|contents = Researchers allow monkey to control robotic arm with its mind
|category1 = Technology
|category2 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category3 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 21
|date = May 25 2008
|contents = Family claims women miraculously brought back to life after rigor mortis
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Science & the Media
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 20
|date = May 18 2008
|contents = SPAM Chainletter e-mails do not spread as virally as thought
|category1 = Technology
|category2 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 19
|date = May 11 2008
|contents = The Science of Science Fiction Movies
|category1 = Entertainment
|category2 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 18
|date = May 4 2008
|contents = Man Regenerates Finger - Bad Science News Reporting
|category1 = Science & the Media
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 17
|date = Apr 27 2008
|contents = T-Rex proteins closely related to chickens
|category1 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 16
|date = Apr 20 2008
|contents = Surgery under hypnosis
|category1 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = incomplete
|episode = 15
|date = Apr 13 2008
|contents = Examining a fossilized snake - with legs
|category1 = Nature & Evolution
|category2 = Creationism & ID
|category3 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 14
|date = Apr 6 2008
|contents = Nomophobia - the fear of being out of cell phone range
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Technology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 13
|date = Mar 30 2008
|contents = Man convicted of molestation claims he was raped by Bigfoot
|category1 = Cryptozoology
|category2 = Legal Issues & Regulations
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 12
|date = Mar 23 2008
|contents = Faith-healing cult leads to child death from medical neglect
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Energy Healing
|category3 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 11
|date = Mar 16 2008
|contents = Art project to give the city of Portland, Oregon acupuncture
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Energy Healing
|category3 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 10
|status = verified
|date = Mar 9 2008
|contents = Steven Spielberg to create new paranormal online community
|category1 = Paranormal
|category2 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 9
|status = verified
|date = Mar 2 2008
|contents = An Emmy award winning actress and her 911 conspiracy theory
|category1 = Conspiracy Theories
|category2 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 8
|status = verified
|date = Feb 23 2008
|contents = Cryptozoology - Hunting for the Thunderbird
|category1 = Cryptozoology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 7
|status = verified
|date = Feb 17 2008
|contents = Proposed center for exorcism in Poland
|category1 = Ghosts & Demons
|category2 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 6
|status = verified
|date = Feb 11 2008
|contents = Dr. Harris's Pain Relief Snake Oil Infomercial
|category1 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
|category2 = Alternative Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 5
|date = Feb 3 2008
|contents = Pope Benedict XVI takes on science
|category1 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 4
|date = Jan 28 2008
|contents = Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Paranormal
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 3
|date = Jan 21 2008
|contents = Multilevel Marketing and Pyramid Schemes
|category1 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 2
|date = Jan 13 2008
|contents = Ghost Photographs
|category1 = Paranormal
|category2 = Ghosts & Demons
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 1
|date = Jan 6 2008
|contents = The National Health Service of the UK plans to regulate alternative medicine
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Pseudoscience
}}
|}

5X5 Episode 57

2013-01-09T01:57:15Z

Lvovo: Transcript added

{{5X5 editing required
|proof-reading =y
|formatting =y
|}}
{{Template:5X5 infobox
|episodeID =5X5 Episode 57
|Contents =Moving the Goalpost
|episodeDate =10th February 2009
|rebecca =y
|jay =y
|bob =y
|evan =y

|downloadLink =http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52009-02-10.mp3
|notesLink =http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=57
|forumLink =http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,18271.0.html
|}}
== Skepticism 101 - Moving the Goalpost ==

{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and our continuing series on Skepticism 101 and this time we are gonna  the logical fallacy of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts moving the goalpost]. This is more of a debating tactic or a tactic of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism denialism], really, than a logical fallacy, and it involves setting a criteria by which you will accept a proposition or a claim. And then, when those criteria are met, you change the criteria to make it even more difficult. You move back the goalpost, so that the criteria can never be met. So, you're rigging the game ahead of time to achieve the denial of a conclusion, an outcome that you want ''a priori''.

R: We joke about moving the goalpost a lot when we talk about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism creationists] because they often say: "Well, just show me a fossil that's, say, halfway between a bird and a lizard," or something. And every time a fossil comes up that shows them exactly what they're looking for, they demand to see something else. And it's the joke where we say: "One fossil comes up and it creates two more [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation–evolution_controversy#Transitional_fossils gaps in the fossil record]."

S: And not just that. They also change the criteria, they move the goalpost by switching them. They say: "There is no fossil that's halfway between a bird and a reptile." Then we get [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archeopteryx Archeopteryx] and they say: "Well that's, you can't prove that that's ''actually'' an ancestor or transition between birds and reptiles. It just ''happens'' to be half-reptile and half-bird but that doesn't prove that it actually was in the process of evolving into them." So they just completely reject the criteria they gave you ahead of time and now they change it to something else entirely.

B: Moving the goalpost is also referred to as "raising the bar". And in that vein the bar can also be lowered in some cases. If someone claims, for example, that a drug can prevent colds but you get one anyway, they can respond that your cold would have been worse if you hadn't taken that drug. So it's kind of a different take on moving the goalpost — raising the bar.

J: So, the response of moving the goalpost is actually an attempt to disqualify the previous criteria.

S: Yeah, it's saying: "I don't believe your claim because this evidence doesn't exist." Then, when you produce that evidence, they say: "OK, well, you have that evidence but you don't additionally have this other evidence over ''here''." And every time you produce the evidence or meet the criteria they set, they just add more things. The point is they're never going to except your belief. Or either accept or reject the claim. They've already made up their mind and then they're backfilling in the criteria rather than establishing criteria ahead of time without knowing what the results are. And then living with the results, whatever they might be. That's the only way that honest science can proceed.

E: Can another example of moving the goalpost, Steve, be taken when, say, perhaps, you know, a person goes and has expectations of visiting, say, a psychic, or something to that effect? And, like, sit down, the psychic does the cold reading and effectively they are moving the goalpost by inferring, obviously by doing the cold reading, inferring something that will turn into a hit. And by kind of moving it from a negative and turning it into a positive. Is that another way of moving the goalpost?

S: In a broad sense, yes. In that moving the goalpost is a really just one form of having a poorly defined criteria ahead of time. So when you're doing a scientific experiment, you have to decide ahead of time what the specific outcome will be that will determine success or failure. And you can't decide afterwards if you've met the criteria or not. You can't decide what that, where the goal should be or where the demarcation line should be. Because you can always decide where to set the cutoff, based upon what happened with the psychic or based upon the data that you get with the results. So you're just deciding: do I want this study to be positive or negative? Rather than saying, from some reasonable first principles: this is where the cutoff should be, and ''then'' collecting the data and seeing, you know, letting the chips fall where they may. So the broader concept here is you have to decide ahead of time, before you know what the data is, what the criteria should be for success or failure. If you decide afterwards, you're almost always gonna move the goalpost to meet your preconceptions. And then we're just validating our preexisting beliefs, not letting the evidence dictate those beliefs. I'm gonna finish this with one more recent and very typical example. This is pure moving the goalpost. Ten years ago the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-vaccination_movement anti-vaccination movement] said that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal thimerosal] in vaccines was causing autism. By 2002 thimerosal was removed from the childhood schedule in the United States. And they all said, and are on record of saying: by 2005-2006, you know, four years after thimerosal was removed from vaccines, we will see autism rates decline. Well, they didn't decline by 2006. They said: well, it will by — they moved the goalpost — 2007, and then 2008, and now 2009 and beyond. That was almost literal example of moving the criteria back farther, and farther, and farther, when the data did not fit their preconceptions. And if you do that, you can always confirm what you want to believe. And that's not how good science works.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|Logic & Philosophy =y
}}

Template:5X5 episode list

2013-01-08T23:30:16Z

Lvovo: #57 status > incomplete

<noinclude>This template is used to display the list of 5X5 episodes on the [[Main Page]] and the [[5X5 Episodes]] page. Additions and amendments to this template will be reflected on those pages.

For help on how to add a new row, see [[Template:5X5 list entry]].
</noinclude>

{|class="wikitable sortable" style="margin: 1em 3em;"
!No.!!class="unsortable"|Date!!Status!!Contents!!Categories
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 113
|date = May 9 2012
|contents = What's the Harm?
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
|category3 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 112
|date = May 2 2012
|contents = Anecdotal Evidence
|category1 = Legal Issues & Regulations
|category2 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category3 = Neuroscience & Psychology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 111
|date = Apr 25 2012
|contents = Facilitated Communication
|category1 = Pseudoscience
|category2 = Myths & Misconceptions
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 110
|date = Apr 11 2012
|contents = Naturalistic Fallacy
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 109
|date = Apr 4 2012
|contents = Celebrity Pseudoscience
|category1 = Pseudoscience
|category2 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 108
|date = Mar 28 2012
|contents = Cancer Cure
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Conspiracy Theories
|category3 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 107
|date = Mar 21 2012
|contents = Chilean UFO
|category1 = UFOs & Aliens
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 106
|date = Mar 19 2012
|contents = Availability Heuristic
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 105
|date = Mar 7 2012
|contents = Representativeness Heuristic
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 104
|date = Feb 22 2012
|contents = WiFi
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 103
|date = Feb 15 2012
|contents = Creationism
|category1 = Creationism & ID
|category2 = Science & Education
|category3 = Legal Issues & Regulations
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 102
|date = Feb 8 2012
|contents = Biofuels
|category1 = Technology
|category2 = General Science
|category3 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 101
|date = Jan 26 2011
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Slippery Slope/Post Hoc
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 100
|date = Jan 13 2011
|contents = Testable
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 99
|date = Jan 5 2011
|contents = Graphology
|category1 = History
|category2 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 98
|date = Dec 30 2010
|contents = Harry Houdini
|category1 = History
|category2 = Paranormal
|category3 = Ghosts & Demons
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 97
|date = Dec 20 2010
|contents = Repressed Memories
|category1 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 96
|date = Nov 9 2010
|contents = Magnets
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 95
|date = Sep 21 2010
|contents = Chelation
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Alternative Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 94
|date = Sep 12 2010
|contents = Nostradamus
|category1 = Prophecy
|category2 = History
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 93
|date = Aug 13 2010
|contents = Chiropractic - Part 3
|category1 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 92
|date = Jul 28 2010
|contents = Chiropractic - Part 2
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = History
|category3 = Legal Issues & Regulations
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 91
|date = Jul 13 2010
|contents = Chiropractic - Part 1
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = History
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 90
|date = Jun 29 2010
|contents = The Unification Church
|category1 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 89
|date = Jun 14 2010
|contents = Chemtrails
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 88
|date = May 19 2010
|contents = PSI - Part 2
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 87
|date = Mar 31 2010
|contents = PSI - The Ganzfeld Experiments
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 86
|date = Feb 21 2010
|contents = Psi
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 85
|date = Feb 9 2010
|contents = Prediction
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 84
|date = Jan 25 2010
|contents = Bermuda Triangle
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 83
|date = Dec 20 2009
|contents = Irreducible Complexity
|category1 = Creationism & ID
|category2 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 82
|date = Dec 2 2009
|contents = Psychic Surgery
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 81
|date = Nov 18 2009
|contents = Naturopathy
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 80
|date = Oct 28 2009
|contents = Polygraphs
|category1 = Technology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 79
|date = Oct 14 2009
|contents = The Lunar Effect
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 78
|date = Sep 23 2009
|contents = Crop Circles
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 77
|date = Sep 9 2009
|contents = The Double-Blind Protocol in Science
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 76
|date = Aug 18 2009
|contents = The Argument from Design
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 75
|date = Aug 12 2009
|contents = The Coriolis Effect
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 74
|date = Aug 4 2009
|contents = Perpetual Motion Machines
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 73
|date = Jul 22 2009
|contents = The Age of the Earth
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 72
|date = Jul 16 2009
|contents = Randi Million Dollar Psychic Challenge and Connie Sonne
|category1 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 71
|date = Jul 8 2009
|contents = The Roswell UFO Mythology
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 70
|date = Jun 30 2009
|contents = New Element Discovered
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 69
|date = Jun 5 2009
|contents = Einstein's Eclipse and General Relativity
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 68
|date = May 22 2009
|contents = Near Death Experiences
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 67
|date = Apr 30 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Special Pleading
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 66
|date = Apr 22 2009
|contents = Plausibility in Science
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 65
|date = Apr 16 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Scientific Theory
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 64
|date = Apr 2 2009
|contents = The Clever Hans Effect
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 63
|date = Mar 25 2009
|contents = Possession and Exorcism
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 62
|date = Mar 19 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - How to Argue
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 61
|date = Mar 13 2009
|contents = Friday 13th Superstition
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 60
|date = Mar 5 2009
|contents = Cryptozoology
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 59
|date = Feb 25 2009
|contents = Sprites and other atmospheric phenomena mistaken for UFOs
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 58
|date = Feb 17 2009
|contents = The Self-Corrective Nature of Science
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = incomplete
|episode = 57
|date = Feb 10 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Moving the Goalpost
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 56
|date = Feb 4 2009
|contents = Probability
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 55
|date = Jan 28 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Poisoning the Well
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 54
|date = Jan 21 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - False Dichotomy
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 53
|status = verified
|date = Jan 13 2009
|contents = Anecdotal Evidence
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
|category3 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 52
|date = Jan 6 2009
|contents = Atlantis
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 51
|date = Dec 29 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Channeling
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 50
|date = Dec 15 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - The Argument from Ignorance
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 49
|date = Dec 8 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Argument from Authority
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 48
|date = Dec 1 2008
|contents = The 10% Brain Myth
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 47
|date = Nov 24 2008
|contents = Remote Viewing
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 46
|date = Nov 18 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Correlation and Causation
|category1 = General Science
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 45
|date = Nov 11 2008
|contents = Chi and other forms of vitalism
|category1 = Energy Healing
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 44
|date = Nov 4 2008
|contents = Homonculus-based Medical Pseudoscience
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 43
|date = Oct 29 2008
|contents = Holocaust Denial
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = History

}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 42
|status = verified
|date = Oct 22 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Confirmation Bias
|category1 = Neuroscience & Psychology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 41
|status = verified
|date = Oct 15 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 40
|date = Oct 8 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 39
|date = Aug 1 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - The Ideomotor Effect
|category1 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category2 = Paranormal
|category3 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 38
|date = Sep 24 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Pareidolia
|category1 = Nature & Evolution
|category2 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category3 = Paranormal
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 37
|date = Sep 17 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - The Scientific Method
|category1 = General Science
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = incomplete
|episode = 36
|date = Sep 10 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Cold Reading
|category1 = Paranormal
|category2 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category3 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 35
|date = Sep 3 2008
|contents = No sunspots in August - will this lead to a period of solar cooling?
|category1 =
|category2 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 34
|date = Aug 27 2008
|contents = Woman claims wires grow out of her body
|category1 =
|category2 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 33
|date = Aug 20 2008
|contents = The Shroud of Turin - Shroud scientists try to resurrect the controversy
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 32
|date = Aug 11 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Occam's Razor
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 31
|date = Aug 4 2008
|contents = Digital Homeopathy 20 years after Benveniste
|category1 = Homeopathy
|category2 = Pseudoscience
|category3 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 30
|date = Jul 29 2008
|contents = Evaluation of a UCONN study of therapeutic touch on bone cells in culture
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = New Age
|category3 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 29
|date = July 20 2008
|contents = The SGU celebrates the 39th anniversary of Apollo 11 by debunking some moon landing hoax myths, and they are joined by Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer
|category1 = Astronomy & Space Science
|category2 = Conspiracy Theories
|category3 = History
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 28
|date = July 13 2008
|contents = Exposing the logical fallacy of equating faith healing with medical care
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
|category2 = Pseudoscience
|category3 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 27
|date = July 06 2008
|contents = Cracking the Dogu Code - Ancient Astronauts
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = UFOs & Aliens
|category3 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 26
|date = June 29 2008
|contents = New study sheds light on genetic vs environmental contributions to sexuality
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 25
|date = June 22 2008
|contents = NASA Plans Probe to the Sun
|category1 = Astronomy & Space Science
|category2 = Technology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 24
|date = June 15 2008
|contents = New strategy for SETI - The Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence
|category1 = Astronomy & Space Science
|category2 = Technology
|category3 = UFOs & Aliens
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 23
|date = June 08 2008
|contents = Lame car design analogy to intelligent design from the Discovery Institute
|category1 = Creationism & ID
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
|category3 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 22
|date = June 01 2008
|contents = Researchers allow monkey to control robotic arm with its mind
|category1 = Technology
|category2 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category3 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 21
|date = May 25 2008
|contents = Family claims women miraculously brought back to life after rigor mortis
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Science & the Media
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 20
|date = May 18 2008
|contents = SPAM Chainletter e-mails do not spread as virally as thought
|category1 = Technology
|category2 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 19
|date = May 11 2008
|contents = The Science of Science Fiction Movies
|category1 = Entertainment
|category2 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 18
|date = May 4 2008
|contents = Man Regenerates Finger - Bad Science News Reporting
|category1 = Science & the Media
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 17
|date = Apr 27 2008
|contents = T-Rex proteins closely related to chickens
|category1 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 16
|date = Apr 20 2008
|contents = Surgery under hypnosis
|category1 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = incomplete
|episode = 15
|date = Apr 13 2008
|contents = Examining a fossilized snake - with legs
|category1 = Nature & Evolution
|category2 = Creationism & ID
|category3 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 14
|date = Apr 6 2008
|contents = Nomophobia - the fear of being out of cell phone range
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Technology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 13
|date = Mar 30 2008
|contents = Man convicted of molestation claims he was raped by Bigfoot
|category1 = Cryptozoology
|category2 = Legal Issues & Regulations
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 12
|date = Mar 23 2008
|contents = Faith-healing cult leads to child death from medical neglect
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Energy Healing
|category3 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 11
|date = Mar 16 2008
|contents = Art project to give the city of Portland, Oregon acupuncture
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Energy Healing
|category3 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 10
|status = verified
|date = Mar 9 2008
|contents = Steven Spielberg to create new paranormal online community
|category1 = Paranormal
|category2 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 9
|status = verified
|date = Mar 2 2008
|contents = An Emmy award winning actress and her 911 conspiracy theory
|category1 = Conspiracy Theories
|category2 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 8
|status = verified
|date = Feb 23 2008
|contents = Cryptozoology - Hunting for the Thunderbird
|category1 = Cryptozoology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 7
|status = verified
|date = Feb 17 2008
|contents = Proposed center for exorcism in Poland
|category1 = Ghosts & Demons
|category2 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 6
|status = verified
|date = Feb 11 2008
|contents = Dr. Harris's Pain Relief Snake Oil Infomercial
|category1 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
|category2 = Alternative Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 5
|date = Feb 3 2008
|contents = Pope Benedict XVI takes on science
|category1 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 4
|date = Jan 28 2008
|contents = Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Paranormal
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 3
|date = Jan 21 2008
|contents = Multilevel Marketing and Pyramid Schemes
|category1 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 2
|date = Jan 13 2008
|contents = Ghost Photographs
|category1 = Paranormal
|category2 = Ghosts & Demons
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 1
|date = Jan 6 2008
|contents = The National Health Service of the UK plans to regulate alternative medicine
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Pseudoscience
}}
|}

5X5 Episode 57

2013-01-08T22:34:12Z

Lvovo: Transcribing, skeleton

{{Template:5X5 infobox
|episodeID =5X5 Episode 57
|Contents =Moving the Goalpost
|episodeDate =10th February 2009
|rebecca =y
|jay =y
|bob =y
|evan =y
|downloadLink =http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52009-02-10.mp3
|notesLink =http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=57
|forumLink =http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,18271.0.html
|}}
== Skepticism 101 - Moving the Goalpost ==

{{transcribing all
|transcriber = Lvovo
}}

{{5x5intro}}

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|Logic & Philosophy =y
}}

5X5 Episode 42

2013-01-06T19:04:10Z

Lvovo: Infobox fail

{{5X5 editing required
|proof-reading = y 
|}}

{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 42
|Contents = Skepticism 101 - Confirmation Bias
|episodeDate = 22nd October 2008
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-10-22.mp3
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=42
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com//index.php/topic,15154.0.html
|}}
== Skepticism 101 - Confirmation Bias == 
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and our latest series of Skepticism 101. And tonight we're talking about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias confirmation bias]. Confirmation bias is an extremely common psychological phenomenon by which people will confirm beliefs that they already have. They will make observations in such a way that is in line with their existing beliefs. And they will tend to ignore or reinterpret observations that would disconfirm beliefs that they already have.

