SGUTranscripts - User contributions [en]

SGU Episode 203

2015-08-08T20:13:46Z

Mantis!: fixed a typo in a hidden comment that hid a good chunk of the episode

{{Editing required
|proof-reading = y
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 203
|episodeDate = June 9th 2009 
|episodeIcon = File:Jellyfish-crop-b.jpg 
|previous = 
|next = 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|jay = y 
|evan = y 
|perry = 
|guest1 = BH: Bruce Hood
|guest2 = 
|guest3 = 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2009-06-09.mp3
|forumLink =
|qowText = “If there is anything that can bind the heavenly mind of man to this dusty exile of our earthy home and can reconcile us with our fate so that we can enjoy living – then it is verily the enjoyment of … the mathematical sciences and astronomy.” 
|qowAuthor = {{w|Johannes Kepler, in a letter to Jakob Bartsch}} 
|}}

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

S: Hello, and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday, June 9th, 2009. And this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella...

B: Hey, everybody.

S: Rebecca Watson...

R: Hello, everyone.

S: Jay Novella...

J: Hey, guys.

S: And Evan Bernstein...

E: Hi, everyone listening to this on June 13th.

S: I think so, yes.

R: Maybe.

== This Day in Skepticism (00:33) ==

E: It was June 13th in 1983 when the space probe vehicle, ''Pioneer 10'' crossed the orbit of Neptune, and became the first man-made object to leave our solar system.

R: Oh, really?

B: Depending on how you define “solar system”, but okay.

S: Yeah. That's what I was going to say.

J: How far out is it now? Does anybody know?

R: (stoned hippie voice) It's so far out!

S: Somebody knows.

E: Oh, it's so far.

B: I think it's past the heliopause.

E: In April, 2002 it was 7.57 ''billion'' miles from Earth. And a round-trip signal traveling at just about the speed of light took 22 hours and 35 minutes –

B: Wow.

E: – to get there and back.

J: So, Evan, how do we get it back?

E: Oh, we attached a string to it. So we're just going to pull it back like a kite.

R: (Laughs).

J: Oh. Excellent.

E: When we're all done for it.

S: We'll have to wait for am alien probe to absorb it, and then...

R: That's wrong, Evan. It's more like a yo-yo. So –

E: Oh!

R: It'll just spin it back on its own.

E: It's heading for the constellation Taurus. By the way.

== News Items ==

=== Crop Circles 2009 (1:25) ===
* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1190279/Jellyfish-dragonflies-peace-symbols-The-summer-crop-circles-just-getting-started.html http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2009/may2009.html

S: Well, 2009 already has a fairly vibrant crop circle season. Have you guys seen the new crop circles for this year?

R: Is it crop circle season already?

B: They are gorgeous.

S: Yes! Yeah.

E: Did you get your latest edition of ''Crop Circle Weekly''?

R: (Laughs)

J: This is such an old idea to me. Like, you know, this has been in my head for so many years now. Like, it doesn't even register to me that people ''still'' think that spaceships are making them.

B: Yeah, Jay.

J: Like, I just look at them as art, now. You know?

B: Jay, I felt the same, exact way. It just seems like I hadn't heard about them in quite a while. And I keep thinking, well, don't people realize by now that – first off, that it's been proved that people – actual people – human beings – can make super-complicated designs overnight. I mean, they ''filmed'' it.

S: Right.

B: They actually filmed – people have filmed themselves doing it. The original – the very, very original guys that actually kicked off the whole craze – they ''admitted'' it – that they started this whole thing.

S: Yeah, Doug and Dave.

B: And, I mean, all the evidence that people say, “Oh, the magnetic properties of the bent-over corn”, it's ''all'' baloney. It's just knocked-over corn or whatever, wheat, all these different grains. I don't – Ugh! Oh well.

S: So you ask, “are there people who still believe this?” Well, in the comments section to a news article on this year's crop circles here's one – one commenter writes:

<blockquote>Well, all you clever people who are certain that it is man-made: Tell us how. Don't give me the old “plank and string” nonsense, please. These circles are always completed. They never seem to have mistakes. They are complex and geometrically accurate. They have to be done in the dark and they have to be completed in one go before dawn.</blockquote>

R: Please, Steve. Don't give me the real answer. Don't confuse me with your facts, all right?

S & R: (Laughs)

E: The ol' plank 'n' string. Sounds like –

S: Oh, man. The ol' plank 'n' string.

J: Yeah don't give this, like, germ theory business, all right? Tell me –

R: (Laughs)

S: It's basically a giant argument from ignorance.

R: Uh, yeah. But, you know –

S: “You can't tell me how these are made”. But it's actually not even – it's manufactured ignorance! 'Cause the people can tell you how they do them!

E: (Laughs)

B: ''Tell'' you? How about watch the video?

R: In the most recent articles I've been reading, the farmers that it happens to are generally – none of them are screaming about aliens. It's usually just the nutcases in the comments on the articles.

S: Mm-hm. Yeah.

R: Or, you know. the journalist will try to liven up their story by saying, “''some'' say that it couldn't be done by humans”, but they don't really have anyone saying that. It's just “some”.

S: Yeah. I think the crop circle that's getting the most play is the Jellyfish.

R: Yeah.

B: Oh!

J: How beautiful.

E: Awesome. Awesome.

S: 600-foot. It really is. I mean, it ''is'' art, Jay. It's a work of art. And there's the Circle Makers, which is, essentially, a group of artists who see this as an artistic medium. And, for a while, they wouldn't admit that they were making these things themselves. They said that “the mystery is part of the art form”. Fine, right? But you're making them, right? Yeah. They make the most beautiful, most intricate crop circles.

R: I think it's cool. It's kind of like – it's like rural graffiti.

B: Yeah, right?

S: Yeah.

R: It's kind of bad-ass, but beautiful.

S: Yeah. I've always thought they were really pretty. There's also one that's essentially – incorporates a couple of yin-yang symbols –

B: Mm-hm.

R: Yes.

E: Mm-hm.

S: – in there. The most recent, I think, that just cropped up was the dragonfly. Have you guys seen the dragonfly?

R: “Cropped up”. I see what you did there.

E: Well done, Steve. Way to sneak that one in.

S: And then they used the very typical sort-of geometric shapes that we've come to know and love.

B: Remember the Mandelbrot set they did a while back? That was cool too.

R: Oh yeah.

S: Yeah. Well, if you haven't taken a look, we'll have some links so you could peruse this season's crop circles. Again, as art, it's very interesting. And some of the comments are entertaining, as well.

=== CT and Chronic Lyme Disease (5:09) ===
* http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=551 http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=552

S: The next news item has to do with a new bill that just passed the Connecticut House and Senate – the State House and Senate – that essentially protects practitioners who treat chronic Lyme disease with antibiotics. This is, actually, a ''huge'' topic, but it's worth going over a few of these points in some detail.

E: What is Lyme disease?

R: (Laughs) Good question, Evan!

S: It's a very interesting medical controversy that – I mean, Connecticut is probably the epicenter of this because, you know, Lyme disease was named after Lyme, Connecticut.

E: Woo-hoo!

R&E: (Laughs)

S: It is a tick-borne bacterial infection with the spirochete ''Borrelia burgdorferi''. So, there's actually three species of Borrelia, one in the United States and two in Europe. And it causes a chronic illness called Lyme disease. That much is not controversial. And, by the way, the spirochete class of bacteria is the same kind of bacteria that causes syphilis. And – that's also a spirochete – and it's interesting that Lyme has a very similar course as syphilis does. And that it has a early manifestation which is more acutely infectious, then you can have some late, or chronic, manifestations in the organs, including the brain. You can have neurosyphilis like you can have neuro Lyme. That much is not controversial.

What ''is'' controversial is that, there's a group of people who believe that they have “chronic Lyme disease”. And yet, the notion of chronic Lyme disease has not been validated scientifically. They think what they have is a chronic infection with live spirochetes – that there are spirochetes living in their body and forming a chronic infection, and that the infection actually survives the typical courses of antibiotics that we use to treat Lyme disease.

You could actually even break this down into a few groups. There are those who have had documented Lyme disease, were treated for their Lyme disease, but then have chronic symptoms afterwards. Then there are those who never had documented Lyme disease, but who have symptoms, typically fatigue, difficulty concentrating, aches and pains. So, like with many other things that we encounter in medicine, you have some non-specific chronic symptoms, a poorly-defined sort-of clinical entity, a belief in a chronic illness that can't be definitively disproven, and the evidence that we would ''expect'' to be there is ''not'' there, and what the believers engage in is a lot of special pleading as to why the evidence is all negative for the entity they believe in.

But there really has arisen a grassroots almost cult-like belief in this vague concept of chronic Lyme disease. And people believe they need to be treated chronically with antibiotics in order to keep their symptoms at bay. And when they undergo a course of antibiotics, many of them feel better, which, of course, could be attributed to the placebo effect. There's also physicians, though, that buy into this, and are willing to treat their patients who believe they have chronic Lyme disease with courses of antibiotics.

And that's where this new bill comes into play. What this bill does is essentially say that the State of Connecticut cannot, in any way, discipline or act against the license of a physician solely on the basis of them treating their patients with chronic Lyme disease with antibiotics. It also defines what chronic Lyme disease is, which basically includes in the definition, “the clinical judgment of the practitioner”. So that means the doctor can say, “I think you have Lyme disease”, and that's enough.

Now, that may seem like a small thing. But what – there are two big issues that are brought up by this. One is the reality of Lyme disease, which I kind of went over. The consensus of opinion is that chronic Lyme disease is ''not'' a chronic infection with the Lyme spirochete; that it's a collection of other things. It may be a post-Lyme syndrome. It may be some immune changes that were triggered by Lyme. It may be people with other illnesses entirely that are being misdiagnosed.

And there have been several large clinical trials looking at IV antibiotics for people who meet some kind of reasonable definition of chronic Lyme disease. And they've, essentially, been negative. Two were dead-negative. The third was sort of equivocal and soft, but mainly negative. So the only data we have shows that these people don't respond to antibiotics. The basic science says they don't have a chronic active Lyme infection. So that's one issue.

The other issue, though, is the intrusion by a state legislature – a legislative process – into the process of deciding what the medical scientific standard of care should be. And I find that more troubling, and more offensive, than the specific decision that they're making with respect to Lyme disease.

E: Definitely. Definitely. What do a bunch of bureaucrats know about the ins and outs of treating diseases and so forth? They're not equipped to make these kinds of decisions.

S: Yeah.

R: Well, they are blood-sucking ticks, though.

E: There you go!

J: Nice!

S: (unclear) 

B: Oh, nice!

S: (Laughs)

R: Thank you, thank you. Tip your waitress!

J: Awesome.

B: Good one.

S: Yeah. So think about it. We have – the standard of care is a moving target, right? It's determined by the scientific evidence, obviously, and how it's interpreted by professional organizations, and researchers, and experts, and academics. You know, what's the consensus of opinion? And it constantly changes as new evidence comes into play. What the Legislature's doing is saying that – they're sort of locking in place this one very narrow decision that this particular practice is now immune from the standard of care. That means – that's sort of what I call the “legislative arrogance” of thinking that the political process, first of all, is designed to even ''make'' that kind of scientific determination. I don't think it is. And, also, it's locking in a very narrow decision in something that's very complicated and that's rapidly evolving as new research is done and new evidence comes in. So it completely short-circuits the process that's already in place for determining what the standard of care is and, essentially, to protect the public from practitioners who are practicing substantially below the standard of care, right? That they're –

J: That's a really slippery slope, though.

S: It's a legitimate one. I mean, it's a legitimate slippery slope. Not the logical fallacy of the slippery slope.

J: Yeah.

S: You're absolutely right.

(Laughter)

E: Is that what you meant?

J: Yeah. I mean, it's obvious. I mean, it's easy for that to be abused. Like, you know, there's gonna be circumstances, I think, that come up that – where people legitimately need multiple courses of antibiotics, and there's gonna be circumstances where you have doctors throwing out antibiotics at people too often, and not following up with them and everything. I mean, how do you police that level of interaction?

S: That's a really good point, Jay. That it's not only – what you're essentially saying is, that they're also whitewashing a very broad spectrum of practice. So, now that takes away from the State Board of Health the ability to look at an individual physician and say, “is what they're doing – is it dangerous? Is it quackery? Is it malpractice? Should we protect the public from what this guy is doing?” Or is it, “Maybe it's not the majority opinion, but it's reasonable and we're not going to do anything about it.” Now, it basically creates this umbrella protection for anybody who wants to prescribe ''any'' antibiotics for anything that ''they'' clinically are willing to call chronic Lyme disease. It's – they're essentially putting up a sign and say “this is a quack-safe zone. Have at it. Do whatever you want. We can't touch you.”

R: I agree.

S: It's terrible!

R: Terrible.

S: It's absolutely terrible.

E: And this means that people who are under the care of these particular physicians who are making these quack remedies and so forth – these doctors are given protection that they can't go back and be sued by the people, in case whatever it is doesn't work.

S: That's actually ''not'' true. So, that's a separate standard. Individual patients can always complain to the State Licensing Board about their physician. Because if their physician has done harm to them, or has committed malpractice against them, that's a separate and ''higher'' standard that the state would have to meet in order to act against someone's license. And, by the way, this is also completely separate from a civil lawsuit for malpractice, which, of course, is still in play.

E: Right.

S: But I've been involved with all three types of cases. And, you know, losing the ability to restrict a physician for practicing substandard care is losing the game. Because the people who come to them for treatment – they're not going to sue them. And they're not going to complain about them. Patiently see these physicians as their savior, generally. Because, you know, because they're playing up to their desperation. A lot of these physicians may mean well. They're just deceived by their own shoddy science and thinking on the topic, in my opinion. But others, I think, are not. I think they just see this as a cash cow – are willing to be very effective salesmen to their patients. Which means that, if you ''look'' for patients who have been harmed in order to go after these doctors, you can't find them. I mean, anyone who's willing to say, “Yes, I was an idiot. And I listened to this guy and he hurt me.”

J: (feeble old man voice) “He hurt me with his antibiotics.”

S: Yeah. So it's bad. Very anti-consumer, anti-science, and a completely inappropriate use of the legislative process –

R: You fail, Connecticut!

S: – but it's happened. It's failed.

R: You fail hard.

J: So, what's you're solution, Steve?

E: Right here in our home state.

S: To drag this out into the public attention so that – these kind of things, I always seem to hear about them after they've already happened. (unclear) 

R: Yeah, don't you guys live there? What's going on, huh?

E: I know.

S: Yeah, it's like, where was the big debate. It just sort of happened, and then you get – you hear about it.

=== Casino Feng Shui (15:36) ===
* http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/06/antievolution-bills-die-texas-004818

S: The next item is a real funny one. Have you guys heard about the casino –

B: Oh my God!

R: Uh, yeah!

S: – that's being sued –

S&R: (Laughs)

S: This is an incredible story.

J: Here we go.

S: A Taiwanese gambler lost two million dollars to the Venetian, in Las Vegas. I guess this is appropriate with TAM Las Vegas coming up. Apparently, the guy was winning $400,000, and then his luck changed. And eventually he lost two million dollars. And he left back to Taiwan still owing the Venetian, apparently, two million dollars.

J: Cool.

B: How does that happen?

R: It happens because of bad Feng Shui!

B: No, how do they let you leave without paying two million and not have two broken legs and two broken arms, is my question.

E: It's easy. They say, “You owe two million dollars, sir.” “Oh! It's in my car. Let me go get it.” (makes car speeding away noise).

J: “I'll just sign this on my dashboard...”

S: I mean, the guy's obviously a high roller. I'm sure they're always constantly kissing his butt. You know, these are the people that they cater to. But, in this case – as Rebecca alluded to – he wants the Venetian to cancel his two million dollar gambling debt, because he claims that the Venetian used Feng Shui to give him bad luck.

B: Is there a law against that?

S: No. Even if true, it's not illegal.

R: Oh.... Yeah, I don't know. It's tricky. Because, I mean, if the casino were doing something underhanded that would physically affect his game, and somehow turn the odds more in their favor than they've already admitted, I guess there ''might'' be something there. But – (unclear) 

J: Oh my God. You can't really – let's face it: even if the casino hired, like, five people to stand behind the guy and scream the entire time he was gambling –

(Laughter)

J: – it would have virtually no effect on anything. Like, what? He didn't like the positioning of what? The furniture, or the plants?

S: No. He had two very specific complaints.

J: Well, let's hear it.

S: He said that they left white towels outside of his hotel room.

J: Oh! 'Cause no hotel does that.

E: No!

R: And he said that they dug a 40-inch hole in the wall, and then covered it with a black cloth.

B: What the hell's that about? That's weird.

J: Ho - ly Jesus.

R: Well, that's a Feng Shui thing.

E: Say no more. It's obvious what's going on.

J: (Giggles) You said that with a whistle, Rebecca.

R: I did! Feng Shui!

J: (Laughs) Wow. This guy's like, “They had brand new soap in the bathroom.”

(Laughter)

S: And they turned on fans facing his room without notifying him.

R: Right.

J: Yeah. And he suffocated!

(Laughter)

B: The chocolate on the pillow wasn't pointing north-south.

J: No, but Bob, he ''said'' they left white towels outside of his hotel room!

R: (Laughs)

J: What?!

B: Yeah that's just bizarre. But this hole –

R: I love Steve's initial reaction to that. On his blog he said, “Who does that? You bastards!” or something along those lines.

S: “You bastards!”

R: “White towels!”

B: But you have to admit, though, the hole in the wall is kind of odd. I mean –

R: It is!

B: – not in a Feng Shui kind of way. But just kind of like in a hotel way. Was that somebody trying to break into the other room and they covered it up before this guy came?

J: Bob, you obviously never saw the movie ''Bachelor Party''.

S: (Laughs) It was a square hole. A 40-inch square hole. Who knows? It's part of the architecture? Who knows? Who knows if it's even real.

B: Yeah.

S: He's saying that they did this.

E: It's all about chi flow. All about how the chi flows.

S: It's all about flowin' of the chi. That's right.

E: That's right!

R: His name is Yuan, which is – that's the mainland Chinese currency. Yuan means “dollar”. It seems fishy, that's all.

B: Hah.

S: Yeah.

J: So, wouldn't you love to be, like, someone that works at the casino, that can hear the responses of, like, the people that work there. I would love to know what they thought of that and what they said.

B: Behind the scenes they're just laughing.

E: “What's Feng Shui?”

R: Well, it's so funny, 'cause the casino said they'd refund him $100,000 in cash and $100,000 in chips, basically just to make him go away. Which – I mean, if it does it's a sweet deal for them, 'cause they still get $1.8 million.

E: He should.

S: Absolutely. He's a welsher. He should absolutely have to pay.

B: He should have to pay interest!

E: Thief!

J: I am ''so'' gonna do that. I am ''so'' gonna do that when I go to Vegas next month.

S: Listen. So, the thing that is interesting – so this guy was winning $400,000. And then his luck turns, And he starts losing. And he had to lose $2 million before he realized that his Feng Shui had gone bad?

R: Really, how bad was the Feng Shui in the rest of the casino?

J: It didn't hit him ''there''. That guy did the classic pivot. He went home, he got pissed off, and he's like, “Oh, the –“

S: “It was those white towels!”

J: Yeah.

R: Yeah.

S: The other interesting angle to this is, was the Venetian actually using Feng Shui to give their gamblers bad luck?

B: Yeah.

J: Absolutely.

S: It's not like ''that's'' an outrageous (unclear) claim. 

E: That's true.

R: I don't think they would do it to a high roller that they expected to get more money from, you know? I mean it's a little obvious.

S: Yeah.

E: And if that were true, and that sort of story would leak out, and I'm sure Las Vegas attracts a lot of Asian gamblers –

S: Yes.

E: – and high rollers, why would you want to scare people away with something like that, anyway? I think – I don't know that they would necessarily deliberately bring in a Feng Shui artist to Feng Shui up the place.

J: The casinos actually prove that there is nothing supernatural. Because, if there were, they would have – you know like in the last Ghostbusters movie – they would have, like, a river of negatively-charged sludge roiling underneath every one of their casinos to curse everyone that's in there so they lose.

R: And here's the other thing. It wouldn't really be worth their time to try to throw someone off their game. Because even someone who is 100% on their game is still going to lose enough money over the course of time to make it worth their while.

B: That's the bottom line.

E: The house wins.

B: They don't need to cheat. It's – why risk your license? Just play by the rules and they're gonna win.

J: Yeah, Rebecca's right. I mean, statistically, they're still gonna make the same exact amount of money that they're making.

R: Yeah.

J: Right? Like, they're not making any more or less than is to be expected from a statistical point of view.

S: Well, it's interesting. I mean, they have the science of gambling down.

R: Oh, yeah.

E: Science!

S: They know how much money they're making. But, they do encourage magical thinking among gamblers, because – I mean, sure, you could be a so-called entertainment-gambler, where you are willing to lose a certain amount of money for the entertainment value of the experience and the gambling, and that's fine. But the people who, like, are really hard-core gamblers – if you are thinking critically, you know the odds are against you and you're going to lose eventually. So, it is to their advantage for people to think that they could ''beat'' the odds by using a system, or by invoking good luck in some way. So they want people to think magically, but not in this way, right?

R: Right. It's – you know, what you're talking about is absolutely correct. But it's the opposite direction. They don't want people thinking that the odds are going against them. They want people to always think that the odds are going ''for'' them.

B: Right.

R: So, you know, I bet that if they knew this guy was superstitious, they would go out of their way to not put him on the fourth floor, or, you know, just do anything they can to make him feel more comfortable and luckier. So...

S: Yeah, they want their patrons to ''feel'' lucky. That's the juice. Commenter Max on my blog post on this pointed out that the Belagio, in Vegas, ''did'' hire Feng Shui experts. And he quotes an article saying, “During the Chinese New Year show, for instance, Feng Shui experts are brought in to make sure the energy in the room is just right. This includes analyzing the flow of the water and the direction the animal props are facing.

J: Wow.

E: To the benefit of who?

R: (Laughing) To the casino.

B: It makes sense though. You want it –

S: And other casinos have done that as well. So, casinos have used Feng Shui experts to, you know, give ''positive'' energy, I guess.

J: I admit I don't know, obviously, ''all'' the details about Feng Shui. But the more I do learn about it the more it seems to me like it's almost an individual's perception of what it is. Is there, like, a real thousand-point list of, like, what's good and what's bad?

S: It's so much art that you can't get three Feng Shui experts to agree on anything.

E: Yeah.

S: You know, like, the Penn & Teller show did. They had different Feng Shui experts come in and their recommendations were almost (unclear) 

J: I thought there was an element to it that – some of the stuff I've read about Feng Shui said that there is some classic concepts about interior decorating/design or whatever. Just things that make sense to the eye and, you know, what's pleasing.

E: Right angles and shadows. Yeah.

R: Yeah.

B: Aesthetics.

S: Yeah, I mean, one aspect of it is, as you say, it's interior design and aesthetics, and it's – even the concepts are – you know – that you want to work with natural forms, and it's better – it's whatever – psychologically healthy to be surrounded by beauty than ugliness. Sure. But the part that we're making fun of is the magical thinking of affecting the flow of luck in health and fortune –

B: Chi

S: – through chi, yeah – you know – into your house. That's the pure magical thinking part. That's become very popular in the West, and what I think a lot of people now think of when they think of Feng Shui.

J: God, all that stuff is ''such Bullshit''. But that voodoo...

(Laughter)

=== UFO Follow Up (25:13) ===
* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5435262/UFOs-above-Merseyside-linked-to-HMS-Daring-military-exercise.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5434040/UFOs-spotted-in-Cambridgeshire.html

S: Well, one quick follow-up from last week. Evan, we talked about the UFO hubbub in the UK.

E: Yeah. I got my UFO stories kind of mixed up there, a little bit.

S: Yeah, we crossed the streams a little bit on there. Why don't you straighten us out.

E: What we have here are two separate incidents. Not a single incident that was witnessed and later reported as being, you know, discovered, or the cause of the UFO was found. So, what we have are, again, two separate things. Cambridgeshire. Lights in the sky. About 20 UFOS buzzing over the night sky with pictures and, you know, eye witnesses, and accounts, and so forth.

S: Although, we've been informed, Evan, that it's pronounced, “Cambridge sure”.

E: Well, sure.

S: Even though I'm partial to the Shire, myself. But...

R: That's because you're a hobbit.

E: That's fine. They'll forgive my American accent, I'm sure.

(Sounds of incredulity)

E: Very, very forgiving audience. How's this: (weak British accent) “Cambridge sure”.

S: “Cambridge sure”!

R: (weak British accent) I say!

J: Now, Evan, you get more self-loathing. You gotta be like – you gotta really get up ahead of like “I hate everything about myself.” Something like, (Over-the-top British accent) “Cambridgeshire!”

R: (Laughs)

E: (weak British accent) I say! (Unclear) 

E: “Cambridge sure”, okay...

S: Okay. Well, that was one. And then, actually, I couldn't find any followup. I don't think that those spots of light in the sky were positively identified yet.

E: Yeah, I couldn't find anything, or any followup in regards to that either. It was just a single UFO story. But apparently, again, there was this ''other'' quote/unquote “UFO sighting” about – well, it actually turned out to be about 190 miles away from the other sighting.

S: Right.

E: So very – highly, highly, highly unlikely that these two had anything to do with each other.

S: Right. This is on Merseyside, right?

E: That's right. And it was the ''HMS Daring'', or is it “darring”.

R: Did you say “Mercy side”?

S: Yeah.

E: “Merzzy-side”.

S: “Merzzy-side”?

R: Did you know that there is now a Merseyside Skeptics Group?

S: Is that right?

R: Yeah!

E: Oh, that's awesome!

R: They wrote me a little while ago.

S: Awesome!

E: We should put them on the task of figuring out –

S: Well, that's the one that was explained as the flares from the air.

E: Yeah, that's the one that's explained.

R: Listeners should go and do a Google search for them, “Merseyside Skeptics”, you'll see all their links and their meet-ups.

E: Awesome.

S: Awesome.

E: Maybe they can take a train over to Cambridgeshire –

R&S: (Laughs)

E: – and figure out ''that'' mystery. So, just a clarification there that these are ''two'' separate incidents, two separate stories.

S: Right.

E: Unrelated. Whereas, I had tied them together.

R: You fool!

E: And I apologize for that.

== Questions and E-mails ==

=== Question # 1 - Apple Cider and Gallstones (27:48) ===
<blockquote>Through her friends, my mother has decided to drink apple cider to remove gallstones. According to her friends, after drinking only apple cider for two days, the gallstones will be flushed out from the body and observed in the feces. It will appear green and and feel soft to the touch. I have found conflicting reports online and I care about my mother's health very much. Your opinions would be much appreciated. SGU Listener, Ruanne Lai Toronto</blockquote>

J: Let's talk about emails.

R: Let's!

S: All right. Let's do – I think we have time for one quick email.

E: A quickie!

S: This one comes from Ruanne Lai, from Toronto. Hey, do you know Mike Lacelle?

E: (Laughs)

S: And, Ruanne writes:

<blockquote>Through her friends, my mother has decided to drink apple cider to remove gallstones. According to her friends, after drinking only apple cider for two days, the gallstones will be flushed out of the body and observed in the feces.</blockquote>

R: Ugh!

S: <blockquote>It will appear green</blockquote>

R: ''Ugh''!

S: <blockquote>and feel soft to the touch.</blockquote>

R:''Ahh''!

E: How does it taste?

S: <blockquote>I have found conflicting reports online and I care about my mother's health very much. Your opinions would be much appreciated.</blockquote>

R: I'm grossed out!

E: Ugh!

S: Well...

R: Wait, did she mean –

E: We have Rebecca's opinion.

R: – did she mean that the feces or the gallstones would be soft to the touch and green?

S: I believe the gallstones.

R: Still gross.

J: That shows – I hate to say it this way – but that shows such a complete lack of understanding of what a gallstone is anyway. Like, there's nothing you could do, chemically, to a gallstone to turn it into, like, green sludge.

R: I would like to plead ignorance concerning gallstones and their chemical make-up. So, we're all in this one.

S: Well, I'll tell you.

R: Please!

S: Gallstones are, essentially, made of bile, which is made in the liver.

R: Ew.

S: The bile goes from the liver down the common bile duct and is released into the small intestine, where it helps digest fats. It's made, primarily, of bile salts and cholesterol. Now, the bile also collects in the gallbladder. And when you eat a fatty meal, that sends a chemical signal to the gallbladder to squeeze out an extra little shot of bile, in order to help digest that fat. The problem is that if you get the – if the bile sits too long in the gallbladder and doesn't completely empty, or if there are certain chemical changes in the bile, then it can form into stones. Those stones then will – they're very hard – they will, sort of – they'll rub up against each other and develop these sharp edges. And when the gallbladder squeezes to release bile it'll squeeze down onto these stones, giving you a nice shot of sharp pain in your right upper quadrant of your abdomen. They also could get lodged in the duct, and that could then block the bile, which becomes a very acute, severe problem. And they can cause other problems, as well. They could block the bowels if they get released, et cetera.

Jay is right. There is nothing you could take, orally, that's going to dissolve those gallstones.

R: What about up the pooper?

S: Also –

R: Up the pooper! If you can't take it orally, is there something you can –

J: (Singing) Poop!

S: No. Anything you take, either from the top or from the bottom, is not going to go back up the bile duct into the gallbladder.

R: Gotcha.

S: Right? So it's not going to get access to the stones.

B: Nanites could do it.

S: Things don't flow that way. And there's a sphincter. You know about sphincters?

R: Oh, yeah. I know all about sphincters.

E: Yes! Pyloric sphincter?

R: Don't we talk about sphincters every week?

E&S: (Laughs)

S: So, the concept of drinking something for a few days and having it get up into your gallbladder and dissolving the stones just – it defies physiology and anatomy – doesn't happen. There are a couple of things that we ''can'' give to patients to help slowly dissolve their stones, but it has to be absorbed into the ''blood'' and then get into the liver. And it takes ''months''. Like, nine months. So it's not the kind of thing that would happen in a couple of days.

R: You could have a ''baby'' in that time.

J: (chuckling) Oh my God!

S: That's right! You could.

E: You could, Rebecca. You could.

S: What's happening here, and its interesting description that Ruanne is giving, falls right in line with what is known. This is a typical liver flush, or gallbladder flush. Naturopaths love this kind of thing. It's all crap, if you'll pardon the pun. What they're doing – and also, there's multiple different permutations of the formula, here. Some say apple ''juice''. Some say apple ''cider''. Some say apple cider ''vinegar''.

E: Some say Apple Jacks.

S: With some you also have to take olive oil, and maybe olive oil combined with lemon juice.

J: Oh my God! I love how people literally just make this ''up''! ''Totally''!