J: So, Steve, to clarify that a little bit, I would also add to it that people will bend reality so it would help them continue to believe or reaffirm something that they already believe or want to believe.

S: Yeah, in fact they'll interpret the observations they make in such a way that confirms their beliefs. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry Bigotry] is a really good example of this because it's a kind of a fixed belief that doesn't necessarily accord with reality. So, for example, people may believe about a certain nationality or racial group, let's just say, for example, that they are immoral. And then they will, every observation that they make that seems to confirm the immorality of that group they will remember, they will note it, they will interpret it as a representation of their low morality. Whereas, if they made the same observation about another group or their own group, they will interpret it differently, not as evidence for immorality. So, the interpretation of the observation derives completely from their preexisting belief in such a way as to confirm that belief.

R: Another common example is when the phone rings while you're thinking of your mother. And you pick up the phone and it is your mother. It's an easy way for you to think: "Oh, yeah, that's because of the psychic connection between my mother and I". You conveniently forget about all the times your mother called and you weren't thinking of her or all the times you were thinking of her and she didn't call

E: And you mentioned the psychic connection, Rebecca. You know, there's also a attribute to this, that those self-proclaimed psychics rely on confirmation bias in the sense that they'll do, say, a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading cold reading] for their subject or their target, which is basically a sophisticated guessing game. But they only have to be successful a couple of times during the whole course of the reading, because they're counting on the person walking away from that meeting remembering, perhaps, the one or two things that did hit. And the target totally forgets the one hundred things that were mentioned that totally missed. So, it's an important aspect of cold reading and psychics.

B: Also, since confirmation bias is obviously part of human psychology, it's obviously, then, been with us for quite a long time. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon Francis Bacon] clearly had confirmation bias in mind when he said:
<blockquote>…it is the peculiar and perpetual error of human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives…</blockquote>
In fact, many studies have shown that people generally give an inordinate amount of value to information that's positive or supportive of prior beliefs. This tendency affects memories, such that when we are searching our memories for information about a position we are more likely to recall data that confirms that position.

J: You know, we're all, including skeptics, of course, we're all very susceptible to confirmation bias. It's, this type of selective thinking goes on almost in the background and you have to force yourself to not fall for it. Because, I think, we're constantly trying to deceive ourselves and, you know, exercise confirmation bias. It's one of the hardest ones, I think, to overcome.

S: It's also extremely powerful. As you say, Jay and Bob, it's ubiquitous, everyone does it. It could be extremely subtle. It really locks us into our belief systems. It is what we call the "default mode" of human thinking. This is how our brains will tend to operate unless you really understand confirmation bias at work and make specific efforts to work against it. You guys gave a lot of great examples. There are really mundane examples, as well. My favorite one, which comes from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gilovich Gilovich], is: why do women think that men always leave the toilet seat up when men think that they always put it down.

R: And they're stupid. Both (?)

S: Men remember it when they put it down, and women only notice it and remember when they fail to leave it down. So, you can have two people, living in the same house, have completely 100% contradictory memories and beliefs about a very mundane fact: does the man put the seat down or not after using the bathroom. And that's simply confirmation bias at work.

R: And so, the way to overcome confirmation bias is, for instance, to set a camera up in your bathroom and study the results of how often the man does actually leave the toilet seat up. Because, since we're all susceptible to it, that's the nice thing about actual scientific experimentation. It's that it can overcome these very human foibles.

S: That's right. In short, science is all about controlling for these inherent and powerful biases in our observations. So, instead of just counting hits and forgetting misses, science would count everything systematically, so that you can't bias the information. This is just one of those biases that... Science, essentially, is a system designed to counteract and account for all the information systematically, so that you can not be influenced by such biases.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}
{{5X5 categories
|Neuroscience & Psychology = y
}}

5X5 Episode 42

2013-01-06T18:51:37Z

Lvovo: Category

{{5X5 editing required
|proof-reading = y 
|}}

{{Template:5X5 infobox 
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 42 
|Contents = Skepticism 101 - Confirmation Bias 
|episodeDate = 22nd October 2008 
|jay = y 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|evan = y 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-10-22.mp3 
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=42 
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com//index.php/topic,15154.0.html 
|}}
== Skepticism 101 - Confirmation Bias == 
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and our latest series of Skepticism 101. And tonight we're talking about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias confirmation bias]. Confirmation bias is an extremely common psychological phenomenon by which people will confirm beliefs that they already have. They will make observations in such a way that is in line with their existing beliefs. And they will tend to ignore or reinterpret observations that would disconfirm beliefs that they already have.

J: So, Steve, to clarify that a little bit, I would also add to it that people will bend reality so it would help them continue to believe or reaffirm something that they already believe or want to believe.

S: Yeah, in fact they'll interpret the observations they make in such a way that confirms their beliefs. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry Bigotry] is a really good example of this because it's a kind of a fixed belief that doesn't necessarily accord with reality. So, for example, people may believe about a certain nationality or racial group, let's just say, for example, that they are immoral. And then they will, every observation that they make that seems to confirm the immorality of that group they will remember, they will note it, they will interpret it as a representation of their low morality. Whereas, if they made the same observation about another group or their own group, they will interpret it differently, not as evidence for immorality. So, the interpretation of the observation derives completely from their preexisting belief in such a way as to confirm that belief.

R: Another common example is when the phone rings while you're thinking of your mother. And you pick up the phone and it is your mother. It's an easy way for you to think: "Oh, yeah, that's because of the psychic connection between my mother and I". You conveniently forget about all the times your mother called and you weren't thinking of her or all the times you were thinking of her and she didn't call

E: And you mentioned the psychic connection, Rebecca. You know, there's also a attribute to this, that those self-proclaimed psychics rely on confirmation bias in the sense that they'll do, say, a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading cold reading] for their subject or their target, which is basically a sophisticated guessing game. But they only have to be successful a couple of times during the whole course of the reading, because they're counting on the person walking away from that meeting remembering, perhaps, the one or two things that did hit. And the target totally forgets the one hundred things that were mentioned that totally missed. So, it's an important aspect of cold reading and psychics.

B: Also, since confirmation bias is obviously part of human psychology, it's obviously, then, been with us for quite a long time. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon Francis Bacon] clearly had confirmation bias in mind when he said:
<blockquote>…it is the peculiar and perpetual error of human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives…</blockquote>
In fact, many studies have shown that people generally give an inordinate amount of value to information that's positive or supportive of prior beliefs. This tendency affects memories, such that when we are searching our memories for information about a position we are more likely to recall data that confirms that position.

J: You know, we're all, including skeptics, of course, we're all very susceptible to confirmation bias. It's, this type of selective thinking goes on almost in the background and you have to force yourself to not fall for it. Because, I think, we're constantly trying to deceive ourselves and, you know, exercise confirmation bias. It's one of the hardest ones, I think, to overcome.

S: It's also extremely powerful. As you say, Jay and Bob, it's ubiquitous, everyone does it. It could be extremely subtle. It really locks us into our belief systems. It is what we call the "default mode" of human thinking. This is how our brains will tend to operate unless you really understand confirmation bias at work and make specific efforts to work against it. You guys gave a lot of great examples. There are really mundane examples, as well. My favorite one, which comes from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gilovich Gilovich], is: why do women think that men always leave the toilet seat up when men think that they always put it down.

R: And they're stupid. Both (?)

S: Men remember it when they put it down, and women only notice it and remember when they fail to leave it down. So, you can have two people, living in the same house, have completely 100% contradictory memories and beliefs about a very mundane fact: does the man put the seat down or not after using the bathroom. And that's simply confirmation bias at work.

R: And so, the way to overcome confirmation bias is, for instance, to set a camera up in your bathroom and study the results of how often the man does actually leave the toilet seat up. Because, since we're all susceptible to it, that's the nice thing about actual scientific experimentation. It's that it can overcome these very human foibles.

S: That's right. In short, science is all about controlling for these inherent and powerful biases in our observations. So, instead of just counting hits and forgetting misses, science would count everything systematically, so that you can't bias the information. This is just one of those biases that... Science, essentially, is a system designed to counteract and account for all the information systematically, so that you can not be influenced by such biases.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}
{{5X5 categories
|Neuroscience & Psychology = y
}}

5X5 Episode 42

2013-01-06T18:50:03Z

Lvovo: Edit. required & Categories added

SGUTranscripts:Community portal

2013-01-06T18:41:43Z

Lvovo: Link

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)

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)

Template:5X5 episode list

2013-01-06T18:38:11Z

Lvovo: Entry 42 complete

<noinclude>This template is used to display the list of 5X5 episodes on the [[Main Page]] and the [[5X5 Episodes]] page. Additions and amendments to this template will be reflected on those pages.

For help on how to add a new row, see [[Template:5X5 list entry]].
</noinclude>

{|class="wikitable sortable" style="margin: 1em 3em;"
!No.!!class="unsortable"|Date!!Status!!Contents!!Categories
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 113
|date = May 9 2012
|contents = What's the Harm?
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
|category3 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 112
|date = May 2 2012
|contents = Anecdotal Evidence
|category1 = Legal Issues & Regulations
|category2 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category3 = Neuroscience & Psychology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 111
|date = Apr 25 2012
|contents = Facilitated Communication
|category1 = Pseudoscience
|category2 = Myths & Misconceptions
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 110
|date = Apr 11 2012
|contents = Naturalistic Fallacy
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 109
|date = Apr 4 2012
|contents = Celebrity Pseudoscience
|category1 = Pseudoscience
|category2 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 108
|date = Mar 28 2012
|contents = Cancer Cure
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Conspiracy Theories
|category3 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 107
|date = Mar 21 2012
|contents = Chilean UFO
|category1 = UFOs & Aliens
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 106
|date = Mar 19 2012
|contents = Availability Heuristic
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 105
|date = Mar 7 2012
|contents = Representativeness Heuristic
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 104
|date = Feb 22 2012
|contents = WiFi
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 103
|date = Feb 15 2012
|contents = Creationism
|category1 = Creationism & ID
|category2 = Science & Education
|category3 = Legal Issues & Regulations
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 102
|date = Feb 8 2012
|contents = Biofuels
|category1 = Technology
|category2 = General Science
|category3 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 101
|date = Jan 26 2011
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Slippery Slope/Post Hoc
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 100
|date = Jan 13 2011
|contents = Testable
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 99
|date = Jan 5 2011
|contents = Graphology
|category1 = History
|category2 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 98
|date = Dec 30 2010
|contents = Harry Houdini
|category1 = History
|category2 = Paranormal
|category3 = Ghosts & Demons
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 97
|date = Dec 20 2010
|contents = Repressed Memories
|category1 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 96
|date = Nov 9 2010
|contents = Magnets
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 95
|date = Sep 21 2010
|contents = Chelation
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Alternative Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 94
|date = Sep 12 2010
|contents = Nostradamus
|category1 = Prophecy
|category2 = History
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 93
|date = Aug 13 2010
|contents = Chiropractic - Part 3
|category1 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 92
|date = Jul 28 2010
|contents = Chiropractic - Part 2
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = History
|category3 = Legal Issues & Regulations
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 91
|date = Jul 13 2010
|contents = Chiropractic - Part 1
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = History
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 90
|date = Jun 29 2010
|contents = The Unification Church
|category1 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 89
|date = Jun 14 2010
|contents = Chemtrails
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 88
|date = May 19 2010
|contents = PSI - Part 2
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 87
|date = Mar 31 2010
|contents = PSI - The Ganzfeld Experiments
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 86
|date = Feb 21 2010
|contents = Psi
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 85
|date = Feb 9 2010
|contents = Prediction
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 84
|date = Jan 25 2010
|contents = Bermuda Triangle
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 83
|date = Dec 20 2009
|contents = Irreducible Complexity
|category1 = Creationism & ID
|category2 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 82
|date = Dec 2 2009
|contents = Psychic Surgery
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 81
|date = Nov 18 2009
|contents = Naturopathy
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 80
|date = Oct 28 2009
|contents = Polygraphs
|category1 = Technology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 79
|date = Oct 14 2009
|contents = The Lunar Effect
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 78
|date = Sep 23 2009
|contents = Crop Circles
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 77
|date = Sep 9 2009
|contents = The Double-Blind Protocol in Science
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 76
|date = Aug 18 2009
|contents = The Argument from Design
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 75
|date = Aug 12 2009
|contents = The Coriolis Effect
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 74
|date = Aug 4 2009
|contents = Perpetual Motion Machines
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 73
|date = Jul 22 2009
|contents = The Age of the Earth
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 72
|date = Jul 16 2009
|contents = Randi Million Dollar Psychic Challenge and Connie Sonne
|category1 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 71
|date = Jul 8 2009
|contents = The Roswell UFO Mythology
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 70
|date = Jun 30 2009
|contents = New Element Discovered
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 69
|date = Jun 5 2009
|contents = Einstein's Eclipse and General Relativity
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 68
|date = May 22 2009
|contents = Near Death Experiences
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 67
|date = Apr 30 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Special Pleading
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 66
|date = Apr 22 2009
|contents = Plausibility in Science
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 65
|date = Apr 16 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Scientific Theory
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 64
|date = Apr 2 2009
|contents = The Clever Hans Effect
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 63
|date = Mar 25 2009
|contents = Possession and Exorcism
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 62
|date = Mar 19 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - How to Argue
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 61
|date = Mar 13 2009
|contents = Friday 13th Superstition
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 60
|date = Mar 5 2009
|contents = Cryptozoology
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 59
|date = Feb 25 2009
|contents = Sprites and other atmospheric phenomena mistaken for UFOs
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 58
|date = Feb 17 2009
|contents = The Self-Corrective Nature of Science
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 57
|date = Feb 10 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Moving the Goalpost
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 56
|date = Feb 4 2009
|contents = Probability
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 55
|date = Jan 28 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Poisoning the Well
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 54
|date = Jan 21 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - False Dichotomy
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 53
|status = verified
|date = Jan 13 2009
|contents = Anecdotal Evidence
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
|category3 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 52
|date = Jan 6 2009
|contents = Atlantis
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 51
|date = Dec 29 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Channeling
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 50
|date = Dec 15 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - The Argument from Ignorance
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 49
|date = Dec 8 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Argument from Authority
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 48
|date = Dec 1 2008
|contents = The 10% Brain Myth
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 47
|date = Nov 24 2008
|contents = Remote Viewing
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 46
|date = Nov 18 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Correlation and Causation
|category1 = General Science
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 45
|date = Nov 11 2008
|contents = Chi and other forms of vitalism
|category1 = Energy Healing
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 44
|date = Nov 4 2008
|contents = Homonculus-based Medical Pseudoscience
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 43
|date = Oct 29 2008
|contents = Holocaust Denial
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = History

}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 42
|date = Oct 22 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Confirmation Bias
|category1 = Neuroscience & Psychology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 41
|status = verified
|date = Oct 15 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 40
|date = Oct 8 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 39
|date = Aug 1 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - The Ideomotor Effect
|category1 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category2 = Paranormal
|category3 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 38
|date = Sep 24 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Pareidolia
|category1 = Nature & Evolution
|category2 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category3 = Paranormal
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 37
|date = Sep 17 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - The Scientific Method
|category1 = General Science
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = incomplete
|episode = 36
|date = Sep 10 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Cold Reading
|category1 = Paranormal
|category2 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category3 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 35
|date = Sep 3 2008
|contents = No sunspots in August - will this lead to a period of solar cooling?
|category1 =
|category2 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 34
|date = Aug 27 2008
|contents = Woman claims wires grow out of her body
|category1 =
|category2 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 33
|date = Aug 20 2008
|contents = The Shroud of Turin - Shroud scientists try to resurrect the controversy
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 32
|date = Aug 11 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Occam's Razor
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 31
|date = Aug 4 2008
|contents = Digital Homeopathy 20 years after Benveniste
|category1 = Homeopathy
|category2 = Pseudoscience
|category3 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 30
|date = Jul 29 2008
|contents = Evaluation of a UCONN study of therapeutic touch on bone cells in culture
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = New Age
|category3 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 29
|date = July 20 2008
|contents = The SGU celebrates the 39th anniversary of Apollo 11 by debunking some moon landing hoax myths, and they are joined by Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer
|category1 = Astronomy & Space Science
|category2 = Conspiracy Theories
|category3 = History
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 28
|date = July 13 2008
|contents = Exposing the logical fallacy of equating faith healing with medical care
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
|category2 = Pseudoscience
|category3 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 27
|date = July 06 2008
|contents = Cracking the Dogu Code - Ancient Astronauts
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = UFOs & Aliens
|category3 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 26
|date = June 29 2008
|contents = New study sheds light on genetic vs environmental contributions to sexuality
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 25
|date = June 22 2008
|contents = NASA Plans Probe to the Sun
|category1 = Astronomy & Space Science
|category2 = Technology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 24
|date = June 15 2008
|contents = New strategy for SETI - The Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence
|category1 = Astronomy & Space Science
|category2 = Technology
|category3 = UFOs & Aliens
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 23
|date = June 08 2008
|contents = Lame car design analogy to intelligent design from the Discovery Institute
|category1 = Creationism & ID
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
|category3 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 22
|date = June 01 2008
|contents = Researchers allow monkey to control robotic arm with its mind
|category1 = Technology
|category2 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category3 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 21
|date = May 25 2008
|contents = Family claims women miraculously brought back to life after rigor mortis
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Science & the Media
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 20
|date = May 18 2008
|contents = SPAM Chainletter e-mails do not spread as virally as thought
|category1 = Technology
|category2 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 19
|date = May 11 2008
|contents = The Science of Science Fiction Movies
|category1 = Entertainment
|category2 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 18
|date = May 4 2008
|contents = Man Regenerates Finger - Bad Science News Reporting
|category1 = Science & the Media
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 17
|date = Apr 27 2008
|contents = T-Rex proteins closely related to chickens
|category1 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 16
|date = Apr 20 2008
|contents = Surgery under hypnosis
|category1 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = incomplete
|episode = 15
|date = Apr 13 2008
|contents = Examining a fossilized snake - with legs
|category1 = Nature & Evolution
|category2 = Creationism & ID
|category3 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 14
|date = Apr 6 2008
|contents = Nomophobia - the fear of being out of cell phone range
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Technology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 13
|date = Mar 30 2008
|contents = Man convicted of molestation claims he was raped by Bigfoot
|category1 = Cryptozoology
|category2 = Legal Issues & Regulations
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 12
|date = Mar 23 2008
|contents = Faith-healing cult leads to child death from medical neglect
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Energy Healing
|category3 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 11
|date = Mar 16 2008
|contents = Art project to give the city of Portland, Oregon acupuncture
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Energy Healing
|category3 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 10
|status = verified
|date = Mar 9 2008
|contents = Steven Spielberg to create new paranormal online community
|category1 = Paranormal
|category2 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 9
|status = verified
|date = Mar 2 2008
|contents = An Emmy award winning actress and her 911 conspiracy theory
|category1 = Conspiracy Theories
|category2 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 8
|status = verified
|date = Feb 23 2008
|contents = Cryptozoology - Hunting for the Thunderbird
|category1 = Cryptozoology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 7
|status = verified
|date = Feb 17 2008
|contents = Proposed center for exorcism in Poland
|category1 = Ghosts & Demons
|category2 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 6
|status = verified
|date = Feb 11 2008
|contents = Dr. Harris's Pain Relief Snake Oil Infomercial
|category1 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
|category2 = Alternative Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 5
|date = Feb 3 2008
|contents = Pope Benedict XVI takes on science
|category1 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 4
|date = Jan 28 2008
|contents = Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Paranormal
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 3
|date = Jan 21 2008
|contents = Multilevel Marketing and Pyramid Schemes
|category1 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 2
|date = Jan 13 2008
|contents = Ghost Photographs
|category1 = Paranormal
|category2 = Ghosts & Demons
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 1
|date = Jan 6 2008
|contents = The National Health Service of the UK plans to regulate alternative medicine
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Pseudoscience
}}
|}

SGUTranscripts:Community portal

2013-01-06T18:35:37Z

Lvovo: New episode

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)

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)

5X5 Episode 42

2013-01-06T18:28:53Z

Lvovo: Foibles :/

{{Template:5X5 infobox 
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 42 
|Contents = Skepticism 101 - Confirmation Bias 
|episodeDate = 22nd October 2008 
|jay = y 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|evan = y 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-10-22.mp3 
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=42 
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com//index.php/topic,15154.0.html 
|}}
== Skepticism 101 - Confirmation Bias == 
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and our latest series of Skepticism 101. And tonight we're talking about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias confirmation bias]. Confirmation bias is an extremely common psychological phenomenon by which people will confirm beliefs that they already have. They will make observations in such a way that is in line with their existing beliefs. And they will tend to ignore or reinterpret observations that would disconfirm beliefs that they already have.