S: Well, actually, Jay, I don't think that this is ''totally'' made up. I think this is the kind of thing that's evolved in cultures over time.

B: Yep.

E: Yeah!

S: And here's why: If you take something like olive oil, and you combine it with either a vinegar, or lemon juice, or something like that, the fats in the olive oil will form into these small, formed balls that will then absorb bile from the intestines. And it will look kind of like a gallbladder stone, a gallstone. So, probably, people observed this happen and said, “Oh, that might be a gallstone. Maybe this works”. But, in fact, they're just looking at the olive oil itself that formed into this ball, and is stained green like a gallstone. The fact that it was “soft to the touch”, as Ruanne reports, that's the key. These things are much softer than ''true'' gallstones, which are very hard.

E: Yeah.

S: So if you have some soft-appearing stone in your stool after drinking olive oil and apple cider, that's not a gallstone. It's what you were drinking to begin with. Also, the size of the stones, as some people have reported occurring in their stool, are bigger than what can pass through the bile duct. You know, so, it doesn't really make sense that way, either.

== Interview with Bruce Hood (33:13) ==
* Bruce Hood is the author of Supersense:Why We Believe in the Unbelievable http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/

S: Well, let's go on with our interview.

''Transition music''

S: Joining us now is Bruce Hood. Bruce, welcome to the Skeptics' Guide

BH: Hi, there.

S: And, Bruce is the director of the Bristol Cognitive Development Center in the Experimental Psychology Department at the University of Bristol. And, he is the author of the new book, ''SuperSense: Why We Believe in the Unbelievable''. So, Bruce, why don't you just start by telling us what you mean by “supersense”.

BH: Okay, so the term “supersense” is the idea that we have an inclination to think that there's a hidden dimension to reality. That there's stuff going on in the world that is categorically denied by scientific investigation, and yet the majority of people feel that there are forces, energies, phenomena, patterns which are happening – which are real – but are denied by science. So it's this basis for supernatural beliefs that I've been working on in the book. And trying to understand where those beliefs come from.

And I think the title, ''SuperSense'', is really – originally it was going to be called ''The Supernatural Sense'' – and that was to capture this idea that it's almost like a sense which is – I would say – I'd hesitate to say – “wired in”. But what I mean is that we have a brain which has a way of interpreting the world by seeking out patterns and trying to infer the hidden causes. And so, in doing so we sometimes come up with ideas or beliefs which, if they were really true, would be supernatural.

So it's this sense that we have within us, this tendency, to assume that there are things operating in the world which are not really there.

R: Bruce, what fascinated me most about your book is that it seems as though you wrote it directly toward believers of the supernatural. Was that your primary audience?

BH: In retrospect, I think I made a big mistake there. In fact, I think I say at the end of one of the chapters that I didn't expect many skeptics to be reading the book.

R: Yeah.

BH: Yeah, and I think that was a real mistake on my part. Because, if anything, it's actually the skeptics who ''are'' actually interested in why people believe. I was really hoping to try and speak to what I perceive to be a large audience of believers almost – not as a direct challenge – but just trying to get them to reframe where they thought their beliefs were coming from. But, actually, now that the book has been out a couple of months, it's quite clear that it's the skeptical community who are the most enthusiastic about it. And, of course, I'm delighted by that. But I'd like to speak to both kind of camps, as it were, because I think there's something that, you know, we can both learn from it.

S: Yeah. I mean, we're always trying to simultaneously speak to both camps, right? Educate skeptics, but also get the wider audience to understand why we are skeptics. It seemed to me that in your book you were making the point that, in a way, we're ''all'' believers. Even skeptics, in a way, are believers. Because this “SuperSense” is hardwired in the brain, if you will. Do you agree with that?

BH: Yeah, absolutely. So, we all operate with belief systems. It's the extent to which those belief systems we hold them in the absence of direct evidence. Of course, you know, our daily lives we conduct with the notions that some things are true, and they may not necessarily be. But the supernatural beliefs, of course, are a special category of beliefs which appeal to all sorts of manner of phenomenon which, when they've been investigated by paranormal psychologists or scientists, the evidence simply doesn't support that there's anything there. So it's those – what I call “secular supernatural beliefs” – is what I really wanted to focus in on. So, I wanted to move the debate on from the discussion of religion per se, because all religions do have supernatural components to them, and open the whole argument to a variety of belief systems which, in fact, are extraordinarily common, and in many cases people don't even recognize that they're dealing with something which is supernatural.

So I was trying to show everyone that we all have strange notions – about contamination is one of the things I deal with – that if they were true, again, would be supernatural. So I think that was the purpose of trying to broaden the agenda, as it were.

S: You speak early on in the book about the sweater, right? The cardigan sweater of a serial killer. And in your lectures you, sort of, show the sweater and ask the audience if they'd be willing to wear it. And, tell us how they respond to that.

BH: Okay, so that was actually a stunt. It was done to make a dramatic point in a public lecture. And it's based on the work of Paul Rozin, who's a psychologist who works on disgust. And, very simply, I bring along a second-hand sweater and offer it to the audience, and ask who would wear it. And then I offer them an incentive. You know, $20, would you wear the cardigan? Most people put their hands up. But then I tell them the cardigan belongs to an infamous killer. It could be Jeffrey Dahmer, or, in our country we talk about Fred West. And most people immediately put their hands down, without even having to think about it. It's almost an instinct. And that's an interesting phenomenon to me. Why is it the case that when you learn about the history of a particular garment, you suddenly feel reluctant to come into physical proximity with it, or touch it? And I think, for many of us, it's because of an intuition that there's some sort of contamination there. Now, there are many levels at which you can explain that phenomenon, but the point is that operates so rapidly and so quickly, I think it's tapping into this sense that there is something to be feared from people who, ostensibly, are murderers, or evil. So I think this is a very dramatic demonstration about how we can quickly jump to conclusions, or jump to actions, or beliefs, when they're underpinned by something which I would call the “SuperSense”.

S: But, that gets really tricky, though. Because, on the one hand you're saying that we're rapidly arriving at some kind of a belief. However, on the other hand, you said this could be explained as the emotion of disgust. And emotions aren't necessarily about belief. They are evolved, instinctual responses that are almost subconscious, if you will. So, don't the two things get confused in that kind of explanation?

BH: Yes. I see that – I mean – and, indeed, some people say, “Oh, it's just associative learning. And, therefore, you're just triggering an emotion through association”. But that kind of explanation rings a little hollow to me. Because, why is it a cardigan or clothing? Why not the picture? We don't find the pictures of killers particularly disgusting. It's almost as if the simulation of actually having to physically come into their proximity to me is what I think is kind of interesting. So, I do agree, there are different levels at which you can explain the phenomenon.

And, actually, when people are making justifications for their actions, they will come up with all manner of notions. For example, another common one is that they don't want to do something which is seen by other members of the audience to be abhorrent because it suggests that they're willing to do something that the rest of us would find quite repulsive. But then that just resets the question: Why does the group, then, think that a cardigan, or touching a cardigan, is something to be appalled at. So, I wouldn't say you're instantly forming a belief. You're producing a ''behavior''. And I would argue that for a substantial proportion of the people, they would justify that in terms of a belief: a belief in contamination.

And very often, people can't necessarily exactly say ''why'' they do the things they do. This is what the psychologist Jonathan Haidt calls being “morally dumbfounded”. In other words, you have attitudes, and you make decisions, but very often you can't articulate exactly what it is that has been the basis for that choice. So those are the sorts of things I've been dealing with. And in those instances where this – the inference of some energy, or some contamination, or some force, which really couldn't possibly be there, that's when we're getting into the realms of the “SuperSense”.

R: And that also rings true with your discussion of free will in the book. That idea of rationalizing your actions after they've actually already occurred. I found it interesting that you took the time to delve into the idea of free will, which you don't usually find in paranormal books. It's kind of a heavy topic. How did you go about addressing that?

BH: Well, it ''is'' a heavy topic. And, quite interestingly, I was at a science conference last – a science ''festival'' last week. And we had Robert Winston, who's a very prominent science communicator. And he was discussing his – he was ''defending'' his religious position. And it basically came down to what he thought was an argument about free will, which I thought was quite ironic because if there'd been any philosophers or psychologists there, they would've immediately challenged him on this notion of “what is free will?” Because the truth of the matter is, is that the evidence for free will is, at best, very equivocal. It's a very complicated issue, free will. But most of us assume that we ''do'' have it. We assume that we ''are'' making decisions on the basis of some judgment process. But, actually, a lot of the evidence suggests that we're coming up with our decisions well after the decision has been made, in many ways. So, from very simple things like deciding when to move your finger muscle, for example, we know that the brain has already got premotor activity almost engaging in that. And that happens ''before'' you have this phenomological experience of deciding you want to do something. But even other things, such as more complicated choices that we make in life, you know, why we like somebody, or, you know, what we're going to have to eat, or what we're going to do the following day. Quite clearly, a lot of these decision processes are occurring at a level where you're not actually consciously aware of what you're doing. And that's the way it should be. Because that's, you know, how the mind sort of streamlines its processing to only attend to things at that point in time which need immediate control. But a lot of what we decide in our life, a lot of our beliefs, if you like, I think are operating at implicit levels.

S: So, the way I see it – and we'll get to your organ transplant paper in a minute – but, I blogged about that. And a lot of the people had a similar kind of thought process that I did when I was reading your book, in that it seems there might be two ways to make sense of how people react and how they rationalize it. One is that they have certain emotional reactions to contamination, for example. And then they have a post-hoc rationalization of their emotional decision. Which means they ''must'' invoke some kind of notion of spiritual contamination, or supernatural contamination. But that's really just an epiphenomenon of the emotion of disgust and attempts at rationalizing their reaction to not wanting to wear the sweater of a killer, for example. As opposed to the belief in the supernatural coming first and driving their reaction. So, in your research have you attempted, and is there a way that you think that we could separate out these two kinds of phenomena?

BH: Well, I think you've hit it exactly right, Steve. That's exactly the point, is that in many instances the post-hoc explanation, which generates what we recognize as a supernatural belief. So, yes. I mean, the response, the emotional response, is rapid and automatic. And it could reflect a very adaptive mechanism for avoiding potential toxins. But it's then what you then make of that, is what I'm referring to. And this is why it can form the foundation of a more elaborated belief system. But, in terms of teasing those two things apart, that's always a bit of a problem. At the moment we're doing some work on implicit responses to voodoo. So we have people destroying photographs of their sentimental objects. And what we know is that people will say at an explicit level, “I don't feel that that would cause any problem. I don't have any anxiety about doing that. I can do that perfectly well.” And yet, of course, is their autonomic arousal, which is being generated from their amygdala, is telling us that they're actually quite anxious at doing that. We get significant effect. Each time, we've replicated this. And so that would suggest that there are these physiological responses which are occurring. And whilst we can rationalize it, it might be the case that you will then get this experience of arousing your body. And then you have to reinterpret that. So I think you're right. I think there is this issue that these things are occurring at an implicit level, and then they have to be almost, kind of, interpreted by a rational system, if you like.

S: So, I agree. That's interesting. And what that brings up is – and my ears immediately perked up in reading the book – was when you say that even, you know, hard-core materialist atheist skeptics still possess a Supersense, in that we still have these emotional reactions which don't really make rational sense. Like, why would we ''feel'' disgust at the notion of wearing the cardigan of a killer? Even though we may then overcome it. We may then say, “Okay. I feel this way, but I know I shouldn't 'cause it makes no sense. So, yeah, I'll wear the sweater.” But you're saying, “But we still feel it!” and we still have the same hard-wiring that everyone else has. It's just that maybe we're exerting a learned, hierarchical, rational control of those emotions.

BH: Well, one thing I would say is that I think I regret using the word “irrational” so much in the book. Because, in many ways, it's not really being irrational because these are adaptive types of responses. It's irrational in the sense that if you really do think that there's something in the cardigan which is, you know, going to contaminate you, that would be. But the behavior, in terms of its outcome, is not entirely ''ir''rational because we know that people who are prepared to do this are somehow outsiders in the group. And you could argue, in fact, that people who kind of almost go against the grain, and do these sorts of things, are not acting in their best interest as far as the group is concerned. Because the group has an attitude towards what is a reasonable behavior. And wearing a killer's cardigan is generally regarded to be unreasonable. So, for whatever reason – you know, the fact that someone declines to do it doesn't mean it's necessarily irrational. It could actually be quite reasonable in the group consensus. So I think I've used the word “irrational” unfortunately, simply because I was trying to make out the point that the belief basis is not necessarily accurate, but the functional aspect, or outcome, of it could be.

R: And, you know, Bruce, what I took away from the book was, one: that, yes, we all have these – let's just use the word irrational – impulses. But also, too, that we can't – we wouldn't really want to get rid of all of our – all of those impulses, because they're an essential part of what we view as ourselves. The idea of having – valuing certain objects and giving them a, supposedly, supernatural kind of personality to them. Those things are essential to our lives, and the way we go about our everyday life, and the way we think about ourselves. Do you agree with that?

BH: Oh, absolutely. And I think that we need to have the sense of awe, we need to have the sense of – you know, and that can be in science. You can have the sense of awe when you look at the night sky, or the open expanse of space, or – you know, you look at the natural world around you. And that sense of awe is an emotional sense. And a lot of science is passionate and has emotion. I know that when Richard Dawkins did the recent documentary on Darwin, he was at the British Museum, and he picked up various of – various stuffed finches, I think they were, with handwritten labels – handwritten by Darwin himself. And it was very tangible that Richard Dawkins, indeed, feels that these are objects to be revered. So I think think that even – you see, atheists are really anti-religion, in many ways. They're not anti- the kind of thing that I'm talking about, which is this idea that there is almost some additional dimension. Of course, if they're going for a pure empiricist view of the world, then that's gonna be a problem. But, in my experience, atheism is really an issue to do with, in most instances, religion. And I suppose that was another reason to try and take the focus, or the spotlight, off religion and deal with the secular supernatural. But in that sense, then, yes. I think that most of us ''do'' have these assumptions that there's stuff out there, there are extra dimensions. And, certainly, we ''behave'' as if there were. And this is what generates the reverence towards sacred objects. And, no, sacred objects don't have to be religious. They can be sentimental things that have been passed on. They can be a work of art. You know, things which people pay good money for, or will travel great distances to view, because they hold some special import. They are important.

S: That's interesting to hear you say that you think, in retrospect, you may have overused the word “irrational”. Because I think that is ''exactly'' the reaction that I was having, in reading your book, was that – you know, I don't know that it's appropriate to say that someone's “irrational” for having a specific emotional response. I think, as Rebecca says, our makeup of emotions is part of the human condition. And I see no problem in embracing what we are. And experiencing life with all of its emotional color and texture. It kind of makes life a little bit more interesting, you know, and kind of fun. But I think where ''rationality'' comes in, I think that's how you make sense of your reactions in the world. And you can have, for example, a very sentimental attachment to a historical or personal object, as long as you don't think that it ''really'' contains some supernatural or magical power. Then you're not being irrational, you're just being human.

BH: Well, indeed. And it's actually the evaluation of the behaviors which are done on the basis of those beliefs which determine whether its rational or irrational. To give you an example, the idea that you can imbibe someone's psychological essence. A lot of the book, by the way, deals with essentialism.  This is the common assumption that there is a hidden property inside living things. But that can lead to behaviors which ''are'' irrational. Or, at least, atrocities. You know, for example, in Africa, at the moment, we have a problem with the “virgin myth”. The idea that you can cure yourself with AIDS by sleeping with virgins, for example. Now, that's an example where a belief system leads to behaviors which, if not irrational, certainly are atrocities. Other aspects of these beliefs – it's when these beliefs become used to justify actions – that's when we're, you know, getting into difficult hot water. And this is where we have to be vigilant.

S: Yes. Although, I think – just to clarify – I think we were talking about two slightly different things, there. I was talking about translating ''emotions'' into beliefs. And you were talking about translating ''beliefs'' into ''actions''. Now, I think those are two separate things. My point is that it's okay to have the emotion. But I think what's – like – as Steve Pinker says, if you understand why we have the emotions that we do, they won't automatically translate into irrational or supernatural beliefs. We can just understand them as human emotions.

BH: I would concur with that. I mean, you know, we have to have emotions. It's what motivates us to get up. We wouldn't be human without them. And, of course, it's absolutely a central component to the human condition to have emotions. And I think your point is saying “Well, it's not necessarily irrational to feel emotive about, for example, a sentimental object. And I would agree with that. But then, if you try to – what I'm trying to do is, I'm trying to dissect the basis of that emotional attitude towards an inanimate object. And with it comes a whole set of implicit notions, which I then – then I say ''could'' form the basis of an adult belief system –

S: Mm-hm.

BH: – or a supernatural belief system.

R: Yeah, I think that examining the basis of those emotions that can lead to beliefs that can lead to actions can possibly help people understand their own belief systems. So I can see why you might have thought that this book would be of more interest to believers. And, I'm wondering, have you received any feedback from believers who read this and re-evaluated their own beliefs?

BH: No, not in the slightest. It's actually all been skeptics. And it's generally been very positive. So I feel that the book has been probably pitched to the – originally conceived with the wrong audience in mind. The thing about believers is, as you're probably well aware, it's very difficult to dissuade them of their beliefs by presenting alternatives. Because that's the nature of belief. We tend to believe what we'd like to be true. So there are deeply held convictions that a book like mine is not really going to probably change their belief systems. But I think it would be at least helpful that people recognize that there's more to belief in the supernatural than ghosts and an afterlife. There's a whole lot of other dimensions that I've tried to deal with.

R: Right.

S: Let's talk, for a minute, about a recent study that was in the news that you had done. This has to do with the recipients of transplants – of organ transplants. Can you tell us about that?

BH: Well, this is following up on the “killer's cardigan”. What could be more intimate than having another person's body inside your own? And I'd looked into this. And there's not been a lot of research on it, but there are a couple of papers in the literature which have dealt with attitudes towards transplants. And in one study, in Israel, they'd found that one in three transplant patients believe they've taken on the psychological personality of the donor. There was also a famous case in the '70s, Kathy Sylvia , who'd had a heart/lung transplant, claimed that she developed a taste for beer and chicken nuggets, and found herself attracted to short, blonde women. And the donor had been a male, and had a short blonde girlfriend, and liked beer and chicken nuggets. And this became a whole kind of basis of an idea what's called cellular memory – The idea that you can take on psychological properties through organ transplants. The problem is, of course, is that, in fact, people ''do'' experience quite profound psychological changes following a transplant. But there's very good physiological reasons for why that might be the case. Never the less, people do interpret – well, you know, a proportion of people do interpret that because they've taken on the properties of the donor.

I interviewed a couple in England, a husband and wife. He had a kidney transplant and she was the donor 'cause there was a match. And I've spoken to them, now, several times. And he interprets his change in personality as taking on hers. And he now thinks he has a psychic connection with her. But there's no scientific model about how that could possibly happen. You'd have to do a brain transplant, actually, to take on the personality. But – so this is something which is a very common assumption.

Anyway, the study I did was really to not look at transplant patients because that's a very emotive situation. Ethically, there's a whole lot of issues. You don't want to alarm or raise the questions of taking on personalities 'cause, you know, that in itself could be seen to be ethically dubious. So we did a study just on normal adults just to see if they had any attitudes about taking organs or the idea of having an organ transplant. And we manipulated it. So what we did was, we showed adults pictures of faces, and we took baselines measures on their attitudes related to the face – you know, how happy would you be to have a heart transplant for this person? How good you think their memory is? How attractive do you – all sorts of questions.

And then we repeated the questionnaire – we repeated it again. But this time we mixed these faces with a face that they've never seen before, but then gave them additional information about the background of the prospective donor. Either they were a murderer or they were a voluntary worker. And we retook all the measurements again. And the long and the short of it is, you find – first of all, you find shifts in attitudes which go in the direction of the information. So when you hear positive information they score much more positively.

But the biggest effect is when they hear bad information. And, in particular, the question related to the organ transplant is the one which shows the biggest effect. So, of all the things, the last thing you want to do is to have an organ transplant from someone who is a murderer. Now, you might say, “Well, there are lots of reasons why that might be the case.” But we've used this essentialist framework to interpret this.

And I just want to add one last case which I came – discovered which – was a sixteen year old girl. I mean, these are not trivial issues, by the way. This sixteen-year-old had cardiac failure. And they actually had to forcibly give her a heart transplant. There was a court order. And the reason that she didn't want to have it was because she was so concerned that she would lose her identity and her personality by having someone else's heart inside her. I think this is an interesting issue. And I think one of the ways of interpreting it is this notion of psychological essentialism.

S: I think, for me personally, the example which seems the most benign, if you will, or the one I hold out for myself, is the notion of feeling connected to an historical object. Right? So, like, for example, you know, last year I was at the Mount Wilson Observatory and we were able to see the actual desk at which Edwin Hubble sat and worked. And, you know, you feel, “Okay, this is the ''actual'' place where he did, you know, amazing science.” And you feel a direct sort of connectedness to the history. And I don't feel that that's ''irrational'' as long as it's – again it's this feeling of emotional connectedness. And I obviously don't think a spirit inhabits the desk, or anything. How do you think about that in terms of your Supersense notion?

BH: Well, it is true. We've got another study in print – actually, no, it came out a month or two ago – showing exactly this idea. It's not just the evaluation of the object. There is this compulsion to actually physically touch the object. So when we put things in museums, we ''do'' see these things, and the we feel these emotions, and one of the things people want to do is they want to physically ''touch'' these objects. And that, to me, is extraordinarily interesting.

You might say, “Well, it's not irrational” because the emotions they're feeling are very real. And they obviously feel that this is something special. And if everyone in the room thinks like that, then it's not irrational because it's like a group consensus. Maybe the word “irrational” is unfortunate, because it does tend to suggest that it's – well, I'm not sure what the word is, but it does tend to suggest –

S: (Laughs)

BH: (Laughs) – you know, it's almost like we haven't got a language to describe the aesthetic.

S: Right. Right. Well, Bruce, this has been an absolutely fascinating discussion. I think the thing that I like about your research is, like all good scientific research, it raises as many questions as it answers. So I think that you have a lot of work still to do before you in exploring these really interesting ideas. I hope we can have you on again in the future to talk about your research as it develops and, perhaps now you've – especially now that you've realized that the skeptical community probably is your target audience.

BH: Yeah, well, thank you very much Steve. It's been great. And, as you say, I think that in writing the book and starting this program of work, it's quite clear there's a wide scope to be followed up. And I find it – I think for the first time in my research career, I've got very passionate, if you like, about the whole thing. So I'm not about to give up on it.

S&R: Great.

S: All right.

R: Thanks, Bruce.

S: Thank you.

BH: Okay. You're welcome.

== Science or Fiction (1:01:17) ==
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8083962.stm Item # 1]: Scientists have successfully genetically engineered bacteria to mass-produce tarantula silk, which can be used in textiles.
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8086000/8086246.stm Item # 2]: New research suggests that chimpanzees are able to memorize the precise location of individual fruit bearing trees out of more than 12,000 trees in their territory, in addition to remembering their seasonal productivity.
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8085477.stm Item # 3]: Researchers find that bats are able to identify other individual bats from their echolocation calls, even from a single burst of sound.

''It's time for “Science or Fiction”''

S: Each week, I come up with three science news items or facts, two real and one fake, and then I challenge my panel of expert skeptics to sniff out the fake. This week we have a theme.

E: (Groans)

S: Two themes in a row!

R: Ugh.

S: We had a theme last week, and we have a theme this week. This week the theme is “animals”.

J: Animicules!

S: Animicules.

R: Animals, huh?

S: All right, here we go. Item number one: Scientists have successfully genetically engineered bacteria to mass-produce tarantula silk, which can be used in textiles.

J: Awesome.

S: Item number two: New research suggests that chimpanzees are able to memorize the precise location of individual fruit bearing trees out of more than 12,000 trees in their territory, in addition to remembering their seasonal productivity. And item number three: Researchers find that bats are able to identify other individual bats from their echolocation calls, even from a single burst of sound.

J: Wow!

S: Evan, go first.

E: Well, “genetically engineered bacteria to mass-produce tarantula silk, which may be used in textiles”. That sounds fascinating. Tarantula silk! And then, the next one is that chimpanzees – well research group – suggests that chimpanzees “are able to memorize the precise location of individual fruit bearing trees out of more than 12,000”. Wow! That's surprising, but I don't think ''that'' surprising. I think that's probably pretty good. I've never – chimpanzees just can do ''amazing'' things. So I'm really ''not'' all that shocked about that one. And then the last one regarding bats identifying “other individual bats from their echolocation calls, even from a single burst of sound.” So, which one is wrong?

S: That's the game.

E: I'm leaning towards spiders and bats. Those are the two I'm going to choose between. “Mass-produce tarantula silk”. Tarantula farms? Although that one might creep up on me and bite me later, I'm going to say the tarantula silk one is fiction.

S: (Laughs)

R: Ho-ho-ho

S: Okay. Jay?

J: Okay, so, “scientists have successfully genetically engineered bacteria to mass-produce tarantula silk, which can be used in textiles.” I – honestly, I thought we were already doing this a long time ago. I can remember reading about this, but... That would be awesome if we could do that. And you know how they say spider silk is stronger than steel cabling and stuff? I remember hearing that at some point. I don't know how true that is, but –

B: Oh, it's true. It's incredibly strong, pound for pound.

J: Yeah. I mean, that is completely believable so... I don't know about that one. And number two: “New research suggests that chimpanzees are able to memorize the precise location of individual fruit bearing trees out of more than 12,000 trees in their territory”. For some reason, that does make sense to me too. I can see them being able to do that. That would make a lot of sense from an evolutionary perspective. And, uh, last one: “Researchers find that bats are able to identify other individual bats from echolocation calls”. Sure. I mean, if I was standing in a room full of a hundred people I know and one person yelled out? I'd know who it was. I'm going to say that the tarantula silk one is false because I think I remember hearing it a long time ago and Steve may have just changed the details on it a little bit.

S: Okay. Rebecca?

R: Uh... yeah, I won't go through the whole thing. But that tarantula thing, that sounds fishy to me because why would you genetically modify a bunch of bacteria to do something that you could just breed a bunch of tarantulas to do?

J: That sounds more spidery than fishy to me.

R: Yeah, you know, these puns are going to have to get better at some point, right?

J: (Laughs)

R: I say that that one's the phoney baloney. Tarantula.

R: Okay. Bob?

B: Three makes perfect sense to me. The echolocation. Their echolocation is so sophisticated. The fact that they could pick out their buddies from just one little burst of sound, it just seems pretty trivial to me. And the chimpanzees, that one does sound a little out there. 12,000 trees is a lot. But, remember, we covered that story a while back about chimpanzee memory, and how surprisingly accurate it was, and how fast they were. That might be playing into that. And maybe – I don't think they memorize 12,000 trees. Maybe they're triangulating or have some sort of – I don't know – mapping it somehow in their minds. But what jumped out to me, with the mass-producing the silk, was ''tarantula'' silk. Tarantulas are not orb weavers. They don't make webs. If you're going to mass-produce spider silk it's not going to be from a tarantula!

J: Oh! See, that sneaky bastard!

E: Oh.

B: So I'm saying that the tarantula one is fiction.

S: All right, Spiderman. We've got it.

(Laughter)

S: So let's take these in reverse order. Let me start with number three: “Researchers find that bats are able to identify other individual bats from their echolocation calls, even from a single burst of sound.” And that one is – very cool –

S&J: Science!

B: Yeah.

E: Woo-hoo!

S: It is not that surprising. But it was never proven before. They didn't know how bats were able to stay with their group of bats, and to what extent they were able to identify individual other bats, and what they used. But they did a very clever experiment where they –

J: They tortured the friend's bat –

E: (Laughs)

S: They would have three bats and they would train one bat to get a reward when it went in the direction of the call of one of the two bats. Right? And then they said, “Okay, well” – then they would produce the call from one of the two bats and the bats were able to make the correct decision about 80% of the time, so better than random guessing.

J: That is so mean because after the experiment was done, like, that one bat will be flying to his friend that he got a reward from, and he's like, “Hey, dude! Where's my reward?” And the other guy's like, “''What'' are you talking about? Leave me alone!”

S: (Laughs)

R: What are ''you'' talking about? You're making up conversations between bats.

S: (Laughs)

J: Of course! Think how bummed the bat would be when he didn't – you know – he didn't get the freakin' cookie!

S: They ''think'' that their brains are able to process the distribution of frequencies that are emitted by the individual bats. And that gives them a sort of signature. What we would recognize as what a voice ''sounds'' like. Right?

So let's go on to – we'll go to number two next. “New research suggests that chimpanzees are able to memorize the precise location of individual fruit bearing trees out of more than 12,000 trees in their territory, in addition to remembering their seasonal productivity.”

J: Mm-hm.

S: And that one... is... science!

(Sounds of relief from Rogues)

J: That's cool.

S: Good job, everyone.

J: That's cool.

S: Yeah, this is cool. They actually –

R: That's cool.

B: That's pretty awesome.

S: – used GPS to locate –

E: Chimpanzees are amazing! I told you!

B: Wow!

S: – to track these chimpanzees. And they mapped the location of 12,499 individual trees growing within the range of a group of chimpanzees, and then they followed them around. Now, the chimpanzees were able to identify 17 different species of fruit tree. So, one of the hypotheses was, so are they following the scent of the fruit?

B: Oh, yeah.

S: Or, are they following other sort of cues to sort of lead them? Or are they just sort of opportunistically coming upon...? So, clearly, their travel patterns were not random. They just weren't wandering around and looking for fruit trees. And they weren't zeroing in on trees, either. They would actually travel a fairly long distance, making a fairly direct path to a specific fruit tree that was within their range. They also discovered that they would travel farther in order to get to a fruit tree that was in season and had a lot of fruit on it. So they would bypass closer fruit trees that didn't have as much fruit –

J: For the good stuff.

S: – in order to get to a more distant tree that had more fruit. And, also, they had, as Jay said, the good stuff. The trees that they were particularly fond of, they would also preferentially go to. So it really seemed like they could say, “I want to go to ''this'' tree”, and then they would go to that tree. So what this all means that –

R: We won!

S: – “Scientists have successfully genetically engineered bacteria to mass-produce tarantula silk, which can be used in textiles” is, in fact, fiction.

E: Yeah, it didn't –

R: Ha!

S: However – however, Bob, I have to take exception with your reasoning.

E: Yeah, Bob!

R: Oh no!

E: You blew it.

B: Okay. What do you got?

S: It is true that tarantulas are not orb weavers.

B: Yeah?

S: But they do produce silk. And many of them produce quite a bit of silk and may even create fairly elaborate dens with their silk.

B: Or trap-door spiders. Are they considered tarantulas? They're pretty big. Trap-doors?

J: No, they're considered trap-doors.

S: No. They're in a different super-family. Tarantulas are Theraphosoidea, and trap-door spiders are Ctenizoidea.

B: 'Cause they build an elaborate hole lined with silk. And they actually build the hinge on the trap door made of silk. But I (unclear) tarantulas. 

J: Steve, you see how he totally threw more spider trivia at us to (unclear). 

B: Spiders are fascinating!

S: Right, right. All right, Bob. How many different species of tarantula are there?

R: Fail.

B: Oh. Oh, I don't know. Um –

E: Yeah, Spiderman!

S: There could be –

J: 1200!

B: 30? 40?

S: 900.

B: Holy crap!

S: 900 species of tarantula.

B: Damn!

R: (Unclear) 

S: How long ago, evolutionarily, did tarantulas branch off from other spiders? This surprised me.

J: (Silly English accent) Four-foot-one!

E: Uh...

B: Five... Ten million.

S: Anyone could throw out a number.

E: 23 million years.

B: Ten million years.

J: 30 thousand years.

S: Several ''hundred'' million years.

B: Wow!

J: What?

E: Wow!

J: That is a ''long time''.

B: See? Spiders are more wicked than I thought.

S: Yeah.

E: A little Cambrian Explosion?

J: Oh my God!

S: Well, that would be 550-something. So –

J: That's older than the Earth!

E: (Laughs)

S: – spiders have been around for a long time –

R: (Laughs)

S: Tarantulas branched off from other spiders a long time ago. But here's the thing –

E: Space spiders!

S: Bob, you're right in that we have been studying the silk production of orb weavers for a long time. We've identified a lot of their silk-producing genes. But we know very little about the genetics of tarantula silk. So we ''couldn't'' genetically engineer a bacteria because we don't have the genes yet, from tarantulas, to know which ones they use to make their silk.

B: All right. So it's not that they're poor candidates, but we just don't know enough about them.

S: We just don't know them yet. There's also another reason, which I was curious if anyone was going to hit upon. Now, when spiders make their silk, they secrete a protein. But the protein, if you just secreted it, it would be like a glop. They actually need spinerettes. And the spinerettes have to combine it in a very specific way. Without the spinerettes, again, it would just be like a glop of protein – of sticky protein. So that's, I think, the real reason why bacteria would not work. Because the bacteria would just be – you know – producing the proteins into a big gloppy mess –

B: No, you're wrong.

S: Without the spinerettes you wouldn't be able to make it into the strand.

B: No, you're wrong. I've seen machines extracting silk from vats of this glop. They – It's a special process of actually – it was surprising. It pulls – It just kind of pulls – it makes a thread pulling it out of this liquid, Steve. So they weren't using a specific spinerette. I would suspect the spinerettes are very efficient – more efficient at it than what we have. But there are ways to do it.

S: So you get something useful out of it.

B: Yes, there are ways to do it.

S: (unclear) the spinerettes.

B: Right.

S: Yeah.

R: Wait, so are we saying that the spinerettes were not a group that did R&B in the sixties?

E: Sorry.

S: That's what we're saying.

R: Oh.

B: (Chuckles)

J: In the latest Spiderman movies that they came up with, do you like the idea that Spiderman actually shot the webs out of his own body?

B: You know, I didn't have that much of a problem with that. It didn't bug me like some purists out there. It was a cool, quirky change that they made to the whole Spiderman story. And I thought it was – I had a good time with it. I enjoyed that aspect of it. And it was, you know, kind of weird, but –

S: But who would win in a fight, Spiderman or Batman?

(All Rogues): Batman.

B: Batman beats Superman. Of course Batman would win.

R: No question. That's not even a –

S: I don't know.

J: Well, wait a second!

E: He's got echolocation.

J: No, no, no.

S: I think Spiderman would.

B: Why?

R: No way!

J: Spiderman could be Batman in an ''impromptu'' fight. But if Batman has ''any'' time to prepare, at all, he will kick anybody's ass.

R: Batman doesn't need time!

J: Including Superman.

E: And Batman ''always'' has time to prepare.

R: Batman is all about quick thinking. Batman is very smart.

S: Batman is all about tactics and gadgetry.

E: Mm-hm.

S: But just in a – as you say – an impromptu mono a mono fight, you gotta give the edge to ''Spiderman''. I mean, he's got spider senses, and he's –

R: Spiderman would run away as fast as he can in an impromptu fight.

S: He's fearless. Fearless.

R: He wouldn't stay and fight.

J: No, he would make one of those web shields. Remember that? He would spin his hand around, and make like a big thing. And freakin' Batman would run right into that and he's done.

B: No, he would make one of those web speedboats, Jay. Remember ''that'' one?

J: Oh, God.

J&B: Oh my God.

J: Remember that? (Laughs) I made a web speedboat!

E: Did he really?

R: (Laughs)

S: 'Cause Spiderman would encase Batman in web, game over!

J: Yeah but – yeah but –

R: Oh, no!

J: Batman, at the – you know – if Batman had any time to prepare, he would have, like, some type of freakin' acid, or something, that would just –

E: He wouldn't show up unprepared.

S: He would have the utility belt, and he would have the spider-silk-melting thing in the utility belt.

E: Right, right. Of course he would. Duh!

J: Just on a whim, I was watching a Batman episode when I was a kid, and he had freakin' Bat-Shark Repellant. So he would have –

R: Yeah, shark repellant. Yeah.

S: (Laughs)

E: Did he?

R: What?!

E: Now, is some arachnologist gonna call up, or write us, and correct us on a bunch of things that we just said?

B: Inevitably.

J: No. No, Evan. A lot of comic book readers are going to call up and comment on (Comic Book Guy voice) “Hello, I'd like to take umbrage with your use of Spiderman”. (Nerdy kid with retainer in mouth voice) “Guys! Batman would ''slay'' Spiderman!” I want someone – I want someone, please, somebody that really knows the Batman/Spiderman thing: email us and give us a very good, like, one paragraph reason.

S: Sounds like a poll. Sounds like a poll we gotta do on our forums

== Who's That Noisy (1:15:18) ==
* Answer to last week: Auroral Emissions

(Elaborate musical intro plays)

R: Whoa!

E: Ho-ly ''crow''! I can't believe that.

B: Jay, what was that guy's name?

J: Yeah, this is Nick Tipati.

B: Nick, that rocked. Great job!

E: Well done. Very impressive.

S: So, Evan, with that, play last week's Who's That Noisy.

E: Here we go.

(Evan plays the sound)

S: What was that annoying sound?

E: What the heck was that? Well, in fact, that was a recording of an auroral kilometric radiation. Or, I should say, of auroral kilometric radiation. Also known as AKR.

B: How cool is that?

E: So this – yeah, that's very cool. So the Earth can generate radio emissions in a natural way. And this is one of the more intense emissions –

R: (Giggles)

E: – that we've been able to detect. (Chuckles) Oh, Rebecca. Thank goodness you're here. Known as the AKR.

S: Do they happen at night, Evan?

E: Are you saying nocturnal auroral kilometric radiation emissions? Now, there were a lot of guesses about, you know, spaces noises and so forth, and – but nobody specifically got that correct, so... That was a ''very'' tough one. I must admit.

S: Yeah. What do you got for us this week?

E: Ooh! Something really good. I had to dust off something for – to obtain this one, so here you go:

<blockquote>Well, about 2:15 I took off from Chehalis, Washington en route to Yakima. And, of course, every time that any of us fly over the country near Mt. Rainier we spend an hour or two in search of the Marine plane that's never been found, that they believe is in the snow, someplace southwest of that particular area.</blockquote>

R: Hmm.

E: All right.

R: All right.

E: I'm sure there's some guesses amongst the Rogues, as to –

B: Oh, man.

E: – who that is, or who that was.

S: I have a guess as to placing that accent in time.

B: Yeah. Yeah.

R: The future!

(Laughter)

S: Definitely an accent from the future! Well, thank you, Evan.

E: Thank you.

== Quote of the Week (1:18:11) ==
<blockquote>“If there is anything that can bind the heavenly mind of man to this dusty exile of our earthy home and can reconcile us with our fate so that we can enjoy living – then it is verily the enjoyment of … the mathematical sciences and astronomy.” - Johannes Kepler, in a letter to Jakob Bartsch</blockquote>

S: Jay, give us a quote.

J: Okay. I have a quote, here, from Johannes Kepler. And he was a German mathematician and astronomer, also an astrologer, and a key figure in the 17th Century scientific revolution. That's pretty interesting. And Johannes wrote

<blockquote>“If there is anything that can bind the heavenly mind of man to this dusty exile of our earthly home, then it is verily the enjoyment of the mathematical sciences and astronomy.”</blockquote>

(shouts) Johannes Kepler!

R: (Laughs)

(Rogues chuckle)

S: Verily.

R: There's no glottal stop on the “H” there.

B: (Chuckling) Glottal stop.

J: Well, whatever. I did that 'cause ''I'' like to.

E: Kepler's great.

S: Okay, we've got some announcements this week. One: The SGU is finally on Twitter. Yeah we (unclear) one. 

R: I've been on Twitter for ages!

J: Of course.

R: In fact, didn't we have this conversation about a year ago?

J: Yeah. You – Rebecca, you're a Twitter Bug.

R: Where you guys mocked me?

S: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

E: Yes, yes, yes, yes.

S: But, you can start following The Skeptics' Guide on Twitter. Just look us up. Also, we have changed the forum address.

R: Yes.

S: Just to keep you on your toes. It's now SGUForums.com. So change your bookmark.

R: And big thanks to Ducky for getting that done fast and smooth. Just how we likes it.

E: Well done.

S: Thank you. And the big news is that we finally have the information about the SGU dinner at TAM. Evan, take the wheel.

E: We are going to be hosting a dinner on Friday night, July 10th at TAM. And in the Sonoma Rooms. I mean, you'll be able to find it. It's the same rooms where they're having the lunches those days. So I'm sure you'll all find it just fine. We want folks to please preregister for it. There are instructions up on my latest blog posting. They're on the forums as well. You can check there.

S: But, basically, send us an email saying how many people you –

E: Yes. And then go to Paypal and plunk down your 55 bucks to join us. Reserve your spot. There is ''limited'' seating for this.

R: Last year we had so many people show up that we couldn't all fit and we overflowed the restaurant, and then another restaurant too. So, seriously peeps! Register now.

S: What we recommend that you do is send us the registration of your names of the people that you want to come, and then we'll confirm it to you right away. Once we confirm that there is actually room for you, then you could either pay us now on Paypal or let us know that – or send us a check, and we can send you how to do that – or let us know that you'll be paying onsite.

R: Yep.

E: Right. So registration is very important. We need a headcount ahead of time. And we do have to cap it, so send us your reservation as soon as you can.

J: Yeah, we promise that we'll be there on time this year and –

R: Yeah, seriously.

E: (Laughs) Oh, yeah.

R: I was there on time. Bastards.

S: We will all be there on time, barring some unforeseen distraction. And we are there to give our undivided attention to our faithful listeners.

R: Cash bar.

E: Yeah, cash bar, folks. So –

S: Cash bar.

E: – bring a few extra bucks to –

J: Two fingers, two fingers.

E: – to imbibe a little.

R: Or pack a flask, maybe.

S: Well, thank you all for joining me again this week.

J: Thank ''you'', Steve.

B: Surely.

R: Thank you, Steve.

E: Pleasure. Pleasure.

S: And, until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.

{{Outro119}}
== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

SGU Episode 204

2015-08-08T17:39:55Z

Mantis!: reserved episode 204 for transcription

{{transcribing all
|transcriber = Mantis!
|date = 2015-08-08
}}

{{Editing required
|transcription = y

|time-stamps = y
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 204
|episodeDate = June 11th 2009 
|episodeIcon = File:Syringedrop.jpg 
|previous = 
|next = 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|jay = y 
|evan = y 
|perry = 
|guest1 = 
|guest2 = 
|guest3 = 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2009-06-11.mp3
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,20799.0.html
|qowText = “In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’ I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.” 
|qowAuthor = {{w|Stephen Jay Gould}} 
|}}

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

=== Negative CAM Research () ===
* http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31190909/

=== Chiropractors In Retreat () ===
* http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/chiropractors-told-to-take-down-their.html

=== Quantum 'Mechanics' () ===
* http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/605/1

=== Flu Pandemic Update () ===
* http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jTkkEKE5LtPih_5Jcc-3MpD0gOYQD98ONHDG0
== Questions and E-mails () ==

=== Question # 1 - Youngest Skeptic () ===
<blockquote>Hello all, I am now 11, but have been listening to the podcast since I was 10 and have just heard the episode (SGU#77) in which you ask if there is any 10 year old skeptics. If you mention me on the podcast, please refer to me as Ainlina (my online nickname). Thank you for the great podcast. PS I come from England</blockquote>

=== Question # 2 - Prescient Genes () ===
<blockquote>I love your show; it is the best podcast I subscribe to. I have only listened to about 15 episodes, but that is enough of a sample size for me to know that this show is 'like totally radical.' I have a two-part question that has been bugging me for awhile. As you can tell by my subject it is regarding evolution. My question is as follows: Why do are genes want to get to the next generation or the future, and do our genes know something about the future that is so wonderful that could be the reason why they are evolving to make it there over the millions of years of evolution on this planet? Why would would genes or any species' genes want to live to make it to the future? This question kind of philosophical, so will you give me your opinion or the leading hypothesis of the experts? Thank you so much for reading my question, and I wish you continued success for your show and organization in the future. Mark B. Tampa, Florida</blockquote>

== Interview with Richard Wiseman () ==
* http://www.richardwiseman.com/ Prof Richard Wiseman is based at the University of Hertfordshire in the UK, and has gained an international reputation for research into quirky areas of psychology, including deception, humour, luck and the paranormal.
== Science or Fiction () ==
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8093005.stm Item # 1]: Astronomers conclude from simulations that there is a chance the Earth may collide with either Mars or Venus over the next billion years.
[http://www.physorg.com/news163936965.html Item # 2]: A new study shows that slide animation effects enhance attention and therefore learning of new material.
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-06/bc-srp061009.php Item # 3]: In a recent survey, less than half of the adults questioned could correctly identify the location of the heart and less than a third the location of the lungs, which is similar to results from 40 years ago.
== Who's That Noisy () ==
* Answer to last week: Kenneth Arnold
== Quote of the Week () ==
<blockquote>“In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’ I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.” - Stephen Jay Gould</blockquote>
== Announcements () ==
* SGU on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SkepticsGuide
* Skeptics in the Pub: Boston: http://bostonskeptics.com/?p=152
* SGU Dinner at TAM: Still room, send an e-mail to info@theskepticsguide.org to reserve a space
* Teaser: Go to The Skeptics Guide on Youtube -http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSkepticsGuide to view a teaser trailer for a video we will debut at TAM7

{{Outro119}}
== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

Template:SGU episode list

2015-08-08T17:36:39Z

Mantis!: change episode availability of 203 to "mag" and 204 to "i". Gave 2014 episodes their own header and split them from 2015 episodes

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

Where the first pass of transcription is done using Google Speech API, the page should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{a}}</nowiki></code> to add the microphone icon.

Pages currently in progress should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{i}}</nowiki></code> to add the pencil icon, and pages that have sections open to other contributors to transcribe should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{Open}}</nowiki></code> to include the green arrow icon.

Once all the transcription is finished, the page should be marked with <code><nowiki>{{mag}}</nowiki></code> to add the magnifying glass icon, signifying that it needs to be proof-read.

Pages that have been proof-read and verified by a contributor other than the author should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{tick}}</nowiki></code> to include the green tick icon. </noinclude>
Below are links to all the SGU episodes with transcription pages.

Jump to: [[#2014|2014]], [[#2013|2013]], [[#2012|2012]], [[#2011|2011]], [[#2010|2010]], [[#2009|2009]], [[#2008|2008]], [[#2007|2007]], [[#2006|2006]], [[#2005|2005]]

{|
!Key:
|-
|    {{tick}}
| –  episode proof-read
|     {{mag}}
|  –  transcription complete and needs proof-reading
|-
|    {{i}}
| –  transcription in progress
|     {{Open}}
|  –  contains sections that need transcribing
|-
|    {{a}}
|colspan="3"| –  first pass of transcription performed by Google Speech API
|}

{|style="margin:1em 3em"
|style="padding-right: 6em;white-space:nowrap" valign="top"|<big>'''2015'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 525]], Aug 1 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 524]], Jul 25 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 523]], Jul 18 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 522]], Jul 11 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 521]], Jul 4 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 520]], Jun 27 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 519]], Jun 20 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 518]], Jun 13 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 517]], Jun 6 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 516]], May 30 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 515]], May 23 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 514]], May 16 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 513]], May 9 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 512]], May 2 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU 10-Hour Show]], May 2 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 511]], Apr 25 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 510]], Apr 18 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 509]], Apr 11 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 508]], Apr 4 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 507]], Mar 28 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 506]], Mar 21 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 505]], Mar 14 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 504]], Mar 7 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 503]], Feb 28 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 502]], Feb 21 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 501]], Feb 14 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 500]], Feb 7 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 499]], Jan 31 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 498]], Jan 24 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 497]], Jan 17 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 496]], Jan 10 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 495]], Jan 3 2015 {{Open}}

<big>'''2014'''</big>
* [[SGU Episode 494]], Dec 27 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 493]], Dec 20 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 492]], Dec 13 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 491]], Dec 6 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 490]], Nov 29 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 489]], Nov 22 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 488]], Nov 15 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 487]], Nov 8 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 486]], Nov 1 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 485]], Oct 25 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 484]], Oct 18 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 483]], Oct 11 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 482]], Oct 4 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 481]], Sep 27 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 480]], Sep 20 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 479]], Sep 13 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 478]], Sep 6 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 477]], Aug 30 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 476]], Aug 23 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 475]], Aug 16 2014 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 474]], Aug 9 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 473]], Aug 2 2014 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 472]], Jul 26 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 471]], Jul 19 2014 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 470]], Jul 12 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 469]], Jul 5 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 468]], Jun 28 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 467]], Jun 21 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 466]], Jun 14 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 465]], Jun 7 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 464]], May 31 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 463]], May 24 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 462]], May 17 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 461]], May 10 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 460]], May 3 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 459]], Apr 26 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 458]], Apr 19 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 457]], Apr 12 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 456]], Apr 5 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 455]], Mar 29 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 454]], Mar 22 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 453]], Mar 15 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 452]], Mar 8 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 451]], Mar 1 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 450]], Feb 22 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 449]], Feb 15 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 448]], Feb 10 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 447]], Feb 8 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 446]], Feb 1 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 445]], Jan 25 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 444]], Jan 18 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 443]], Jan 11 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 442]], Jan 4 2014 {{Open}}

<big>'''2013'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 441]], Dec 28 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 440]], Dec 21 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 439]], Dec 14 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 438]], Dec 7 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 437]], Nov 30 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 436]], Nov 23 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 435]], Nov 16 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 434]], Nov 9 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 433]], Nov 2 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 432]], Oct 26 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 431]], Oct 19 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 430]], Oct 12 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 429]], Oct 5 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 428]], Sep 28 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 427]], Sep 21 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 426]], Sep 14 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 425]], Sep 7 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 424]], Aug 31 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 423]], Aug 24 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 422]], Aug 17 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 421]], Aug 10 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 420]], Aug 3 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 419]], Jul 27 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 418]], Jul 20 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 417]], Jul 13 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 416]], Jul 6 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 415]], Jun 29 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 414]], Jun 22 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 413]], Jun 15 2013 {{Open}}{{a}}
* [[SGU Episode 412]], Jun 8 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 411]], Jun 1 2013 {{a}}
* [[SGU Episode 410]], May 25 2013 {{Tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 409]], May 18 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 408]], May 11 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 407]], May 4 2013 {{Open}}{{a}}
* [[SGU Episode 406]], Apr 27 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 405]], Apr 20 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 404]], Apr 13 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 403]], Apr 6 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 402]], Mar 30 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 401]], Mar 23 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 400]], Mar 16 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 399]], Mar 9 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 398]], Mar 2 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 397]], Feb 23 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 396]], Feb 16 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 395]], Feb 9 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 394]], Feb 2 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 393]], Jan 26 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 392]], Jan 19 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 391]], Jan 12 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 390]], Jan 5 2013 {{tick}}

<big>'''2012'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 389]], Dec 29 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 388]], Dec 22 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 387]], Dec 15 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 386]], Dec 8 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 385]], Dec 1 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 384]], Nov 24 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 383]], Nov 17 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 382]], Nov 10 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 381]], Nov 3 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 380]], Oct 27 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 379]], Oct 20 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 378]], Oct 13 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 377]], Oct 6 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 376]], Sep 29 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 375]], Sep 22 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 374]], Sep 15 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 373]], Sep 8 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 372]], Sep 1 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 371]], Aug 25 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 370]], Aug 18 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 369]], Aug 11 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 368]], Aug 4 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 367]], Jul 28 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 366]], Jul 21 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 365]], Jul 14 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 364]], Jul 7 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 363]], Jun 30 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 362]], Jun 23 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 361]], Jun 16 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 360]], Jun 9 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 359]], Jun 2 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 358]], May 26 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 357]], May 19 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 356]], May 12 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 355]], May 5 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 354]], Apr 28 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 353]], Apr 21 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 352]], Apr 14 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 351]], Apr 7 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 350]], Mar 31 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 349]], Mar 24 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 348]], Mar 17 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 347]], Mar 10 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 346]], Mar 3 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 345]], Feb 25 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 341]], Jan 28 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 340]], Jan 21 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 339]], Jan 14 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 338]], Jan 7 2012 {{tick}}

<big>'''2011'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 337]], Dec 31 2011 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 336]], Dec 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 335]], Dec 17 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 334]], Dec 10 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 333]], Dec 3 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 332]], Nov 26 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 331]], Nov 19 2011 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 330]], Nov 11 2011 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 329]], Nov 5 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 328]], Oct 29 2011 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 327]], Oct 22 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 326]], Oct 15 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 325]], Oct 8 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 324]], Oct 1 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 323]], Sep 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 322]], Sep 17 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 321]], Sep 10 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU 24hr]], Sep 23-24 2011
* [[SGU Episode 320]], Aug 29 2011 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 319]], Aug 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 318]], Aug 17 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 317]], Aug 10 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 316]], Aug 3 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 315]], Jul 27 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 314]], Jul 20 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 313]], Jul 13 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 312]], Jul 5 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 311]], Jun 29 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 310]], Jun 22 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 309]], Jun 13 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 308]], Jun 08 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 307]], May 31 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 306]], May 25 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 305]], May 18 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 304]], May 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 303]], May 4 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 302]], Apr 27 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 301]], Apr 20 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 300]], Apr 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 299]], Apr 4 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 298]], Mar 30 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 297]], Mar 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 296]], Mar 16 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 295]], Mar 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 294]], Mar 2 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 293]], Feb 23 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 292]], Feb 16 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 291]], Feb 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 290]], Jan 31 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 289]], Jan 26 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 288]], Jan 19 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 287]], Jan 12 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 286]], Jan 5 2011 {{Open}}

|style="padding-right: 6em;white-space:nowrap" valign="top"| <big>'''2010'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 285]], Dec 29 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 284]], Dec 22 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 283]], Dec 15 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 282]], Dec 8 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 281]], Dec 1 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 280]], Nov 24 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 279]], Nov 15 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 278]], Nov 10 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 277]], Nov 3 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 276]], Oct 27 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 275]], Oct 19 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 274]], Oct 13 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 273]], Oct 6 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 272]], Sep 30 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 271]], Sep 22 2010 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 270]], Sep 15 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 269]], Sep 8 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 268]], Sep 1 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 267]], Aug 25 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 266]], Aug 19 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 265]], Aug 11 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 264]], Aug 4 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 263]], Jul 29 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 262]], Jul 21 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 261]], Jul 10 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 260]], Jun 30 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 259]], Jun 28 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 258]], Jun 16 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 257]], Jun 14 2010 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 256]], Jun 9 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 255]], Jun 2 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 254]], May 26 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 253]], May 19 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 252]], May 12 2010 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 251]], May 5 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 250]], Apr 28 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 249]], Apr 17 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 248]], Apr 13 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 247]], Apr 7 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 246]], Mar 31 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 245]], Mar 25 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 244]], Mar 18 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 243]], Mar 11 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 242]], Mar 3 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 241]], Feb 24 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 240]], Feb 17 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 239]], Feb 10 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 238]], Feb 3 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 237]], Jan 27 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 236]], Jan 20 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 235]], Jan 13 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 234]], Nov 15 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 233]], Jan 6 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 232]], Jan 1 2010 {{mag}}

<big>'''2009'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 231]], Dec 21 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 230]], Dec 16 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 229]], Dec 9 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 228]], Dec 2 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 227]], Nov 25 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 226]], Nov 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 225]], Nov 11 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 224]], Nov 4 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 223]], Oct 28 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 222]], Oct 21 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 221]], Oct 14 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 220]], Oct 7 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 219]], Sep 28 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 218]], Sep 23 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 217]], Sep 12 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 216]], Sep 9 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 215]], Sep 1 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 214]], Aug 25 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 213]], Aug 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 212]], Aug 12 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 211]], Aug 4 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 210]], Jul 29 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 209]], Jul 22 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 208]], Jul 11 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 207]], Jul 1 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 206]], Jun 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 205]], Jun 16 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 204]], Jun 11 2009 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 203]], Jun 9 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 202]], Jun 3 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 201]], May 27 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 200]], May 20 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 199]], May 13 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 198]], May 7 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 197]], Apr 30 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 196]], Apr 22 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 195]], Apr 15 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 194]], Apr 8 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 193]], Apr 1 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 192]], Mar 25 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 191]], Mar 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 190]], Mar 12 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 189]], Mar 4 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 188]], Feb 26 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 187]], Feb 11 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 186]], Feb 9 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 185]], Feb 4 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 184]], Jan 28 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 183]], Jan 21 2009 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 182]], Jan 15 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 181]], Jan 7 2009 {{Open}}

<big>'''2008'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 180]], Dec 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 179]], Dec 23 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 178]], Dec 16 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 177]], Dec 3 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 176]], Nov 20 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 175]], Nov 10 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 174]], Nov 18 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 173]], Nov 12 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 172]], Nov 5 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 171]], Oct 29 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 170]], Oct 22 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 169]], Oct 11 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 168]], Oct 8 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 167]], Oct 1 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 166]], Sep 24 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 165]], Sep 17 2008 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 164]], Sep 10 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 163]], Sep 3 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 162]], Aug 26 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 161]], Aug 20 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 160]], Aug 13 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 159]], Aug 6 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 158]], Jul 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 157]], Jul 23 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 156]], Jul 16 2008 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 155]], Jul 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 154]], Jul 2 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 153]], Jun 21 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 152]], Jun 11 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 151]], Jun 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 150]], Jun 4 2008 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 149]], May 28 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 148]], May 21 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 147]], May 14 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 146]], May 7 2008 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 145]], Apr 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 144]], Apr 23 2008 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 143]], Apr 16 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 142]], Apr 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 141]], Apr 2 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 140]], Mar 26 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 139]], Mar 19 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 138]], Mar 12 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 137]], Mar 5 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 136]], Feb 27 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 135]], Feb 20 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 134]], Feb 13 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 133]], Feb 6 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 132]], Jan 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 131]], Jan 23 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 130]], Jan 16 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 129]], Jan 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 128]], Jan, 2 2008 {{Open}}

<big>'''2007'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 127]], Dec 26 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 126]], Dec 19 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 125]], Dec 12 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 124]], Dec 5 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 122]], Nov 20 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 121]], Nov 14 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 120]], Nov 7 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 119]], Oct 30 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 118]], Oct 24 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 117]], Oct 17 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 116]], Oct 10 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 115]], Oct 3 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 114]], Sep 27 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 113]], Sep 19 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 112]], Sep 12 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 111]], Sep 5 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 110]], Aug 28 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 108]], Aug 11 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 107]], Aug 8 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 106]], Aug 1 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 105]], Jul 25 2007 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 104]], Jul 18 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 103]], Jul 11 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 102]], Jul 3 2007 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 101]], June 20 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 100]], June 19 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 99]], June 13 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 98]], June 6 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 97]], May 30 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 96]], May 23 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 95]], May 16 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 94]], May 9 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 93]], May 3 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 92]], Apr 25 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 91]], Apr 18 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 90]], Apr 10 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 89]], Apr 4 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 88]], Mar 28 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 87]], Mar 21 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 86]], Mar 14 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 85]], Mar 7 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 84]], Feb 28 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 83]], Feb 21 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 82]], Feb 15 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 81]], Feb 7 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 80]], Jan 31 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 78]], Jan 15 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 77]], Jan 10 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 76]], Jan 3 2007 {{open}}

<big>'''2006'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 75]], Dec 27 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 74]], Dec 20 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 73]], Dec 13 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 73]], Dec 13 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 72]], Dec 6 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 71]], Nov 29 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 70]], Nov 21 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 69]], Nov 15 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 68]], Nov 8 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 67]], Nov 1 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 66]], Oct 25 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 65]], Oct 18 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 64]], Oct 11 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 63]], Oct 4 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 62]], Sep 27 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 61]], Sep 20 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 60]], Sep 13 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 59]], Sep 5 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 58]], Aug 30 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 57]], Aug 23 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 56]], Aug 15 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 55]], Aug 9 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 54]], Aug 2 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 53]], Jul 26 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 52]], Jul 19 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 51]], Jul 12 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 50]], Jul 5 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 49]], Jun 28 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 48]], Jun 21 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 47]], Jun 14 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 46]], Jun 7 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 45]], May 31 2006 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 44]], May 24 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 43]], May 17 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 42]], May 10 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 41]], May 3 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 40]], Apr 26 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 39]], Apr 19 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 38]], Apr 12 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 37]], Apr 6 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 36]], Mar 29 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 35]], Mar 22 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 34]], Mar 15 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 33]], Mar 9 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 32]], Mar 1 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 31]], Feb 22 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 30]], Feb 15 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 29]], Feb 8 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 28]], Feb 1 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 27]], Jan 25 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 26]], Jan 17 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 25]], Jan 11 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 24]], Jan 6 2006 {{tick}}

|valign="top" style=white-space:nowrap|<big>'''2005'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 23]], Dec 21 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 22]], Dec 14 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 21]], Dec 7 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 20]], Nov 23 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 19]], Nov 16 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 18]], Nov 2 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 17]], Oct 26 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 16]], Oct 12 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 15]], Oct 6 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 14]], Sep 28 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 13]], Sep 14 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 12]], Sep 7 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 11]], Aug 31 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 10]], Aug 23 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 9]], Aug 10 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 8]], Aug 2 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 7]], Jul 20 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 6]], Jul 7 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 5]], Jun 29 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 4]], Jun 15 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 3]], Jun 7 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 2]], Jun 1 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 1]], May 4 2005 {{tick}}
|}

<noinclude>
[[Category: List templates]]
</noinclude>

SGU Episode 203

2015-08-08T17:21:56Z

Mantis!: Added raw transcript and timestamps. removed "reserved for transcribing" banner. Added "proofreading needed" tag

{{Editing required
|proof-reading = y
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 203
|episodeDate = June 9th 2009 
|episodeIcon = File:Jellyfish-crop-b.jpg 
|previous = 
|next = 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|jay = y 
|evan = y 
|perry = 
|guest1 = BH: Bruce Hood
|guest2 = 
|guest3 = 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2009-06-09.mp3
|forumLink =
|qowText = “If there is anything that can bind the heavenly mind of man to this dusty exile of our earthy home and can reconcile us with our fate so that we can enjoy living – then it is verily the enjoyment of … the mathematical sciences and astronomy.” 
|qowAuthor = {{w|Johannes Kepler, in a letter to Jakob Bartsch}} 
|}}

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

S: Hello, and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday, June 9th, 2009. And this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella...