J: So, Steve, to clarify that a little bit, I would also add to it that people will bend reality so it would help them continue to believe or reaffirm something that they already believe or want to believe.

S: Yeah, in fact they'll interpret the observations they make in such a way that confirms their beliefs. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry Bigotry] is a really good example of this because it's a kind of a fixed belief that doesn't necessarily accord with reality. So, for example, people may believe about a certain nationality or racial group, let's just say, for example, that they are immoral. And then they will, every observation that they make that seems to confirm the immorality of that group they will remember, they will note it, they will interpret it as a representation of their low morality. Whereas, if they made the same observation about another group or their own group, they will interpret it differently, not as evidence for immorality. So, the interpretation of the observation derives completely from their preexisting belief in such a way as to confirm that belief.

R: Another common example is when the phone rings while you're thinking of your mother. And you pick up the phone and it is your mother. It's an easy way for you to think: "Oh, yeah, that's because of the psychic connection between my mother and I". You conveniently forget about all the times your mother called and you weren't thinking of her or all the times you were thinking of her and she didn't call

E: And you mentioned the psychic connection, Rebecca. You know, there's also a attribute to this, that those self-proclaimed psychics rely on confirmation bias in the sense that they'll do, say, a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading cold reading] for their subject or their target, which is basically a sophisticated guessing game. But they only have to be successful a couple of times during the whole course of the reading, because they're counting on the person walking away from that meeting remembering, perhaps, the one or two things that did hit. And the target totally forgets the one hundred things that were mentioned that totally missed. So, it's an important aspect of cold reading and psychics.

B: Also, since confirmation bias is obviously part of human psychology, it's obviously, then, been with us for quite a long time. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon Francis Bacon] clearly had confirmation bias in mind when he said:
<blockquote>…it is the peculiar and perpetual error of human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives…</blockquote>
In fact, many studies have shown that people generally give an inordinate amount of value to information that's positive or supportive of prior beliefs. This tendency affects memories, such that when we are searching our memories for information about a position we are more likely to recall data that confirms that position.

J: You know, we're all, including skeptics, of course, we're all very susceptible to confirmation bias. It's, this type of selective thinking goes on almost in the background and you have to force yourself to not fall for it. Because, I think, we're constantly trying to deceive ourselves and, you know, exercise confirmation bias. It's one of the hardest ones, I think, to overcome.

S: It's also extremely powerful. As you say, Jay and Bob, it's ubiquitous, everyone does it. It could be extremely subtle. It really locks us into our belief systems. It is what we call the "default mode" of human thinking. This is how our brains will tend to operate unless you really understand confirmation bias at work and make specific efforts to work against it. You guys gave a lot of great examples. There are really mundane examples, as well. My favorite one, which comes from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gilovich Gilovich], is: why do women think that men always leave the toilet seat up when men think that they always put it down.

R: And they're stupid. Both (?)

S: Men remember it when they put it down, and women only notice it and remember when they fail to leave it down. So, you can have two people, living in the same house, have completely 100% contradictory memories and beliefs about a very mundane fact: does the man put the seat down or not after using the bathroom. And that's simply confirmation bias at work.

R: And so, the way to overcome confirmation bias is, for instance, to set a camera up in your bathroom and study the results of how often the man does actually leave the toilet seat up. Because, since we're all susceptible to it, that's the nice thing about actual scientific experimentation. It's that it can overcome these very human foibles.

S: That's right. In short, science is all about controlling for these inherent and powerful biases in our observations. So, instead of just counting hits and forgetting misses, science would count everything systematically, so that you can't bias the information. This is just one of those biases that... Science, essentially, is a system designed to counteract and account for all the information systematically, so that you can not be influenced by such biases.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|Neuroscience & Psychology = y
}}

5X5 Episode 42

2013-01-06T18:23:50Z

Lvovo: Added transcription

{{Template:5X5 infobox 
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 42 
|Contents = Skepticism 101 - Confirmation Bias 
|episodeDate = 22nd October 2008 
|jay = y 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|evan = y 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-10-22.mp3 
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=42 
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com//index.php/topic,15154.0.html 
|}}
== Skepticism 101 - Confirmation Bias == 
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and our latest series of Skepticism 101. And tonight we're talking about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias confirmation bias]. Confirmation bias is an extremely common psychological phenomenon by which people will confirm beliefs that they already have. They will make observations in such a way that is in line with their existing beliefs. And they will tend to ignore or reinterpret observations that would disconfirm beliefs that they already have.

J: So, Steve, to clarify that a little bit, I would also add to it that people will bend reality so it would help them continue to believe or reaffirm something that they already believe or want to believe.

S: Yeah, in fact they'll interpret the observations they make in such a way that confirms their beliefs. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry Bigotry] is a really good example of this because it's a kind of a fixed belief that doesn't necessarily accord with reality. So, for example, people may believe about a certain nationality or racial group, let's just say, for example, that they are immoral. And then they will, every observation that they make that seems to confirm the immorality of that group they will remember, they will note it, they will interpret it as a representation of their low morality. Whereas, if they made the same observation about another group or their own group, they will interpret it differently, not as evidence for immorality. So, the interpretation of the observation derives completely from their preexisting belief in such a way as to confirm that belief.

R: Another common example is when the phone rings while you're thinking of your mother. And you pick up the phone and it is your mother. It's an easy way for you to think: "Oh, yeah, that's because of the psychic connection between my mother and I". You conveniently forget about all the times your mother called and you weren't thinking of her or all the times you were thinking of her and she didn't call

E: And you mentioned the psychic connection, Rebecca. You know, there's also a attribute to this, that those self-proclaimed psychics rely on confirmation bias in the sense that they'll do, say, a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading cold reading] for their subject or their target, which is basically a sophisticated guessing game. But they only have to be successful a couple of times during the whole course of the reading, because they're counting on the person walking away from that meeting remembering, perhaps, the one or two things that did hit. And the target totally forgets the one hundred things that were mentioned that totally missed. So, it's an important aspect of cold reading and psychics.

B: Also, since confirmation bias is obviously part of human psychology, it's obviously, then, been with us for quite a long time. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon Francis Bacon] clearly had confirmation bias in mind when he said:
<blockquote>…it is the peculiar and perpetual error of human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives…</blockquote>
In fact, many studies have shown that people generally give an inordinate amount of value to information that's positive or supportive of prior beliefs. This tendency affects memories, such that when we are searching our memories for information about a position we are more likely to recall data that confirms that position.

J: You know, we're all, including skeptics, of course, we're all very susceptible to confirmation bias. It's, this type of selective thinking goes on almost in the background and you have to force yourself to not fall for it. Because, I think, we're constantly trying to deceive ourselves and, you know, exercise confirmation bias. It's one of the hardest ones, I think, to overcome.

S: It's also extremely powerful. As you say, Jay and Bob, it's ubiquitous, everyone does it. It could be extremely subtle. It really locks us into our belief systems. It is what we call the "default mode" of human thinking. This is how our brains will tend to operate unless you really understand confirmation bias at work and make specific efforts to work against it. You guys gave a lot of great examples. There are really mundane examples, as well. My favorite one, which comes from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gilovich Gilovich], is: why do women think that men always leave the toilet seat up when men think that they always put it down.

R: And they're stupid. Both (?)

S: Men remember it when they put it down, and women only notice it and remember when they fail to leave it down. So, you can have two people, living in the same house, have completely 100% contradictory memories and beliefs about a very mundane fact: does the man put the seat down or not after using the bathroom. And that's simply confirmation bias at work.

R: And so, the way to overcome confirmation bias is, for instance, to set a camera up in your bathroom and study the results of how often the man does actually leave the toilet seat up. Because, since we're all susceptible to it, that's the nice thing about actual scientific experimentation. It's that it can overcome these very human foliables.

S: That's right. In short, science is all about controlling for these inherent and powerful biases in our observations. So, instead of just counting hits and forgetting misses, science would count everything systematically, so that you can't bias the information. This is just one of those biases that... Science, essentially, is a system designed to counteract and account for all the information systematically, so that you can not be influenced by such biases.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|Neuroscience & Psychology = y
}}

5X5 Episode 42

2013-01-06T15:38:35Z

Lvovo: Transcribing + skeleton

{{transcribing all
|transcriber = Lvovo
}}
{{Template:5X5 infobox 
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 42 
|Contents = Skepticism 101 - Confirmation Bias 
|episodeDate = 22nd October 2008 
|jay = y 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|evan = y 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-10-22.mp3 
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=42 
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com//index.php/topic,15154.0.html 
|}}
== Skepticism 101 - Confirmation Bias == 
{{5x5intro}}

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|Neuroscience & Psychology = y
}}

Template:5X5 episode list

2013-01-06T15:14:32Z

Lvovo: Status changed in entry 42

Template:5X5 episode list

2013-01-06T14:08:57Z

Lvovo: Edited entries 37 & 41

<noinclude>This template is used to display the list of 5X5 episodes on the [[Main Page]] and the [[5X5 Episodes]] page. Additions and amendments to this template will be reflected on those pages.

For help on how to add a new row, see [[Template:5X5 list entry]].
</noinclude>

{|class="wikitable sortable" style="margin: 1em 3em;"
!No.!!class="unsortable"|Date!!Status!!Contents!!Categories
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 113
|date = May 9 2012
|contents = What's the Harm?
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
|category3 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 112
|date = May 2 2012
|contents = Anecdotal Evidence
|category1 = Legal Issues & Regulations
|category2 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category3 = Neuroscience & Psychology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 111
|date = Apr 25 2012
|contents = Facilitated Communication
|category1 = Pseudoscience
|category2 = Myths & Misconceptions
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 110
|date = Apr 11 2012
|contents = Naturalistic Fallacy
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 109
|date = Apr 4 2012
|contents = Celebrity Pseudoscience
|category1 = Pseudoscience
|category2 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 108
|date = Mar 28 2012
|contents = Cancer Cure
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Conspiracy Theories
|category3 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 107
|date = Mar 21 2012
|contents = Chilean UFO
|category1 = UFOs & Aliens
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 106
|date = Mar 19 2012
|contents = Availability Heuristic
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 105
|date = Mar 7 2012
|contents = Representativeness Heuristic
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 104
|date = Feb 22 2012
|contents = WiFi
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 103
|date = Feb 15 2012
|contents = Creationism
|category1 = Creationism & ID
|category2 = Science & Education
|category3 = Legal Issues & Regulations
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 102
|date = Feb 8 2012
|contents = Biofuels
|category1 = Technology
|category2 = General Science
|category3 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 101
|date = Jan 26 2011
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Slippery Slope/Post Hoc
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 100
|date = Jan 13 2011
|contents = Testable
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 99
|date = Jan 5 2011
|contents = Graphology
|category1 = History
|category2 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 98
|date = Dec 30 2010
|contents = Harry Houdini
|category1 = History
|category2 = Paranormal
|category3 = Ghosts & Demons
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 97
|date = Dec 20 2010
|contents = Repressed Memories
|category1 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 96
|date = Nov 9 2010
|contents = Magnets
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 95
|date = Sep 21 2010
|contents = Chelation
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Alternative Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 94
|date = Sep 12 2010
|contents = Nostradamus
|category1 = Prophecy
|category2 = History
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 93
|date = Aug 13 2010
|contents = Chiropractic - Part 3
|category1 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 92
|date = Jul 28 2010
|contents = Chiropractic - Part 2
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = History
|category3 = Legal Issues & Regulations
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 91
|date = Jul 13 2010
|contents = Chiropractic - Part 1
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = History
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 90
|date = Jun 29 2010
|contents = The Unification Church
|category1 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 89
|date = Jun 14 2010
|contents = Chemtrails
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 88
|date = May 19 2010
|contents = PSI - Part 2
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 87
|date = Mar 31 2010
|contents = PSI - The Ganzfeld Experiments
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 86
|date = Feb 21 2010
|contents = Psi
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 85
|date = Feb 9 2010
|contents = Prediction
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 84
|date = Jan 25 2010
|contents = Bermuda Triangle
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 83
|date = Dec 20 2009
|contents = Irreducible Complexity
|category1 = Creationism & ID
|category2 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 82
|date = Dec 2 2009
|contents = Psychic Surgery
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 81
|date = Nov 18 2009
|contents = Naturopathy
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 80
|date = Oct 28 2009
|contents = Polygraphs
|category1 = Technology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 79
|date = Oct 14 2009
|contents = The Lunar Effect
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 78
|date = Sep 23 2009
|contents = Crop Circles
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 77
|date = Sep 9 2009
|contents = The Double-Blind Protocol in Science
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 76
|date = Aug 18 2009
|contents = The Argument from Design
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 75
|date = Aug 12 2009
|contents = The Coriolis Effect
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 74
|date = Aug 4 2009
|contents = Perpetual Motion Machines
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 73
|date = Jul 22 2009
|contents = The Age of the Earth
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 72
|date = Jul 16 2009
|contents = Randi Million Dollar Psychic Challenge and Connie Sonne
|category1 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 71
|date = Jul 8 2009
|contents = The Roswell UFO Mythology
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 70
|date = Jun 30 2009
|contents = New Element Discovered
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 69
|date = Jun 5 2009
|contents = Einstein's Eclipse and General Relativity
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 68
|date = May 22 2009
|contents = Near Death Experiences
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 67
|date = Apr 30 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Special Pleading
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 66
|date = Apr 22 2009
|contents = Plausibility in Science
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 65
|date = Apr 16 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Scientific Theory
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 64
|date = Apr 2 2009
|contents = The Clever Hans Effect
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 63
|date = Mar 25 2009
|contents = Possession and Exorcism
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 62
|date = Mar 19 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - How to Argue
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 61
|date = Mar 13 2009
|contents = Friday 13th Superstition
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 60
|date = Mar 5 2009
|contents = Cryptozoology
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 59
|date = Feb 25 2009
|contents = Sprites and other atmospheric phenomena mistaken for UFOs
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 58
|date = Feb 17 2009
|contents = The Self-Corrective Nature of Science
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 57
|date = Feb 10 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Moving the Goalpost
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 56
|date = Feb 4 2009
|contents = Probability
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 55
|date = Jan 28 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Poisoning the Well
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 54
|date = Jan 21 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - False Dichotomy
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 53
|status = verified
|date = Jan 13 2009
|contents = Anecdotal Evidence
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
|category3 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 52
|date = Jan 6 2009
|contents = Atlantis
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 51
|date = Dec 29 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Channeling
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 50
|date = Dec 15 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - The Argument from Ignorance
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 49
|date = Dec 8 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Argument from Authority
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 48
|date = Dec 1 2008
|contents = The 10% Brain Myth
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 47
|date = Nov 24 2008
|contents = Remote Viewing
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 46
|date = Nov 18 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Correlation and Causation
|category1 = General Science
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 45
|date = Nov 11 2008
|contents = Chi and other forms of vitalism
|category1 = Energy Healing
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 44
|date = Nov 4 2008
|contents = Homonculus-based Medical Pseudoscience
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 43
|date = Oct 29 2008
|contents = Holocaust Denial
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = History