B: Hey, everybody.

S: Rebecca Watson...

R: Hello, everyone.

S: Jay Novella...

J: Hey, guys.

S: And Evan Bernstein...

E: Hi, everyone listening to this on June 13th.

S: I think so, yes.

R: Maybe.

== This Day in Skepticism (00:33) ==

E: It was June 13th in 1983 when the space probe vehicle, ''Pioneer 10'' crossed the orbit of Neptune, and became the first man-made object to leave our solar system.

R: Oh, really?

B: Depending on how you define “solar system”, but okay.

S: Yeah. That's what I was going to say.

J: How far out is it now? Does anybody know?

R: (stoned hippie voice) It's so far out!

S: Somebody knows.

E: Oh, it's so far.

B: I think it's past the heliopause.

E: In April, 2002 it was 7.57 ''billion'' miles from Earth. And a round-trip signal traveling at just about the speed of light took 22 hours and 35 minutes –

B: Wow.

E: – to get there and back.

J: So, Evan, how do we get it back?

E: Oh, we attached a string to it. So we're just going to pull it back like a kite.

R: (Laughs).

J: Oh. Excellent.

E: When we're all done for it.

S: We'll have to wait for am alien probe to absorb it, and then...

R: That's wrong, Evan. It's more like a yo-yo. So –

E: Oh!

R: It'll just spin it back on its own.

E: It's heading for the constellation Taurus. By the way.

== News Items ==

=== Crop Circles 2009 (1:25) ===
* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1190279/Jellyfish-dragonflies-peace-symbols-The-summer-crop-circles-just-getting-started.html http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2009/may2009.html

S: Well, 2009 already has a fairly vibrant crop circle season. Have you guys seen the new crop circles for this year?

R: Is it crop circle season already?

B: They are gorgeous.

S: Yes! Yeah.

E: Did you get your latest edition of ''Crop Circle Weekly''?

R: (Laughs)

J: This is such an old idea to me. Like, you know, this has been in my head for so many years now. Like, it doesn't even register to me that people ''still'' think that spaceships are making them.

B: Yeah, Jay.

J: Like, I just look at them as art, now. You know?

B: Jay, I felt the same, exact way. It just seems like I hadn't heard about them in quite a while. And I keep thinking, well, don't people realize by now that – first off, that it's been proved that people – actual people – human beings – can make super-complicated designs overnight. I mean, they ''filmed'' it.

S: Right.

B: They actually filmed – people have filmed themselves doing it. The original – the very, very original guys that actually kicked off the whole craze – they ''admitted'' it – that they started this whole thing.

S: Yeah, Doug and Dave.

B: And, I mean, all the evidence that people say, “Oh, the magnetic properties of the bent-over corn”, it's ''all'' baloney. It's just knocked-over corn or whatever, wheat, all these different grains. I don't – Ugh! Oh well.

S: So you ask, “are there people who still believe this?” Well, in the comments section to a news article on this year's crop circles here's one – one commenter writes:

<blockquote>Well, all you clever people who are certain that it is man-made: Tell us how. Don't give me the old “plank and string” nonsense, please. These circles are always completed. They never seem to have mistakes. They are complex and geometrically accurate. They have to be done in the dark and they have to be completed in one go before dawn.</blockquote>

R: Please, Steve. Don't give me the real answer. Don't confuse me with your facts, all right?

S & R: (Laughs)

E: The ol' plank 'n' string. Sounds like –

S: Oh, man. The ol' plank 'n' string.

J: Yeah don't give this, like, germ theory business, all right? Tell me –

R: (Laughs)

S: It's basically a giant argument from ignorance.

R: Uh, yeah. But, you know –

S: “You can't tell me how these are made”. But it's actually not even – it's manufactured ignorance! 'Cause the people can tell you how they do them!

E: (Laughs)

B: ''Tell'' you? How about watch the video?

R: In the most recent articles I've been reading, the farmers that it happens to are generally – none of them are screaming about aliens. It's usually just the nutcases in the comments on the articles.

S: Mm-hm. Yeah.

R: Or, you know. the journalist will try to liven up their story by saying, “''some'' say that it couldn't be done by humans”, but they don't really have anyone saying that. It's just “some”.

S: Yeah. I think the crop circle that's getting the most play is the Jellyfish.

R: Yeah.

B: Oh!

J: How beautiful.

E: Awesome. Awesome.

S: 600-foot. It really is. I mean, it ''is'' art, Jay. It's a work of art. And there's the Circle Makers, which is, essentially, a group of artists who see this as an artistic medium. And, for a while, they wouldn't admit that they were making these things themselves. They said that “the mystery is part of the art form”. Fine, right? But you're making them, right? Yeah. They make the most beautiful, most intricate crop circles.

R: I think it's cool. It's kind of like – it's like rural graffiti.

B: Yeah, right?

S: Yeah.

R: It's kind of bad-ass, but beautiful.

S: Yeah. I've always thought they were really pretty. There's also one that's essentially – incorporates a couple of yin-yang symbols –

B: Mm-hm.

R: Yes.

E: Mm-hm.

S: – in there. The most recent, I think, that just cropped up was the dragonfly. Have you guys seen the dragonfly?

R: “Cropped up”. I see what you did there.

E: Well done, Steve. Way to sneak that one in.

S: And then they used the very typical sort-of geometric shapes that we've come to know and love.

B: Remember the Mandelbrot set they did a while back? That was cool too.

R: Oh yeah.

S: Yeah. Well, if you haven't taken a look, we'll have some links so you could peruse this season's crop circles. Again, as art, it's very interesting. And some of the comments are entertaining, as well.

=== CT and Chronic Lyme Disease (5:09) ===
* http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=551 http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=552

S: The next news item has to do with a new bill that just passed the Connecticut House and Senate – the State House and Senate – that essentially protects practitioners who treat chronic Lyme disease with antibiotics. This is, actually, a ''huge'' topic, but it's worth going over a few of these points in some detail.

E: What is Lyme disease?

R: (Laughs) Good question, Evan!

S: It's a very interesting medical controversy that – I mean, Connecticut is probably the epicenter of this because, you know, Lyme disease was named after Lyme, Connecticut.

E: Woo-hoo!

R&E: (Laughs)

S: It is a tick-borne bacterial infection with the spirochete ''Borrelia burgdorferi''. So, there's actually three species of Borrelia, one in the United States and two in Europe. And it causes a chronic illness called Lyme disease. That much is not controversial. And, by the way, the spirochete class of bacteria is the same kind of bacteria that causes syphilis. And – that's also a spirochete – and it's interesting that Lyme has a very similar course as syphilis does. And that it has a early manifestation which is more acutely infectious, then you can have some late, or chronic, manifestations in the organs, including the brain. You can have neurosyphilis like you can have neuro Lyme. That much is not controversial.

What ''is'' controversial is that, there's a group of people who believe that they have “chronic Lyme disease”. And yet, the notion of chronic Lyme disease has not been validated scientifically. They think what they have is a chronic infection with live spirochetes – that there are spirochetes living in their body and forming a chronic infection, and that the infection actually survives the typical courses of antibiotics that we use to treat Lyme disease.

You could actually even break this down into a few groups. There are those who have had documented Lyme disease, were treated for their Lyme disease, but then have chronic symptoms afterwards. Then there are those who never had documented Lyme disease, but who have symptoms, typically fatigue, difficulty concentrating, aches and pains. So, like with many other things that we encounter in medicine, you have some non-specific chronic symptoms, a poorly-defined sort-of clinical entity, a belief in a chronic illness that can't be definitively disproven, and the evidence that we would ''expect'' to be there is ''not'' there, and what the believers engage in is a lot of special pleading as to why the evidence is all negative for the entity they believe in.

But there really has arisen a grassroots almost cult-like belief in this vague concept of chronic Lyme disease. And people believe they need to be treated chronically with antibiotics in order to keep their symptoms at bay. And when they undergo a course of antibiotics, many of them feel better, which, of course, could be attributed to the placebo effect. There's also physicians, though, that buy into this, and are willing to treat their patients who believe they have chronic Lyme disease with courses of antibiotics.

And that's where this new bill comes into play. What this bill does is essentially say that the State of Connecticut cannot, in any way, discipline or act against the license of a physician solely on the basis of them treating their patients with chronic Lyme disease with antibiotics. It also defines what chronic Lyme disease is, which basically includes in the definition, “the clinical judgment of the practitioner”. So that means the doctor can say, “I think you have Lyme disease”, and that's enough.

Now, that may seem like a small thing. But what – there are two big issues that are brought up by this. One is the reality of Lyme disease, which I kind of went over. The consensus of opinion is that chronic Lyme disease is ''not'' a chronic infection with the Lyme spirochete; that it's a collection of other things. It may be a post-Lyme syndrome. It may be some immune changes that were triggered by Lyme. It may be people with other illnesses entirely that are being misdiagnosed.

And there have been several large clinical trials looking at IV antibiotics for people who meet some kind of reasonable definition of chronic Lyme disease. And they've, essentially, been negative. Two were dead-negative. The third was sort of equivocal and soft, but mainly negative. So the only data we have shows that these people don't respond to antibiotics. The basic science says they don't have a chronic active Lyme infection. So that's one issue.

The other issue, though, is the intrusion by a state legislature – a legislative process – into the process of deciding what the medical scientific standard of care should be. And I find that more troubling, and more offensive, than the specific decision that they're making with respect to Lyme disease.

E: Definitely. Definitely. What do a bunch of bureaucrats know about the ins and outs of treating diseases and so forth? They're not equipped to make these kinds of decisions.

S: Yeah.

R: Well, they are blood-sucking ticks, though.

E: There you go!

J: Nice!

S: (unclear) 

B: Oh, nice!

S: (Laughs)

R: Thank you, thank you. Tip your waitress!

J: Awesome.

B: Good one.

S: Yeah. So think about it. We have – the standard of care is a moving target, right? It's determined by the scientific evidence, obviously, and how it's interpreted by professional organizations, and researchers, and experts, and academics. You know, what's the consensus of opinion? And it constantly changes as new evidence comes into play. What the Legislature's doing is saying that – they're sort of locking in place this one very narrow decision that this particular practice is now immune from the standard of care. That means – that's sort of what I call the “legislative arrogance” of thinking that the political process, first of all, is designed to even ''make'' that kind of scientific determination. I don't think it is. And, also, it's locking in a very narrow decision in something that's very complicated and that's rapidly evolving as new research is done and new evidence comes in. So it completely short-circuits the process that's already in place for determining what the standard of care is and, essentially, to protect the public from practitioners who are practicing substantially below the standard of care, right? That they're –

J: That's a really slippery slope, though.

S: It's a legitimate one. I mean, it's a legitimate slippery slope. Not the logical fallacy of the slippery slope.

J: Yeah.

S: You're absolutely right.

(Laughter)

E: Is that what you meant?

J: Yeah. I mean, it's obvious. I mean, it's easy for that to be abused. Like, you know, there's gonna be circumstances, I think, that come up that – where people legitimately need multiple courses of antibiotics, and there's gonna be circumstances where you have doctors throwing out antibiotics at people too often, and not following up with them and everything. I mean, how do you police that level of interaction?

S: That's a really good point, Jay. That it's not only – what you're essentially saying is, that they're also whitewashing a very broad spectrum of practice. So, now that takes away from the State Board of Health the ability to look at an individual physician and say, “is what they're doing – is it dangerous? Is it quackery? Is it malpractice? Should we protect the public from what this guy is doing?” Or is it, “Maybe it's not the majority opinion, but it's reasonable and we're not going to do anything about it.” Now, it basically creates this umbrella protection for anybody who wants to prescribe ''any'' antibiotics for anything that ''they'' clinically are willing to call chronic Lyme disease. It's – they're essentially putting up a sign and say “this is a quack-safe zone. Have at it. Do whatever you want. We can't touch you.”

R: I agree.

S: It's terrible!

R: Terrible.

S: It's absolutely terrible.

E: And this means that people who are under the care of these particular physicians who are making these quack remedies and so forth – these doctors are given protection that they can't go back and be sued by the people, in case whatever it is doesn't work.

S: That's actually ''not'' true. So, that's a separate standard. Individual patients can always complain to the State Licensing Board about their physician. Because if their physician has done harm to them, or has committed malpractice against them, that's a separate and ''higher'' standard that the state would have to meet in order to act against someone's license. And, by the way, this is also completely separate from a civil lawsuit for malpractice, which, of course, is still in play.

E: Right.

S: But I've been involved with all three types of cases. And, you know, losing the ability to restrict a physician for practicing substandard care is losing the game. Because the people who come to them for treatment – they're not going to sue them. And they're not going to complain about them. Patiently see these physicians as their savior, generally. Because, you know, because they're playing up to their desperation. A lot of these physicians may mean well. They're just deceived by their own shoddy science and thinking on the topic, in my opinion. But others, I think, are not. I think they just see this as a cash cow – are willing to be very effective salesmen to their patients. Which means that, if you ''look'' for patients who have been harmed in order to go after these doctors, you can't find them. I mean, anyone who's willing to say, “Yes, I was an idiot. And I listened to this guy and he hurt me.”

J: (feeble old man voice) “He hurt me with his antibiotics.”

S: Yeah. So it's bad. Very anti-consumer, anti-science, and a completely inappropriate use of the legislative process –

R: You fail, Connecticut!

S: – but it's happened. It's failed.

R: You fail hard.

J: So, what's you're solution, Steve?

E: Right here in our home state.

S: To drag this out into the public attention so that – these kind of things, I always seem to hear about them after they've already happened. (unclear) 

R: Yeah, don't you guys live there? What's going on, huh?

E: I know.

S: Yeah, it's like, where was the big debate. It just sort of happened, and then you get – you hear about it.

=== Casino Feng Shui (15:36) ===
* http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/06/antievolution-bills-die-texas-004818

S: The next item is a real funny one. Have you guys heard about the casino –

B: Oh my God!

R: Uh, yeah!

S: – that's being sued –

S&R: (Laughs)

S: This is an incredible story.

J: Here we go.

S: A Taiwanese gambler lost two million dollars to the Venetian, in Las Vegas. I guess this is appropriate with TAM Las Vegas coming up. Apparently, the guy was winning $400,000, and then his luck changed. And eventually he lost two million dollars. And he left back to Taiwan still owing the Venetian, apparently, two million dollars.

J: Cool.

B: How does that happen?

R: It happens because of bad Feng Shui!

B: No, how do they let you leave without paying two million and not have two broken legs and two broken arms, is my question.

E: It's easy. They say, “You owe two million dollars, sir.” “Oh! It's in my car. Let me go get it.” (makes car speeding away noise).

J: “I'll just sign this on my dashboard...”

S: I mean, the guy's obviously a high roller. I'm sure they're always constantly kissing his butt. You know, these are the people that they cater to. But, in this case – as Rebecca alluded to – he wants the Venetian to cancel his two million dollar gambling debt, because he claims that the Venetian used Feng Shui to give him bad luck.

B: Is there a law against that?

S: No. Even if true, it's not illegal.

R: Oh.... Yeah, I don't know. It's tricky. Because, I mean, if the casino were doing something underhanded that would physically affect his game, and somehow turn the odds more in their favor than they've already admitted, I guess there ''might'' be something there. But – (unclear) 

J: Oh my God. You can't really – let's face it: even if the casino hired, like, five people to stand behind the guy and scream the entire time he was gambling –

(Laughter)

J: – it would have virtually no effect on anything. Like, what? He didn't like the positioning of what? The furniture, or the plants?

S: No. He had two very specific complaints.

J: Well, let's hear it.

S: He said that they left white towels outside of his hotel room.

J: Oh! 'Cause no hotel does that.

E: No!

R: And he said that they dug a 40-inch hole in the wall, and then covered it with a black cloth.

B: What the hell's that about? That's weird.

J: Ho - ly Jesus.

R: Well, that's a Feng Shui thing.

E: Say no more. It's obvious what's going on.

J: (Giggles) You said that with a whistle, Rebecca.

R: I did! Feng Shui!

J: (Laughs) Wow. This guy's like, “They had brand new soap in the bathroom.”

(Laughter)

S: And they turned on fans facing his room without notifying him.

R: Right.

J: Yeah. And he suffocated!

(Laughter)

B: The chocolate on the pillow wasn't pointing north-south.

J: No, but Bob, he ''said'' they left white towels outside of his hotel room!

R: (Laughs)

J: What?!

B: Yeah that's just bizarre. But this hole –

R: I love Steve's initial reaction to that. On his blog he said, “Who does that? You bastards!” or something along those lines.

S: “You bastards!”

R: “White towels!”

B: But you have to admit, though, the hole in the wall is kind of odd. I mean –

R: It is!

B: – not in a Feng Shui kind of way. But just kind of like in a hotel way. Was that somebody trying to break into the other room and they covered it up before this guy came?

J: Bob, you obviously never saw the movie ''Bachelor Party''.

S: (Laughs) It was a square hole. A 40-inch square hole. Who knows? It's part of the architecture? Who knows? Who knows if it's even real.

B: Yeah.

S: He's saying that they did this.

E: It's all about chi flow. All about how the chi flows.

S: It's all about flowin' of the chi. That's right.

E: That's right!

R: His name is Yuan, which is – that's the mainland Chinese currency. Yuan means “dollar”. It seems fishy, that's all.

B: Hah.

S: Yeah.

J: So, wouldn't you love to be, like, someone that works at the casino, that can hear the responses of, like, the people that work there. I would love to know what they thought of that and what they said.

B: Behind the scenes they're just laughing.

E: “What's Feng Shui?”

R: Well, it's so funny, 'cause the casino said they'd refund him $100,000 in cash and $100,000 in chips, basically just to make him go away. Which – I mean, if it does it's a sweet deal for them, 'cause they still get $1.8 million.

E: He should.

S: Absolutely. He's a welsher. He should absolutely have to pay.

B: He should have to pay interest!

E: Thief!

J: I am ''so'' gonna do that. I am ''so'' gonna do that when I go to Vegas next month.

S: Listen. So, the thing that is interesting – so this guy was winning $400,000. And then his luck turns, And he starts losing. And he had to lose $2 million before he realized that his Feng Shui had gone bad?

R: Really, how bad was the Feng Shui in the rest of the casino?

J: It didn't hit him ''there''. That guy did the classic pivot. He went home, he got pissed off, and he's like, “Oh, the –“

S: “It was those white towels!”

J: Yeah.

R: Yeah.

S: The other interesting angle to this is, was the Venetian actually using Feng Shui to give their gamblers bad luck?

B: Yeah.

J: Absolutely.

S: It's not like ''that's'' an outrageous (unclear) claim. 

E: That's true.

R: I don't think they would do it to a high roller that they expected to get more money from, you know? I mean it's a little obvious.

S: Yeah.

E: And if that were true, and that sort of story would leak out, and I'm sure Las Vegas attracts a lot of Asian gamblers –

S: Yes.

E: – and high rollers, why would you want to scare people away with something like that, anyway? I think – I don't know that they would necessarily deliberately bring in a Feng Shui artist to Feng Shui up the place.

J: The casinos actually prove that there is nothing supernatural. Because, if there were, they would have – you know like in the last Ghostbusters movie – they would have, like, a river of negatively-charged sludge roiling underneath every one of their casinos to curse everyone that's in there so they lose.

R: And here's the other thing. It wouldn't really be worth their time to try to throw someone off their game. Because even someone who is 100% on their game is still going to lose enough money over the course of time to make it worth their while.

B: That's the bottom line.

E: The house wins.

B: They don't need to cheat. It's – why risk your license? Just play by the rules and they're gonna win.

J: Yeah, Rebecca's right. I mean, statistically, they're still gonna make the same exact amount of money that they're making.

R: Yeah.

J: Right? Like, they're not making any more or less than is to be expected from a statistical point of view.

S: Well, it's interesting. I mean, they have the science of gambling down.

R: Oh, yeah.

E: Science!

S: They know how much money they're making. But, they do encourage magical thinking among gamblers, because – I mean, sure, you could be a so-called entertainment-gambler, where you are willing to lose a certain amount of money for the entertainment value of the experience and the gambling, and that's fine. But the people who, like, are really hard-core gamblers – if you are thinking critically, you know the odds are against you and you're going to lose eventually. So, it is to their advantage for people to think that they could ''beat'' the odds by using a system, or by invoking good luck in some way. So they want people to think magically, but not in this way, right?

R: Right. It's – you know, what you're talking about is absolutely correct. But it's the opposite direction. They don't want people thinking that the odds are going against them. They want people to always think that the odds are going ''for'' them.

B: Right.

R: So, you know, I bet that if they knew this guy was superstitious, they would go out of their way to not put him on the fourth floor, or, you know, just do anything they can to make him feel more comfortable and luckier. So...

S: Yeah, they want their patrons to ''feel'' lucky. That's the juice. Commenter Max on my blog post on this pointed out that the Belagio, in Vegas, ''did'' hire Feng Shui experts. And he quotes an article saying, “During the Chinese New Year show, for instance, Feng Shui experts are brought in to make sure the energy in the room is just right. This includes analyzing the flow of the water and the direction the animal props are facing.

J: Wow.

E: To the benefit of who?

R: (Laughing) To the casino.

B: It makes sense though. You want it –

S: And other casinos have done that as well. So, casinos have used Feng Shui experts to, you know, give ''positive'' energy, I guess.

J: I admit I don't know, obviously, ''all'' the details about Feng Shui. But the more I do learn about it the more it seems to me like it's almost an individual's perception of what it is. Is there, like, a real thousand-point list of, like, what's good and what's bad?

S: It's so much art that you can't get three Feng Shui experts to agree on anything.

E: Yeah.

S: You know, like, the Penn & Teller show did. They had different Feng Shui experts come in and their recommendations were almost (unclear) 

J: I thought there was an element to it that – some of the stuff I've read about Feng Shui said that there is some classic concepts about interior decorating/design or whatever. Just things that make sense to the eye and, you know, what's pleasing.

E: Right angles and shadows. Yeah.

R: Yeah.

B: Aesthetics.

S: Yeah, I mean, one aspect of it is, as you say, it's interior design and aesthetics, and it's – even the concepts are – you know – that you want to work with natural forms, and it's better – it's whatever – psychologically healthy to be surrounded by beauty than ugliness. Sure. But the part that we're making fun of is the magical thinking of affecting the flow of luck in health and fortune –

B: Chi

S: – through chi, yeah – you know – into your house. That's the pure magical thinking part. That's become very popular in the West, and what I think a lot of people now think of when they think of Feng Shui.

J: God, all that stuff is ''such Bullshit''. But that voodoo...

(Laughter)

=== UFO Follow Up (25:13) ===
* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5435262/UFOs-above-Merseyside-linked-to-HMS-Daring-military-exercise.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5434040/UFOs-spotted-in-Cambridgeshire.html

S: Well, one quick follow-up from last week. Evan, we talked about the UFO hubbub in the UK.

E: Yeah. I got my UFO stories kind of mixed up there, a little bit.

S: Yeah, we crossed the streams a little bit on there. Why don't you straighten us out.

E: What we have here are two separate incidents. Not a single incident that was witnessed and later reported as being, you know, discovered, or the cause of the UFO was found. So, what we have are, again, two separate things. Cambridgeshire. Lights in the sky. About 20 UFOS buzzing over the night sky with pictures and, you know, eye witnesses, and accounts, and so forth.

S: Although, we've been informed, Evan, that it's pronounced, “Cambridge sure”.

E: Well, sure.

S: Even though I'm partial to the Shire, myself. But...

R: That's because you're a hobbit.

E: That's fine. They'll forgive my American accent, I'm sure.

(Sounds of incredulity)

E: Very, very forgiving audience. How's this: (weak British accent) “Cambridge sure”.

S: “Cambridge sure”!

R: (weak British accent) I say!

J: Now, Evan, you get more self-loathing. You gotta be like – you gotta really get up ahead of like “I hate everything about myself.” Something like, (Over-the-top British accent) “Cambridgeshire!”

R: (Laughs)

E: (weak British accent) I say! (Unclear)  This is the common assumption that there is a hidden property inside living things. But that can lead to behaviors which ''are'' irrational. Or, at least, atrocities. You know, for example, in Africa, at the moment, we have a problem with the “virgin myth”. The idea that you can cure yourself with AIDS by sleeping with virgins, for example. Now, that's an example where a belief system leads to behaviors which, if not irrational, certainly are atrocities. Other aspects of these beliefs – it's when these beliefs become used to justify actions – that's when we're, you know, getting into difficult hot water. And this is where we have to be vigilant.

S: Yes. Although, I think – just to clarify – I think we were talking about two slightly different things, there. I was talking about translating ''emotions'' into beliefs. And you were talking about translating ''beliefs'' into ''actions''. Now, I think those are two separate things. My point is that it's okay to have the emotion. But I think what's – like – as Steve Pinker says, if you understand why we have the emotions that we do, they won't automatically translate into irrational or supernatural beliefs. We can just understand them as human emotions.

BH: I would concur with that. I mean, you know, we have to have emotions. It's what motivates us to get up. We wouldn't be human without them. And, of course, it's absolutely a central component to the human condition to have emotions. And I think your point is saying “Well, it's not necessarily irrational to feel emotive about, for example, a sentimental object. And I would agree with that. But then, if you try to – what I'm trying to do is, I'm trying to dissect the basis of that emotional attitude towards an inanimate object. And with it comes a whole set of implicit notions, which I then – then I say ''could'' form the basis of an adult belief system –

S: Mm-hm.

BH: – or a supernatural belief system.

R: Yeah, I think that examining the basis of those emotions that can lead to beliefs that can lead to actions can possibly help people understand their own belief systems. So I can see why you might have thought that this book would be of more interest to believers. And, I'm wondering, have you received any feedback from believers who read this and re-evaluated their own beliefs?

BH: No, not in the slightest. It's actually all been skeptics. And it's generally been very positive. So I feel that the book has been probably pitched to the – originally conceived with the wrong audience in mind. The thing about believers is, as you're probably well aware, it's very difficult to dissuade them of their beliefs by presenting alternatives. Because that's the nature of belief. We tend to believe what we'd like to be true. So there are deeply held convictions that a book like mine is not really going to probably change their belief systems. But I think it would be at least helpful that people recognize that there's more to belief in the supernatural than ghosts and an afterlife. There's a whole lot of other dimensions that I've tried to deal with.

R: Right.

S: Let's talk, for a minute, about a recent study that was in the news that you had done. This has to do with the recipients of transplants – of organ transplants. Can you tell us about that?

BH: Well, this is following up on the “killer's cardigan”. What could be more intimate than having another person's body inside your own? And I'd looked into this. And there's not been a lot of research on it, but there are a couple of papers in the literature which have dealt with attitudes towards transplants. And in one study, in Israel, they'd found that one in three transplant patients believe they've taken on the psychological personality of the donor. There was also a famous case in the '70s, Kathy Sylvia , who'd had a heart/lung transplant, claimed that she developed a taste for beer and chicken nuggets, and found herself attracted to short, blonde women. And the donor had been a male, and had a short blonde girlfriend, and liked beer and chicken nuggets. And this became a whole kind of basis of an idea what's called cellular memory – The idea that you can take on psychological properties through organ transplants. The problem is, of course, is that, in fact, people ''do'' experience quite profound psychological changes following a transplant. But there's very good physiological reasons for why that might be the case. Never the less, people do interpret – well, you know, a proportion of people do interpret that because they've taken on the properties of the donor.

I interviewed a couple in England, a husband and wife. He had a kidney transplant and she was the donor 'cause there was a match. And I've spoken to them, now, several times. And he interprets his change in personality as taking on hers. And he now thinks he has a psychic connection with her. But there's no scientific model about how that could possibly happen. You'd have to do a brain transplant, actually, to take on the personality. But – so this is something which is a very common assumption.

Anyway, the study I did was really to not look at transplant patients because that's a very emotive situation. Ethically, there's a whole lot of issues. You don't want to alarm or raise the questions of taking on personalities 'cause, you know, that in itself could be seen to be ethically dubious. So we did a study just on normal adults just to see if they had any attitudes about taking organs or the idea of having an organ transplant. And we manipulated it. So what we did was, we showed adults pictures of faces, and we took baselines measures on their attitudes related to the face – you know, how happy would you be to have a heart transplant for this person? How good you think their memory is? How attractive do you – all sorts of questions.

And then we repeated the questionnaire – we repeated it again. But this time we mixed these faces with a face that they've never seen before, but then gave them additional information about the background of the prospective donor. Either they were a murderer or they were a voluntary worker. And we retook all the measurements again. And the long and the short of it is, you find – first of all, you find shifts in attitudes which go in the direction of the information. So when you hear positive information they score much more positively.

But the biggest effect is when they hear bad information. And, in particular, the question related to the organ transplant is the one which shows the biggest effect. So, of all the things, the last thing you want to do is to have an organ transplant from someone who is a murderer. Now, you might say, “Well, there are lots of reasons why that might be the case.” But we've used this essentialist framework to interpret this.

And I just want to add one last case which I came – discovered which – was a sixteen year old girl. I mean, these are not trivial issues, by the way. This sixteen-year-old had cardiac failure. And they actually had to forcibly give her a heart transplant. There was a court order. And the reason that she didn't want to have it was because she was so concerned that she would lose her identity and her personality by having someone else's heart inside her. I think this is an interesting issue. And I think one of the ways of interpreting it is this notion of psychological essentialism.

S: I think, for me personally, the example which seems the most benign, if you will, or the one I hold out for myself, is the notion of feeling connected to an historical object. Right? So, like, for example, you know, last year I was at the Mount Wilson Observatory and we were able to see the actual desk at which Edwin Hubble sat and worked. And, you know, you feel, “Okay, this is the ''actual'' place where he did, you know, amazing science.” And you feel a direct sort of connectedness to the history. And I don't feel that that's ''irrational'' as long as it's – again it's this feeling of emotional connectedness. And I obviously don't think a spirit inhabits the desk, or anything. How do you think about that in terms of your Supersense notion?

BH: Well, it is true. We've got another study in print – actually, no, it came out a month or two ago – showing exactly this idea. It's not just the evaluation of the object. There is this compulsion to actually physically touch the object. So when we put things in museums, we ''do'' see these things, and the we feel these emotions, and one of the things people want to do is they want to physically ''touch'' these objects. And that, to me, is extraordinarily interesting.

You might say, “Well, it's not irrational” because the emotions they're feeling are very real. And they obviously feel that this is something special. And if everyone in the room thinks like that, then it's not irrational because it's like a group consensus. Maybe the word “irrational” is unfortunate, because it does tend to suggest that it's – well, I'm not sure what the word is, but it does tend to suggest –

S: (Laughs)

BH: (Laughs) – you know, it's almost like we haven't got a language to describe the aesthetic.

S: Right. Right. Well, Bruce, this has been an absolutely fascinating discussion. I think the thing that I like about your research is, like all good scientific research, it raises as many questions as it answers. So I think that you have a lot of work still to do before you in exploring these really interesting ideas. I hope we can have you on again in the future to talk about your research as it develops and, perhaps now you've – especially now that you've realized that the skeptical community probably is your target audience.

BH: Yeah, well, thank you very much Steve. It's been great. And, as you say, I think that in writing the book and starting this program of work, it's quite clear there's a wide scope to be followed up. And I find it – I think for the first time in my research career, I've got very passionate, if you like, about the whole thing. So I'm not about to give up on it.

S&R: Great.

S: All right.

R: Thanks, Bruce.

S: Thank you.

BH: Okay. You're welcome.

== Science or Fiction (1:01:17) ==
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8083962.stm Item # 1]: Scientists have successfully genetically engineered bacteria to mass-produce tarantula silk, which can be used in textiles.
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8086000/8086246.stm Item # 2]: New research suggests that chimpanzees are able to memorize the precise location of individual fruit bearing trees out of more than 12,000 trees in their territory, in addition to remembering their seasonal productivity.
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8085477.stm Item # 3]: Researchers find that bats are able to identify other individual bats from their echolocation calls, even from a single burst of sound.

''It's time for “Science or Fiction”''

S: Each week, I come up with three science news items or facts, two real and one fake, and then I challenge my panel of expert skeptics to sniff out the fake. This week we have a theme.

E: (Groans)

S: Two themes in a row!

R: Ugh.

S: We had a theme last week, and we have a theme this week. This week the theme is “animals”.

J: Animicules!

S: Animicules.

R: Animals, huh?

S: All right, here we go. Item number one: Scientists have successfully genetically engineered bacteria to mass-produce tarantula silk, which can be used in textiles.

J: Awesome.

S: Item number two: New research suggests that chimpanzees are able to memorize the precise location of individual fruit bearing trees out of more than 12,000 trees in their territory, in addition to remembering their seasonal productivity. And item number three: Researchers find that bats are able to identify other individual bats from their echolocation calls, even from a single burst of sound.

J: Wow!

S: Evan, go first.

E: Well, “genetically engineered bacteria to mass-produce tarantula silk, which may be used in textiles”. That sounds fascinating. Tarantula silk! And then, the next one is that chimpanzees – well research group – suggests that chimpanzees “are able to memorize the precise location of individual fruit bearing trees out of more than 12,000”. Wow! That's surprising, but I don't think ''that'' surprising. I think that's probably pretty good. I've never – chimpanzees just can do ''amazing'' things. So I'm really ''not'' all that shocked about that one. And then the last one regarding bats identifying “other individual bats from their echolocation calls, even from a single burst of sound.” So, which one is wrong?

S: That's the game.

E: I'm leaning towards spiders and bats. Those are the two I'm going to choose between. “Mass-produce tarantula silk”. Tarantula farms? Although that one might creep up on me and bite me later, I'm going to say the tarantula silk one is fiction.

S: (Laughs)

R: Ho-ho-ho

S: Okay. Jay?

J: Okay, so, “scientists have successfully genetically engineered bacteria to mass-produce tarantula silk, which can be used in textiles.” I – honestly, I thought we were already doing this a long time ago. I can remember reading about this, but... That would be awesome if we could do that. And you know how they say spider silk is stronger than steel cabling and stuff? I remember hearing that at some point. I don't know how true that is, but –

B: Oh, it's true. It's incredibly strong, pound for pound.

J: Yeah. I mean, that is completely believable so... I don't know about that one. And number two: “New research suggests that chimpanzees are able to memorize the precise location of individual fruit bearing trees out of more than 12,000 trees in their territory”. For some reason, that does make sense to me too. I can see them being able to do that. That would make a lot of sense from an evolutionary perspective. And, uh, last one: “Researchers find that bats are able to identify other individual bats from echolocation calls”. Sure. I mean, if I was standing in a room full of a hundred people I know and one person yelled out? I'd know who it was. I'm going to say that the tarantula silk one is false because I think I remember hearing it a long time ago and Steve may have just changed the details on it a little bit.

S: Okay. Rebecca?

R: Uh... yeah, I won't go through the whole thing. But that tarantula thing, that sounds fishy to me because why would you genetically modify a bunch of bacteria to do something that you could just breed a bunch of tarantulas to do?

J: That sounds more spidery than fishy to me.

R: Yeah, you know, these puns are going to have to get better at some point, right?

J: (Laughs)

R: I say that that one's the phoney baloney. Tarantula.

R: Okay. Bob?

B: Three makes perfect sense to me. The echolocation. Their echolocation is so sophisticated. The fact that they could pick out their buddies from just one little burst of sound, it just seems pretty trivial to me. And the chimpanzees, that one does sound a little out there. 12,000 trees is a lot. But, remember, we covered that story a while back about chimpanzee memory, and how surprisingly accurate it was, and how fast they were. That might be playing into that. And maybe – I don't think they memorize 12,000 trees. Maybe they're triangulating or have some sort of – I don't know – mapping it somehow in their minds. But what jumped out to me, with the mass-producing the silk, was ''tarantula'' silk. Tarantulas are not orb weavers. They don't make webs. If you're going to mass-produce spider silk it's not going to be from a tarantula!

J: Oh! See, that sneaky bastard!

E: Oh.

B: So I'm saying that the tarantula one is fiction.

S: All right, Spiderman. We've got it.

(Laughter)

S: So let's take these in reverse order. Let me start with number three: “Researchers find that bats are able to identify other individual bats from their echolocation calls, even from a single burst of sound.” And that one is – very cool –

S&J: Science!

B: Yeah.

E: Woo-hoo!

S: It is not that surprising. But it was never proven before. They didn't know how bats were able to stay with their group of bats, and to what extent they were able to identify individual other bats, and what they used. But they did a very clever experiment where they –

J: They tortured the friend's bat –

E: (Laughs)

S: They would have three bats and they would train one bat to get a reward when it went in the direction of the call of one of the two bats. Right? And then they said, “Okay, well” – then they would produce the call from one of the two bats and the bats were able to make the correct decision about 80% of the time, so better than random guessing.

J: That is so mean because after the experiment was done, like, that one bat will be flying to his friend that he got a reward from, and he's like, “Hey, dude! Where's my reward?” And the other guy's like, “''What'' are you talking about? Leave me alone!”

S: (Laughs)

R: What are ''you'' talking about? You're making up conversations between bats.

S: (Laughs)

J: Of course! Think how bummed the bat would be when he didn't – you know – he didn't get the freakin' cookie!

S: They ''think'' that their brains are able to process the distribution of frequencies that are emitted by the individual bats. And that gives them a sort of signature. What we would recognize as what a voice ''sounds'' like. Right?

So let's go on to – we'll go to number two next. “New research suggests that chimpanzees are able to memorize the precise location of individual fruit bearing trees out of more than 12,000 trees in their territory, in addition to remembering their seasonal productivity.”

J: Mm-hm.

S: And that one... is... science!

(Sounds of relief from Rogues)

J: That's cool.

S: Good job, everyone.

J: That's cool.

S: Yeah, this is cool. They actually –

R: That's cool.

B: That's pretty awesome.

S: – used GPS to locate –

E: Chimpanzees are amazing! I told you!

B: Wow!

S: – to track these chimpanzees. And they mapped the location of 12,499 individual trees growing within the range of a group of chimpanzees, and then they followed them around. Now, the chimpanzees were able to identify 17 different species of fruit tree. So, one of the hypotheses was, so are they following the scent of the fruit?

B: Oh, yeah.

S: Or, are they following other sort of cues to sort of lead them? Or are they just sort of opportunistically coming upon...? So, clearly, their travel patterns were not random. They just weren't wandering around and looking for fruit trees. And they weren't zeroing in on trees, either. They would actually travel a fairly long distance, making a fairly direct path to a specific fruit tree that was within their range. They also discovered that they would travel farther in order to get to a fruit tree that was in season and had a lot of fruit on it. So they would bypass closer fruit trees that didn't have as much fruit –

J: For the good stuff.

S: – in order to get to a more distant tree that had more fruit. And, also, they had, as Jay said, the good stuff. The trees that they were particularly fond of, they would also preferentially go to. So it really seemed like they could say, “I want to go to ''this'' tree”, and then they would go to that tree. So what this all means that –

R: We won!

S: – “Scientists have successfully genetically engineered bacteria to mass-produce tarantula silk, which can be used in textiles” is, in fact, fiction.

E: Yeah, it didn't –

R: Ha!

S: However – however, Bob, I have to take exception with your reasoning.

E: Yeah, Bob!

R: Oh no!

E: You blew it.

B: Okay. What do you got?

S: It is true that tarantulas are not orb weavers.

B: Yeah?

S: But they do produce silk. And many of them produce quite a bit of silk and may even create fairly elaborate dens with their silk.

B: Or trap-door spiders. Are they considered tarantulas? They're pretty big. Trap-doors?

J: No, they're considered trap-doors.

S: No. They're in a different super-family. Tarantulas are Theraphosoidea, and trap-door spiders are Ctenizoidea.

B: 'Cause they build an elaborate hole lined with silk. And they actually build the hinge on the trap door made of silk. But I (unclear) tarantulas. 

J: Steve, you see how he totally threw more spider trivia at us to (unclear). 

B: Spiders are fascinating!

S: Right, right. All right, Bob. How many different species of tarantula are there?

R: Fail.

B: Oh. Oh, I don't know. Um –

E: Yeah, Spiderman!

S: There could be –

J: 1200!

B: 30? 40?

S: 900.

B: Holy crap!

S: 900 species of tarantula.

B: Damn!

R: (Unclear) 

S: How long ago, evolutionarily, did tarantulas branch off from other spiders? This surprised me.

J: (Silly English accent) Four-foot-one!

E: Uh...

B: Five... Ten million.

S: Anyone could throw out a number.

E: 23 million years.

B: Ten million years.

J: 30 thousand years.

S: Several ''hundred'' million years.

B: Wow!

J: What?

E: Wow!

J: That is a ''long time''.

B: See? Spiders are more wicked than I thought.

S: Yeah.

E: A little Cambrian Explosion?

J: Oh my God!

S: Well, that would be 550-something. So –

J: That's older than the Earth!

E: (Laughs)

S: – spiders have been around for a long time –

R: (Laughs)

S: Tarantulas branched off from other spiders a long time ago. But here's the thing –

E: Space spiders!

S: Bob, you're right in that we have been studying the silk production of orb weavers for a long time. We've identified a lot of their silk-producing genes. But we know very little about the genetics of tarantula silk. So we ''couldn't'' genetically engineer a bacteria because we don't have the genes yet, from tarantulas, to know which ones they use to make their silk.

B: All right. So it's not that they're poor candidates, but we just don't know enough about them.

S: We just don't know them yet. There's also another reason, which I was curious if anyone was going to hit upon. Now, when spiders make their silk, they secrete a protein. But the protein, if you just secreted it, it would be like a glop. They actually need spinerettes. And the spinerettes have to combine it in a very specific way. Without the spinerettes, again, it would just be like a glop of protein – of sticky protein. So that's, I think, the real reason why bacteria would not work. Because the bacteria would just be – you know – producing the proteins into a big gloppy mess –

B: No, you're wrong.

S: Without the spinerettes you wouldn't be able to make it into the strand.

B: No, you're wrong. I've seen machines extracting silk from vats of this glop. They – It's a special process of actually – it was surprising. It pulls – It just kind of pulls – it makes a thread pulling it out of this liquid, Steve. So they weren't using a specific spinerette. I would suspect the spinerettes are very efficient – more efficient at it than what we have. But there are ways to do it.

S: So you get something useful out of it.

B: Yes, there are ways to do it.

S: (unclear) the spinerettes.

B: Right.

S: Yeah.

R: Wait, so are we saying that the spinerettes were not a group that did R&B in the sixties?

E: Sorry.

S: That's what we're saying.

R: Oh.

B: (Chuckles)

J: In the latest Spiderman movies that they came up with, do you like the idea that Spiderman actually shot the webs out of his own body?

B: You know, I didn't have that much of a problem with that. It didn't bug me like some purists out there. It was a cool, quirky change that they made to the whole Spiderman story. And I thought it was – I had a good time with it. I enjoyed that aspect of it. And it was, you know, kind of weird, but –

S: But who would win in a fight, Spiderman or Batman?

(All Rogues): Batman.

B: Batman beats Superman. Of course Batman would win.

R: No question. That's not even a –

S: I don't know.

J: Well, wait a second!

E: He's got echolocation.

J: No, no, no.

S: I think Spiderman would.

B: Why?

R: No way!

J: Spiderman could be Batman in an ''impromptu'' fight. But if Batman has ''any'' time to prepare, at all, he will kick anybody's ass.

R: Batman doesn't need time!

J: Including Superman.

E: And Batman ''always'' has time to prepare.

R: Batman is all about quick thinking. Batman is very smart.

S: Batman is all about tactics and gadgetry.

E: Mm-hm.

S: But just in a – as you say – an impromptu mono a mono fight, you gotta give the edge to ''Spiderman''. I mean, he's got spider senses, and he's –

R: Spiderman would run away as fast as he can in an impromptu fight.

S: He's fearless. Fearless.

R: He wouldn't stay and fight.

J: No, he would make one of those web shields. Remember that? He would spin his hand around, and make like a big thing. And freakin' Batman would run right into that and he's done.

B: No, he would make one of those web speedboats, Jay. Remember ''that'' one?

J: Oh, God.

J&B: Oh my God.

J: Remember that? (Laughs) I made a web speedboat!

E: Did he really?

R: (Laughs)

S: 'Cause Spiderman would encase Batman in web, game over!

J: Yeah but – yeah but –

R: Oh, no!

J: Batman, at the – you know – if Batman had any time to prepare, he would have, like, some type of freakin' acid, or something, that would just –

E: He wouldn't show up unprepared.

S: He would have the utility belt, and he would have the spider-silk-melting thing in the utility belt.

E: Right, right. Of course he would. Duh!

J: Just on a whim, I was watching a Batman episode when I was a kid, and he had freakin' Bat-Shark Repellant. So he would have –

R: Yeah, shark repellant. Yeah.

S: (Laughs)

E: Did he?

R: What?!

E: Now, is some arachnologist gonna call up, or write us, and correct us on a bunch of things that we just said?

B: Inevitably.

J: No. No, Evan. A lot of comic book readers are going to call up and comment on (Comic Book Guy voice) “Hello, I'd like to take umbrage with your use of Spiderman”. (Nerdy kid with retainer in mouth voice) “Guys! Batman would ''slay'' Spiderman!” I want someone – I want someone, please, somebody that really knows the Batman/Spiderman thing: email us and give us a very good, like, one paragraph reason.

S: Sounds like a poll. Sounds like a poll we gotta do on our forums

== Who's That Noisy (1:15:18) ==
* Answer to last week: Auroral Emissions

(Elaborate musical intro plays)

R: Whoa!

E: Ho-ly ''crow''! I can't believe that.

B: Jay, what was that guy's name?

J: Yeah, this is Nick Tipati.

B: Nick, that rocked. Great job!

E: Well done. Very impressive.

S: So, Evan, with that, play last week's Who's That Noisy.

E: Here we go.

(Evan plays the sound)

S: What was that annoying sound?

E: What the heck was that? Well, in fact, that was a recording of an auroral kilometric radiation. Or, I should say, of auroral kilometric radiation. Also known as AKR.

B: How cool is that?

E: So this – yeah, that's very cool. So the Earth can generate radio emissions in a natural way. And this is one of the more intense emissions –

R: (Giggles)

E: – that we've been able to detect. (Chuckles) Oh, Rebecca. Thank goodness you're here. Known as the AKR.

S: Do they happen at night, Evan?

E: Are you saying nocturnal auroral kilometric radiation emissions? Now, there were a lot of guesses about, you know, spaces noises and so forth, and – but nobody specifically got that correct, so... That was a ''very'' tough one. I must admit.

S: Yeah. What do you got for us this week?

E: Ooh! Something really good. I had to dust off something for – to obtain this one, so here you go:

<blockquote>Well, about 2:15 I took off from Chehalis, Washington en route to Yakima. And, of course, every time that any of us fly over the country near Mt. Rainier we spend an hour or two in search of the Marine plane that's never been found, that they believe is in the snow, someplace southwest of that particular area.</blockquote>

R: Hmm.

E: All right.

R: All right.

E: I'm sure there's some guesses amongst the Rogues, as to –

B: Oh, man.

E: – who that is, or who that was.

S: I have a guess as to placing that accent in time.

B: Yeah. Yeah.

R: The future!

(Laughter)

S: Definitely an accent from the future! Well, thank you, Evan.

E: Thank you.

== Quote of the Week (1:18:11) ==
<blockquote>“If there is anything that can bind the heavenly mind of man to this dusty exile of our earthy home and can reconcile us with our fate so that we can enjoy living – then it is verily the enjoyment of … the mathematical sciences and astronomy.” - Johannes Kepler, in a letter to Jakob Bartsch</blockquote>

S: Jay, give us a quote.

J: Okay. I have a quote, here, from Johannes Kepler. And he was a German mathematician and astronomer, also an astrologer, and a key figure in the 17th Century scientific revolution. That's pretty interesting. And Johannes wrote

<blockquote>“If there is anything that can bind the heavenly mind of man to this dusty exile of our earthly home, then it is verily the enjoyment of the mathematical sciences and astronomy.”</blockquote>

(shouts) Johannes Kepler!

R: (Laughs)

(Rogues chuckle)

S: Verily.

R: There's no glottal stop on the “H” there.

B: (Chuckling) Glottal stop.

J: Well, whatever. I did that 'cause ''I'' like to.

E: Kepler's great.

S: Okay, we've got some announcements this week. One: The SGU is finally on Twitter. Yeah we (unclear) one. 

R: I've been on Twitter for ages!

J: Of course.

R: In fact, didn't we have this conversation about a year ago?

J: Yeah. You – Rebecca, you're a Twitter Bug.

R: Where you guys mocked me?

S: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

E: Yes, yes, yes, yes.

S: But, you can start following The Skeptics' Guide on Twitter. Just look us up. Also, we have changed the forum address.

R: Yes.

S: Just to keep you on your toes. It's now SGUForums.com. So change your bookmark.

R: And big thanks to Ducky for getting that done fast and smooth. Just how we likes it.

E: Well done.

S: Thank you. And the big news is that we finally have the information about the SGU dinner at TAM. Evan, take the wheel.

E: We are going to be hosting a dinner on Friday night, July 10th at TAM. And in the Sonoma Rooms. I mean, you'll be able to find it. It's the same rooms where they're having the lunches those days. So I'm sure you'll all find it just fine. We want folks to please preregister for it. There are instructions up on my latest blog posting. They're on the forums as well. You can check there.

S: But, basically, send us an email saying how many people you –

E: Yes. And then go to Paypal and plunk down your 55 bucks to join us. Reserve your spot. There is ''limited'' seating for this.

R: Last year we had so many people show up that we couldn't all fit and we overflowed the restaurant, and then another restaurant too. So, seriously peeps! Register now.

S: What we recommend that you do is send us the registration of your names of the people that you want to come, and then we'll confirm it to you right away. Once we confirm that there is actually room for you, then you could either pay us now on Paypal or let us know that – or send us a check, and we can send you how to do that – or let us know that you'll be paying onsite.

R: Yep.

E: Right. So registration is very important. We need a headcount ahead of time. And we do have to cap it, so send us your reservation as soon as you can.

J: Yeah, we promise that we'll be there on time this year and –

R: Yeah, seriously.

E: (Laughs) Oh, yeah.

R: I was there on time. Bastards.

S: We will all be there on time, barring some unforeseen distraction. And we are there to give our undivided attention to our faithful listeners.

R: Cash bar.

E: Yeah, cash bar, folks. So –

S: Cash bar.

E: – bring a few extra bucks to –

J: Two fingers, two fingers.

E: – to imbibe a little.

R: Or pack a flask, maybe.

S: Well, thank you all for joining me again this week.

J: Thank ''you'', Steve.

B: Surely.

R: Thank you, Steve.

E: Pleasure. Pleasure.

S: And, until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.

{{Outro119}}
== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

SGU Episode 201

2015-07-02T00:47:58Z

Mantis!: uncommented the "proofreading needed" attribute from the editing required box. (Forgot to do this when I uploaded the transcript originally)

{{Editing required
|transcription =
|proof-reading = y 
|time-stamps =
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 201
|episodeDate = May 27th 2009 
|episodeIcon = File:Polonium.jpg 
|previous = 
|next = 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|jay = y 
|evan = y 
|perry = 
|guest1 = P: Phil Plait 
|guest2 = 
|guest3 = 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2009-05-27.mp3
|forumLink =
|qowText = “I have adequately answered all your inquiries. I ask you to quietly rephrase these inquiries to yourself until they match my replies.” 
|qowAuthor = {{w|Elbot (a chatterbot created by Fred Roberts)}} 
|}}

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

S: Hello, and welcome to the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, May 27th 2009, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella...

B: Hey, everybody!

S: Rebecca Watson...

R: Hello, everyone!

S: Jay Novella...

J: Hey guys!

S: And Evan Bernstein.

== This Day in Skepticism (00:30) ==

E: Hey, everyone! And, did you know on May 30th, in 1898, it was Sir William Ramsay and Morris Travers discovered... krypton! The element krypton.

J: Wow!

S: Awesome.

J: That's cool.

E: By doing an experiment. Very, very cool.

R: And from ''Superman'', right?

E: Yes. Yes, that is the exact same one. Yes. Later, William Ramsay won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for discovery of a bunch of noble gases, actually.

S: Right. And then he became a super villain, didn't he?

B: (Laughs)

E: Was that it?

S: Well, we have a lot of news to get through this week. We have Phil Plait coming on later in the show to talk about the science of Star Trek and some other things. But first, some news.

== News Items ==

=== Whooping Cough on the Rise (01:10) ===
* http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-26-whooping-cough_N.htm?csp=usat.me

S: The first news item is yet more evidence that Jenny McCarthy is an idiot. By which I mean, her anti-vaccination propaganda, along with all her other colleagues, is actually causing disease and spreading mischief around. We've seen increases in measles, and mumps, and now we're seeing pockets of whooping cough in the unvaccinated. This is a new study that was published in ''Pediatrics'' this week. They found that those children who were not vaccinated with the DPT vaccine, the one that includes the pertussis vaccine against whooping cough, were 23 times more likely to develop the disease than children who got all of their vaccines on time. That's a pretty dramatic increase.

R: Yeah, it's not just more evidence that she's an idiot. It's more evidence that she's a ''dangerous'' idiot.

S: Yeah. Exactly.

R: Which is why we keep bringing her up, week after week. And just want her to ''please'' shut up.

B: Well, I just went to the Jenny McCarthy Body Count page. You guys have seen that, right?

S: Oh, yeah.

E: Yeah.

B: It's up to 168 preventable deaths and 44,901 preventable illnesses. Thank you!

S: So, this was actually a study looking at patients enrolled in Kaiser Permanente in Colorado, 751 children. So, it's a fairly sizable study. And they found that of all the cases of whooping cough, or pertussis, that presented there, 11 to 12 percent were in the unvaccinated. Now, interestingly, if you read in the comments to these articles, they're always interesting. Because you have, you know, random people throwing out their comments. And somebody said, “Wait a minute, 11 to 12 percent were in the unvaccinated. That means 88 to 89 percent were in the vaccinated. So, I guess the vaccine doesn't work.” Classic error of statistics there.

E: Right.

S: The reason why the majority of the cases happen in the vaccinated is because the vaccinated tremendously outnumber the unvaccinated. You have to look at the ''percentage'' of vaccinated versus the percentage of unvaccinated. And, there, we see again the 23 ''times'' increase. Not 23 percent, 23 times increase in risk of developing whooping cough if you're unvaccinated than if you're vaccinated. So, yet more evidence that vaccines actually work.

J: Hm.

E: Yeah.

S: Which is incredible, because a lot of the anti-vaxxers say “There's no evidence that vaccines work.” Unless, if you course you just count all that evidence that it works.

R: Look, don't confuse us with facts, Steve.

S: Right.

E: It's incredible. As we get older, we hear more about people, you know, the Jenny McCarthys and other folks out there who are advocating against vaccination. I don't recall anyone speaking out against vaccination in the 70s, the 80s, and so forth. It seems to be this -

S: They were. I mean the -

E: - this recent phenomenon. Yeah, I'm sure they were out there -

S: It's on the rise. It's on the rise. 'Cause, they're well-funded, and they got some celebrity idiots backing them up. But – it is on the rise. But it's been a really – you know – vaccine – anti-vaccinationist kooks have been around as long as vaccines. And, they probably always will be.

=== Scientology On Trial (04:10) ===
* http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/scientologists-in-france-go-on-trial-for-fraud-1690579.html

S: Jay, this next news item is right up your alley. Scientologists in France are on trial for fraud.

E: Ah-ho!

J: I'm not going to lie to you: I love this kind of stuff so much it just makes me want to giggle.

S: (Comedic German accent) Like a little girl!

(Rogues chuckle)

J: It looks like the Parisians ''in France''... that was deliberate.

(Rogues laugh)

S: As opposed to the Parisians in Germany?

J: (Laughs) Yeah.

E: Paris (unclear) 

J: Uh, they are not so Thetan-free. Uh...

B: Paris Thomas.

E: Paris Hilton.

J: Excuse me. They're not so Thetan-free as Tommy-Boy would like them. The local Scientology headquarters – apparently, like, some Scientology book shop, I guess. I don't really know what, like, the setup is. But, it's just two different entities there. Both pretty much make up the Church of Scientology in France. They're on trial for “Frew-Ed”.

S: That's right.

J: That's basically what's going on. So, the quick skinny on it is, there was seven leading French Scientology members who were basically put on the docket as - they're being accused of fraud. Some are actually charged with illegally practicing as pharmacists as well. Those people could actually spend up to ten years in prison with fines. This started in '98 when a complaint was registered by a woman who said she joined the church after members approached her, I guess in the street, and convinced her to do one of their personality tests. Remember when Rebecca told us the story?

B: Yep.

J: One of my favorite Rebecca stories, by the way. It was pretty much - that's their M.O. They do that -

R: Yeah

J: - In the street a lot. They come off very friendly, and all that. And they're, you know, they're just basically like, “Here, take a free personality test”. Well, this is what they're doing in France, as well. And as this typical story goes, she joined. She paid heavily in, over time. I mean, this particular woman paid about 21,000 Euros. She purchased vitamins that were said – she was told were going to purify her. Sauna, which I actually haven't even heard of the Scientology sauna treatments before. And, the typical E-meter sessions which Rebecca described in detail at that time.

R: What's the sauna thing? Is the “Sauna” meaning she just, like, “sweat out the toxins” sort of sauna?

J: Yeah, like the continuing the purification thing.

R: Yeah.

J: So, after her complaint was made public, a bunch of other people came out and started filing complaints, too. And some reported spending ''hundreds'' of thousands of Euros for the same crap. Which, you know, we've heard this before, but yet again here's, you know, more evidence that people are dumping tons of money into that church. And, as these cases were investigated it was discovered that all the people were harassed by phone calls to their homes, nightly visits to their homes –

E: Oof!

J: – where these people would come and actually pressure them to take out more bank loans and to pay their outstanding bills to the church. And all 7 of the plaintiffs were considered to be “vulnerable” by psychological experts. So I guess that, you know, they did some psychological testings on these people and, lo and behold, the Scientologists are preying upon weak-minded people, which is no big surprise there. And to quickly finish up here, investigators did some testing on the E-meters. They found out that they're useless. They found out that the vitamins that they were selling actually – I guess they were powerful enough or, you know, the concoction that they had come up with, they were actually considered to be a medication, and they shouldn't have actually even been selling these things legally there.

S: Right.

J: And, you know, right now Scientology has a pretty serious problem in France. There was members being convicted of fraud in '97 and in '99. And in 2002 the court fined them for violating privacy laws and said that they could be dissolved if involved in similar cases. And here are the similar cases. So, a guilty verdict would mean that the practice of Scientology would have to be – would be end it – they'd have to end it in France.

R: Well, I think that it means that they would have to stop selling their services, at least. Which is the real thing. Like, people can worship anything they want. They can practice Scientology if they want. But the problem is that Scientologists are peddling this crap. And it's about time somebody took them to task for it. It's amazing to me that, in the US, we have so many protections in place for consumers but as soon as it's a consumer of something that happens to be religious in nature all of a sudden we throw all those protections away and allow these people to keep pulling one over on the gullible and it's just really pathetic. So I –

J: Yeah, call it a loophole, or whatever. But you're right, Rebecca. I mean, it's one of those deals where, you know, you use the term “religion” and then people have to start treading lightly and walking on eggshells around it and the bottom line is, it doesn't matter if it's a religion or if it's just some regular huckster selling snake oil. This is crap. It's hurting people. It's damaging people that are easily taken advantage of and we really need to change our laws worldwide to fight things like this.

S: Well, the interesting thing is that L. Ron Hubbard was trying to sell his, you know, fake treatments back before he thought of the idea of Scientology and he basically invented a religion to surround his snake oil in order to give it cover.

E: A vehicle, as it were.