}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 42
|date = Oct 22 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Confirmation Bias
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 41
|date = Oct 15 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 40
|date = Oct 8 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 39
|date = Aug 1 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - The Ideomotor Effect
|category1 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category2 = Paranormal
|category3 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 38
|date = Sep 24 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Pareidolia
|category1 = Nature & Evolution
|category2 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category3 = Paranormal
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 37
|date = Sep 17 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - The Scientific Method
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = incomplete
|episode = 36
|date = Sep 10 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Cold Reading
|category1 = Paranormal
|category2 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category3 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 35
|date = Sep 3 2008
|contents = No sunspots in August - will this lead to a period of solar cooling?
|category1 =
|category2 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 34
|date = Aug 27 2008
|contents = Woman claims wires grow out of her body
|category1 =
|category2 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 33
|date = Aug 20 2008
|contents = The Shroud of Turin - Shroud scientists try to resurrect the controversy
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 32
|date = Aug 11 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Occam's Razor
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 31
|date = Aug 4 2008
|contents = Digital Homeopathy 20 years after Benveniste
|category1 = Homeopathy
|category2 = Pseudoscience
|category3 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 30
|date = Jul 29 2008
|contents = Evaluation of a UCONN study of therapeutic touch on bone cells in culture
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = New Age
|category3 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 29
|date = July 20 2008
|contents = The SGU celebrates the 39th anniversary of Apollo 11 by debunking some moon landing hoax myths, and they are joined by Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer
|category1 = Astronomy & Space Science
|category2 = Conspiracy Theories
|category3 = History
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 28
|date = July 13 2008
|contents = Exposing the logical fallacy of equating faith healing with medical care
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
|category2 = Pseudoscience
|category3 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 27
|date = July 06 2008
|contents = Cracking the Dogu Code - Ancient Astronauts
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = UFOs & Aliens
|category3 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 26
|date = June 29 2008
|contents = New study sheds light on genetic vs environmental contributions to sexuality
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 25
|date = June 22 2008
|contents = NASA Plans Probe to the Sun
|category1 = Astronomy & Space Science
|category2 = Technology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 24
|date = June 15 2008
|contents = New strategy for SETI - The Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence
|category1 = Astronomy & Space Science
|category2 = Technology
|category3 = UFOs & Aliens
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 23
|date = June 08 2008
|contents = Lame car design analogy to intelligent design from the Discovery Institute
|category1 = Creationism & ID
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
|category3 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 22
|date = June 01 2008
|contents = Researchers allow monkey to control robotic arm with its mind
|category1 = Technology
|category2 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category3 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 21
|date = May 25 2008
|contents = Family claims women miraculously brought back to life after rigor mortis
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Science & the Media
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 20
|date = May 18 2008
|contents = SPAM Chainletter e-mails do not spread as virally as thought
|category1 = Technology
|category2 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 19
|date = May 11 2008
|contents = The Science of Science Fiction Movies
|category1 = Entertainment
|category2 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 18
|date = May 4 2008
|contents = Man Regenerates Finger - Bad Science News Reporting
|category1 = Science & the Media
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 17
|date = Apr 27 2008
|contents = T-Rex proteins closely related to chickens
|category1 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 16
|date = Apr 20 2008
|contents = Surgery under hypnosis
|category1 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = incomplete
|episode = 15
|date = Apr 13 2008
|contents = Examining a fossilized snake - with legs
|category1 = Nature & Evolution
|category2 = Creationism & ID
|category3 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 14
|date = Apr 6 2008
|contents = Nomophobia - the fear of being out of cell phone range
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Technology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 13
|date = Mar 30 2008
|contents = Man convicted of molestation claims he was raped by Bigfoot
|category1 = Cryptozoology
|category2 = Legal Issues & Regulations
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 12
|date = Mar 23 2008
|contents = Faith-healing cult leads to child death from medical neglect
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Energy Healing
|category3 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 11
|date = Mar 16 2008
|contents = Art project to give the city of Portland, Oregon acupuncture
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Energy Healing
|category3 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 10
|status = verified
|date = Mar 9 2008
|contents = Steven Spielberg to create new paranormal online community
|category1 = Paranormal
|category2 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 9
|status = verified
|date = Mar 2 2008
|contents = An Emmy award winning actress and her 911 conspiracy theory
|category1 = Conspiracy Theories
|category2 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 8
|status = verified
|date = Feb 23 2008
|contents = Cryptozoology - Hunting for the Thunderbird
|category1 = Cryptozoology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 7
|status = verified
|date = Feb 17 2008
|contents = Proposed center for exorcism in Poland
|category1 = Ghosts & Demons
|category2 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 6
|status = verified
|date = Feb 11 2008
|contents = Dr. Harris's Pain Relief Snake Oil Infomercial
|category1 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
|category2 = Alternative Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 5
|date = Feb 3 2008
|contents = Pope Benedict XVI takes on science
|category1 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 4
|date = Jan 28 2008
|contents = Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Paranormal
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 3
|date = Jan 21 2008
|contents = Multilevel Marketing and Pyramid Schemes
|category1 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 2
|date = Jan 13 2008
|contents = Ghost Photographs
|category1 = Paranormal
|category2 = Ghosts & Demons
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 1
|date = Jan 6 2008
|contents = The National Health Service of the UK plans to regulate alternative medicine
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Pseudoscience
}}
|}

5X5 Episode 37

2013-01-06T13:59:15Z

Lvovo: Deleted editing required

{{Template:5X5 infobox 
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 37 
|verified = y
|Contents = The Scientific Method 
|episodeDate = 17th September 2008 
|jay = y 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|evan = y 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-09-17.mp3 
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=37 
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,14167.0.html 
|}}
== Skepticism 101 - The Scientific Method == 
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and our continuing series on Skepticism 101. And tonight we're talking about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method the scientific method]. We certainly talk about it a lot but what exactly is it? Well, first off, it's not a single method. It describes everything that occurs in scientific investigation and exploration. And, I think, for me always the absolute heart of it is hypothesis testing. You have to use some methodology in order to test a hypothesis that can be falsified. If you're doing that, in a systematic way, then you're doing science.

J: And, Steve, the key thing that you just said is that it can be falsified, meaning that you can, with almost certainty, know whether it's true or not true.

S: Well, you can never know for certain that something is true. You can never prove that something is true, scientifically. You can only prove that something ''isn't'' true. We say that a hypothesis is ''probably'' true if it survives all attempts to falsify it. You can only say it's survived falsification. That never, ever gets to the point of saying that it's a 100% true.

J: And that hypothesis is actually making predictions, correct?

S: It has to make predictions that can actually, some way, be put to the test.

B: That's a common misconception. People, a lot of people, think that science, the goal of science, is 100% truth. But in that sense it's like the speed of light. You only can approach it but you can never hit it.

S: That's right.

R: And, you know, a lot of people think that the scientific method is just for science fair projects or scientists working in a lab somewhere. But you actually use the scientific method in your everyday life, you just might not realize it. It's just a simple matter of developing a hypothesis, testing it. You could use it to find your keys. You lose you keys, you don't go to the psychic, you develop a hypothesis: "I think maybe my keys may be in the couch". You test that hypothesis, you search the couch. And you go from there. So I think a lot of people are kind of, not necessarily scared of the scientific method, but they don't understand exactly how it applies to everyday life.

S: Yeah, certainly, I use it every day in medical diagnosis, a detective would use that in terms of investigating a crime or a situation. Again, it's making a hypothesis that makes a prediction, testing those predictions. One other misconception that often artificially narrows what is science in the minds of some people is that testing a hypothesis has to be done by doing an experiment in a lab. But that's only one way to test a hypothesis. You can also test it by just simply making an observation. For example, historical sciences like paleontology. You know, you can't run evolution in a lab, usually. Actually, you can, but, like the bacterial experiments. But for a lot of, in terms of, like, what evolved from what, what happened in the past, you can't re-run evolutionary past in the lab. So you will make predictions about, for example, what kind of fossils you should find where. If you go out and look in this strata, what kind of fossils will you find there? That's testing a hypothesis, too. So it doesn't have to be test tubes in a lab. That is often a misconception that is used by denialists who want to say that historical sciences aren't real science 'cause they don't do experiments in a lab. But that misunderstands what really constitutes the scientific method.

J: Steve, a couple more things I think we should mention. One is that the scientific method is also a cyclical process. In other words, you come up with a hypothesis, you develop experiments to help you realize if that hypothesis has any truth to it and then you alter your experiments or alter your hypothesis, come back through, do another round of experiments and keep doing it until you, you know, fine-tune it. And then, when you're done with that, when you've actually come up with something worthwhile, then you really do need to publish that and get peer review on it. And then that could bring you right back to the beginning again.

B: And Jay, that's actually a key point that I wanted to mention, that a lot of people leave out, is to actually communicate your results. I mean, not specifically for peer review to refine and challenge your conclusions but just to communicate it, so that other scientists can build on what you've done. 'Cause so much of science is this building process, which kind of relates to the statement of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants standing on the shoulders of giants]. You know, when you communicate it properly, not only do people become aware of it but then it could advance in many ways that you never would've thought of.

S: And, that's right, it is an endless process of refining and altering hypotheses and theories to adjust for evidence and experiment and observation. And then trying to make new predictions based upon that, and then testing those, and then further refining it, et cetera, et cetera, until you slowly, slowly, slowly, as Bob said, get closer and closer to a model of how the universe works, that successfully makes predictions. That's not the same thing as metaphysical truth or certitude. It's just a scientific model that can predict stuff. And that prediction, predicting ''future'' information, is the absolute key. Explaining stuff that you already know is not the process of science. That may be a way of generating a hypothesis but it's not a way of testing a hypothesis. In order to test a hypothesis you have to predict new information you don't have yet. That's also a very common mistake that's made that leads to pseudoscientific behavior.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|General Science = y
}}

5X5 Episode 41

2013-01-06T13:57:28Z

Lvovo: Deleted formatting required

{{Editing required
|proof-reading = y
|}}

{{Template:5X5 infobox 
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 41 
|Contents = Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument 
|episodeDate = 15th October 2008 
|jay = y 
|bob = y 
|evan = y 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-10-15.mp3 
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=41 
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com//index.php/topic,14920.0.htm 
|}}
== Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument == 
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and tonight we're talking about logical [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies fallacies]. This will be the first in a series of 5x5s discussing different logical fallacies. But first a quick background. This refers to the making of a valid or sound [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument argument]. A sound argument is one in which the premises are true and the logic is valid. Arguments can be broken down into: premises -- premises are facts upon which the argument is based; a conclusion -- that's what you're trying to get to; and then a logical connection -- the thing that connects the premises to the conclusion. In order for an argument to be sound the premises must be true and the logic must be valid. If the logic is not valid we call it a logical fallacy. There are many, many different types of logical fallacies. It is worthwhile being familiar with them. If you are not familiar with these logical fallacies, then you are liable to commit them yourself. 
We're gonna start by talking about a very common logical fallacy called the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man straw man argument]. In essence, a straw man argument is when someone argues against either an exaggerated or caricatured version of their opponent's belief or position. Essentially, they manufacture or make up a position that is easier to attack. And then they attack that position that they made up rather than the actual position held by the other side.

E: And this was derived by the military in their combat training. So, what they would do is they would make their enemy as a scarecrow, a manlike figure stuffed and made of straw. Since it's immobile and can't fight back, it's not very realistic. It's very easy to set down, to pierce your bayonet through, and to do your military practicing against. But it's not a real fight, it's not a real competitor. It's just something you set up, so it's easy to knock down.

S: There are many examples of straw man arguments. We encounter them all the time. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism Creationists], who are encyclopedias of logical fallacies, frequently use a number of them. The infamous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocoduck crocoduck], put forward by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Comfort Ray Comfort] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_Cameron Kirk Cameron], the half-crocodile, half-duck that they say should exist if evolution were true, or at least weird hybrid creatures like it should exist, is a straw man argument. Because evolutionists do not believe that bizarre half-crocodile or half-duck or similar type of animals needs to exist in order for evolution to be true, or ever did exist. It is quite an absurd straw man argument.

B: It's important to point out that the straw man logical fallacy is unlike many other logical fallacies in that people don't always just slip into them unintentionally. It's an ancient debating technique that people use as a deliberate tactic for scoring points in debates. The other side of that coin is for those that unintentionally commit this fallacy often it stems from their sloppy understanding of their opponent's argument. Often they're arguing against their own misconceptions.

J: You know, I would actually think that that is probably more common than it being done solely deliberately. You know, I find in the blogosphere that, you know, you read back and forth, it's very common to find people misquoting or not truly understanding what it is that their opponent is talking about.

S: That's right. That derives usually from a deliberate attempt to mischaracterize your opponent's views, specifically so that they would be easy to knock down. Or often I think that straw man arguments are made by those who don't understand their opponent's position. So they are being intellectually lazy or sloppy or they simply do not understand the other view. So it is always a very good idea to make a concerted effort to really fully understand the opposite opinion from what you hold, your opponent's viewpoint. If you are simply arguing against a caricature or straw man of that argument that may be why you disagree. Because you don't really understand what their position is in the first place.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|Logic & Philosophy = y
}}

SGUTranscripts:Community portal

2013-01-06T13:28:29Z

Lvovo: Thanks and new transcript

5X5 Episode 41

2013-01-05T23:50:13Z

Lvovo: Links added

{{Editing required
|proof-reading = y
|formatting = y
|}}

{{Template:5X5 infobox 
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 41 
|Contents = Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument 
|episodeDate = 15th October 2008 
|jay = y 
|bob = y 
|evan = y 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-10-15.mp3 
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=41 
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com//index.php/topic,14920.0.htm 
|}}
== Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument == 
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and tonight we're talking about logical [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies fallacies]. This will be the first in a series of 5x5s discussing different logical fallacies. But first a quick background. This refers to the making of a valid or sound [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument argument]. A sound argument is one in which the premises are true and the logic is valid. Arguments can be broken down into: premises -- premises are facts upon which the argument is based; a conclusion -- that's what you're trying to get to; and then a logical connection -- the thing that connects the premises to the conclusion. In order for an argument to be sound the premises must be true and the logic must be valid. If the logic is not valid we call it a logical fallacy. There are many, many different types of logical fallacies. It is worthwhile being familiar with them. If you are not familiar with these logical fallacies, then you are liable to commit them yourself. 
We're gonna start by talking about a very common logical fallacy called the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man straw man argument]. In essence, a straw man argument is when someone argues against either an exaggerated or caricatured version of their opponent's belief or position. Essentially, they manufacture or make up a position that is easier to attack. And then they attack that position that they made up rather than the actual position held by the other side.

E: And this was derived by the military in their combat training. So, what they would do is they would make their enemy as a scarecrow, a manlike figure stuffed and made of straw. Since it's immobile and can't fight back, it's not very realistic. It's very easy to set down, to pierce your bayonet through, and to do your military practicing against. But it's not a real fight, it's not a real competitor. It's just something you set up, so it's easy to knock down.

S: There are many examples of straw man arguments. We encounter them all the time. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism Creationists], who are encyclopedias of logical fallacies, frequently use a number of them. The infamous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocoduck crocoduck], put forward by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Comfort Ray Comfort] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_Cameron Kirk Cameron], the half-crocodile, half-duck that they say should exist if evolution were true, or at least weird hybrid creatures like it should exist, is a straw man argument. Because evolutionists do not believe that bizarre half-crocodile or half-duck or similar type of animals needs to exist in order for evolution to be true, or ever did exist. It is quite an absurd straw man argument.

B: It's important to point out that the straw man logical fallacy is unlike many other logical fallacies in that people don't always just slip into them unintentionally. It's an ancient debating technique that people use as a deliberate tactic for scoring points in debates. The other side of that coin is for those that unintentionally commit this fallacy often it stems from their sloppy understanding of their opponent's argument. Often they're arguing against their own misconceptions.

J: You know, I would actually think that that is probably more common than it being done solely deliberately. You know, I find in the blogosphere that, you know, you read back and forth, it's very common to find people misquoting or not truly understanding what it is that their opponent is talking about.

S: That's right. That derives usually from a deliberate attempt to mischaracterize your opponent's views, specifically so that they would be easy to knock down. Or often I think that straw man arguments are made by those who don't understand their opponent's position. So they are being intellectually lazy or sloppy or they simply do not understand the other view. So it is always a very good idea to make a concerted effort to really fully understand the opposite opinion from what you hold, your opponent's viewpoint. If you are simply arguing against a caricature or straw man of that argument that may be why you disagree. Because you don't really understand what their position is in the first place.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|Logic & Philosophy = y
}}

5X5 Episode 41

2013-01-05T22:41:22Z

Lvovo: A couple more

{{Editing required
|proof-reading = y
|formatting = y
|links = y
|}}

{{Template:5X5 infobox 
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 41 
|Contents = Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument 
|episodeDate = 15th October 2008 
|jay = y 
|bob = y 
|evan = y 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-10-15.mp3 
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=41 
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com//index.php/topic,14920.0.htm 
|}}
== Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument == 
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and tonight we're talking about logical fallacies. This will be the first in a series of 5x5s discussing different logical fallacies. But first a quick background. This refers to the making of a valid or sound argument. A sound argument is one in which the premises are true and the logic is valid. Arguments can be broken down into: premises -- premises are facts upon which the argument is based; a conclusion -- that's what you're trying to get to; and then a logical connection -- the thing that connects the premises to the conclusion. In order for an argument to be sound the premises must be true and the logic must be valid. If the logic is not valid we call it a logical fallacy. There are many, many different types of logical fallacies. It is worthwhile being familiar with them. If you are not familiar with these logical fallacies, then you are liable to commit them yourself. 
We're gonna start by talking about a very common logical fallacy called the straw man argument. In essence, a straw man argument is when someone argues against either an exaggerated or caricatured version of their opponent's belief or position. Essentially, they manufacture or make up a position that is easier to attack. And then they attack that position that they made up rather than the actual position held by the other side.

E: And this was derived by the military in their combat training. So, what they would do is they would make their enemy as a scarecrow, a manlike figure stuffed and made of straw. Since it's immobile and can't fight back, it's not very realistic. It's very easy to set down, to pierce your bayonet through, and to do your military practicing against. But it's not a real fight, it's not a real competitor. It's just something you set up, so it's easy to knock down.

S: There are many examples of straw man arguments. We encounter them all the time. Creationists, who are encyclopedias of logical fallacies, frequently use a number of them. The infamous crocoduck, put forward by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, the half-crocodile, half-duck that they say should exist if evolution were true, or at least weird hybrid creatures like it should exist, is a straw man argument. Because evolutionists do not believe that bizarre half-crocodile or half-duck or similar type of animals needs to exist in order for evolution to be true, or ever did exist. It is quite an absurd straw man argument.

B: It's important to point out that the straw man logical fallacy is unlike many other logical fallacies in that people don't always just slip into them unintentionally. It's an ancient debating technique that people use as a deliberate tactic for scoring points in debates. The other side of that coin is for those that unintentionally commit this fallacy often it stems from their sloppy understanding of their opponent's argument. Often they're arguing against their own misconceptions.

J: You know, I would actually think that that is probably more common than it being done solely deliberately. You know, I find in the blogosphere that, you know, you read back and forth, it's very common to find people misquoting or not truly understanding what it is that their opponent is talking about.

S: That's right. That derives usually from a deliberate attempt to mischaracterize your opponent's views, specifically so that they would be easy to knock down. Or often I think that straw man arguments are made by those who don't understand their opponent's position. So they are being intellectually lazy or sloppy or they simply do not understand the other view. So it is always a very good idea to make a concerted effort to really fully understand the opposite opinion from what you hold, your opponent's viewpoint. If you are simply arguing against a caricature or straw man of that argument that may be why you disagree. Because you don't really understand what their position is in the first place.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|Logic & Philosophy = y
}}

5X5 Episode 41

2013-01-05T22:35:33Z

Lvovo: Minor typing errors

{{Editing required
|proof-reading = y
|formatting = y
|links = y
|}}

{{Template:5X5 infobox 
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 41 
|Contents = Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument 
|episodeDate = 15th October 2008 
|jay = y 
|bob = y 
|evan = y 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-10-15.mp3 
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=41 
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com//index.php/topic,14920.0.htm 
|}}
== Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument == 
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and tonight we're talking about logical fallacies. This will be the first in a series of 5x5s discussing different logical fallacies. But first a quick background. This refers to the making of a valid or sound argument. A sound argument is one in which the premises are true and the logic is valid. Arguments can be broken down into: premises -- premises are facts upon which the argument is based; a conclusion -- that's what you're trying to get to; and then a logical connection -- the thing that connects the premises to the conclusion. In order for an argument to be sound the premises must be true and the logic must be valid. If the logic is not valid we call it a logical fallacy. There are many, many different types of logical fallacies. It is worthwhile being familiar with them. If you are not familiar with these logical fallacies, then you are liable to commit them yourself. 
We're gonna start by talking about a very common logical fallacy called the straw man argument. In essence, a straw man argument is when someone argues against either an exaggerated or caricatured version of their opponent's belief or position. Essentially, they manufacture or make up a position that is easier to attack. And then they attack that position that they made up rather than the actual position held by the other side.