S: Yeah. And, that's happening more and more these days. So, a lot of alternative medicine now are very specifically couching their claims in religious terms in order to get cover under this umbrella of religion. Because freedom of religion is so protected in this country that it is this huge loophole that they can go through. And sometimes they're very overt and callous about it. So, that's happening more and more. And it's really – it is an interesting dilemma because, certainly I'm against fraud and, you know, callously using religion in order to conceal fraud and to abuse and take advantage of a vulnerable population, which is what they're being accused of here. But at the same time, you know, how do you parse that. So, if you say “Okay, well, their – the E-meter is fake, and they're accepting money from lots of people in order to sell this bogus service which scientifically can't be shown to do anything.” And then you get to the problem of, well, how do you distinguish that from pretty much anything that religion is selling or doing or accepting donations for, you know what I mean? 'Cause none of it's scientific. None of it's provable.

R: I know you probably don't mean it in this way, but I've heard that before and – used in a very fallacious way in that – you know – I think it's – what's it called? The “Spectrum Fallacy”, or what have you. But, there are always going to be loopholes. There are always going to be ways around it. You can always say, “Oh, I'm not selling this. I'm just asking for donations. Blah, blah, blah.”

S: Right.

R: But, we have to go after the outright frauds who are literally selling merchandise and selling bogus pseudoscience. And, you know, it just is a form of basic consumer protections. We do it for every other business. Why shouldn't we do it for religion?

S: I agree. And I think the answer probably is that the courts, you know, that judges have to make an individual decision about individual cases. Is this a legitimate practice of religion? Or, is this a commercial fraudulent transaction that is overtly hiding behind religion? And if the courts do not feel empowered to make those kind of judgments then con artists do just have free rein to do whatever they want. All they have to do is just slap the label of religion on it and they basically get a free pass. So, I think the problem is that, in this country, I think that there's a lot of reluctance to do that. You know, that the political will isn't there.

R: Yeah. That's true.

S: That's the problem.

=== RNA World (12:21) ===
* http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=541

S: Couple of interesting science news items this week. There was an interesting paper published recently, looking at the development of RNA as sort of the “chemical evolution” that led from, you know, non-life to life. So, this is one of the huge, enduring mysteries in science. How did life arise on the planet Earth from non-life? And what we know must have happened – obviously, there was a period of time when there was no life on Earth. And, then, at some point, there was life. So, life had to come from somewhere. The thinking is that there was a period of purely “chemical evolution”, and what I mean by that is, that chemical reactions alone were creating the molecules that would eventually lead to life without any living system already in place to help those chemical reactions along. Right? So, in a cell, for example, we have proteins that are made by the cell but then act as enzymes to catalyze reactions. But, without life you just have the chemicals reacting by themselves without organic catalysts helping those reactions along. So any system that we come up with to explain how life arose has to allow for these chemicals to react without life already existing. One of the main hypotheses as to the pathway that chemical evolution took in order to create the first life – the first cells – is that it was RNA. That RNA, or ribonucleic acid, was the first molecule that was able to make a copy of itself. Once you have that, once you have a molecule that can copy itself, and then there could be, you know, variation, mutations in those copies. And the copies that are better at copying themselves, you know, are the ones that will tend to survive and compete better for raw material, and they'll make more copies of themselves. Right? So, one you have that you have the foot in the door to evolution, and then you're off to the races. But how did we get to the first RNA molecule? That's the question of this new research. The problem with the RNA hypothesis has been that nobody knew how the chemical reactions could have taken place in order to arrive at RNA. And some people said, “Well, it's impossible. The reactions are too slow or they really just can't happen. RNA couldn't have been the first molecule to bridge the chemical evolution to life.” So what these researchers did was, they created what they call a plausible pre-biotic environment, right? So they duplicated, as much as we can, as much as we understand, the likely environment of the early Earth, before life existed. And then they tried to find out if there were different chemical pathways that could lead to the major building-blocks of RNA in order to bypass these roadblocks. So if you imagine there are sort-of “blocks” in the chemical pathways to make RNA that – reactions just wouldn't happen. So they said, “Okay, well maybe if these alternate pathways were plausible or existed in these conditions, that could get you to RNA. And they basically showed that it worked. So they were able to show, and again, we'll link to the actual paper, but – I'm not going to go over the actual chemical reactions 'cause it's, you know, it's hard to describe in words and it's very technical in detail. But the bottom line is –

R: Would you rather do an interpretive dance of some sort?

S: I could. I could do an interpretive dance.

E: You could mime it, too.

J: God, that would be so awesome.

B: Just write a haiku.

S: All right, I'm going to mime it. Ready?

E: Ready. Uh-huh.

R: Oh, I totally get it.

E: Oh!

B: Ah!

S: Okay!

E: Oh, now it makes sense.

S: So, cool. So this actually – it sounds a little dry. But the bottom line is, this is a ''huge'' step forward in figuring out how life could have arisen on Earth, 'cause now there's a plausible pathway to get to RNA. And once you get to RNA, there's other research, which we actually talked about on this show before, to show how, in an RNA world, that could lead to self-organization and cells and life. You're basically – we're really starting to put the pieces together in showing how life ''could have'' arisen on the Earth. We probably will never be able to show how it actually did occur because, you know, we're talking about 4 billion years ago and things don't fossilize very well when you're talking about just chemicals, you know? Really, all we need to do is show a plausible pathway that life could have taken, and that's really what we're getting very close to. And this takes us a huge step of the way, so... Very exciting research, in my opinion, that kind of, I thought, got lost in the shuffle. Not a lot of people were talking about it. But I found it very exciting.

R: Yes! Yes, it is.

E: (Laughs)

=== Rook Tool Use (17:18) ===
* http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6360754.ece

S: The next news item is about how intelligent birds are, which we love to talk about on this show.

E: Which they, um –

R: Boo!

E&S: (Laughs)

R: Sorry.

E: I know. The term “bird brains” will suddenly become a, you know, a –

S: A compliment! Is that the word you were looking for?

E: A compliment, you're right. Instead of insulting. Thank you. The term “Bird brabns” will become a compliment as opposed to an insult to be thrown around after you learn about this. So they've got these birds called rooks, and – which is part of the – 

S: They're in the crow family.

E: They are in the crow family.

S: They look almost just like crows.

E: What the scientists did is, these tests for these rooks, in which the rooks were challenged to try to obtain their food in a certain way, in which it was put into this container. And the rooks had to figure out exactly what it was they needed to do in order to get the food to come out.

R: Turns out they could only go straight ahead or sideways.

E&S: (Laughs)

E: It's amazing. They were able – the rooks were able to select the right tools for the job by, for example, choosing the right size little rock to put down the plastic cylinder, which would then drop onto the plate that released the food. And the rooks were able to discern, apparently, which rocks would be the best ones to put down that cylinder in order to get the food to come out. They had 4 rooks – different rooks that they'd test. And they, just about in all the tests that they presented to them, all showed the capacity to figure out this problem. The other thing that they saw them doing, the rooks were making tools. In one series of tests they had to take – the rooks utilized a straight wire, and they actually put a little bend in the wire in order to create a hook so that they could lift out the little plate underneath and bring it up through the cylinder and hook their food out that way. Fascinating stuff, I mean, to see – and there is video that accompanies these articles. And to actually see it ''happening'' is pretty amazing.

S: Yeah. This family of birds, which includes jays, and crows, and what-not are very intelligent, and actually have demonstrated this ability for problem-solving, this exact kind of problem-solving behavior. And, it really is amazing. They were able – as you said, they fashioned tools, they actually, like, stripped twigs to fashion them to be useful. And, they actually could do two-step problem solving. So, if you had to obtain from one rock in order to use it in the next step to get the food, they figured out how to do that.

E: Right.

S: So, really incredible. And, of course, completely separate evolutionary line from, say primates like chimpanzees. And, yet, they're showing about the same level of tool-use that chimpanzees do. In fact, they were specifically compared to them by the researchers. So, who would have thought that these little birds could be so bright when it comes to this kind of problem solving and tool fashioning?

E: And, in nature, a rook's not going to come across a piece of wire, on its own, in order to fashion it into a tool, in order to get its meal. You know, it was – this caged animal is specifically given this obstacle to get this food out, and it's presented this wire, and it actually made a hook out of it. It's just fascinating.

S: That's a really interesting point that these birds are displaying abilities that they do not have to use in nature, and that they don't display in nature. So, that would beg the question of, then, why did they evolve the ability to do this? But that's the adaptationalist fallacy. Right? That, anything a creature can do, or a life-form could do, it must have specifically evolved. And, what this shows is that, well, no, you know, you evolve a certain amount of intelligence because that does have a survival advantage. But intelligence is not a narrow thing. You know, once you have a bigger brain, or you have some problem-solving skills, that can be utilized, can be co-opted for a very – a broad range of abilities and behaviors that may have nothing to do with what the trait was specifically evolved for. So, that's important to keep in mind, and I think this is actually a really good example of that.

B: Steve, is there anything unusual about the organization of the rooks' or crows' brains? That they're able to pack so much punch in such a little space?

S: Well, that's a good question. There are definitely researchers working on that. I don't know what the answer to that question is or how close we are to an answer. That's probably something we can explore in the future.

=== NECSS (22:09) ===
* NECSS (nexus) - Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism Date: September 12, 2009 Time: 10AM-6PM Location: New York City Featured Speakers: - James Randi - Carl Zimmer - John Rennie - Paul Offit - Massimo Pigliucci - George Hrab - Kaja Perina - Howard Schneider - John Snyder - Michael De Dora - Jamy Ian Swiss (MC)

S: One more quick news item before we go on to a couple of emails. The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, in collaboration with the New York City Skeptics, is going to be holding a conference. The conference is called the Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism. So, you know how to pronounce that acronym?

B: “Nexus”.

S: “Nexus”. So, NECSS –

E: “Nexus?” (Laughs).

S: So this is the “Nexus” conference. You won't believe how long it took us to come up with that. Seriously.

E: I like it.

(Rogues Laugh)

B: I believe it.

E: At least 12 parsecs.

S: Right. This'll be on September 12th, 2009, this year. This'll be our 2nd annual Perry DeAngelis live SGU show. But in addition, it's going to be an all-day conference. And here's the lineup of speakers we have so far. You ready?

J: Do it.

E: Ready.

S: James Randi

E: Woo-hoo!

R: I know him.

S: Carl Zimmer

R: Oh, I know him!

E: Cool.

S: John Rennie.

B: Johnny!

R: Holy crap!

J: Oh, John Rennie's awesome.

S: Paul Offit.

E: Nice!

S: Massimo Pigliucci.

J: Well, he's a cool dude.

S: He's a cool guy. George Hrab

R: Hey!

E: Oh, you got George!

J: I love that man.

S: Kaja Perina, Howard Schneider, John Snyder. It's “Schneider” and “Snyder”. Don't get those confused.

(Rogues laugh)

S: Michael De Dora, and Jamy Ian Swiss, who's going to emcee it for us, this year.

R: Very cool.

E: That's a nice, nice lineup.

B: What a lineup!

S: That's quite a lineup, isn't it?

B: Sweet!

E: And us!

S: So, the venue is, like, 90 percent solid. But we're not gonna tell you what it is yet, until it's 100 percent solid. We'll probably have that within the next week or two. But this is sort of a “save the date” announcement. September 12th, 2009. It's a Saturday. All-day conference. Of course, there'll be a live SGU show. But, around that there'll be all these great speakers and panels. It's gonna be awesome. This is, because of the venue and travel expenses and what-not, we are going to be charging for this event. We're setting up tickets through Ticketmaster, actually. Of course, you could also just pay at the door. And, we'll have that information, too, again, in the next week or two. So, this is, again, save the date, September 12th, 2009. Full details in the next week or two. And, we're hoping to make this, like, our annual northeastern skeptical conference. You know, it's – this is especially, like, for example, for people who live in the northeast who can't fly out all the way to Vegas. Well, you know, you're gonna get to see Randi, and us, and a lot of other people shortly after that at the NECSS conference.

R: Good times to be had.

J: So, Steve, you need to me to go to this, or what?

S: Jay, you're invited, man.

J: Okay. Thank you.

E: Yeah. You have a seat in the twelfth row, on the side.

(Laughter)

R: Aw.

E: And, this is something we've been discussing, even long before a podcast.

S: Yeah.

E: As part of the NESS, and in the '90s and early 2000s, we always wanted to have a northeastern conference.

S: Absolutely. If it's successful –

R: Yeah.

S: – then this is absolutely the kind of thing we want to do every year.

R: Of course it's going to be successful, Steve. You have to envision it as though it's already happened.

S: (Laughs) That's right.

R: That's what I learned from Oprah.

S: Is that The Secret?

B: (Laughs)

E: And the secret.

R: That's the secret.

E: Shh – the secret!

S: (Laughs) It will be successful!

E: You said, “the secret”!

S: And thanks to all the guys at the New York City Skeptics. They're really doing a lot of the heavy lifting on this one.

R: They're so fantastic. Mike Feldman.

S: Oh, yeah. Awesome guys.

R: He's been kicking butt.

J: (Doing an impression) It's fantastic, man! (Laughs) 

(Rogues laugh)

== Questions and E-mails ==

=== Question # 1 - Polonium Halos (25:29) ===
<blockquote>As a former creationist, one of the most persuasive arguments that I remember is that of polonium halos in granite. Dr. Robert Gentry claims to have discovered proof of an instantaneous creation of earth in the form of the halos of radioactive polonium in undisturbed granite. He challenges mainstream science to reproduce such an artifact in the laboratory or explain how such a thing could happen naturally. What do you think about this guy, and are his claims at all weighty? Thanks for the great show, guys. I regularly listen to about ten podcasts, and I've got to say that yours is the one I most eagerly wait for every week. P.S. I recently listened to your 2008 year-in-review episode again and had an idea. I've purchased all of the bonus content of the show and loved it, and I would unhesitatingly pay twice as much for an uncensored clip of the show in which Jay's cat barfed on his keyboard. What do you say, Skeptics? Please? Trinity Melvin Valparaiso, Florida</blockquote>

S: All right, let's go on to a couple of your questions and emails. The first one comes from Trinity Melvin, from Valparaiso, Florida.

E: I love that name, by the way.

S: Trinity?

E: Yeah. Well, Trinity Melvin.

J: Well, I like Valparaiso.

S: (Laughs) (Doing a Jerry Lewis impression) Melvin, Melvin!

J: (Doing a Jerry Lewis impression) Mel, Mel, Mel, Melvin!

(Laughter)

S: She writes,

<blockquote>As a former creationist, one of the most persuasive arguments that I remember is that of polonium halos in granite. Dr. Robert Gentry claims to have discovered proof of an instantaneous creation of earth in the form of the halos of radioactive polonium in undisturbed granite. He challenges mainstream science to reproduce such an artifact in the laboratory or explain how such a thing could happen naturally. What do you think about this guy, and are his claims all that weighty? Thanks for the great show, guys. I regularly listen to about ten podcasts, and I've got to say that yours is the one I most eagerly wait for every week.</blockquote>

R: Aw.

E: Awesome.

R: Well, thank you, Trinity. This is a good question. I actually, prior to your question, I'd never heard of polonium halos.

B: Yeah, I didn't either.

S: And I thought I'd heard every creationist bull-crap argument out there. But this was a new one. But Bob and I looked into it. And, why don't you give us the skinny, Bob?

B: Yeah. This one's been around, apparently, for quite a while. First off, Robert V. Gentry, I found him on the “Who's Who in Creation/Evolution website. They list him first and foremost, he's listed as a creationist. Then, below that, physicist and chemist. He has an honorary doctorate from the Fundamentalist Columbia Union College. And he has a Master's in Physics from the University of Florida. So –

J: Imagine having all that and putting “creationist” first?

B: Yeah.

(Laughter)

B: Absolutely.

J: Jackass.

B: The halos that Trinity's talking about, these halos in rock, they're called pleochroic halos. They can appear in rock like granite. What they are, essentially, are spherical bands of discoloration. Or, perhaps, a better term would be “shells of radiation damage”, 'cause that's, essentially, what these discolorations are. They're bits of radiation damage. And they're caused by alpha particles. Alpha particles are – it's a type of radiation, it's basically two protons and neutrons that are released by unstable atoms. These alpha particles are very ionizing radiation, and they – what happens, though, during alpha decay, when these protons leave the atom, you're basically changing the atom into a different element, right? Because the protons that are in the nucleus, that's what determines the chemical properties. So, that, when you have some protons leaving the nucleus – bam, you must have a different element. Now, if it was neutrons, it would be a different story. 'Cause the neutrons just determines the isotope. It's still that element, but just a different isotope of that element. Now, what happens is, when you have this radiation leaving the element in, say, in granite, it leaves a ring. It creates these distinctive, nested concentric rings of damage to the rock. So, if you would – say you had a bit of uranium-238 in rock. It would slowly decay and create a ring from the alpha particles being – the high-energy alpha particles being released. And then you go through to all the daughter elements: thorium, radium, radon, polonium, and lead. So, each different element would then create a different ring that would maybe be further apart – further away from the center. So, can you see what I'm saying? You've got this alpha decay creating these concentric rings of discoloration depending on what element the parent particle has decayed into. Okay?

S: Right.

B: So, Gentry – the anomaly that Gentry is primarily talking about – he found polonium rings. He found these polonium ring halos, but they didn't have any parent rings inside of it that would of – like, say, uranium or thorium. So, you've got these naked polonium rings. What do you think that would mean? If you have this ring all by itself, then that means that polonium was somehow there when the rock was formed. So, that's what he believes. That polonium was there, the rock cooled, and then it made this ring when the polonium decayed. The problem is, is that the half-life of polonium is very, very short. On the matter of either minutes, seconds, or microseconds, depending on the isotope.

S: Or days

B: Or days, on the higher end.

S: Seconds to days is the range, yeah.

B: Right. The higher end was days. But, that doesn't matter. Most geologists will tell you that granite takes many, many years to cool. So, then, how could this possibly happen? How could granite cool on one hand in many, many years, or even millions of years, but the half-life of polonium is very, very brief. So how could you – you know, how do you justify those two things? I actually found a great – an excellent analogy on a very credulous site. But I'm going to use their analogy anyway, 'cause it was very good. “It was like coming across Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water.” Say you find frozen water and there's Alka-Seltzer bubbles. Clearly, for whatever tests you perform, these are Alka-Seltzer – you know, the bubbles formed in a liquid when you drop Alka-Seltzer tablets in water. Well, your only conclusion would have to be that the water froze very, very fast in order for these Alka-Seltzer bubbles to remain, right? 'Cause they're –

S: To be captured. Yeah.

B: – They don't last very long. These bubbles are very fleeting. The water would actually have to be flash-frozen very quickly in order for these things to remain. So, in a similar way, the radiation from the polonium must have created these halos right after the granite froze. So, the conclusion that they would like everyone to come to is that the Earth – the granite in the Earth – did not form in thousands or millions of years, but within maybe thirty minutes, or less.

S: Or instantaneously.

B: Clearly requiring some sort of supernatural agency to come in and do this. 'Cause he's trying to promote his Young Earth Creationism, and that just totally plays into that. They keep saying, “Oh, how could – you know – science has no explanation for this.” And, it's true that there's no clear-cut experiment that a geologist can perform to show you exactly how this is done. But I think it's pretty widely accepted, and a lot of websites I came across – a lot of geologists believe that what happens, is that the uranium decays into radon gas, which is a precursor to the polonium. So, you've got the various uranium, and thorium and other elements decomposing. And, one of these elements that it decomposes into is radon gas. Which, then, can migrate away from the original site where the uranium was originally. And, then, that would decay into polonium, which would then make these naked polonium halos without any apparent connection to the uranium.

S: Right.

B: This belief is supported by the fact that a lot of, or all of Gentry's polonium halos are found near cracks in rock that contain uranium halos. So, there's always a connection between these naked polonium halos and the uranium halos. So, there's clearly a connection between them, and as far as I could tell, they have not found any polonium halos in rock without any uranium, either deposits or halos nearby. So, to me, that's – it seems much more likely that that is the reason why you've got these halos than the Earth was created instantaneously. But the problems don't end there. There's lots of problems with just this guy's geology. This guy's not a geologist. He's got a master's in physics, but he's not a geologist. And he makes basic errors that regular geologists would not make, according to, at least, a lot of the authors on talk.origins website. One quote from that website said that “In Gentry's model, any rock looking vaguely like granite and carrying the label 'Precambrian' is considered to be primordial rock.”

S: Yeah, so, basically, he's saying that these polonium halos occur in the original crust of the Earth – the oldest crust of the Earth. But he's counting anything Precambrian, which is up to, say, 600 million years ago –

B: Yeah.

S: – as primordial Earth crust. When, in fact, there's, like, 3 ½ billion years in the Precambrian. He's counting all of it as primordial. He even, however, had some rock – granite that he was labeling as primordial that was above, and therefore younger than, fossil-bearing strata, and, clearly, like, recent strata. You know, more recent, even, than the Cambrian. So, he totally blew the geology.

B: He did.

S: And then – he was anomaly hunting, right? He thought he had an anomaly, but there's completely plausible explanations. And, also, his physics requires that, in order for his dating – his timeline to work out, the Earth is whatever – Young Earth Creationist – 10 thousand years old. Again, this is something that the Young Earth Creationists have to do, is argue that the decay rate of different elements – different radioactive elements is not constant, right? 'Cause if we use decay rates to age rocks, even if we use different decay rates, we come up – so, independently, to date rocks, we come up with roughly the same date. You know, rocks will date to be 4 billion years old, even if you use different methods to figure out how old they are. So, that's pretty good confirmation that it's actually 4 billion years old. But Gentry says, “No. That's because decay rates are not the same today as they were 10 thousand years ago. That they've, essentially, been slowing down. Things decayed much, much faster back then.” But his argument would require that different elements vary to different degrees, but all conspire to come up with the same age, even when you use different dating methods. Except for –

B: Polonium!

S: Polonium!

B: Right!

S: Which is the one element whose decay rate is the same as it was before. So that's a ''massive'' amount of special pleading. It's just miracle after, you know, supernatural intervention, after special pleading. All to jury-rig it to make it all work out so that it's consistent with the Young Earth. And, of course, that's all BS.

B: One writer referred to, though, Steve – is, he called them “singularities”, where he had, you know, “divine intervention” to help save his theory. And I could see maybe one or two divine interventions, but when you go to three divine interventions, that's just one too many.

R: One to many... that's how many you need to be a saint, so maybe he's applying for something.

S: You're saying he went a miracle too far, Bob?

B: Yeah. At least one.

S: So, that's like that famous New Yorker cartoon with the complex mathematical equation, and then at the end it says, “And then a miracle happens”. And then you get your answer. You can't do that in science. You can't do it once, let alone three times. Sorry.

== Interview with Phil Plait ==
* http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/ www.randi.org

=== Star Trek Movie (36:36) ===

S: Well, let's go on with our interview.

(Musical Interlude)

S: Joining us once again is Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer. Phil, welcome back to the SGU.

P: Hey, SGUers! S-Gooers? Sgooers?

S: (Laughs) Sgooers! Yeah.

P: Do you have a collective noun for you guys?

S: We're The Rogues.

P&J: The Rogues.

E: We're The Rogues!

P: Well, I always got the impression that Steve was in charge, and the rest of you guys were Rogues.

J: Actually, yeah, you're really not a Rogue, Steve.

E: He is. He's like Alex, and we're his Troupies.

J: You're like a pimp of The Rogues.

S: Well, whatever. I'm like Gladys Knight, and you're the Pips?

J: No, I said that you're a pimp. (Laughing) And we're The Rogues!

(Laughter)

S: So, Phil. You are here to talk about – a few things – but primarily the latest Star Trek movie. So, first of all, tell me how awesome you thought that movie was.

P: On a scale of one to ten, it was “warp factor 9”! Um....

S: (Laughs)

P: Yeah, I don't know, how dorky can I be? I mean, you guys aren't big Star Trek fans, are you?

(Rogues laugh)

P: I never hear you talking about it. No, okay, I know. I hear you guys dorking out over Trek every episode. You talked about Trek – I – One of you slipped in a Trek line with Rusty Schweickart, and I'm not sure if he got it or not. But, it sounded like he might have.

S: Bob did, and it sounded like he got it. You know, he at least off it well enough.

P: That was pretty awesome.

(Rogues laugh)

P: You know, I liked this movie quite a bit. I was walking into it, thinking –

B: “Please, please, please...”

P: “Yeah, well, you know, J.J. Abrams. You know, I liked ''Cloverfield''. And ''Lost'', I watched one episode and said, “Yeah, this is going nowhere”.

J&E: (Laugh)

P: So, I wasn't sure what to expect. And, you know, I knew it was going to reboot, and I knew it was going to be different. But, in fact, you know, I think going in with lower expectations sometimes works –

B: Oh –

P: – 'cause I really liked it.

S: Oh yeah.

B: Absolutely.

P: So, I watched it a second time... and liked it just as much. So, yeah, I dug this movie.

S: And, just before we go on, there's going to be no way to talk about this without huge spoilers coming in. So, if you haven't seen the Star Trek movie yet and you don't want any spoilers, go see it now, and then come back and listen to the rest of the show.

P: Yeah, we'll wait.

E: Yeah, all five of you who haven't seen it yet who listen to the show.

(Rogues laugh)

S: Okay. They're back.

J: (Laughs)

P: Welcome back, everyone!

E: (Laughs)

S: Now, Phil, you wrote a blog entry, doing as you do, examining the science in the science fiction movie of “Star Trek”. So, some of it good. Some if it, you know, meh. Some of it speculative, some of it not so good. What was the biggest howler you thought of, in this movie?

P: Well, you gotta be a little bit careful here, because, you know, that blog post has almost 400 comments on it.

S: Yeah.

P: Clearly, people, you know, they take Trek to heart, whether they love it or hate it. I'm not going to talk about, you know, time travel, or warp drive, or phasers, or transporters. When you watch a movie that's Star Trek, you're buying into the background of it. Just like in Star Wars, you can argue endlessly over whether a parsec is a unit of distance or time, or whether they went around black holes, or whatever.. You just gotta buy into it. And with Star Trek, I'm not going to argue that – you know, I'll only start talking about either introduced science, something that's new to the show, or when they do things inconsistently, like they regenerate Doctor Pulaski to when she was younger using the transporter and a bit of DNA, and in the next episode they totally forget about that.

E: (Laughs)

P: It's like, “You know, we can all be young forever. Hey!” But, you know.

S: Right.

P: So, in this movie I'm not gonna – you know, I don't worry about warp drive. Warp drive is just as fast as the writers need it to be to get the Enterprise where it needs to be for maximum dramatic effect. That's how fast warp drive is, right?

S: Exactly.

J: (Laughs) That's actually true, that's good.

P: And you can argue time travel as much as you want. It's kind of fun. I'll always be happy to talk to people about paradoxes or, you know, whether you're creating an alternate universe, or something like that. But, you know, I'm not too worried about that for discussion of the science in the movie. I'm more concerned about, you know, the depiction of other things that happen. Like, when the guys are jumping out of a shuttle and free-falling down to Vulcan. What's gonna happen? So that was kind of cool. But, to answer your question, which always seems to take me a long time when I'm on this show, obviously, it's the red matter. I mean, that was, really, just a – you know, ''really? Red matter?'' That's where we're going with this?

S: Yeah.

P: You know, it's a giant center of a target symbol. That was just kind of silly. That was too big of a MacGuffin to ignore. I kind of wish they had done it some other way.

B: Or at least give a better name.

P: Yeah. The name was pretty silly.

B: (Pompous voice) Red matter!

P: But, then again, you know, they would have just called it “the decatron field”, or something like that.

E: Mm-hm. Yeah.

P: The idea here is that Romulan nutzoid-guy convinces Spock and the Vulcan Science Academy to use this material called “Red Matter” to create, basically, an artificial black hole – it's a real black hole, but they artificially create it – to stop a supernova from wiping out the galaxy

B: Ooh!

P: And, there's just hordes of nasty, ridiculous plot holes here. You know, one supernova can't wipe out the galaxy. And some people said, “Oh, there were some comic books that came out that --

B: Right.

P: – described that it created a chain of supernovae.” And, I think, “Yeah, but you know what? These guys, 400 years from now? They got warp drive and huge ships. 'Evacuate your planet!'” You know –

S: Right.

P: – maybe you can save somebody. You know, it doesn't make any sense.

S: Well, there was some speculation that it was like a subspace hypernova or something. But –

P: Oh, well, then there you go.

S: There you go. But even then –

P: You should publish these, Steve. That's good. An astrophysical journal would love that.

S: If there was a phenomenon that could wipe out the galaxy, you would think it would happen every now and then.

P: Um, well, yeah. You know, it's been a few thousand years since the last one happened, right? So...

B: (Laughs)

P: And it was just kind of silly. You know, if you're creating a black hole, it's a little tiny black hole. When you collapse a planet down to become a black hole, it's only about a centimeter across. That's how much you have to compress a planet before, by definition, it becomes a black hole. And, so, it would be very difficult to fit a large Romulan mining ship into a black hole that is a ''centimeter'' across. Not to mention the tidal effects, which would rip the ship apart. And a billion other problems. So, you know, it's – at some level you have to say “Yep, Star Trek”, and not worry about it.

J: Real quick, stupid question, maybe. So, the more of that Red Matter they use, the bigger the black hole?

P: It's unclear. You know, they only need to use a little drop to collapse a planet. And in the end of the movie, Spock rams a ball of the stuff a meter across into the Romulan ship. And it doesn't seem to create a black hole any bigger. So, I think this is one of those things where it just becomes, “this is something we need to do so we have an excuse to reboot the franchise.” and just say, “All right, got it. Let's move on from there.”

J: Yeah.

S: Yeah, I agree. But I think it gets a little lazy. I mean, I understand that why they needed to do what they did for plot reasons. But, you know, it's a science fiction movie. Think about the science a little bit, and come up with an interesting sort of way of doing it. It's still going to be speculative. It's still going to involve future science that isn't real or that we don't have yet. That was just a little to close to just saying, “Okay, it's magic. There's this magic stuff which does whatever we want to do.

P: Yeah, really. I mean, if they had talked to – well, they did talk to an astronomer, Carolyn Porco, who is the imaging lead of the Cassini Saturn probe. They consulted her for one scene, and it's pretty obvious in the movie what scene that would be, when you see Titan and Saturn. And they used her idea. And they actually did a relatively decent job of it, although they kind of screwed up the graphics a little bit. They show Titan orbiting Saturn in an orbit it isn't orbiting it in. And you might say, well, that's silly. But, in fact, Titan orbits in the same plane as Saturn's rings. So, if you're on Titan, and you look at Saturn, the rings would be a terribly thin line. You'd barely be able to see it. In the movie they depict it as being way above the plane of the rings. But, you know. You gotta do that.

B: Yeah.

E: They look cool. Yeah.

P: If you're at Saturn, you gotta show the rings, right? So, all right, the rings don't have a magnetic field, so Chekov was wrong about that. All right, all right. It was still a really cool scene.

J: Phil, you know what I love?