E: And this was derived by the military in their combat training. So, what they would do is they would make their enemy as a scare-crow, a man-like figure stuffed and made of straw. Since it's immobile and can't fight back, it's not very realistic. It's very easy to set down, to pierce your bayonet through, and to do your military practicing against. But it's not a real fight, it's not a real competitor. It's just something you set up, so it's easy to knock down.

S: There are many examples of straw man arguments. We encounter them all the time. Creationists, who are encyclopedias of logical fallacies, frequently use a number of them. The infamous crocoduck, put forward by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, the half-crocodile, half-duck that they say should exist if evolution were true, or at least weird hybrid creatures like it should exist, is a straw man argument. Because evolutionists do not believe that bizarre half-crocodile or half-duck or similar type of animals needs to exist in order for evolution to be true, or ever did exist. It is quite an absurd straw man argument.

B: It's important to point out that the straw man logical fallacy is unlike many other logical fallacies in that people don't always just slip into them unintentionally. It's an ancient debating technique that people use as a deliberate tactic for scoring points in debates. The other side of that coin is for those that unintentionally commit this fallacy often it stems from their sloppy understanding of their opponent's argument. Often they're arguing against their own misconceptions.

J: You know, I would actually think that that is probably more common than it being done solely deliberately. You know, I find in the blogosphere that, you know, you read back and forth, it's very common to find people misquoting or not truly understanding what it is that their opponent is talking about.

S: That's right. That derives usually from a deliberate attempt to mischaracterize your opponent's views, specifically so that they would be easy to knock down. Or often I think that straw man arguments are made by those who don't understand their opponent's position. So they are being intellectually lazy or sloppy or they simply do not understand the other view. So it is always a very good idea to make a concerted effort to really fully understand the opposite opinion from what you hold, your opponent's viewpoint. If you are simply arguing against a caricature or straw man of that argument that may be why you disagree. Because you don't really understand what their position is in the first place.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|Logic & Philosophy = y
}}

5X5 Episode 41

2013-01-05T22:20:15Z

Lvovo: Added category

{{Editing required
|proof-reading = y
|formatting = y
|links = y
|}}

{{Template:5X5 infobox 
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 41 
|Contents = Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument 
|episodeDate = 15th October 2008 
|jay = y 
|bob = y 
|evan = y 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-10-15.mp3 
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=41 
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com//index.php/topic,14920.0.htm 
|}}
== Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument == 
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and tonight we're talking about logical fallacies. This will be the first in a series of 5x5s discussing different logical fallacies. But first a quick background. This refers to the making of a valid or sound argument. A sound argument is one in which the premises are true and the logic is valid. Arguments can be broken down into: premises -- premises are facts upon which the argument is based; a conclusion -- that's what you're trying to get to; and then a logical connection -- the thing that connects the premises to the conclusion. In order for an argument to be sound the premises must be true and the logic must be valid. If the logic is not valid we call it a logical fallacy.
There are many, many different types of logical fallacies. It is worthwhile being familiar with them. If you are not familiar with these logical fallacies, then you are liable to commit them yourself.
We're gonna start by talking about a very common logical fallacy called the straw man argument. In essence, a straw man argument is when someone argues against either an exaggerated or caricatured version of their opponent's belief or position. Essentially, they manufacture or make up a position that is easier to attack. And then they attack that position that they made up rather than the actual position held by the other side.

E: And this was derived by the military in their combat training. So, what they would do is they would make their enemy as a scare-crow, a man-like figure stuffed and made of straw. Since it's immobile and can't fight back, it's not very realistic. It's very easy to set down, to pierce your bayonet through, and to do your military practicing against. But it's not a real fight, it's not a real competitor. It's just something you set up, so it's easy to knock down.

S: There are many examples of straw man arguments. We encounter them all the time. Creationists, who are encyclopedias of logical fallacies, frequently use a number of them. The infamous crocoduck, put forward by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, the half-crocodile, half-duck that they say should exist if evolution were true, or at least weird hybrid creatures like it should exist, is a straw man argument. Because evolutionists do not believe that bizarre half-crocodile or half-duck or similar-type animal needs to exist in order for evolution to be true, or ever did exist. It is quite an absurd straw man argument.

B: It's important to point out that the straw man logical fallacy is unlike many other logical fallacies in that people don't always just slip into them unintentionally. It's an ancient debating technique that people use as a deliberate tactic for scoring points in debates. The other side of that coin is for those that unintentionally commit this fallacy often it stems from their sloppy understanding of their opponent's argument. Often they're arguing against their own misconceptions.

J: You know, I would actually think that that is probably more common than it being done solely deliberately. You know, I find in the blogosphere that, you know, you read back and forth, it's very common to find people misquoting or not truly understanding what it is that their opponent is talking about.

S: That's right. That derives usually from a deliberate attempt to mischaracterise your opponent's views, specifically so that they would be easy to knock down. Or often I think that straw man arguments are made by those who don't understand their opponent's position. So they are being intellectually lazy or sloppy or they simply do not understand the other view. So it is always a very good idea to make a concerted effort to really fully understand the opposite opinion from what you hold, your opponent's viewpoint. If you are simply arguing against a caricature or straw man of that argument that may be why you disagree. Because you don't really understand what their position is in the first place.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|Logic & Philosophy = y
}}

5X5 Episode 41

2013-01-05T10:55:35Z

Lvovo: Infobox edit

{{Editing required
|proof-reading = y
|formatting = y
|links = y
|}}

{{Template:5X5 infobox 
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 41 
|Contents = Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument 
|episodeDate = 15th October 2008 
|jay = y 
|bob = y 
|evan = y 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-10-15.mp3 
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=41 
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com//index.php/topic,14920.0.htm 
|}}
== Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument == 
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and tonight we're talking about logical fallacies. This will be the first in a series of 5x5s discussing different logical fallacies. But first a quick background. This refers to the making of a valid or sound argument. A sound argument is one in which the premises are true and the logic is valid. Arguments can be broken down into: premises -- premises are facts upon which the argument is based; a conclusion -- that's what you're trying to get to; and then a logical connection -- the thing that connects the premises to the conclusion. In order for an argument to be sound the premises must be true and the logic must be valid. If the logic is not valid we call it a logical fallacy.
There are many, many different types of logical fallacies. It is worthwhile being familiar with them. If you are not familiar with these logical fallacies, then you are liable to commit them yourself.
We're gonna start by talking about a very common logical fallacy called the straw man argument. In essence, a straw man argument is when someone argues against either an exaggerated or caricatured version of their opponent's belief or position. Essentially, they manufacture or make up a position that is easier to attack. And then they attack that position that they made up rather than the actual position held by the other side.

E: And this was derived by the military in their combat training. So, what they would do is they would make their enemy as a scare-crow, a man-like figure stuffed and made of straw. Since it's immobile and can't fight back, it's not very realistic. It's very easy to set down, to pierce your bayonet through, and to do your military practicing against. But it's not a real fight, it's not a real competitor. It's just something you set up, so it's easy to knock down.

S: There are many examples of straw man arguments. We encounter them all the time. Creationists, who are encyclopedias of logical fallacies, frequently use a number of them. The infamous crocoduck, put forward by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, the half-crocodile, half-duck that they say should exist if evolution were true, or at least weird hybrid creatures like it should exist, is a straw man argument. Because evolutionists do not believe that bizarre half-crocodile or half-duck or similar-type animal needs to exist in order for evolution to be true, or ever did exist. It is quite an absurd straw man argument.

B: It's important to point out that the straw man logical fallacy is unlike many other logical fallacies in that people don't always just slip into them unintentionally. It's an ancient debating technique that people use as a deliberate tactic for scoring points in debates. The other side of that coin is for those that unintentionally commit this fallacy often it stems from their sloppy understanding of their opponent's argument. Often they're arguing against their own misconceptions.

J: You know, I would actually think that that is probably more common than it being done solely deliberately. You know, I find in the blogosphere that, you know, you read back and forth, it's very common to find people misquoting or not truly understanding what it is that their opponent is talking about.

S: That's right. That derives usually from a deliberate attempt to mischaracterise your opponent's views, specifically so that they would be easy to knock down. Or often I think that straw man arguments are made by those who don't understand their opponent's position. So they are being intellectually lazy or sloppy or they simply do not understand the other view. So it is always a very good idea to make a concerted effort to really fully understand the opposite opinion from what you hold, your opponent's viewpoint. If you are simply arguing against a caricature or straw man of that argument that may be why you disagree. Because you don't really understand what their position is in the first place.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

5X5 Episode 41

2013-01-05T10:53:05Z

Lvovo: Infobox

{{Editing required
|proof-reading = y
|formatting = y
|links = y
|}}

{{Template:5X5 infobox 
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 41 
|Contents = Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument 
|episodeDate = 15th October 2008 
|jay = y 
|evan = y 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-10-15.mp3 
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=41 
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com//index.php/topic,14920.0.htm 
|}}
== Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument == 
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and tonight we're talking about logical fallacies. This will be the first in a series of 5x5s discussing different logical fallacies. But first a quick background. This refers to the making of a valid or sound argument. A sound argument is one in which the premises are true and the logic is valid. Arguments can be broken down into: premises -- premises are facts upon which the argument is based; a conclusion -- that's what you're trying to get to; and then a logical connection -- the thing that connects the premises to the conclusion. In order for an argument to be sound the premises must be true and the logic must be valid. If the logic is not valid we call it a logical fallacy.
There are many, many different types of logical fallacies. It is worthwhile being familiar with them. If you are not familiar with these logical fallacies, then you are liable to commit them yourself.
We're gonna start by talking about a very common logical fallacy called the straw man argument. In essence, a straw man argument is when someone argues against either an exaggerated or caricatured version of their opponent's belief or position. Essentially, they manufacture or make up a position that is easier to attack. And then they attack that position that they made up rather than the actual position held by the other side.

E: And this was derived by the military in their combat training. So, what they would do is they would make their enemy as a scare-crow, a man-like figure stuffed and made of straw. Since it's immobile and can't fight back, it's not very realistic. It's very easy to set down, to pierce your bayonet through, and to do your military practicing against. But it's not a real fight, it's not a real competitor. It's just something you set up, so it's easy to knock down.

S: There are many examples of straw man arguments. We encounter them all the time. Creationists, who are encyclopedias of logical fallacies, frequently use a number of them. The infamous crocoduck, put forward by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, the half-crocodile, half-duck that they say should exist if evolution were true, or at least weird hybrid creatures like it should exist, is a straw man argument. Because evolutionists do not believe that bizarre half-crocodile or half-duck or similar-type animal needs to exist in order for evolution to be true, or ever did exist. It is quite an absurd straw man argument.

B: It's important to point out that the straw man logical fallacy is unlike many other logical fallacies in that people don't always just slip into them unintentionally. It's an ancient debating technique that people use as a deliberate tactic for scoring points in debates. The other side of that coin is for those that unintentionally commit this fallacy often it stems from their sloppy understanding of their opponent's argument. Often they're arguing against their own misconceptions.

J: You know, I would actually think that that is probably more common than it being done solely deliberately. You know, I find in the blogosphere that, you know, you read back and forth, it's very common to find people misquoting or not truly understanding what it is that their opponent is talking about.

S: That's right. That derives usually from a deliberate attempt to mischaracterise your opponent's views, specifically so that they would be easy to knock down. Or often I think that straw man arguments are made by those who don't understand their opponent's position. So they are being intellectually lazy or sloppy or they simply do not understand the other view. So it is always a very good idea to make a concerted effort to really fully understand the opposite opinion from what you hold, your opponent's viewpoint. If you are simply arguing against a caricature or straw man of that argument that may be why you disagree. Because you don't really understand what their position is in the first place.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

Template:5X5 episode list

2013-01-05T10:43:46Z

Lvovo: Edited entry 41

<noinclude>This template is used to display the list of 5X5 episodes on the [[Main Page]] and the [[5X5 Episodes]] page. Additions and amendments to this template will be reflected on those pages.

For help on how to add a new row, see [[Template:5X5 list entry]].
</noinclude>

{|class="wikitable sortable" style="margin: 1em 3em;"
!No.!!class="unsortable"|Date!!Status!!Contents!!Categories
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 113
|date = May 9 2012
|contents = What's the Harm?
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
|category3 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 112
|date = May 2 2012
|contents = Anecdotal Evidence
|category1 = Legal Issues & Regulations
|category2 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category3 = Neuroscience & Psychology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 111
|date = Apr 25 2012
|contents = Facilitated Communication
|category1 = Pseudoscience
|category2 = Myths & Misconceptions
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 110
|date = Apr 11 2012
|contents = Naturalistic Fallacy
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 109
|date = Apr 4 2012
|contents = Celebrity Pseudoscience
|category1 = Pseudoscience
|category2 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 108
|date = Mar 28 2012
|contents = Cancer Cure
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Conspiracy Theories
|category3 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 107
|date = Mar 21 2012
|contents = Chilean UFO
|category1 = UFOs & Aliens
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 106
|date = Mar 19 2012
|contents = Availability Heuristic
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 105
|date = Mar 7 2012
|contents = Representativeness Heuristic
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 104
|date = Feb 22 2012
|contents = WiFi
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 103
|date = Feb 15 2012
|contents = Creationism
|category1 = Creationism & ID
|category2 = Science & Education
|category3 = Legal Issues & Regulations
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 102
|date = Feb 8 2012
|contents = Biofuels
|category1 = Technology
|category2 = General Science
|category3 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 101
|date = Jan 26 2011
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Slippery Slope/Post Hoc
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 100
|date = Jan 13 2011
|contents = Testable
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 99
|date = Jan 5 2011
|contents = Graphology
|category1 = History
|category2 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 98
|date = Dec 30 2010
|contents = Harry Houdini
|category1 = History
|category2 = Paranormal
|category3 = Ghosts & Demons
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 97
|date = Dec 20 2010
|contents = Repressed Memories
|category1 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 96
|date = Nov 9 2010
|contents = Magnets
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 95
|date = Sep 21 2010
|contents = Chelation
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Alternative Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 94
|date = Sep 12 2010
|contents = Nostradamus
|category1 = Prophecy
|category2 = History
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 93
|date = Aug 13 2010
|contents = Chiropractic - Part 3
|category1 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 92
|date = Jul 28 2010
|contents = Chiropractic - Part 2
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = History
|category3 = Legal Issues & Regulations
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 91
|date = Jul 13 2010
|contents = Chiropractic - Part 1
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = History
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 90
|date = Jun 29 2010
|contents = The Unification Church
|category1 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 89
|date = Jun 14 2010
|contents = Chemtrails
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 88
|date = May 19 2010
|contents = PSI - Part 2
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 87
|date = Mar 31 2010
|contents = PSI - The Ganzfeld Experiments
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 86
|date = Feb 21 2010
|contents = Psi
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 85
|date = Feb 9 2010
|contents = Prediction
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 84
|date = Jan 25 2010
|contents = Bermuda Triangle
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 83
|date = Dec 20 2009
|contents = Irreducible Complexity
|category1 = Creationism & ID
|category2 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 82
|date = Dec 2 2009
|contents = Psychic Surgery
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 81
|date = Nov 18 2009
|contents = Naturopathy
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 80
|date = Oct 28 2009
|contents = Polygraphs
|category1 = Technology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 79
|date = Oct 14 2009
|contents = The Lunar Effect
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 78
|date = Sep 23 2009
|contents = Crop Circles
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 77
|date = Sep 9 2009
|contents = The Double-Blind Protocol in Science
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 76
|date = Aug 18 2009
|contents = The Argument from Design
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 75
|date = Aug 12 2009
|contents = The Coriolis Effect
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 74
|date = Aug 4 2009
|contents = Perpetual Motion Machines
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 73
|date = Jul 22 2009
|contents = The Age of the Earth
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 72
|date = Jul 16 2009
|contents = Randi Million Dollar Psychic Challenge and Connie Sonne
|category1 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 71
|date = Jul 8 2009
|contents = The Roswell UFO Mythology
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 70
|date = Jun 30 2009
|contents = New Element Discovered
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 69
|date = Jun 5 2009
|contents = Einstein's Eclipse and General Relativity
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 68
|date = May 22 2009
|contents = Near Death Experiences
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 67
|date = Apr 30 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Special Pleading
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 66
|date = Apr 22 2009
|contents = Plausibility in Science
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 65
|date = Apr 16 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Scientific Theory
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 64
|date = Apr 2 2009
|contents = The Clever Hans Effect
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 63
|date = Mar 25 2009
|contents = Possession and Exorcism
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 62
|date = Mar 19 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - How to Argue
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 61
|date = Mar 13 2009
|contents = Friday 13th Superstition
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 60
|date = Mar 5 2009
|contents = Cryptozoology
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 59
|date = Feb 25 2009
|contents = Sprites and other atmospheric phenomena mistaken for UFOs
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 58
|date = Feb 17 2009
|contents = The Self-Corrective Nature of Science
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 57
|date = Feb 10 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Moving the Goalpost
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 56
|date = Feb 4 2009
|contents = Probability
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 55
|date = Jan 28 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Poisoning the Well
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 54
|date = Jan 21 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - False Dichotomy
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 53
|status = verified
|date = Jan 13 2009
|contents = Anecdotal Evidence
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
|category3 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 52
|date = Jan 6 2009
|contents = Atlantis
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 51
|date = Dec 29 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Channeling
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 50
|date = Dec 15 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - The Argument from Ignorance
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 49
|date = Dec 8 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Argument from Authority
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 48
|date = Dec 1 2008
|contents = The 10% Brain Myth
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 47
|date = Nov 24 2008
|contents = Remote Viewing
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 46
|date = Nov 18 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Correlation and Causation
|category1 = General Science
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 45
|date = Nov 11 2008
|contents = Chi and other forms of vitalism
|category1 = Energy Healing
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 44
|date = Nov 4 2008
|contents = Homonculus-based Medical Pseudoscience
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 43
|date = Oct 29 2008
|contents = Holocaust Denial
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = History