P: And it was inspired by a scientist who said, “You should do it this way.” So that kind of rocked.

J: Phil, it's so cool that you know enough that you watch the movie and you're like, “Aw, the perspective is way off here.” Like, I would 'never' know that fact that you just said. Never.

B: (Laughs)

P: Well, it also makes me a little bit of an anal dickhead. You know, you gotta be – if I do say so myself. You gotta be careful not to 'over'-analyze this stuff. And, that's sorta where I'm coming in. If you're creating a movie, and you're spending a bazillion dollars on it and everything, sometimes it pays off to talk to a scientist. Especially someone like Carolyn, who knows Saturn like the back of her hand, and can come up with something really cool. And, typically, you know, I've been approached by directors and producers in the past, of TV shows or whatever, to say, “You know, we're trying to do this. We want to make it realistic.” And then, what happens is that the ''real'' science turns out to be ''totally'' awesome and a lot better –

B: Ha!

P: – than anything they would have come up with.

S: Right.

P: That happened in ''Deep Impact''. I won't give a specific example, but there was one TV show where I said, “You know, you guys could do it ''this'' way, and then you'll wind up having – you'll have your spaceship screaming into a gas giant atmosphere, and it'll be ''really'' cool.” And they really loved that idea. And I actually don't know if they ever used it. But that happens, you know. So, had they come to someone who knows about supernovae or gamma ray bursts, you know, maybe we could have come up with something better than “red matter” and a supernova. But, who knows. Maybe not. And even if we had, they may have opted not to use it. You know, they're just gonna do what they're gonna do. The best we can hope for is to come up with something cool and basically hope they can use it.

J: Yeah. So, basically, everyone, Phil Plait: “Dickhead for hire”. Just give a call.

P: That's true. For a million bucks, I will vet ''your'' script. So there.

E: (Laughs) And point out all the flaws.

P: Oh, great!

S: One thing that I think is coming up here is that there's a difference between taking poetic license. Like, okay, you gotta put Titan above the plane of Saturn's rings so that we can see the beautiful rings. That's purely an aesthetic choice. Okay. I could buy that. Versus just laziness and in not exploring the real science, 'cause as you say when you do that it turns out to be a lot more interesting than the crap that people come up with on their own, who don't really understand the science.

P: I think this is a point worth emphasizing. Because, you know, if I'm a director like JJ Abrams, or someone like that, my first thought is not gonna be to care about the real science. You know, I'm making a movie and if the science is depicted incorrectly or not, I don't care. The point is, if you talk to a real scientist they are likely to show you something that would never have occurred to you. As imaginative as these writers are, as the directors are, as the special effects team is, a real scientist will have a different perspective and may be able to come up with something that, visually, would be tremendously appealing. Whether it's accurate or not, it might be just simply a perspective that the team of writers doesn't have.

J: You know, also, one issue that bothers us quite often, here, like, as a group – Skeptic's Guide – you know, we don't like science being misrepresented in the news and everything. You know, and I'd have to say that does go for even science fiction movies. The idea here is, show things that are as accurate as it can be with our knowledge of science today just so you don't spread misinformation.

P: I'm just more concerned that they'll just get a – a sort of a – pardon the pun – a warped sense of what science is and what it can do.

S: Right.

P: On the other hand, if you go to any astronaut today, or any astronomer around my age, and say, “What inspired you to do this?” They will say, “Star Trek, Lost in Space, Space 1999, Star Wars”, for the younger astronomers these days. And, so, as terrible as these shows are for the depiction of science, the do inspire people. So, it's possible they're inspiring despite the science in them. And it makes me wonder, what would happen if the science were done a little bit more accurately and if ''scientists'' were portrayed a little more accurately, which is something that ''is'' being done a lot better today than it was, certainly, in the 1950s. So, you know, the next generation of scientists is being inspired by the movies that are coming out today. And I'd like to see that being done even better than it's being done now.

S: Yeah. To some degree fiction is the mythology of our modern culture. You know, the movies serve the same role in our culture that, you know, Shakespeare did hundreds of years ago, and plays did thousands of years ago. So, it does reflect back on the culture, but also influences the culture as well. That's why I get more concerned about the portrayal of science and scientists, as you say, than picky details about scientific facts.

E: Yeah. You know what I get reminded of, Steve? Brent Spiner's character in ''Independence Day''.

S: Yeah.

E: If you remember that movie. He was kind of this, you know –

B: Mad scientist.

S: The mad scientist.

E: Frizzled hair, recluse mad scientist. And the movies definitely, definitely help –

B: Foster that.

E: – portray that stereotype and perpetuate it.

S: Yeah.

P: They reflect and they direct our perception of science and scientists.

S: Yeah.

J: Phil, was there any other parts of the movie that you wanted to talk about that stuck out? That you didn't like?

S: Or that you did like. Like, I know you mentioned the one scene where they had had silence in space was a refreshing change.

E: Yeah.

P: Not only was the silence in space cool – and, you know, sure. They have, you know, when the ships go into warp they whoosh away and all that. But the two times they showed silence in space that I recall –

B: It's effective.

P – Both times were ''incredibly'' dramatic. Where the Kelvin is getting just ''pummeled'' by the Romulan ship. And there's explosions, and noise, and everything, and then a crewman gets blown out into space. And, suddenly, there's silence, which made it ''really'' dramatic.

B: How rare is that?

P: ''2001'' did it, and so did ''Firefly''. And a handful of other shows have done it as well.

B: Yeah, not many!

S: Yeah.

P: I don't think it's been done to such dramatic effect. To have all the noise, and then that. And the second time was when Kirk and McCoy and, basically, Officer Redshirt are on the shuttle, and do their little spaceship dive to Vulcan–

B: It was Sulu. Not McCoy, Sulu.

P: Excuse me, Sulu. Yeah. And there's a lot of noise and everything, and then they're ejected out, and then once again it's silent. It's jarring. It shakes you out of the background of the movie itself. It makes you pay more attention to what you're seeing.

E: Yes.

S: That's always been interesting to me, because I thought that Kubrick used the silence of space to ''incredibly'' dramatic effect in ''2001''. And I'm surprised that didn't set the standard for the genre after that. I'm still not sure why that is.

P: It's simply because you're not used to it. And there's that legend, and I still don't know if it's true or not, that Roddenberry was showing rushes of the show to test groups, basically, with no sound in space –

B: Who?

P: – everybody said they hated it.

B: Ooh, wow.

P: And, so, in Star Trek, they added the sound in because people didn't like it.

=== Million Dollar Challenge (52:07) ===

S: Well, Phil, before we let you go, I wanted to touch on a couple of other topics. You've written, recently, about the most recent million dollar psychic challenge. Can you give us a quick synopsis of that? It was kind of interesting.

P: Right. This last challenge was actually done in the UK. And Professors Chris French and Richard Wiseman actually are the ones who ran it. Patricia Putt applied to win James Randi's million dollar paranormal challenge, where if you can prove that you have some sort of psychic power, paranormal or supernatural claim, we'll give you a million bucks. It's not quite that simple, but it's not too much harder than that. This was a preliminary test. The person has to, basically, negotiate protocols. If you have a claim that you can, for example, predict the throw of a pair of dice every time then you would set up something where somebody throws dice randomly, and then you have to agree on how many times you can predict it such that, you know, it can't be one-sixth of the time, for example, because that's – or one, or whatever the statistics are. If you can guess a random number between 1 and 10 one-tenth of the time, you're not psychic. You're Gaussian, is what you are.

S: Yeah.

P: And, so, we have to negotiate those protocols. Both sides, or both parties have to agree to these protocols. And, so that was negotiated in advance. Patricia Putt went through this with Alison Smith, who is a staff member of the JREF, and the protocols were set up. And, basically, Patricia Putt's claim, in a nut shell, is that by listening to someone talking, she can write down all sorts of things about their personality. So, she read ten women, and she wrote down their personality readings – their profiles. And, then, after the fact, these ten women each got to look at these ten profiles and pick the one that they felt represented them the best. Statistically, you should expect something like one out of ten, because that's just random chance that one person is going to randomly pick theirs. The limit for this in the protocols, what Patricia Putt predicted she would be able to do, was five out of ten, which was hugely over statistical randomness. And, we agreed that if she could pick five, then something was going on, and then she could move on to the final challenge, where it would be done again, basically.

What happened was, after the fact, the women were allowed to choose their readings, and she scored zero. That would be ''zero'', for those of you reading at home. Nothing. Zilch. None of the women picked the profile that Patricia wrote for them, specifically. What was interesting is what happened ''after'' this. Immediately afterwards, and Richard Wiseman wrote about this on his blog, if you look up his website, Richard Wiseman on the web. He wrote this up, and evidently she was quite shaken by this. Miss Putt was shocked, and didn't – she didn't say, “Wow, I must not be psychic”, or anything like that. But she felt that the test was fair, and was actually rather magnanimous about the whole thing. But, then, later, she changed her mind a little bit. And we see this a lot. We see this a lot, that, after the fact, there's rationalizations. And she said that the women that she was trying to read were “bound up too much” and could not perform. She couldn't “read” them that way. That's not true. The women weren't “bound up”. They were hidden from her view in such a way that she couldn't read their faces if they subconsciously, you know, smiled, or grimaced, or anything like that that would allow her to read them basically using cold-reading techniques. So, that wasn't true. And then she left a comment on Richard Wiseman's blog saying that, in fact, she did not get zero out of ten. She got ''ten'' out of ten correct. And because – and this just slays me – each woman did, in fact, pick a profile that matched her. It's like –

S: Yeah.

P: No, it doesn't work that way. Part of the protocol was that each woman had to pick the one that matched her ''best''. Of course they had to pick one. It was, you know – there's a 100 percent chance that each woman's gonna pick one. It doesn't matter what she said. And, therefore, her saying that she got ten out of ten is simply a rationalization after the fact. Now, there have been – I've seen some complaints – I wrote about this on my blog. Richard Wiseman has. Christopher French wrote about it in ''The Guardian'', the newspaper in the UK. And there have been some interesting comments. One person saying, “Well, this isn't a scientific test.” And I find that kind of humorous, because it's not a ''rigorously'' scientific test. But the variables are, in some sense, controlled. In a scientific test, you know, yes. We should do 10,000 of these readings, and that would give us good statistics. But, in a scientific test you have to control some of the variables, and that's been done. Miss Putt couldn't look at the faces of these women, couldn't – they were all women, so she couldn't write down “she” versus “he is a person that does this”, so that, right away, you can eliminate some of the readings. All of these variables were controlled in such a way that, if she were psychic, she should have been able to do better than a random distribution would say. She didn't, and so we cannot say psychic powers don't exist. We cannot say psychic powers ''do'' exist. We can't even say Patricia Putt is not a psychic. All we can say is that she agreed to the protocols, the protocols were statistically derived, and would have been statistically significant, and she did not do better than random chance. Therefore, in this particular case, there was no proof of psychic abilities.

S: One again.

P: Yes. Once again.

S: What she's doing is the equivalent, logically, of the “one ahead” trick that ESP researchers have done for a while. The results come back negative, but then they look to see if they can make ''any'' match between the predictions and the data. Right? So, oh, well if you look at the card ''ahead'' of what they were guessing, that was a little bit better than chance. Or the one ''behind''. Or, if you discard the first 50, and then start counting from there. Right?

P: Right.

S: There's all sorts of ways to increase the probability. Although she found a way to increase it to 100 percent. So that's very creative of her to do that. Because, as you said, they each picked something, right? So, she couldn't lose.

P: I like to tell people, sometimes, when I give talks, that ''90 percent'', ''90 percent'' or ''more'', of all violent crimes occur within a week of the new or full moon.

(Rogues laugh)

P: And people don't get it, right? You guys get it, right? Because within a week of the new or full moon, you add that up, that's four weeks. And the moon goes – you know, it's 28 days – the moon goes around the Earth in 29 days. So, 28 out of 29, statistically, of violent crime, should happen within that time period. It ''sounds'' like you're saying, “within a week of each other. All violent crimes happen” – you know –

E: Mm-hm.

S: Yeah.

P: So, that's a way of changing the goal posts and relying on people's poorly understood statistics to pull one over. Now, I'm not saying she's trying to pull one over. According – you know, I haven't met the woman. I've only read what she's written. But, according to Richard and Christopher, she seems like an honest person.

J: It's so classic, though, that the woman goes home, thinks about it for a little while, and then very, very decisively deludes herself into thinking, “Nope. They were wrong and I was right.”

P: Yeah. In Richard Wiseman's blog comments she said that she walked into this thinking it was going to be one-sided biased towards the JREF. That's ''really'' unfair because she agreed to the protocols and said that everything was fine. Now it's – you know, after the fact you can say, “Oh”. Who hasn't signed a contract and looked back on it and thought, “What was I thinking?” But this is such a gross misreading that it seems to defy belief, if you pardon the expression, that somebody would agree to a contract like that, thinking they would walk into it, that it was so biased for the JREF and against the claimant. So, I'm not buying that argument. It just seems that, you know, they always seem to complain about these protocols after they lose and ''never'' before they take the test.

=== TAM (1:00:31) ===

J: Hey, Phil. Let's talk about TAM, babe. What do we got?

E: What don't we have? That's a shorter list.

P: Oh, man. TAM is steaming along. TAM, I should say TAM ''Vegas'', TAM ''7'', is steaming along very well. This is July 9th through 12th, 2009 at the Southpoint Hotel, Casino, and Spa, in sunny – and believe me, it's gonna be sunny. Like “surface of the sun” sunny – in Vegas. We got – our speakers are lined up. We've got so many speakers, we're trying to figure out, you know, how to schedule all of this incredible talent. You know, I don't want to sound like I'm shoveling something, here, but I'm ''so'' excited about this.

E: (Laughs)

P: Our keynote speaker is Bill Prady from ''The Big Bang Theory'', he's the Executive Producer. I've been talking with him and I'm really excited about – he's a – the guy's a true geek, and so he's gonna have a lot of fun up there showing clips and discussing it. Jennifer Ouellette from Cocktail Party Physics Blog, who's also part of the Science & Entertainment Exchange, talking to big time, and I mean ''big time'' Hollywood producers and directors to get better science in the movies, apropos of our discussion earlier. We got, you know, the usual lineup of Penn & Teller, and Shermer, Adam Savage, Randi, me. But we also have you guys, right? Every morning!

S: Absolutely.

P: Do an SGU Live. You guys will be doing some interviews while we're there. And, of course, Steve is also, on Thursday, running the Science-based Medicine meeting, which I hear is actually doing pretty well.

S: Yeah, it's gonna be really exciting. Again, it's gonna – we're gonna offer continuing medical education credits for physicians, but the conference is gonna be geared towards a general audience. So, if you want to hear – I think there's 7 of us – different physicians talking about science-based medicine and skills you could use to navigate the health claims that are out there on the internet, and dealing with your physician, et cetera. It'll be a fun conference for anybody.

P: You have great speakers lined up for that, and I'm actually hoping to be able to split my time between listening to someone like Dave Gorski talking, as well as attending the workshops. We have some extra-curricular workshops that we're running on Thursday, July 9th. We're also doing – we have a vaccination clinic in Las Vegas. You can donate money so that kids in Las Vegas can get vaccinated. Las Vegas has some of the lowest vaccination rates –

E: Yeah.

P: – in the country. And we know what happens when we lose our herd immunity. We're hearing about that in the news. When people like Jenny McCarthy get traction –

E: Ugh.

P: – babies start dying. It's really just that simple. When the claims of the anti-vaxxers get spread in the populace, we start getting kids with pertussis, and measles, and it's putting them at risk of horrible diseases as well as possibly dying. We can't have that happen. So, we're running a vaccination clinic. I've just got a ton of stuff going on, and I'm really excited about it.

S: Well, Phil, thanks again for joining us. It's always a pleasure.

P: Oh, my pleasure. Thank you. It's even better when Rebecca's not around.

(Rogues laugh)

S: And we all can't wait to see you in Vegas, man.

P: Oh, I'm totally, totally fired up for this.

J: Yeah, we are too.

E: It's gonna be awesome.

S: Take care.

B: See ya, Phil.

P: Thanks!

== Science or Fiction (1:03:43) ==
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090526202805.htm Item # 1]: Epidemiologists warn of a surge in the incidence of leprosy in India and other parts of Asia, which they fear may return to epidemic proportions.
[http://www.sciencecodex.com/following_a_healthy_lifestyle_is_on_the_decline_in_the_us Item # 2]: Researchers find that in the last 18 years the percentage of Americans following basic healthy lifestyle recommendations has declined.
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090526202730.htm Item # 3]: A cancer patient was detained at customs for several hours because the chemotherapy he was on caused him to lose his finger prints.

''It's time for “Science or Fiction”''

S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two real and one fictitious. And I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. And you all can play along at home. Is everyone ready for this week's items?

J: Absolutely.

B: Mm-hm.

R: Ready.

S: All right. Good. I don't want to take you by surprise, so I always check. Here we go. Item #1: Epidemiologists warn of a surge in the incidence of leprosy in India and other parts of Asia, which they fear may return to epidemic proportions. Item #2: Researchers find that in the last 18 years the percentage of Americans following basic healthy lifestyle recommendations has declined. Item #3: A cancer patient was detained at customs for several hours because the chemotherapy he was on caused him to lose his finger prints.

J: What?

S: You heard me.

B&E: (Laugh)

S: Evan, go first.

E: Okay. So, a surge in leprosy in India and other parts of Asia. Okay. The next one was “in the last 18 years the percentage of Americans following basic healthy lifestyle recommendations has declined”. I think that's tragically, probably true. And, then the last one was the cancer patient “detained at customs for several hours because the chemotherapy he was on caused him to lose his finger prints”. Oh, boy. Is that possible? How is – how would – chemotherapy can cause you to lose your fingerprints? Cause you to lose your hair. Well, but I think that one's – I think that's actually gonna be – wind up being true. And, therefore, I'll say that the healthy lifestyle recommendations declining over the last 18 years, I'll say that one is fiction.

S: Okay. Jay.

J: Epidemiologists warn of a surge of leprosy in India, and they fear it might return to epidemic proportions. I mean, I can definitely buy that for lots of different reasons. “Researchers find that in the last 18 years the percentage of Americans following basic healthy lifestyle recommendations has declined.” I don't know about that. I mean, I could see in the United States weight gain seems to be on the rise, ha-ha. But, I don't know. Not sure about that one. And the guy losing his fingerprints because of being on chemotherapy. What would the chemo do to his skin? You know, I'm dying to ask a question, Steve, like is all of his skin affected or just his fingerprints?

S: No comment.

E: Wow.

J: Okay. Well, then I will go with – I'll take – I'll say that the second one, the 18 years percentage of Americans following basic healthy lifestyle recommendations has declined, I'll say that's the fake.

S: Okay. Bob.

B: The leprosy one. Epidemic proportions. Ooh, I don't know about that one. It just feels like one of those things that you just never really think of coming back. Kind of like whooping cough, I guess. Not sure about that one. The 18 years of the basic lifestyle recommendations declining. I don't know. Yeah, that doesn't sound that right to me. I think that people following them probably is low as it's been in a while. Maybe even a little bit better, considering – I think, aren't less people smoking, at least in the States? And then the cancer one with the fingerprints. That certainly is bizarre. That's so bizarre I'm gonna say – I'm not going to doubt that for now. So, let me see. Between 1 and 2 –

R: Just pick one, Bob.

B: I know, I know. I'll go with the group then, with Jay and Evan, number 2. The lifestyle.

E: Yeah!

S: Okay. Rebecca

R: Okay, I too am torn between the leprosy and the healthy lifestyle options. And, my initial reation was to go with the healthy lifestyle thing because that seems like the sort of thing that you might make up. You know, because it sounds true, so obviously it's false. But, maybe that's what you ''want'' us to think, Steve.

B&E: (Laugh)

R: I haven't read anything about either of these. However, I did read something about leprosy recently. I believe it was something about the first person who had leprosy. I don't know. There's something in the news about that. I don't know. But, I'm wondering if maybe you're trying to rely upon us remembering leprosy was in the news and assuming that one's true. So I'm going to go against the group and say that the leprosy item is in fact false.

S: Okay. So we'll start with number 3. All of you think a cancer patient was detained at customs for several hours because the chemotherapy he was on caused him to lose his finger prints. And that one is... science.

B: That's interesting.

S: Yeah, that was an interesting one. Isn't it?

E: Remarkable.

S: Nobody went for that one. This is a patient who was taking a anti-cancer drug, a fairly common called Capecitabine, I think that's how you pronounce it. One of the adverse effects is called hand-foot syndrome, which is a chronic inflammation of the palms or soles of the feet. And if this is allowed to occur for a while, you could have, sort of, multiple episodes of inflammation of the palms and the skin coming off and blistering, et cetera that could actually remove the fingerprints, or eradicate the fingerprints from the palm, over time.

J: So, Steve, this is really localized to the hands, then?

S: The hands and feet. Hence, hand-foot syndrome.

E: Wow.

J: Oh, okay.

E: Oh, yeah.

S: Yeah. So, this actually happened to a patient who was getting this chemotherapy, and he was held up at immigration because he was coming in from another country, and they routinely, now, will fingerprint people just to check them against a list of, like, known terrorists. He didn't have any fingerprints, so they didn't know what to do with him. Eventually, they were able to verify his medical condition. So, this case actually led to recommendations for patients with this condition to carry a letter on them from their physician describing their medical condition and why they don't have any fingerprints. And there have been other cases similarly reported of patients losing their fingerprints as a side effect of this chemotherapy.

B: Interesting.

S: Yeah. Interesting. So, I guess we'll go back to number 1. Epidemiologists warn of a surge in the incidence of leprosy in India and other parts of Asia, which they fear may return to epidemic proportions. And, that one is... the fiction.

E: Hmm.

R: Ha, ha!

B: Ugh.

S: Good job, Rebecca.

R: (Laughs)

S: And, you're right. I did take this from – the real item was “The oldest evidence of leprosy found in India”.

R: (Laughs) I win!

S: So...

J: That's bullshit. This was rigged.

E&R: (Laugh)

S: They were able to find evidence of ''Mycobacterium leprae'' from a 4,000 year old skeleton from India. And this is now the oldest evidence of human infection with this disease.

E: Ew.

S: This was published in the journal, ''PLOS One'', or the Public Library of Science One. It's a medical – online, peer-reviewed medical journal. Demonstrates that leprosy was present in human populations in India at the very beginning of civilization, 2000 BC.

E: I thought you were going to say it was in a leprosy journal. Which I subscribe to. My editions always seem to fall apart though, as they come through the mail. I don't know why.

B: (Laughs)

E: Thanks, Bob!

S: Leprosy is not surging. It was that part I made up. And, it's – you know, whether or not you consider it an epidemic is a matter of definition. But, it's simmering along. But, the World Health Organization reports that “99.9% of regional populations have eliminated the disease”. So, it's pretty decreased.

E: 'Til they get Jenny McCarthy to come down.

S: Yeah, the last real outbreak that I could find was in the 1980s. So, the prevalence of leprosy has dropped 85 percent over the last ten years. So, it's actually on the wane.

E: Thank goodness.

S: What's interesting is that leprosy is not very contagious. It actually takes a long term intimate contact in order to spread the disease.

E: Ugh!

S: So, the people who are at risk are really family members. You know, people living with somebody with leprosy over years. That's almost what it takes to really spread it. So, it doesn't spread very easily or very quickly. But, it's a chronic disease. Once you have it, you have it.

J: What was that whole bit with, like, you know, people being, like, in the catacombs in Rome and all that and then that's, like, leprosy spread like crazy there.

S: What is true about this sort of – the classic image we have of leprosy of these sort of leper colonies on the edges of urban centers. It was a disease that really didn't start to spread in human populations until we really were crowded together in urban locations. Again, it really requires a high density to spread, because it is so minimally contagious. So, it really did crop up for the first time in the first cities. You know, in the first civilizations, in the first cities. And they did keep lepers segregated on the outskirts of these urban centers where it was spreading. So, that much is true. But, it really isn't very contagious, you know, as I said. Which means, that researchers find that in the last 18 years the percentage of Americans following basic healthy lifestyle recommendations has declined is... science!

B: (Laughs)

R: (Laughs)

S: Is also science. In fact, Americans are getting less healthy. So here are the – these are two large-scale studies of the US population, 1988 to 1994 compared to 2001 to 2006. So, encompassing a total of 18 years. And, they looked at adults 40 to 74 years old. And what they found was that – so, one healthy lifestyle factor that they looked at was maintaining a body mass index less than 30. And, the number of people are – looked at it the other way – the number of people who have a body mass index greater than 30 has increased from 28 percent to 36 percent. So –

B: Oh my God.

S: So, everyone knows that Americans are getting fatter, right? That's old news. So, that one was obvious. However, physical activity 12 times a month or more, so that's basically, you know, you're working out three days a week, decreased from 53 percent to 43 percent.

E: Ouch.

S: Smoking rates have not changed significantly. 26.9 percent to 26.1 percent. So, really, a minimal decrease. 26.9 to 26.1.

B: Wow.

S: Eating five or more fruits and vegetables a day has decreased from 42 percent to 26 percent. And, moderate alcohol use has increased from 40 percent to 51 percent. So, increasing too much alcohol use. The number of people adhering to all five healthy habits has decreased from 15 percent to 8 percent.

R&B: Wow.

S: Yeah, it's bad. So, we're going in the wrong direction despite all of the public awareness and, you know, really pushing it. People are just not adhering to these well-established healthy lifestyles.

R: I'm guessing that it's only going to get worse now that the economy has tanked, too. People tend to drink more, exercise less.

S: Yeah, probably. Eat cheaper food, which tends to be more high caloric. Yeah, it's interesting. You wonder, so, what are we not doing that we should be doing? What are we doing wrong? You know, of course I know a lot of people will blame physicians, but honestly, the evidence shows that physicians have a pretty minimal effect on these things. Yes, we should be telling patients, “don't smoke”, you know, “lose weight”, “eat better”, and we do. I mean, that's now so much a part of, just, basic medical care that – you know, physicians basically are telling patients to do these things, but the evidence shows that it just doesn't have that much of an impact.

R: Yeah, well, you know – but, I think there's no – you're not going to be able to pinpoint any one thing –

S: Yeah. I agree

R: – I mean, it's not the doctors it's – it's personal responsibility, it's crap marketing, it's, you know, awful companies pushing awful products. You know, it's all those things together. So, yeah, we just ''suck''.

S: I agree. But we do like to find our favorite things to blame, right? So we'll each find the thing that we dislike and blame that. Like, I like to blame the self help industry, which I think distracts people from the real answers by selling them the cheap and easy answers that don't actually work. Right?

R: Yeah. I think that's part of it. So, anyway, I won.

S: So, Rebecca won. Yeah, Rebecca won. Good job. You guys all tanked. You all fell for my leprosy dodge.

R: (Laughs)

== Who's That Noisy (1:16:56) ==
* Atlantic Croaker Fish

S: Evan. Remind me what you played last week again, for Who's That Noisy.

(Evan plays last week's clip. No dialogue)

S: And, what was that thumping noise?

E: That was a recording of a fish, if you can believe it. And, specifically, the Atlantic Croaker fish.

S: The Atlantic Croaker!

E: A recording made by scientists from the University of Rhode Island from 1962.

S: It reminded me a little bit of electric eels. Have you ever been at the aquarium and they have –

R: Yeah.

S: – a microphone in the electric eel tank and when –

E: Yeah.

S: – it sets off the discharges –

R: And gearing up.

S: Yeah. It kind of sounds like that.

E: That was, I think, the best guess. And someone from the message boards actually did guess electric eel, which I guess was the closest.

R: Did anyone guess “Croaker”?

E: No. Nobody guessed the Atlantic Croaker.

S: Ooh!

E: This was a very tough one. Lot of people guessed woodpeckers.

S: I was surprised that some people guess the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. I mean, come on!

E: (Laughs)

B: That was funny.

S: You don't think you would have heard about that on the SGU if we discovered the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker?

R: I hope you've got an easier one this time.

E: Yeah. I think I do. Well, at least it's a person. But, you'll hear in just a second, so here's this weeks Who's That Noisy?

<blockquote>That might be a pretty effective demonstration of my supernatural abilities. But, if there's one thing I want you guys to take away from this talk, it's that no matter whether you see it in print, whether you see it on TV, whether you hear about it from a friend. If it sounds supernatural, if it sounds beyond what's possible, you better believe that you are not getting the entire story.</blockquote>

E: All right. There you go. Who is that? Identify him! And good luck.

== Quote of the Week (1:18:44) ==
<blockquote>“I have adequately answered all your inquiries. I ask you to quietly rephrase these inquiries to yourself until they match my replies.” - Elbot (a chatterbot created by Fred Roberts)</blockquote>

J: Jay, do you have a quote for us?

J: I have a cool quote tonight, sent in by a listener named Ian Blackstone. And, Ian sent me a quote by Elbot. And, I don't know if any of you guys have ever heard about Elbot. I thought this was incredible. I love things like this. Elbot is actually a chatterbox program, which is a computer program that is designed to simulate intelligent conversation. So, what they do is, they have this textual conversation between Elbot and humans. And they test how many humans and for how long they can fool the humans into believing that this is actually another human that they're chatting with. This type of test was created by a man named Alan Turing. And, if you've ever heard of the Turing Test, that is the test. The test is, can a human decide whether they're talking to a machine or another human? But, the quote is actually from a conversation that somebody had with Elbot.

Computer voice: I have adequately answered all your inquiries. I ask you to quietly rephrase these inquiries to yourself until they match my replies.

J: Elbot didn't actually speak in a computer-generated voice, and – the reason why I did that was, I just thought it was funny that Elbot kind of gave back a really witty answer to the question I guess that the human was asking, so – so there it is.

S: Okay. Well, thank you for joining me, everyone, this week.

R: Thank you, Steve

E: Well done on two-oh-one.

B: Certainly.

S: Good job. Always a pleasure. And, until next week, this is your Skeptic's Guide to the Universe.