}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 42
|date = Oct 22 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Confirmation Bias
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = incomplete
|episode = 41
|date = Oct 15 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 40
|date = Oct 8 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 39
|date = Aug 1 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - The Ideomotor Effect
|category1 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category2 = Paranormal
|category3 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 38
|date = Sep 24 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Pareidolia
|category1 = Nature & Evolution
|category2 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category3 = Paranormal
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = incomplete
|episode = 37
|date = Sep 17 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - The Scientific Method
|category1 = General Science
|category2 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = incomplete
|episode = 36
|date = Sep 10 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Cold Reading
|category1 = Paranormal
|category2 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category3 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 35
|date = Sep 3 2008
|contents = No sunspots in August - will this lead to a period of solar cooling?
|category1 =
|category2 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 34
|date = Aug 27 2008
|contents = Woman claims wires grow out of her body
|category1 =
|category2 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 33
|date = Aug 20 2008
|contents = The Shroud of Turin - Shroud scientists try to resurrect the controversy
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 32
|date = Aug 11 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Occam's Razor
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 31
|date = Aug 4 2008
|contents = Digital Homeopathy 20 years after Benveniste
|category1 = Homeopathy
|category2 = Pseudoscience
|category3 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 30
|date = Jul 29 2008
|contents = Evaluation of a UCONN study of therapeutic touch on bone cells in culture
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = New Age
|category3 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 29
|date = July 20 2008
|contents = The SGU celebrates the 39th anniversary of Apollo 11 by debunking some moon landing hoax myths, and they are joined by Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer
|category1 = Astronomy & Space Science
|category2 = Conspiracy Theories
|category3 = History
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 28
|date = July 13 2008
|contents = Exposing the logical fallacy of equating faith healing with medical care
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
|category2 = Pseudoscience
|category3 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 27
|date = July 06 2008
|contents = Cracking the Dogu Code - Ancient Astronauts
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = UFOs & Aliens
|category3 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 26
|date = June 29 2008
|contents = New study sheds light on genetic vs environmental contributions to sexuality
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 25
|date = June 22 2008
|contents = NASA Plans Probe to the Sun
|category1 = Astronomy & Space Science
|category2 = Technology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 24
|date = June 15 2008
|contents = New strategy for SETI - The Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence
|category1 = Astronomy & Space Science
|category2 = Technology
|category3 = UFOs & Aliens
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 23
|date = June 08 2008
|contents = Lame car design analogy to intelligent design from the Discovery Institute
|category1 = Creationism & ID
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
|category3 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 22
|date = June 01 2008
|contents = Researchers allow monkey to control robotic arm with its mind
|category1 = Technology
|category2 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category3 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 21
|date = May 25 2008
|contents = Family claims women miraculously brought back to life after rigor mortis
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Science & the Media
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 20
|date = May 18 2008
|contents = SPAM Chainletter e-mails do not spread as virally as thought
|category1 = Technology
|category2 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 19
|date = May 11 2008
|contents = The Science of Science Fiction Movies
|category1 = Entertainment
|category2 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 18
|date = May 4 2008
|contents = Man Regenerates Finger - Bad Science News Reporting
|category1 = Science & the Media
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 17
|date = Apr 27 2008
|contents = T-Rex proteins closely related to chickens
|category1 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 16
|date = Apr 20 2008
|contents = Surgery under hypnosis
|category1 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = incomplete
|episode = 15
|date = Apr 13 2008
|contents = Examining a fossilized snake - with legs
|category1 = Nature & Evolution
|category2 = Creationism & ID
|category3 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 14
|date = Apr 6 2008
|contents = Nomophobia - the fear of being out of cell phone range
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Technology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 13
|date = Mar 30 2008
|contents = Man convicted of molestation claims he was raped by Bigfoot
|category1 = Cryptozoology
|category2 = Legal Issues & Regulations
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 12
|date = Mar 23 2008
|contents = Faith-healing cult leads to child death from medical neglect
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Energy Healing
|category3 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 11
|date = Mar 16 2008
|contents = Art project to give the city of Portland, Oregon acupuncture
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Energy Healing
|category3 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 10
|status = verified
|date = Mar 9 2008
|contents = Steven Spielberg to create new paranormal online community
|category1 = Paranormal
|category2 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 9
|status = verified
|date = Mar 2 2008
|contents = An Emmy award winning actress and her 911 conspiracy theory
|category1 = Conspiracy Theories
|category2 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 8
|status = verified
|date = Feb 23 2008
|contents = Cryptozoology - Hunting for the Thunderbird
|category1 = Cryptozoology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 7
|status = verified
|date = Feb 17 2008
|contents = Proposed center for exorcism in Poland
|category1 = Ghosts & Demons
|category2 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 6
|status = verified
|date = Feb 11 2008
|contents = Dr. Harris's Pain Relief Snake Oil Infomercial
|category1 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
|category2 = Alternative Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 5
|date = Feb 3 2008
|contents = Pope Benedict XVI takes on science
|category1 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 4
|date = Jan 28 2008
|contents = Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Paranormal
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 3
|date = Jan 21 2008
|contents = Multilevel Marketing and Pyramid Schemes
|category1 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 2
|date = Jan 13 2008
|contents = Ghost Photographs
|category1 = Paranormal
|category2 = Ghosts & Demons
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 1
|date = Jan 6 2008
|contents = The National Health Service of the UK plans to regulate alternative medicine
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Pseudoscience
}}
|}

5X5 Episode 41

2013-01-05T10:36:53Z

Lvovo: Added some formatting

{{Editing required
|proof-reading = y
|formatting = y
|links = y
|}}

{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 41
|Contents = Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument
|episodeDate = 15th October 2008
|verified =
|previous = 40
|next = 42
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-10-15.mp3
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=41
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com//index.php/topic,14920.0.html
|}}
== Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument == 
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and tonight we're talking about logical fallacies. This will be the first in a series of 5x5s discussing different logical fallacies. But first a quick background. This refers to the making of a valid or sound argument. A sound argument is one in which the premises are true and the logic is valid. Arguments can be broken down into: premises -- premises are facts upon which the argument is based; a conclusion -- that's what you're trying to get to; and then a logical connection -- the thing that connects the premises to the conclusion. In order for an argument to be sound the premises must be true and the logic must be valid. If the logic is not valid we call it a logical fallacy.
There are many, many different types of logical fallacies. It is worthwhile being familiar with them. If you are not familiar with these logical fallacies, then you are liable to commit them yourself.
We're gonna start by talking about a very common logical fallacy called the straw man argument. In essence, a straw man argument is when someone argues against either an exaggerated or caricatured version of their opponent's belief or position. Essentially, they manufacture or make up a position that is easier to attack. And then they attack that position that they made up rather than the actual position held by the other side.

E: And this was derived by the military in their combat training. So, what they would do is they would make their enemy as a scare-crow, a man-like figure stuffed and made of straw. Since it's immobile and can't fight back, it's not very realistic. It's very easy to set down, to pierce your bayonet through, and to do your military practicing against. But it's not a real fight, it's not a real competitor. It's just something you set up, so it's easy to knock down.

S: There are many examples of straw man arguments. We encounter them all the time. Creationists, who are encyclopedias of logical fallacies, frequently use a number of them. The infamous crocoduck, put forward by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, the half-crocodile, half-duck that they say should exist if evolution were true, or at least weird hybrid creatures like it should exist, is a straw man argument. Because evolutionists do not believe that bizarre half-crocodile or half-duck or similar-type animal needs to exist in order for evolution to be true, or ever did exist. It is quite an absurd straw man argument.

B: It's important to point out that the straw man logical fallacy is unlike many other logical fallacies in that people don't always just slip into them unintentionally. It's an ancient debating technique that people use as a deliberate tactic for scoring points in debates. The other side of that coin is for those that unintentionally commit this fallacy often it stems from their sloppy understanding of their opponent's argument. Often they're arguing against their own misconceptions.

J: You know, I would actually think that that is probably more common than it being done solely deliberately. You know, I find in the blogosphere that, you know, you read back and forth, it's very common to find people misquoting or not truly understanding what it is that their opponent is talking about.

S: That's right. That derives usually from a deliberate attempt to mischaracterise your opponent's views, specifically so that they would be easy to knock down. Or often I think that straw man arguments are made by those who don't understand their opponent's position. So they are being intellectually lazy or sloppy or they simply do not understand the other view. So it is always a very good idea to make a concerted effort to really fully understand the opposite opinion from what you hold, your opponent's viewpoint. If you are simply arguing against a caricature or straw man of that argument that may be why you disagree. Because you don't really understand what their position is in the first place.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

5X5 Episode 41

2013-01-05T10:33:14Z

Lvovo: Adding Editing required

{{Editing required
|proof-reading = y
|formatting = y
|links = y
|}}

{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 41
|Contents = Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument
|episodeDate = 15th October 2008
|verified =
|previous = 40
|next = 42
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-10-15.mp3
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=41
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com//index.php/topic,14920.0.html
|}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and tonight we're talking about logical fallacies. This will be the first in a series of 5x5s discussing different logical fallacies. But first a quick background. This refers to the making of a valid or sound argument. A sound argument is one in which the premises are true and the logic is valid. Arguments can be broken down into: premises -- premises are facts upon which the argument is based; a conclusion -- that's what you're trying to get to; and then a logical connection -- the thing that connects the premises to the conclusion. In order for an argument to be sound the premises must be true and the logic must be valid. If the logic is not valid we call it a logical fallacy.
There are many, many different types of logical fallacies. It is worthwhile being familiar with them. If you are not familiar with these logical fallacies, then you are liable to commit them yourself.
We're gonna start by talking about a very common logical fallacy called the straw man argument. In essence, a straw man argument is when someone argues against either an exaggerated or caricatured version of their opponent's belief or position. Essentially, they manufacture or make up a position that is easier to attack. And then they attack that position that they made up rather than the actual position held by the other side.

E: And this was derived by the military in their combat training. So, what they would do is they would make their enemy as a scare-crow, a man-like figure stuffed and made of straw. Since it's immobile and can't fight back, it's not very realistic. It's very easy to set down, to pierce your bayonet through, and to do your military practicing against. But it's not a real fight, it's not a real competitor. It's just something you set up, so it's easy to knock down.

S: There are many examples of straw man arguments. We encounter them all the time. Creationists, who are encyclopedias of logical fallacies, frequently use a number of them. The infamous crocoduck, put forward by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, the half-crocodile, half-duck that they say should exist if evolution were true, or at least weird hybrid creatures like it should exist, is a straw man argument. Because evolutionists do not believe that bizarre half-crocodile or half-duck or similar-type animal needs to exist in order for evolution to be true, or ever did exist. It is quite an absurd straw man argument.

B: It's important to point out that the straw man logical fallacy is unlike many other logical fallacies in that people don't always just slip into them unintentionally. It's an ancient debating technique that people use as a deliberate tactic for scoring points in debates. The other side of that coin is for those that unintentionally commit this fallacy often it stems from their sloppy understanding of their opponent's argument. Often they're arguing against their own misconceptions.

J: You know, I would actually think that that is probably more common than it being done solely deliberately. You know, I find in the blogosphere that, you know, you read back and forth, it's very common to find people misquoting or not truly understanding what it is that their opponent is talking about.

S: That's right. That derives usually from a deliberate attempt to mischaracterise your opponent's views, specifically so that they would be easy to knock down. Or often I think that straw man arguments are made by those who don't understand their opponent's position. So they are being intellectually lazy or sloppy or they simply do not understand the other view. So it is always a very good idea to make a concerted effort to really fully understand the opposite opinion from what you hold, your opponent's viewpoint. If you are simply arguing against a caricature or straw man of that argument that may be why you disagree. Because you don't really understand what their position is in the first place.

5X5 Episode 41

2013-01-05T10:16:53Z

Lvovo: Added transcription

{{transcribing all
|transcriber = Lvovo
}}

{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 41
|Contents = Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument
|episodeDate = 15th October 2008
|verified =
|previous = 40
|next = 42
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-10-15.mp3
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=41
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com//index.php/topic,14920.0.html
|}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and tonight we're talking about logical fallacies. This will be the first in a series of 5x5s discussing different logical fallacies. But first a quick background. This refers to the making of a valid or sound argument. A sound argument is one in which the premises are true and the logic is valid. Arguments can be broken down into: premises -- premises are facts upon which the argument is based; a conclusion -- that's what you're trying to get to; and then a logical connection -- the thing that connects the premises to the conclusion. In order for an argument to be sound the premises must be true and the logic must be valid. If the logic is not valid we call it a logical fallacy.
There are many, many different types of logical fallacies. It is worthwhile being familiar with them. If you are not familiar with these logical fallacies, then you are liable to commit them yourself.
We're gonna start by talking about a very common logical fallacy called the straw man argument. In essence, a straw man argument is when someone argues against either an exaggerated or caricatured version of their opponent's belief or position. Essentially, they manufacture or make up a position that is easier to attack. And then they attack that position that they made up rather than the actual position held by the other side.

E: And this was derived by the military in their combat training. So, what they would do is they would make their enemy as a scare-crow, a man-like figure stuffed and made of straw. Since it's immobile and can't fight back, it's not very realistic. It's very easy to set down, to pierce your bayonet through, and to do your military practicing against. But it's not a real fight, it's not a real competitor. It's just something you set up, so it's easy to knock down.

S: There are many examples of straw man arguments. We encounter them all the time. Creationists, who are encyclopedias of logical fallacies, frequently use a number of them. The infamous crocoduck, put forward by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, the half-crocodile, half-duck that they say should exist if evolution were true, or at least weird hybrid creatures like it should exist, is a straw man argument. Because evolutionists do not believe that bizarre half-crocodile or half-duck or similar-type animal needs to exist in order for evolution to be true, or ever did exist. It is quite an absurd straw man argument.

B: It's important to point out that the straw man logical fallacy is unlike many other logical fallacies in that people don't always just slip into them unintentionally. It's an ancient debating technique that people use as a deliberate tactic for scoring points in debates. The other side of that coin is for those that unintentionally commit this fallacy often it stems from their sloppy understanding of their opponent's argument. Often they're arguing against their own misconceptions.

J: You know, I would actually think that that is probably more common than it being done solely deliberately. You know, I find in the blogosphere that, you know, you read back and forth, it's very common to find people misquoting or not truly understanding what it is that their opponent is talking about.

S: That's right. That derives usually from a deliberate attempt to mischaracterise your opponent's views, specifically so that they would be easy to knock down. Or often I think that straw man arguments are made by those who don't understand their opponent's position. So they are being intellectually lazy or sloppy or they simply do not understand the other view. So it is always a very good idea to make a concerted effort to really fully understand the opposite opinion from what you hold, your opponent's viewpoint. If you are simply arguing against a caricature or straw man of that argument that may be why you disagree. Because you don't really understand what their position is in the first place.

5X5 Episode 41

2013-01-05T01:32:20Z

Lvovo: Reserved episode

5X5 Episode 37

2013-01-05T00:45:51Z

Lvovo: Adding Editing required

{{Editing required
|proof-reading = y
|formatting = y
|links = y
|}}

{{Template:5X5 infobox 
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 37 
|Contents = The Scientific Method 
|episodeDate = 17th September 2008 
|jay = y 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|evan = y 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-09-17.mp3 
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=37 
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,14167.0.html 
|}}
== Skepticism 101 - The Scientific Method == 
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and our continuing series on Skepticism 101. And tonight we're talking about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method the scientific method].
We certainly talk about it a lot but what exactly is it? Well, first off, it's not a single method. It describes everything that occurs in scientific investigation and exploration. And, I think, for me always the absolute heart of it is hypothesis testing. You have to use some methodology in order to test a hypothesis that can be falsified. If you're doing that, in a systematic way, then you're doing science.

J: And, Steve, the key thing that you just said is that it can be falsified, meaning that you can, with almost certainty, know whether it's true or not true.

S: Well, you can never know for certain that something is true. You can never prove that something is true, scientifically. You can only prove that something ''isn't'' true. We say that a hypothesis is ''probably'' true if it survives all attempts to falsify it. You can only say it survived falsification. That never, ever gets to the point of saying that it's a 100% true.

J: And that hypothesis is actually making predictions, correct?

S: It has to make predictions that can actually, some way, be put to the test.

B: That's a common misconception. People, a lot of people, think that science, the goal of science, is a 100% truth. But in that sense it's like the speed of light. You only can approach it but you can never hit it.

S: That's right.

R: And, you know, a lot of people think that the scientific method is just for science fair projects or scientists working in a lab somewhere. But you actually use the scientific method in your everyday life, you just might not realize it. It's just a simple matter of developing hypothesis, testing it. You can use it to find your keys. You loose you keys, you don't go to the psychic, you develop a hypothesis: "I think maybe my keys may be in the couch". You test that hypothesis, you search the couch. And you go from there. So I thing a lot of people are kind of, not necessarily scared of the scientific method, but they don't understand exactly how it applies to everyday life.

S: Yeah, certainly, I use it every day in medical diagnosis. A detective would use that in terms of investigating a crime or a situation. Again, it's making a hypothesis that makes a prediction, testing those predictions. One of the misconceptions that often artificially narrows what is science in the minds of some people is that testing a hypothesis has to be done by doing an experiment in a lab. But that's only one way to test a hypothesis. You can also test it by just simply making an observation. For example, historical sciences like paleontology. You know, you can't run evolution in a lab, usually. Actually, you can, but, like the bacterial experiments. But for a lot of, in terms of, like, what evolved from what, what happened in the past, you can't re-run evolutionary past in the lab. So you will make predictions about, for example, what kind of fossils you should find where. If you go out and look in this strata, what kind of fossils will you find there? That's testing a hypothesis, too. So it doesn't have to be test tubes in a lab. That is often a misconception that is used by denialists who want to say that historical sciences aren't real science 'cause they don't do experiments in a lab. But that misunderstands what really constitutes the scientific method.

J: Steve, a couple more things I think we should mention. One is that the scientific method is also a cyclical process. In other words, you come up with a hypothesis, you develop experiments to help you realize if that hypothesis has any truth to it and then you alter your experiments or alter your hypothesis, come back through, do another round of experiments and keep doing it until you, you know, fine-tune it. And then, when you're done with that, when you've actually come up with something worthwhile, then you really do need to publish that and get peer review on it. And then that could bring you right back to the beginning again.

B: And Jay, that's actually a key point that I wanted to mention, that a lot of people leave out, is to actually communicate your results. I mean, not specifically for peer review to refine and challenge your conclusions but just to communicate it, so that other scientists can build on what you've done. 'Cause so much of science is this building process, which kind of relates to the statement of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants standing on the shoulders of giants]. You know, when you communicate it properly, not only do people become aware of it but then they can advance in many ways that you never would've thought of.

S: And, that's right, it is an endless process of refining and altering hypotheses and theories to adjust for evidence and experiment and observation. And then trying to make new predictions based upon that, and then testing those, and then further refining it, et cetera, et cetera, until you slowly, slowly, slowly, as Bob said, get closer and closer to a model of how the Universe works, that successfully makes predictions. That's not the same thing as metaphysical truth or certitude. It's just a scientific model that can predict stuff. And that prediction, predicting ''future'' information, is the absolute key. Explaining stuff that you already know is not the process of science. That may be a way of generating a hypothesis but it's not a way of testing a hypothesis. In order to test a hypothesis you have to predict new information you don't have yet. That's also a very common mistake that's made that leads to pseudoscientific behavior.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|General Science = y
}}

SGUTranscripts:Community portal

2013-01-05T00:10:25Z

Lvovo: New post saying Hi

5X5 Episode 37

2013-01-04T16:15:59Z

Lvovo:

{{Template:5X5 infobox 
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 37 
|Contents = The Scientific Method 
|episodeDate = 17th September 2008 
|jay = y 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|evan = y 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-09-17.mp3 
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=37 
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,14167.0.html 
|}}
== Skepticism 101 - The Scientific Method == 
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and our continuing series on Skepticism 101. And tonight we're talking about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method the scientific method].
We certainly talk about it a lot but what exactly is it? Well, first off, it's not a single method. It describes everything that occurs in scientific investigation and exploration. And, I think, for me always the absolute heart of it is hypothesis testing. You have to use some methodology in order to test a hypothesis that can be falsified. If you're doing that, in a systematic way, then you're doing science.

J: And, Steve, the key thing that you just said is that it can be falsified, meaning that you can, with almost certainty, know whether it's true or not true.

S: Well, you can never know for certain that something is true. You can never prove that something is true, scientifically. You can only prove that something ''isn't'' true. We say that a hypothesis is ''probably'' true if it survives all attempts to falsify it. You can only say it survived falsification. That never, ever gets to the point of saying that it's a 100% true.

J: And that hypothesis is actually making predictions, correct?

S: It has to make predictions that can actually, some way, be put to the test.

B: That's a common misconception. People, a lot of people, think that science, the goal of science, is a 100% truth. But in that sense it's like the speed of light. You only can approach it but you can never hit it.

S: That's right.

R: And, you know, a lot of people think that the scientific method is just for science fair projects or scientists working in a lab somewhere. But you actually use the scientific method in your everyday life, you just might not realize it. It's just a simple matter of developing hypothesis, testing it. You can use it to find your keys. You loose you keys, you don't go to the psychic, you develop a hypothesis: "I think maybe my keys may be in the couch". You test that hypothesis, you search the couch. And you go from there. So I thing a lot of people are kind of, not necessarily scared of the scientific method, but they don't understand exactly how it applies to everyday life.

S: Yeah, certainly, I use it every day in medical diagnosis. A detective would use that in terms of investigating a crime or a situation. Again, it's making a hypothesis that makes a prediction, testing those predictions. One of the misconceptions that often artificially narrows what is science in the minds of some people is that testing a hypothesis has to be done by doing an experiment in a lab. But that's only one way to test a hypothesis. You can also test it by just simply making an observation. For example, historical sciences like paleontology. You know, you can't run evolution in a lab, usually. Actually, you can, but, like the bacterial experiments. But for a lot of, in terms of, like, what evolved from what, what happened in the past, you can't re-run evolutionary past in the lab. So you will make predictions about, for example, what kind of fossils you should find where. If you go out and look in this strata, what kind of fossils will you find there? That's testing a hypothesis, too. So it doesn't have to be test tubes in a lab. That is often a misconception that is used by denialists who want to say that historical sciences aren't real science 'cause they don't do experiments in a lab. But that misunderstands what really constitutes the scientific method.

J: Steve, a couple more things I think we should mention. One is that the scientific method is also a cyclical process. In other words, you come up with a hypothesis, you develop experiments to help you realize if that hypothesis has any truth to it and then you alter your experiments or alter your hypothesis, come back through, do another round of experiments and keep doing it until you, you know, fine-tune it. And then, when you're done with that, when you've actually come up with something worthwhile, then you really do need to publish that and get peer review on it. And then that could bring you right back to the beginning again.

B: And Jay, that's actually a key point that I wanted to mention, that a lot of people leave out, is to actually communicate your results. I mean, not specifically for peer review to refine and challenge your conclusions but just to communicate it, so that other scientists can build on what you've done. 'Cause so much of science is this building process, which kind of relates to the statement of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants standing on the shoulders of giants]. You know, when you communicate it properly, not only do people become aware of it but then they can advance in many ways that you never would've thought of.

S: And, that's right, it is an endless process of refining and altering hypotheses and theories to adjust for evidence and experiment and observation. And then trying to make new predictions based upon that, and then testing those, and then further refining it, et cetera, et cetera, until you slowly, slowly, slowly, as Bob said, get closer and closer to a model of how the Universe works, that successfully makes predictions. That's not the same thing as metaphysical truth or certitude. It's just a scientific model that can predict stuff. And that prediction, predicting ''future'' information, is the absolute key. Explaining stuff that you already know is not the process of science. That may be a way of generating a hypothesis but it's not a way of testing a hypothesis. In order to test a hypothesis you have to predict new information you don't have yet. That's also a very common mistake that's made that leads to pseudoscientific behavior.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|General Science = y
}}

5X5 Episode 37

2013-01-04T16:08:29Z

Lvovo:

{{Template:5X5 infobox 
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 37 
|Contents = The Scientific Method 
|episodeDate = 17th September 2008 
|jay = y 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|evan = y 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-09-17.mp3 
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=37 
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,14167.0.html 
|}}

== Skepticism 101 - The Scientific Method == 
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and our continuing series on Skepticism 101. And tonight we're talking about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method the scientific method].
We certainly talk about it a lot but what exactly is it? Well, first off, it's not a single method. It describes everything that occurs in scientific investigation and exploration. And, I think, for me always the absolute heart of it is hypothesis testing. You have to use some methodology in order to test a hypothesis that can be falsified. If you're doing that, in a systematic way, then you're doing science.

J: And, Steve, the key thing that you just said is that it can be falsified, meaning that you can, with almost certainty, know whether it's true or not true.

S: Well, you can never know for certain that something is true. You can never prove that something is true, scientifically. You can only prove that something ''isn't'' true. We say that a hypothesis is ''probably'' true if it survives all attempts to falsify it. You can only say it survived falsification. That never, ever gets to the point of saying that it's a 100% true.

J: And that hypothesis is actually making predictions, correct?

S: It has to make predictions that can actually, some way, be put to the test.

B: That's a common misconception. People, a lot of people, think that science, the goal of science, is a 100% truth. But in that sense it's like the speed of light. You only can approach it but you can never hit it.

S: That's right.

R: And, you know, a lot of people think that the scientific method is just for science fair projects or scientists working in a lab somewhere. But you actually use the scientific method in your everyday life, you just might not realize it. It's just a simple matter of developing hypothesis, testing it. You can use it to find your keys. You loose you keys, you don't go to the psychic, you develop a hypothesis: "I think maybe my keys may be in the couch". You test that hypothesis, you search the couch. And you go from there. So I thing a lot of people are kind of, not necessarily scared of the scientific method, but they don't understand exactly how it applies to everyday life.

S: Yeah, certainly, I use it every day in medical diagnosis. A detective would use that in terms of investigating a crime or a situation. Again, it's making a hypothesis that makes a prediction, testing those predictions. One of the misconceptions that often artificially narrows what is science in the minds of some people is that testing a hypothesis has to be done by doing an experiment in a lab. But that's only one way to test a hypothesis. You can also test it by just simply making an observation. For example, historical sciences like paleontology. You know, you can't run evolution in a lab, usually. Actually, you can, but, like the bacterial experiments. But for a lot of, in terms of, like, what evolved from what, what happened in the past, you can't re-run evolutionary past in the lab. So you will make predictions about, for example, what kind of fossils you should find where. If you go out and look in this strata, what kind of fossils will you find there? That's testing a hypothesis, too. So it doesn't have to be test tubes in a lab. That is often a misconception that is used by denialists who want to say that historical sciences aren't real science 'cause they don't do experiments in a lab. But that misunderstands what really constitutes the scientific method.

J: Steve, a couple more things I think we should mention. One is that the scientific method is also a cyclical process. In other words, you come up with a hypothesis, you develop experiments to help you realize if that hypothesis has any truth to it and then you alter your experiments or alter your hypothesis, come back through, do another round of experiments and keep doing it until you, you know, fine-tune it. And then, when you're done with that, when you've actually come up with something worthwhile, then you really do need to publish that and get peer review on it. And then that could bring you right back to the beginning again.

B: And Jay, that's actually a key point that I wanted to mention, that a lot of people leave out, is to actually communicate your results. I mean, not specifically for peer review to refine and challenge your conclusions but just to communicate it, so that other scientists can build on what you've done. 'Cause so much of science is this building process, which kind of relates to the statement of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants standing on the shoulders of giants]. You know, when you communicate it properly, not only do people become aware of it but then they can advance in many ways that you never would've thought of.

S: And, that's right, it is an endless process of refining and altering hypotheses and theories to adjust for evidence and experiment and observation. And then trying to make new predictions based upon that, and then testing those, and then further refining it, et cetera, et cetera, until you slowly, slowly, slowly, as Bob said, get closer and closer to a model of how the Universe works, that successfully makes predictions. That's not the same thing as metaphysical truth or certitude. It's just a scientific model that can predict stuff. And that prediction, predicting ''future'' information, is the absolute key. Explaining stuff that you already know is not the process of science. That may be a way of generating a hypothesis but it's not a way of testing a hypothesis. In order to test a hypothesis you have to predict new information you don't have yet. That's also a very common mistake that's made that leads to pseudoscientific behavior.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|General Science = y
}}

5X5 Episode 37

2013-01-04T15:33:06Z

Lvovo:

{{Template:5X5 infobox 
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 37 
|Contents = The Scientific Method 
|episodeDate = 17th September 2008 
|jay = y 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|evan = y 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-09-17.mp3 
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=37 
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,14167.0.html 
|}}

== Skepticism 101 - The Scientific Method == 
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and our continuing series on Skepticism 101. And tonight we're talking about: the scientific method.
We certainly talk about it a lot but what exactly is it? Well, first off, it's not a single method. It describes everything that occurs in scientific investigation and exploration. And, I think, for me always the absolute heart of it is hypothesis testing. You have to use some methodology in order to test a hypothesis that can be falsified. If you're doing that, in a systematic way, then you're doing science.

J: And, Steve, the key thing that you just said is that it can be falsified, meaning that you can, with almost certainty, know whether it's true or not true.

S: Well, you can never know for certain that something is true. You can never prove that something is true, scientifically. You can only prove that something *isn't* true. We say that a hypothesis is *probably* true if it survives all attempts to falsify it. You can only say it survived falsification. That never, ever gets to the point of saying that it's a 100% true.

J: And that hypothesis is actually making predictions, correct?

S: It has to make predictions that can actually, some way, be put to the test.

B: That's a common misconception. People, a lot of people, think that science, the goal of science, is a 100% truth. But in that sense it's like the speed of light. You only can approach it but you can never hit it.

S: That's right.

R: And, you know, a lot of people think that the scientific method is just for science fair projects or scientists working in a lab somewhere. But you actually use the scientific method in your everyday life, you just might not realize it. It's just a simple matter of developing hypothesis, testing it. You can use it to find your keys. You loose you keys, you don't go to the psychic, you develop a hypothesis: "I think maybe my keys may be in the couch". You test that hypothesis, you search the couch. And you go from there. So I thing a lot of people are kind of, not necessarily scared of the scientific method, but they don't understand exactly how it applies to everyday life.

S: Yeah, certainly, I use it every day in medical diagnosis. A detective would use that in terms of investigating a crime or a situation. Again, it's making a hypothesis that makes a prediction, testing those predictions. One of the misconceptions that often artificially narrows what is science in the minds of some people is that testing a hypothesis has to be done by doing an experiment in a lab. But that's only one way to test a hypothesis. You can also test it by just simply making an observation. For example, historical sciences like paleontology. You know, you can't run evolution in a lab, usually. Actually, you can, but, like the bacterial experiments. But for a lot of, in terms of, like, what evolved from what, what happened in the past, you can't re-run evolutionary past in the lab. So you will make predictions about, for example, what kind of fossils you should find where. If you go out and look in this strata, what kind of fossils will you find there? That's testing a hypothesis, too. So it doesn't have to be test tubes in a lab. That is often a misconception that is used by denialists who want to say that historical sciences aren't real science 'cause they don't do experiments in a lab. But that misunderstands what really constitutes the scientific method.

J: Steve, a couple more things I think we should mention. One is that the scientific method is also a cyclical process. In other words, you come up with a hypothesis, you develop experiments to help you realize if that hypothesis has any truth to it and then you alter your experiments or alter your hypothesis, come back through, do another round of experiments and keep doing it until you, you know, fine-tune it. And then, when you're done with that, when you've actually come up with something worthwhile, then you really do need to publish that and get peer review on it. And then that could bring you right back to the beginning again.

B: And Jay, that's actually a key point that I wanted to mention, that a lot of people leave out, is to actually communicate your results. I mean, not specifically for peer review to refine and challenge your conclusions but just to communicate it, so that other scientists can build on what you've done. 'Cause so much of science is this building process, which kind of relates to the statement of "standing on the shoulders of giants." You know, when you communicate it properly, not only do people become aware of it but then they can advance in many ways that you never would've thought of.

S: And, that's right, it is an endless process of refining and altering hypotheses and theories to adjust for evidence and experiment and observation. And then trying to make new predictions based upon that, and then testing those, and then further refining it, et cetera, et cetera, until you slowly, slowly, slowly, as Bob said, get closer and closer to a model of how the Universe works, that successfully makes predictions. That's not the same thing as metaphysical truth or certitude. It's just a scientific model that can predict stuff. And that prediction, predicting *future* information, is the absolute key. Explaining stuff that you already know is not the process of science. That may be a way of generating a hypothesis but it's not a way of testing a hypothesis. In order to test a hypothesis you have to predict new information you don't have yet. That's also a very common mistake that's made that leads to pseudoscientific behavior.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|General Science = y
}}

5X5 Episode 37

2013-01-04T15:30:40Z

Lvovo:

{{transcribing all
|transcriber = Lvovo
}}

{{Template:5X5 infobox 
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 37 
|Contents = The Scientific Method 
|episodeDate = 17th September 2008 
|jay = y 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|evan = y 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-09-17.mp3 
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=37 
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,14167.0.html 
|}}

== Skepticism 101 - The Scientific Method == 
{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5 and our continuing series on Skepticism 101. And tonight we're talking about: the scientific method.
We certainly talk about it a lot but what exactly is it? Well, first off, it's not a single method. It describes everything that occurs in scientific investigation and exploration. And, I think, for me always the absolute heart of it is hypothesis testing. You have to use some methodology in order to test a hypothesis that can be falsified. If you're doing that, in a systematic way, then you're doing science.

J: And, Steve, the key thing that you just said is that it can be falsified, meaning that you can, with almost certainty, know whether it's true or not true.

S: Well, you can never know for certain that something is true. You can never prove that something is true, scientifically. You can only prove that something *isn't* true. We say that a hypothesis is *probably* true if it survives all attempts to falsify it. You can only say it survived falsification. That never, ever gets to the point of saying that it's a 100% true.

J: And that hypothesis is actually making predictions, correct?

S: It has to make predictions that can actually, some way, be put to the test.

B: That's a common misconception. People, a lot of people, think that science, the goal of science, is a 100% truth. But in that sense it's like the speed of light. You only can approach it but you can never hit it.

S: That's right.

R: And, you know, a lot of people think that the scientific method is just for science fair projects or scientists working in a lab somewhere. But you actually use the scientific method in your everyday life, you just might not realize it. It's just a simple matter of developing hypothesis, testing it. You can use it to find your keys. You loose you keys, you don't go to the psychic, you develop a hypothesis: "I think maybe my keys may be in the couch". You test that hypothesis, you search the couch. And you go from there. So I thing a lot of people are kind of, not necessarily scared of the scientific method, but they don't understand exactly how it applies to everyday life.

S: Yeah, certainly, I use it every day in medical diagnosis. A detective would use that in terms of investigating a crime or a situation. Again, it's making a hypothesis that makes a prediction, testing those predictions. One of the misconceptions that often artificially narrows what is science in the minds of some people is that testing a hypothesis has to be done by doing an experiment in a lab. But that's only one way to test a hypothesis. You can also test it by just simply making an observation. For example, historical sciences like paleontology. You know, you can't run evolution in a lab, usually. Actually, you can, but, like the bacterial experiments. But for a lot of, in terms of, like, what evolved from what, what happened in the past, you can't re-run evolutionary past in the lab. So you will make predictions about, for example, what kind of fossils you should find where. If you go out and look in this strata, what kind of fossils will you find there? That's testing a hypothesis, too. So it doesn't have to be test tubes in a lab. That is often a misconception that is used by denialists who want to say that historical sciences aren't real science 'cause they don't do experiments in a lab. But that misunderstands what really constitutes the scientific method.

J: Steve, a couple more things I think we should mention. One is that the scientific method is also a cyclical process. In other words, you come up with a hypothesis, you develop experiments to help you realize if that hypothesis has any truth to it and then you alter your experiments or alter your hypothesis, come back through, do another round of experiments and keep doing it until you, you know, fine-tune it. And then, when you're done with that, when you've actually come up with something worthwhile, then you really do need to publish that and get peer review on it. And then that could bring you right back to the beginning again.

B: And Jay, that's actually a key point that I wanted to mention, that a lot of people leave out, is to actually communicate your results. I mean, not specifically for peer review to refine and challenge your conclusions but just to communicate it, so that other scientists can build on what you've done. 'Cause so much of science is this building process, which kind of relates to the statement of "standing on the shoulders of giants." You know, when you communicate it properly, not only do people become aware of it but then they can advance in many ways that you never would've thought of.

S: And, that's right, it is an endless process of refining and altering hypotheses and theories to adjust for evidence and experiment and observation. And then trying to make new predictions based upon that, and then testing those, and then further refining it, et cetera, et cetera, until you slowly, slowly, slowly, as Bob said, get closer and closer to a model of how the Universe works, that successfully makes predictions. That's not the same thing as metaphysical truth or certitude. It's just a scientific model that can predict stuff. And that prediction, predicting *future* information, is the absolute key. Explaining stuff that you already know is not the process of science. That may be a way of generating a hypothesis but it's not a way of testing a hypothesis. In order to test a hypothesis you have to predict new information you don't have yet. That's also a very common mistake that's made that leads to pseudoscientific behavior.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|General Science = y
}}

5X5 Episode 37

2013-01-04T15:07:35Z

Lvovo:

{{transcribing all
|transcriber = Lvovo
}}

5x5 Episode 37

Skepticism 101 - The Scientific Method

You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide 5x5, five minutes with five skeptics, with Steve, Jay, Rebecca, Bob and Evan.

S: This is the SGU 5x5 in our continuing series on Skepticism 101. And tonight we're talking about: the scientific method.
We certainly talk about it a lot but what exactly is it? Well, first off, it's not a single method. It describes everything that occurs in scientific investigation and exploration. And, I think, for me always the absolute heart of it is hypothesis testing. You have to use some methodology in order to test a hypothesis that can be falsified. If you're doing that, in a systematic way, then you're doing science.

J: And, Steve, the key thing that you just said is that it can be falsified, meaning that you can, with almost certainty, know whether it's true or not true.

S: Well, you can never know for certain that something is true. You can never prove that something is true, scientifically. You can only prove that something *isn't* true. We say that a hypothesis is *probably* true if it survives all attempts to falsify it. You can only say it survived falsification. That never, ever gets to the point of saying that it's a 100% true.

J: And that hypothesis is actually making predictions, correct?

S: It has to make predictions that can actually, some way, be put to the test.

B: That's a common misconception. People, a lot of people, think that science, the goal of science, is a 100% truth. But in that sense it's like the speed of light. You only can approach it but you can never hit it.

S: That's right.

R: And, you know, a lot of people think that the scientific method is just for science fair projects or scientists working in a lab somewhere. But you actually use the scientific method in your everyday life, you just might not realize it. It's just a simple matter of developing hypothesis, testing it. You can use it to find your keys. You loose you keys, you don't go to the psychic, you develop a hypothesis: "I think maybe my keys may be in the couch". You test that hypothesis, you search the couch. And you go from there. So I thing a lot of people are kind of, not necessarily scared of the scientific method, but they don't understand exactly how it applies to everyday life.

S: Yeah, certainly, I use it every day in medical diagnosis. A detective would use that in terms of investigating a crime or a situation. Again, it's making a hypothesis that makes a prediction, testing those predictions. One of the misconceptions that often artificially narrows what is science in the minds of some people is that testing a hypothesis has to be done by doing an experiment in a lab. But that's only one way to test a hypothesis. You can also test it by just simply making an observation. For example, historical sciences like paleontology. You know, you can't run evolution in a lab, usually. Actually, you can, but, like the bacterial experiments. But for a lot of, in terms of, like, what evolved from what, what happened in the past, you can't re-run evolutionary past in the lab. So you will make predictions about, for example, what kind of fossils you should find where. If you go out and look in this strata, what kind of fossils will you find there? That's testing a hypothesis, too. So it doesn't have to be test tubes in a lab. That is often a misconception that is used by denialists who want to say that historical sciences aren't real science 'cause they don't do experiments in a lab. But that misunderstands what really constitutes the scientific method.

J: Steve, a couple more things I think we should mention. One is that the scientific method is also a cyclical process. In other words, you come up with a hypothesis, you develop experiments to help you realize if that hypothesis has any truth to it and then you alter your experiments or alter your hypothesis, come back through, do another round of experiments and keep doing it until you, you know, fine-tune it. And then, when you're done with that, when you've actually come up with something worthwhile, then you really do need to publish that and get peer review on it. And then that could bring you right back to the beginning again.

B: And Jay, that's actually a key point that I wanted to mention, that a lot of people leave out, is to actually communicate your results. I mean, not specifically for peer review to refine and challenge your conclusions but just to communicate it, so that other scientists can build on what you've done. 'Cause so much of science is this building process, which kind of relates to the statement of "standing on the shoulders of giants." You know, when you communicate it properly, not only do people become aware of it but then they can advance in many ways that you never would've thought of.

S: And, that's right, it is an endless process of refining and altering hypotheses and theories to adjust for evidence and experiment and observation. And then trying to make new predictions based upon that, and then testing those, and then further refining it, et cetera, et cetera, until you slowly, slowly, slowly, as Bob said, get closer and closer to a model of how the Universe works, that successfully makes predictions. That's not the same thing as metaphysical truth or certitude. It's just a scientific model that can predict stuff. And that prediction, predicting *future* information, is the absolute key. Explaining stuff that you already know is not the process of science. That may be a way of generating a hypothesis but it's not a way of testing a hypothesis. In order to test a hypothesis you have to predict new information you don't have yet. That's also a very common mistake that's made that leads to pseudoscientific behavior.

S: SGU 5x5 is a companion podcast to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, a weekly science podcast brought to you by the New England Skeptical Society in association with skepchick.org. For more information on this and other episodes, visit our website at www.theskepticsguide.org. Music is provided by Jake Wilson.

5X5 Episode 37

2013-01-04T14:45:24Z

Lvovo: Created page with "5x5 Episode 37 Skepticism 101 - The Scientific Method You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide 5x5, five minutes with five skeptics, with Steve, Jay, Rebecca, Bob and Evan. ..."

5x5 Episode 37

Skepticism 101 - The Scientific Method

You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide 5x5, five minutes with five skeptics, with Steve, Jay, Rebecca, Bob and Evan.

S: This is the SGU 5x5 in our continuing series on Skepticism 101. And tonight we're talking about: the scientific method.
We certainly talk about it a lot but what exactly is it? Well, first off, it's not a single method. It describes everything that occurs in scientific investigation and exploration. And, I think, for me always the absolute heart of it is hypothesis testing. You have to use some methodology in order to test a hypothesis that can be falsified. If you're doing that, in a systematic way, then you're doing science.

J: And, Steve, the key thing that you just said is that it can be falsified, meaning that you can, with almost certainty, know whether it's true or not true.

S: Well, you can never know for certain that something is true. You can never prove that something is true, scientifically. You can only prove that something *isn't* true. We say that a hypothesis is *probably* true if it survives all attempts to falsify it. You can only say it survived falsification. That never, ever gets to the point of saying that it's a 100% true.

J: And that hypothesis is actually making predictions, correct?

S: It has to make predictions that can actually, some way, be put to the test.

B: That's a common misconception. People, a lot of people, think that science, the goal of science, is a 100% truth. But in that sense it's like the speed of light. You only can approach it but you can never hit it.

S: That's right.

R: And, you know, a lot of people think that the scientific method is just for science fair projects or scientists working in a lab somewhere. But you actually use the scientific method in your everyday life, you just might not realize it. It's just a simple matter of developing hypothesis, testing it. You can use it to find your keys. You loose you keys, you don't go to the psychic, you develop a hypothesis: "I think maybe my keys may be in the couch". You test that hypothesis, you search the couch. And you go from there. So I thing a lot of people are kind of, not necessarily scared of the scientific method, but they don't understand exactly how it applies to everyday life.

S: Yeah, certainly, I use it every day in medical diagnosis. A detective would use that in terms of investigating a crime or a situation. Again, it's making a hypothesis that makes a prediction, testing those predictions. One of the misconceptions that often artificially narrows what is science in the minds of some people is that testing a hypothesis has to be done by doing an experiment in a lab. But that's only one way to test a hypothesis. You can also test it by just simply making an observation. For example, historical sciences like paleontology. You know, you can't run evolution in a lab, usually. Actually, you can, but, like the bacterial experiments. But for a lot of, in terms of, like, what evolved from what, what happened in the past, you can't re-run evolutionary past in the lab. So you will make predictions about, for example, what kind of fossils you should find where. If you go out and look in this strata, what kind of fossils will you find there? That's testing a hypothesis, too. So it doesn't have to be test tubes in a lab. That is often a misconception that is used by denialists who want to say that historical sciences aren't real science 'cause they don't do experiments in a lab. But that misunderstands what really constitutes the scientific method.

J: Steve, a couple more things I think we should mention. One is that the scientific method is also a cyclical process. In other words, you come up with a hypothesis, you develop experiments to help you realize if that hypothesis has any truth to it and then you alter your experiments or alter your hypothesis, come back through, do another round of experiments and keep doing it until you, you know, fine-tune it. And then, when you're done with that, when you've actually come up with something worthwhile, then you really do need to publish that and get peer review on it. And then that could bring you right back to the beginning again.

B: And Jay, that's actually a key point that I wanted to mention, that a lot of people leave out, is to actually communicate your results. I mean, not specifically for peer review to refine and challenge your conclusions but just to communicate it, so that other scientists can build on what you've done. 'Cause so much of science is this building process, which kind of relates to the statement of "standing on the shoulders of giants." You know, when you communicate it properly, not only do people become aware of it but then they can advance in many ways that you never would've thought of.

S: And, that's right, it is an endless process of refining and altering hypotheses and theories to adjust for evidence and experiment and observation. And then trying to make new predictions based upon that, and then testing those, and then further refining it, et cetera, et cetera, until you slowly, slowly, slowly, as Bob said, get closer and closer to a model of how the Universe works, that successfully makes predictions. That's not the same thing as metaphysical truth or certitude. It's just a scientific model that can predict stuff. And that prediction, predicting *future* information, is the absolute key. Explaining stuff that you already know is not the process of science. That may be a way of generating a hypothesis but it's not a way of testing a hypothesis. In order to test a hypothesis you have to predict new information you don't have yet. That's also a very common mistake that's made that leads to pseudoscientific behavior.

S: SGU 5x5 is a companion podcast to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, a weekly science podcast brought to you by the New England Skeptical Society in association with skepchick.org. For more information on this and other episodes, visit our website at www.theskepticsguide.org. Music is provided by Jake Wilson.

Template:5X5 episode list

2013-01-04T14:37:19Z

Lvovo:

<noinclude>This template is used to display the list of 5X5 episodes on the [[Main Page]] and the [[5X5 Episodes]] page. Additions and amendments to this template will be reflected on those pages.

For help on how to add a new row, see [[Template:5X5 list entry]].
</noinclude>

{|class="wikitable sortable" style="margin: 1em 3em;"
!No.!!class="unsortable"|Date!!Status!!Contents!!Categories
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 113
|date = May 9 2012
|contents = What's the Harm?
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
|category3 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 112
|date = May 2 2012
|contents = Anecdotal Evidence
|category1 = Legal Issues & Regulations
|category2 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category3 = Neuroscience & Psychology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 111
|date = Apr 25 2012
|contents = Facilitated Communication
|category1 = Pseudoscience
|category2 = Myths & Misconceptions
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 110
|date = Apr 11 2012
|contents = Naturalistic Fallacy
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 109
|date = Apr 4 2012
|contents = Celebrity Pseudoscience
|category1 = Pseudoscience
|category2 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 108
|date = Mar 28 2012
|contents = Cancer Cure
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Conspiracy Theories
|category3 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 107
|date = Mar 21 2012
|contents = Chilean UFO
|category1 = UFOs & Aliens
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 106
|date = Mar 19 2012
|contents = Availability Heuristic
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 105
|date = Mar 7 2012
|contents = Representativeness Heuristic
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 104
|date = Feb 22 2012
|contents = WiFi
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 103
|date = Feb 15 2012
|contents = Creationism
|category1 = Creationism & ID
|category2 = Science & Education
|category3 = Legal Issues & Regulations
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 102
|date = Feb 8 2012
|contents = Biofuels
|category1 = Technology
|category2 = General Science
|category3 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 101
|date = Jan 26 2011
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Slippery Slope/Post Hoc
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 100
|date = Jan 13 2011
|contents = Testable
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 99
|date = Jan 5 2011
|contents = Graphology
|category1 = History
|category2 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 98
|date = Dec 30 2010
|contents = Harry Houdini
|category1 = History
|category2 = Paranormal
|category3 = Ghosts & Demons
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 97
|date = Dec 20 2010
|contents = Repressed Memories
|category1 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 96
|date = Nov 9 2010
|contents = Magnets
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 95
|date = Sep 21 2010
|contents = Chelation
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Alternative Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 94
|date = Sep 12 2010
|contents = Nostradamus
|category1 = Prophecy
|category2 = History
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 93
|date = Aug 13 2010
|contents = Chiropractic - Part 3
|category1 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 92
|date = Jul 28 2010
|contents = Chiropractic - Part 2
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = History
|category3 = Legal Issues & Regulations
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 91
|date = Jul 13 2010
|contents = Chiropractic - Part 1
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = History
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 90
|date = Jun 29 2010
|contents = The Unification Church
|category1 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 89
|date = Jun 14 2010
|contents = Chemtrails
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 88
|date = May 19 2010
|contents = PSI - Part 2
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 87
|date = Mar 31 2010
|contents = PSI - The Ganzfeld Experiments
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 86
|date = Feb 21 2010
|contents = Psi
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 85
|date = Feb 9 2010
|contents = Prediction
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 84
|date = Jan 25 2010
|contents = Bermuda Triangle
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 83
|date = Dec 20 2009
|contents = Irreducible Complexity
|category1 = Creationism & ID
|category2 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 82
|date = Dec 2 2009
|contents = Psychic Surgery
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 81
|date = Nov 18 2009
|contents = Naturopathy
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 80
|date = Oct 28 2009
|contents = Polygraphs
|category1 = Technology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 79
|date = Oct 14 2009
|contents = The Lunar Effect
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 78
|date = Sep 23 2009
|contents = Crop Circles
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 77
|date = Sep 9 2009
|contents = The Double-Blind Protocol in Science
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 76
|date = Aug 18 2009
|contents = The Argument from Design
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 75
|date = Aug 12 2009
|contents = The Coriolis Effect
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 74
|date = Aug 4 2009
|contents = Perpetual Motion Machines
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 73
|date = Jul 22 2009
|contents = The Age of the Earth
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 72
|date = Jul 16 2009
|contents = Randi Million Dollar Psychic Challenge and Connie Sonne
|category1 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 71
|date = Jul 8 2009
|contents = The Roswell UFO Mythology
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 70
|date = Jun 30 2009
|contents = New Element Discovered
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 69
|date = Jun 5 2009
|contents = Einstein's Eclipse and General Relativity
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 68
|date = May 22 2009
|contents = Near Death Experiences
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 67
|date = Apr 30 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Special Pleading
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 66
|date = Apr 22 2009
|contents = Plausibility in Science
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 65
|date = Apr 16 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Scientific Theory
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 64
|date = Apr 2 2009
|contents = The Clever Hans Effect
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 63
|date = Mar 25 2009
|contents = Possession and Exorcism
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 62
|date = Mar 19 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - How to Argue
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 61
|date = Mar 13 2009
|contents = Friday 13th Superstition
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 60
|date = Mar 5 2009
|contents = Cryptozoology
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 59
|date = Feb 25 2009
|contents = Sprites and other atmospheric phenomena mistaken for UFOs
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 58
|date = Feb 17 2009
|contents = The Self-Corrective Nature of Science
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 57
|date = Feb 10 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Moving the Goalpost
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 56
|date = Feb 4 2009
|contents = Probability
|category1 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 55
|date = Jan 28 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Poisoning the Well
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 54
|date = Jan 21 2009
|contents = Skepticism 101 - False Dichotomy
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 53
|status = verified
|date = Jan 13 2009
|contents = Anecdotal Evidence
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
|category3 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 52
|date = Jan 6 2009
|contents = Atlantis
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 51
|date = Dec 29 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Channeling
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 50
|date = Dec 15 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - The Argument from Ignorance
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 49
|date = Dec 8 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Argument from Authority
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 48
|date = Dec 1 2008
|contents = The 10% Brain Myth
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 47
|date = Nov 24 2008
|contents = Remote Viewing
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 46
|date = Nov 18 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Correlation and Causation
|category1 = General Science
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 45
|date = Nov 11 2008
|contents = Chi and other forms of vitalism
|category1 = Energy Healing
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 44
|date = Nov 4 2008
|contents = Homonculus-based Medical Pseudoscience
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 43
|date = Oct 29 2008
|contents = Holocaust Denial
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = History

}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 42
|date = Oct 22 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Confirmation Bias
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 41
|date = Oct 15 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Argument
|category1 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 40
|date = Oct 8 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 39
|date = Aug 1 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - The Ideomotor Effect
|category1 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category2 = Paranormal
|category3 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 38
|date = Sep 24 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Pareidolia
|category1 = Nature & Evolution
|category2 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category3 = Paranormal
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = incomplete
|episode = 37
|date = Sep 17 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - The Scientific Method
|category1 = General Science
|category2 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = incomplete
|episode = 36
|date = Sep 10 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Cold Reading
|category1 = Paranormal
|category2 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category3 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 35
|date = Sep 3 2008
|contents = No sunspots in August - will this lead to a period of solar cooling?
|category1 =
|category2 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = open
|episode = 34
|date = Aug 27 2008
|contents = Woman claims wires grow out of her body
|category1 =
|category2 =
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 33
|date = Aug 20 2008
|contents = The Shroud of Turin - Shroud scientists try to resurrect the controversy
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 32
|date = Aug 11 2008
|contents = Skepticism 101 - Occam's Razor
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 31
|date = Aug 4 2008
|contents = Digital Homeopathy 20 years after Benveniste
|category1 = Homeopathy
|category2 = Pseudoscience
|category3 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 30
|date = Jul 29 2008
|contents = Evaluation of a UCONN study of therapeutic touch on bone cells in culture
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = New Age
|category3 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 29
|date = July 20 2008
|contents = The SGU celebrates the 39th anniversary of Apollo 11 by debunking some moon landing hoax myths, and they are joined by Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer
|category1 = Astronomy & Space Science
|category2 = Conspiracy Theories
|category3 = History
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 28
|date = July 13 2008
|contents = Exposing the logical fallacy of equating faith healing with medical care
|category1 = Logic & Philosophy
|category2 = Pseudoscience
|category3 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 27
|date = July 06 2008
|contents = Cracking the Dogu Code - Ancient Astronauts
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = UFOs & Aliens
|category3 = Pseudoscience
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 26
|date = June 29 2008
|contents = New study sheds light on genetic vs environmental contributions to sexuality
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 25
|date = June 22 2008
|contents = NASA Plans Probe to the Sun
|category1 = Astronomy & Space Science
|category2 = Technology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 24
|date = June 15 2008
|contents = New strategy for SETI - The Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence
|category1 = Astronomy & Space Science
|category2 = Technology
|category3 = UFOs & Aliens
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 23
|date = June 08 2008
|contents = Lame car design analogy to intelligent design from the Discovery Institute
|category1 = Creationism & ID
|category2 = Logic & Philosophy
|category3 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 22
|date = June 01 2008
|contents = Researchers allow monkey to control robotic arm with its mind
|category1 = Technology
|category2 = Neuroscience & Psychology
|category3 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 21
|date = May 25 2008
|contents = Family claims women miraculously brought back to life after rigor mortis
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Science & the Media
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 20
|date = May 18 2008
|contents = SPAM Chainletter e-mails do not spread as virally as thought
|category1 = Technology
|category2 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 19
|date = May 11 2008
|contents = The Science of Science Fiction Movies
|category1 = Entertainment
|category2 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 18
|date = May 4 2008
|contents = Man Regenerates Finger - Bad Science News Reporting
|category1 = Science & the Media
|category2 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 17
|date = Apr 27 2008
|contents = T-Rex proteins closely related to chickens
|category1 = Nature & Evolution
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 16
|date = Apr 20 2008
|contents = Surgery under hypnosis
|category1 = Science & Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = incomplete
|episode = 15
|date = Apr 13 2008
|contents = Examining a fossilized snake - with legs
|category1 = Nature & Evolution
|category2 = Creationism & ID
|category3 = General Science
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 14
|date = Apr 6 2008
|contents = Nomophobia - the fear of being out of cell phone range
|category1 = Science & Medicine
|category2 = Technology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 13
|date = Mar 30 2008
|contents = Man convicted of molestation claims he was raped by Bigfoot
|category1 = Cryptozoology
|category2 = Legal Issues & Regulations
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 12
|date = Mar 23 2008
|contents = Faith-healing cult leads to child death from medical neglect
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Energy Healing
|category3 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 11
|date = Mar 16 2008
|contents = Art project to give the city of Portland, Oregon acupuncture
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Energy Healing
|category3 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 10
|status = verified
|date = Mar 9 2008
|contents = Steven Spielberg to create new paranormal online community
|category1 = Paranormal
|category2 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 9
|status = verified
|date = Mar 2 2008
|contents = An Emmy award winning actress and her 911 conspiracy theory
|category1 = Conspiracy Theories
|category2 = Entertainment
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 8
|status = verified
|date = Feb 23 2008
|contents = Cryptozoology - Hunting for the Thunderbird
|category1 = Cryptozoology
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 7
|status = verified
|date = Feb 17 2008
|contents = Proposed center for exorcism in Poland
|category1 = Ghosts & Demons
|category2 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|episode = 6
|status = verified
|date = Feb 11 2008
|contents = Dr. Harris's Pain Relief Snake Oil Infomercial
|category1 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
|category2 = Alternative Medicine
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 5
|date = Feb 3 2008
|contents = Pope Benedict XVI takes on science
|category1 = Religion & Faith
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 4
|date = Jan 28 2008
|contents = Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology
|category1 = Myths & Misconceptions
|category2 = Paranormal
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 3
|date = Jan 21 2008
|contents = Multilevel Marketing and Pyramid Schemes
|category1 = Cons, Scams & Hoaxes
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 2
|date = Jan 13 2008
|contents = Ghost Photographs
|category1 = Paranormal
|category2 = Ghosts & Demons
}}
|-
{{5X5 list entry
|status = verified
|episode = 1
|date = Jan 6 2008
|contents = The National Health Service of the UK plans to regulate alternative medicine
|category1 = Alternative Medicine
|category2 = Pseudoscience
}}
|}