{{Outro119}}
== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

SGU Episode 203

2015-05-25T18:58:03Z

Mantis!: reserved episode 203 for transcription

{{transcribing all
|transcriber = Mantis!
|date = 2015-05-25
}}

{{Editing required
|transcription = y

|time-stamps = y
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 203
|episodeDate = June 9th 2009 
|episodeIcon = File:Jellyfish-crop-b.jpg 
|previous = 
|next = 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|jay = y 
|evan = y 
|perry = 
|guest1 = 
|guest2 = 
|guest3 = 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2009-06-09.mp3
|forumLink =
|qowText = “If there is anything that can bind the heavenly mind of man to this dusty exile of our earthy home and can reconcile us with our fate so that we can enjoy living – then it is verily the enjoyment of … the mathematical sciences and astronomy.” 
|qowAuthor = {{w|Johannes Kepler, in a letter to Jakob Bartsch}} 
|}}

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

=== Crop Circles 2009 () ===
* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1190279/Jellyfish-dragonflies-peace-symbols-The-summer-crop-circles-just-getting-started.html http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2009/may2009.html

=== CT and Chronic Lyme Disease () ===
* http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=551 http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=552

=== Quantum Mechanics () ===
* http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/605/1

=== Casino Feng Shui () ===
* http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/06/antievolution-bills-die-texas-004818

=== UFO Follow Up () ===
* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5435262/UFOs-above-Merseyside-linked-to-HMS-Daring-military-exercise.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5434040/UFOs-spotted-in-Cambridgeshire.html
== Questions and E-mails () ==

=== Question # 1 - Apple Cider and Gallstones () ===
<blockquote>Through her friends, my mother has decided to drink apple cider to remove gallstones. According to her friends, after drinking only apple cider for two days, the gallstones will be flushed out from the body and observed in the feces. It will appear green and and feel soft to the touch. I have found conflicting reports online and I care about my mother's health very much. Your opinions would be much appreciated. SGU Listener, Ruanne Lai Toronto</blockquote>

== Interview with Bruce Hood () ==
* Bruce Hood is the author of Supersense:Why We Believe in the Unbelievable http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/
== Science or Fiction () ==
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8083962.stm Item # 1]: Scientists have successfully genetically engineered bacteria to mass-produce tarantula silk, which can be used in textiles.
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8086000/8086246.stm Item # 2]: New research suggests that chimpanzees are able to memorize the precise location of individual fruit bearing trees out of more than 12,000 trees in their territory, in addition to remembering their seasonal productivity.
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8085477.stm Item # 3]: Researchers find that bats are able to identify other individual bats from their echolocation calls, even from a single burst of sound.
== Who's That Noisy () ==
* Answer to last week: Auroral Emissions
== Quote of the Week () ==
<blockquote>“If there is anything that can bind the heavenly mind of man to this dusty exile of our earthy home and can reconcile us with our fate so that we can enjoy living – then it is verily the enjoyment of … the mathematical sciences and astronomy.” - Johannes Kepler, in a letter to Jakob Bartsch</blockquote>

{{Outro119}}
== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

Template:SGU episode list

2015-05-25T18:55:08Z

Mantis!: change episode availability of 202 to "mag" and 203 to "i"

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

Where the first pass of transcription is done using Google Speech API, the page should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{a}}</nowiki></code> to add the microphone icon.

Pages currently in progress should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{i}}</nowiki></code> to add the pencil icon, and pages that have sections open to other contributors to transcribe should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{Open}}</nowiki></code> to include the green arrow icon.

Once all the transcription is finished, the page should be marked with <code><nowiki>{{mag}}</nowiki></code> to add the magnifying glass icon, signifying that it needs to be proof-read.

Pages that have been proof-read and verified by a contributor other than the author should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{tick}}</nowiki></code> to include the green tick icon. </noinclude>
Below are links to all the SGU episodes with transcription pages.

Jump to: [[#2013|2013]], [[#2012|2012]], [[#2011|2011]], [[#2010|2010]], [[#2009|2009]], [[#2008|2008]], [[#2007|2007]], [[#2006|2006]], [[#2005|2005]]

{|
!Key:
|-
|    {{tick}}
| –  episode proof-read
|     {{mag}}
|  –  transcription complete and needs proof-reading
|-
|    {{i}}
| –  transcription in progress
|     {{Open}}
|  –  contains sections that need transcribing
|-
|    {{a}}
|colspan="3"| –  first pass of transcription performed by Google Speech API
|}

{|style="margin:1em 3em"
|style="padding-right: 6em;white-space:nowrap" valign="top"|<big>'''2014'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 514]], May 16 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 513]], May 9 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 512]], May 2 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 511]], Apr 25 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 510]], Apr 18 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 509]], Apr 11 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 508]], Apr 4 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 507]], Mar 28 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 506]], Mar 21 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 505]], Mar 14 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 504]], Mar 7 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 503]], Feb 28 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 502]], Feb 21 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 501]], Feb 14 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 500]], Feb 7 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 499]], Jan 31 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 498]], Jan 24 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 497]], Jan 17 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 496]], Jan 10 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 495]], Jan 3 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 494]], Dec 27 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 493]], Dec 20 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 492]], Dec 13 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 491]], Dec 6 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 490]], Nov 29 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 489]], Nov 22 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 488]], Nov 15 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 487]], Nov 8 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 486]], Nov 1 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 485]], Oct 25 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 484]], Oct 18 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 483]], Oct 11 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 482]], Oct 4 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 481]], Sep 27 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 480]], Sep 20 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 479]], Sep 13 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 478]], Sep 6 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 477]], Aug 30 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 476]], Aug 23 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 475]], Aug 16 2014 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 474]], Aug 9 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 473]], Aug 2 2014 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 472]], Jul 26 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 471]], Jul 19 2014 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 470]], Jul 12 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 469]], Jul 5 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 468]], Jun 28 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 467]], Jun 21 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 466]], Jun 14 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 465]], Jun 7 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 464]], May 31 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 463]], May 24 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 462]], May 17 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 461]], May 10 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 460]], May 3 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 459]], Apr 26 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 458]], Apr 19 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 457]], Apr 12 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 456]], Apr 5 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 455]], Mar 29 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 454]], Mar 22 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 453]], Mar 15 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 452]], Mar 8 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 451]], Mar 1 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 450]], Feb 22 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 449]], Feb 15 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 448]], Feb 10 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 447]], Feb 8 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 446]], Feb 1 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 445]], Jan 25 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 444]], Jan 18 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 443]], Jan 11 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 442]], Jan 4 2014 {{Open}}

<big>'''2013'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 441]], Dec 28 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 440]], Dec 21 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 439]], Dec 14 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 438]], Dec 7 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 437]], Nov 30 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 436]], Nov 23 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 435]], Nov 16 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 434]], Nov 9 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 433]], Nov 2 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 432]], Oct 26 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 431]], Oct 19 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 430]], Oct 12 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 429]], Oct 5 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 428]], Sep 28 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 427]], Sep 21 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 426]], Sep 14 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 425]], Sep 7 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 424]], Aug 31 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 423]], Aug 24 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 422]], Aug 17 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 421]], Aug 10 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 420]], Aug 3 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 419]], Jul 27 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 418]], Jul 20 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 417]], Jul 13 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 416]], Jul 6 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 415]], Jun 29 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 414]], Jun 22 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 413]], Jun 15 2013 {{Open}}{{a}}
* [[SGU Episode 412]], Jun 8 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 411]], Jun 1 2013 {{a}}
* [[SGU Episode 410]], May 25 2013 {{Tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 409]], May 18 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 408]], May 11 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 407]], May 4 2013 {{Open}}{{a}}
* [[SGU Episode 406]], Apr 27 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 405]], Apr 20 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 404]], Apr 13 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 403]], Apr 6 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 402]], Mar 30 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 401]], Mar 23 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 400]], Mar 16 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 399]], Mar 9 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 398]], Mar 2 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 397]], Feb 23 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 396]], Feb 16 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 395]], Feb 9 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 394]], Feb 2 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 393]], Jan 26 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 392]], Jan 19 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 391]], Jan 12 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 390]], Jan 5 2013 {{tick}}

<big>'''2012'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 389]], Dec 29 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 388]], Dec 22 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 387]], Dec 15 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 386]], Dec 8 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 385]], Dec 1 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 384]], Nov 24 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 383]], Nov 17 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 382]], Nov 10 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 381]], Nov 3 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 380]], Oct 27 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 379]], Oct 20 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 378]], Oct 13 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 377]], Oct 6 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 376]], Sep 29 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 375]], Sep 22 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 374]], Sep 15 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 373]], Sep 8 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 372]], Sep 1 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 371]], Aug 25 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 370]], Aug 18 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 369]], Aug 11 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 368]], Aug 4 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 367]], Jul 28 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 366]], Jul 21 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 365]], Jul 14 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 364]], Jul 7 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 363]], Jun 30 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 362]], Jun 23 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 361]], Jun 16 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 360]], Jun 9 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 359]], Jun 2 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 358]], May 26 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 357]], May 19 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 356]], May 12 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 355]], May 5 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 354]], Apr 28 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 353]], Apr 21 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 352]], Apr 14 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 351]], Apr 7 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 350]], Mar 31 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 349]], Mar 24 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 348]], Mar 17 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 347]], Mar 10 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 346]], Mar 3 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 345]], Feb 25 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 341]], Jan 28 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 340]], Jan 21 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 339]], Jan 14 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 338]], Jan 7 2012 {{tick}}
<big>'''2011'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 337]], Dec 31 2011 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 336]], Dec 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 335]], Dec 17 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 334]], Dec 10 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 333]], Dec 3 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 332]], Nov 26 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 331]], Nov 19 2011 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 330]], Nov 11 2011 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 329]], Nov 5 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 328]], Oct 29 2011 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 327]], Oct 22 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 326]], Oct 15 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 325]], Oct 8 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 324]], Oct 1 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 323]], Sep 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 322]], Sep 17 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 321]], Sep 10 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU 24hr]], Sep 23-24 2011
* [[SGU Episode 320]], Aug 29 2011 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 319]], Aug 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 318]], Aug 17 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 317]], Aug 10 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 316]], Aug 3 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 315]], Jul 27 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 314]], Jul 20 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 313]], Jul 13 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 312]], Jul 5 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 311]], Jun 29 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 310]], Jun 22 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 309]], Jun 13 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 308]], Jun 08 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 307]], May 31 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 306]], May 25 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 305]], May 18 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 304]], May 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 303]], May 4 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 302]], Apr 27 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 301]], Apr 20 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 300]], Apr 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 299]], Apr 4 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 298]], Mar 30 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 297]], Mar 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 296]], Mar 16 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 295]], Mar 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 294]], Mar 2 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 293]], Feb 23 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 292]], Feb 16 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 291]], Feb 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 290]], Jan 31 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 289]], Jan 26 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 288]], Jan 19 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 287]], Jan 12 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 286]], Jan 5 2011 {{Open}}
<big>'''2010'''</big>

----
* [[SGU Episode 285]], Dec 29 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 284]], Dec 22 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 283]], Dec 15 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 282]], Dec 8 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 281]], Dec 1 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 280]], Nov 24 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 279]], Nov 15 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 278]], Nov 10 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 277]], Nov 3 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 276]], Oct 27 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 275]], Oct 19 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 274]], Oct 13 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 273]], Oct 6 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 272]], Sep 30 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 271]], Sep 22 2010 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 270]], Sep 15 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 269]], Sep 8 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 268]], Sep 1 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 267]], Aug 25 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 266]], Aug 19 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 265]], Aug 11 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 264]], Aug 4 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 263]], Jul 29 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 262]], Jul 21 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 261]], Jul 10 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 260]], Jun 30 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 259]], Jun 28 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 258]], Jun 16 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 257]], Jun 14 2010 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 256]], Jun 9 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 255]], Jun 2 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 254]], May 26 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 253]], May 19 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 252]], May 12 2010 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 251]], May 5 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 250]], Apr 28 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 249]], Apr 17 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 248]], Apr 13 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 247]], Apr 7 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 246]], Mar 31 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 245]], Mar 25 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 244]], Mar 18 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 243]], Mar 11 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 242]], Mar 3 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 241]], Feb 24 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 240]], Feb 17 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 239]], Feb 10 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 238]], Feb 3 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 237]], Jan 27 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 236]], Jan 20 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 235]], Jan 13 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 234]], Nov 15 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 233]], Jan 6 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 232]], Jan 1 2010 {{mag}}

|valign="top" style=white-space:nowrap|<big>'''2009'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 231]], Dec 21 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 230]], Dec 16 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 229]], Dec 9 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 228]], Dec 2 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 227]], Nov 25 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 226]], Nov 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 225]], Nov 11 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 224]], Nov 4 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 223]], Oct 28 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 222]], Oct 21 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 221]], Oct 14 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 220]], Oct 7 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 219]], Sep 28 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 218]], Sep 23 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 217]], Sep 12 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 216]], Sep 9 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 215]], Sep 1 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 214]], Aug 25 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 213]], Aug 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 212]], Aug 12 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 211]], Aug 4 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 210]], Jul 29 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 209]], Jul 22 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 208]], Jul 11 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 207]], Jul 1 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 206]], Jun 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 205]], Jun 16 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 204]], Jun 11 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 203]], Jun 9 2009 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 202]], Jun 3 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 201]], May 27 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 200]], May 20 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 199]], May 13 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 198]], May 7 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 197]], Apr 30 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 196]], Apr 22 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 195]], Apr 15 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 194]], Apr 8 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 193]], Apr 1 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 192]], Mar 25 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 191]], Mar 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 190]], Mar 12 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 189]], Mar 4 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 188]], Feb 26 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 187]], Feb 11 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 186]], Feb 9 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 185]], Feb 4 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 184]], Jan 28 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 183]], Jan 21 2009 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 182]], Jan 15 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 181]], Jan 7 2009 {{Open}}

<big>'''2008'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 180]], Dec 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 179]], Dec 23 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 178]], Dec 16 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 177]], Dec 3 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 176]], Nov 20 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 175]], Nov 10 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 174]], Nov 18 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 173]], Nov 12 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 172]], Nov 5 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 171]], Oct 29 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 170]], Oct 22 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 169]], Oct 11 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 168]], Oct 8 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 167]], Oct 1 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 166]], Sep 24 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 165]], Sep 17 2008 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 164]], Sep 10 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 163]], Sep 3 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 162]], Aug 26 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 161]], Aug 20 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 160]], Aug 13 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 159]], Aug 6 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 158]], Jul 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 157]], Jul 23 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 156]], Jul 16 2008 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 155]], Jul 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 154]], Jul 2 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 153]], Jun 21 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 152]], Jun 11 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 151]], Jun 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 150]], Jun 4 2008 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 149]], May 28 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 148]], May 21 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 147]], May 14 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 146]], May 7 2008 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 145]], Apr 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 144]], Apr 23 2008 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 143]], Apr 16 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 142]], Apr 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 141]], Apr 2 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 140]], Mar 26 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 139]], Mar 19 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 138]], Mar 12 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 137]], Mar 5 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 136]], Feb 27 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 135]], Feb 20 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 134]], Feb 13 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 133]], Feb 6 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 132]], Jan 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 131]], Jan 23 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 130]], Jan 16 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 129]], Jan 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 128]], Jan, 2 2008 {{Open}}

<big>'''2007'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 127]], Dec 26 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 126]], Dec 19 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 125]], Dec 12 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 124]], Dec 5 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 122]], Nov 20 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 121]], Nov 14 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 120]], Nov 7 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 119]], Oct 30 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 118]], Oct 24 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 117]], Oct 17 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 116]], Oct 10 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 115]], Oct 3 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 114]], Sep 27 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 113]], Sep 19 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 112]], Sep 12 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 111]], Sep 5 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 110]], Aug 28 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 108]], Aug 11 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 107]], Aug 8 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 106]], Aug 1 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 105]], Jul 25 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 104]], Jul 18 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 103]], Jul 11 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 102]], Jul 3 2007 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 101]], June 20 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 100]], June 19 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 99]], June 13 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 98]], June 6 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 97]], May 30 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 96]], May 23 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 95]], May 16 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 94]], May 9 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 93]], May 3 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 92]], Apr 25 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 91]], Apr 18 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 90]], Apr 10 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 89]], Apr 4 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 88]], Mar 28 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 87]], Mar 21 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 86]], Mar 14 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 85]], Mar 7 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 84]], Feb 28 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 83]], Feb 21 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 82]], Feb 15 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 81]], Feb 7 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 80]], Jan 31 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 78]], Jan 15 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 77]], Jan 10 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 76]], Jan 3 2007 {{open}}

<big>'''2006'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 75]], Dec 27 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 74]], Dec 20 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 73]], Dec 13 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 73]], Dec 13 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 72]], Dec 6 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 71]], Nov 29 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 70]], Nov 21 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 69]], Nov 15 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 68]], Nov 8 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 67]], Nov 1 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 66]], Oct 25 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 65]], Oct 18 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 64]], Oct 11 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 63]], Oct 4 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 62]], Sep 27 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 61]], Sep 20 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 60]], Sep 13 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 59]], Sep 5 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 58]], Aug 30 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 57]], Aug 23 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 56]], Aug 15 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 55]], Aug 9 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 54]], Aug 2 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 53]], Jul 26 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 52]], Jul 19 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 51]], Jul 12 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 50]], Jul 5 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 49]], Jun 28 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 48]], Jun 21 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 47]], Jun 14 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 46]], Jun 7 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 45]], May 31 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 44]], May 24 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 43]], May 17 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 42]], May 10 2006 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 41]], May 3 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 40]], Apr 26 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 39]], Apr 19 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 38]], Apr 12 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 37]], Apr 6 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 36]], Mar 29 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 35]], Mar 22 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 34]], Mar 15 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 33]], Mar 9 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 32]], Mar 1 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 31]], Feb 22 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 30]], Feb 15 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 29]], Feb 8 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 28]], Feb 1 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 27]], Jan 25 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 26]], Jan 17 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 25]], Jan 11 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 24]], Jan 6 2006 {{tick}}

<big>'''2005'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 23]], Dec 21 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 22]], Dec 14 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 21]], Dec 7 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 20]], Nov 23 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 19]], Nov 16 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 18]], Nov 2 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 17]], Oct 26 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 16]], Oct 12 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 15]], Oct 6 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 14]], Sep 28 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 13]], Sep 14 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 12]], Sep 7 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 11]], Aug 31 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 10]], Aug 23 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 9]], Aug 10 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 8]], Aug 2 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 7]], Jul 20 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 6]], Jul 7 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 5]], Jun 29 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 4]], Jun 15 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 3]], Jun 7 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 2]], Jun 1 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 1]], May 4 2005 {{tick}}
|}

<noinclude>
[[Category: List templates]]
</noinclude>

SGU Episode 202

2015-05-25T18:52:48Z

Mantis!: Raw transcript and timestamps for episode 202

{{Editing required
|proof-reading = y
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 202
|episodeDate = June 3rd 2009 
|episodeIcon = File:Crystals.jpg 
|previous = 
|next = 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|jay = y 
|evan = y 
|perry = 
|guest1 = SS: Simon Singh 
|guest2 = 
|guest3 = 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2009-06-03.mp3
|forumLink =
|qowText = 'Some people try to tell me that science will never answer the big questions we have in life. To them I say: baloney! The real problem is your questions aren’t big enough.' 
|qowAuthor = {{w|Phil Plait}} 
|}}

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

S: Hello, and welcome to the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009. And this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella...

B: Hey, everybody.

S: Rebecca Watson...

R: Hello, everyone.

S: Jay Novella...

J: Hey, guys.

S: And Evan Bernstein.

== This Day in Skepticism (00:28) ==

E: Hey, everyone. And when you're listening to this on June 6th, keep in mind that it is National Huntington's Disease Awareness Day.

S: Awesome.

E: I didn't even know they had this.

S: There's gotta be a national awareness day for ''everything''. Right?

E: You'd think so.

R: I think so

E: There's a lot of them.

J: What is Huntington's Awareness Disease Day?

E: Well, Huntington's Disease is a neurodegenerative disorder, and it was named after physician George Huntington, who first described it accurately in 1872. It has no current cure.

J: Oh.

S: That's correct.

R: Such a downer day to pick. It's important.

E: Well, it was either that or this is, you know, D-Day. June 6th.

R: That's also kind of a downer.

E: Yeah. So I figured between the two...

J: So nothing good happened on June 6th, ever? I mean, come on. Really?

R: Wait. It's 6-6, right?

E: It is.

R: A few years ago people were all up in arms about the “Mark of the Beast Day”, 6-6-6.

E: Oh, they're outraged.

S: I like Huntington's Disease better.

R: That's an awful thing to say, Steve. Why would you say that?

S: Than the Mark of the Beast?

B: (Laughs)

S: I should say, I like ''talking'' about Huntington's Disease better.

R: ''That's'' more like it.

S: 'Cause I know something about it. That's right.

J: It's because you're a neurologist. Well, Steve, then why aren't you saying anything?

S: I don't know. I wanted to see what Evan knew. I could tell you it's a genetic disorder. It's a trinucleotide repeat with amplification and anticipation.

E: Uh-huh.

R: No one knows what that means.

S: Yeah, I – It's a degeneration of the basal ganglia, as well as –

E: So far you're right. Keep going.

S: – morphocortical changes. So, it's a progressive dementia and movement disorder that causes people to move involuntarily. They get these writhing and kind of jerky movements. 

B: Dementia as well, huh?

E: And why is there no cure for this?

S: 'Cause it's a neurodegenerative disorder. We haven't cured any of them yet.

E: None.

S: Yeah. ALS, Parkinson's Disease, Huntington's Disease. You know, Alzheimer's Disease. You name it. We haven't cured any of it.

E: Guillain–Barré. Hmm.

S: Not Guillain–Barré. Guillain–Barré is an auto-immune disease.

E: Well, there you go. (Laughs) See, I can't throw a curveball by you!

S: No.

== News Items ==

=== Newsweek vs Oprah (2:32) ===
* http://www.newsweek.com/id/200025

J: Now, I feel like it's my job, now, to say something that, like, 90 percent of our audience will know about and be interested in.

(Silence)

S: How about Oprah Winfrey?

J: Let's talk about Oprah, guys.

S: All right, let's talk about Oprah.

R: Man, I hate Oprah. Have I mentioned, yet, how much I hate Oprah?

S: Yeah. Yes, you have.

R: But, the nice thing is that other people are starting to realize it as well. Like mainstream media.

E: Finally.

S: Newsweek! Newsweek took on Oprah, full-frontal. It was awesome.

B: What a great article. Wow.

J: Steve, don't even bring that up like that 

R: Steve, please don't say “Oprah” and “full-frontal” in the same sentence.

(laughter)

S: They really took her to task. I mean, I've never seen a mainstream article take her the way they did. They, you know, criticized –

R: Please don't say “take her”. (unclear) 

E: or “task”, or...

S: They did criticize her style in a lot of ways. For example, like pretending to be just your everyday girlfriend. You know, although she's the one who happens to have ''billions'' of dollars. But, they mainly focused on the thing that gets ''us'' so upset about Oprah, and that is her promotion of nonsense and quackery. She, of course, has been promoting the anti-vaccination movement, like Jenny McCarthy. She promotes ''The Secret'', just, you know, “wishing” your cancer away with magic. She promotes, you know, all kinds of quacks. She's –

R: Doctor Christiane Northrup, who teaches you that you can direct your “chi” to your vajay-jay. Their words, not mine.

J: Vajay-jay? Yo! What's up, baby?

R: I'm an adult, and can say a word like “vagina”. But apparently Oprah and Christiane Northrup cannot.

S: Oh, that's what they say? (Laughs)

E: Eh, the censors are listening. You know.

R: (Laughs) If you ever want to be just horribly disturbed, on Skepchick I did a post about a year or two ago showing this clip of Oprah and her gynecologist, Doctor Northrup, showing the women in the audience how to turn themselves on by directing their chi to their vajay-jays.

J: What?

E: Um...

R: It's haunted me. Haunted me for years.

E: I think they called that the “TMI Episode”.

(groans from the Rogues)

J: The brass tacks is, Oprah displays an ''enormous'' amount of BS on her show. Like, she'll bring on someone like Suzanne Somers who, sadly, is a complete kook –

S: Yeah.

J: – who is, you know, riddling her body, you know, pumping her body full of hormones, and vitamins, and all this crap. The bottom line is, is that it's very unlikely that anything that she's doing is causing a benefit. And the way that Oprah presents it, you know, by the end of the interviews that she does with these people, it just pretty much evolves into, she agrees with them, and what they're doing must work.

S: She does present them very positively. She basically agrees with them at the end. But, the key thing, and the thing that Newsweek really did a good job of calling her on, is that she takes no responsibility for promoting quackery and nonsense. Now, when she was called on that, she still is not taking any responsibility. She essentially said in response that she's just presenting information to her audience, and her audience can make up their own minds.

J: Oh, Okay.

S: Right. Which is always the response. Like, whenever we criticize producers, or anyone who's putting really harmful, gullible, incorrect misinformation onto their venue they always say, “Ah, we're just providing information and the audience can make up their own minds.” But that is a cheap cop-out. She is giving a platform to millions of people, to people who are spreading misinformation. She does not balance that information, you know, really, at all. Sometimes, like when Jenny McCarthy's on, she may read some really lame-o prefab statement from the CDC. But that is ''not'' providing balance to the impassioned plea that we're getting from her guest. And when Oprah, you know, essentially agrees with them, and is promoting them, that's what her audience is listening to. Not this little quickie disclaimer that she's reading from the CDC.

J: Yeah, it's one of those things where, you know, her not confronting the person she's interviewing, or having a discussion with, and even saying, “Hey, you know, how valid are these claims?” Her just sitting there, smiling and nodding, is enough to make people run out and buy these products or, you know, believe in the things that she's presenting on her show. Oprah is one of the biggest problems that we have to deal with.

S: If not ''the'' biggest.

J: Yeah, I mean, just her media presence alone, or the power of what she says and thinks is, you know, it changes what people think around the world on a weekly basis.

E: And, it's not just her TV show. It's her magazine as well. You know, which is part of the Harpo Conglomerate, or Harpo Enterprise, or however you want to describe that. She has a lot of different ways of reaching out to people. You know, she certainly makes the rounds on news and interviews, and so forth. So she's – it's even more than just her show. She really does stretch out in just about every kind of medium that she has a hand in.

B: And it's gonna be a lot more than just that hourly show. 'Cause, did you read the part where she's striking a deal now to launch her own cable TV channel? That's gonna reach 70 million homes? Called, of course, “The Oprah Winfrey Network”. And it's gonna include only Oprah-approved programming on health and “living well”. Oh, wow!

J: Oh-ho. Here we go! Right?

B: When Oprah announced the deal she said that, “I will now have the opportunity to do this 24 hours a day on a platform that goes on forever.”

E: (Groans)

R: Ahh!

B: You know that's one of the signs of the Armageddon?

R: I think so.

B: I want to say “bravo” to the two writers of this article, Weston Kosova and Pat Wingert. They did a great job with this article. I can't wait to see what's gonna happen now.

S: Yeah, my one nitpick about their article is that they gave Mehmet Oz a free pass.

E: Yes! Thank you, Steve. I was gonna say that.

S: That was my one nitpick. Mehmet Oz is, again, so this doctor that Oprah Winfrey essentially made this guy into his own media presence.

R: He's the new “Dr. Phil”.

S: Yeah, he's the new Dr. Phil. He's a cardiac surgeon from New York. He generally gives, you know, reasonable evidence-based advice on her show. But he also promotes a lot of alternative medicine nonsense.

R: Yeah.

B: Oh, they didn't make that clear. In the article.

S: Yeah. They did not. Not at all.

R: Well, because, ''he'' has actually been – for Oprah, he has been pretty much, like, not terrible. I mean, he ''does'' promote a lot of crap, you know, but I've read a lot of things from him where I'm suitably impressed that he's actually, at least, kind of presenting a skeptical viewpoint. And, I know there are plenty of examples to the contrary. But, for Oprah, he's not the worst possible thing. So I wasn't totally put off that they didn't really bash him, because I think that the main problem is Oprah herself.

S: Yeah, I agree. But she does, then, promote these proxies that I think do a lot of harm, but again my problem with Dr. Oz is that he mixes the two. He mixes scientific medicine and advice with nonsense. So, it becomes indistinguishable, which I think is ''really'' harmful. It's actually a little bit easier when somebody promotes ''nothing'' but nonsense. It's a little bit easier to pigeon-hole them. He blurs the lines in a very harmful way. And they ''did'' point out – the one criticism that Newsweek did point out is that Oz will –

B: Yes!

S: – sit by, you know, smiling and nodding while other people on Oprah promote abject nonsense. And he is sort of following the code, not wanting to ruffle any feathers. He will not object to abject quackery being said right in front of him on the show.

J: Yeah, well, I mean, he's making bank. I mean, let's cut to the chase, guys.

B: But, Steve. You kind of implied, though, that it's more than that, Jay. That there's some kind of unspoken, or maybe it is spoken –

S: Yeah.

B: – rule that you ''cannot'' bash – Oprah experts do not bash other Oprah experts. This doesn't happen, period. It just doesn't happen.

J: I feel a tightening in my chest when I think about what she's doing.

S: Well, let's go on to some other news items before Jay has a heart attack.

(Laughter)

=== Volcanic Extinction (10:52) ===
* http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=aLYx3ji.OiD0&refer=home

S: Bob, tell us about the new information about one of the mass extinctions that's taken place.

B: Hey, guys. You know, second-place finishers are usually forgotten pretty quickly. Unless, of course, you're Adam Lambert or Susan Boyle. But, this also isn't true for the second-biggest extinction the Earth has ever seen, which has been in the news lately. Specifically, a volcanic eruption that, surprisingly, had previously been unknown. That kind of surprised me. This was apparently responsible for what may be the second biggest global mass extinction, which happened over 260 million years ago during the middle of the Permian Period. This story was recently published in the Journal of Science by scientists at the University of Leeds. Now, this wasn't the biggest, grandest volcanic eruption that's ever happened. There have been a handful that were nastier. But, this one was still pretty bad. It's called the “Guadalupian Mass Extinction”. It wiped out more than half of life on the Earth, and it spewed out about a half-million cubic kilometers over a half a million years.

J: That's one hell of a long vomix.

B: (Snorts)

R: (Laughs)

B: Guys, doesn't that sound like a flood basalt volcano to you? A volcano that is erupting for that length of time strikes me as – that it might have been a flood basalt. I didn't find any definitive pronouncements –

S: They didn't say that it was?

B: They didn't – no, they –

J: Bob, what's a “flood basalt”?

B: A flood basalt is a type of super volcano. When you think “super volcano”, you might think of the volcano that's underneath Yellowstone Park, that's just a gargantuan volcano. It's got an immense caldera that eventually will erupt, and it's pretty nasty.

J: Aw, man. I watched a TV show about that, and I was like –

R: It's scary.

J: – I was bent out of shape for like three days. I'm like, “It's going to ''blow''!”

B: Yeah. It's – it's scary.

J: I was so worried.

B: Yeah, right? But, essentially it's relatively quick compared to a flood basalt, which, basically, is – hoo-ha! This is something that the Earth has seen a handful of times that would be – imagine the Earth's crust – a crack in the crust. And, horizon to horizon, a curtain of lava a mile high.

J: I often imagine that.

B: Now, alright, and Jay, you imagine that. Now imagine this: Imagine this happening for ''centuries''. This doesn't happen for a week.

J: That can happen on Earth?

B: Yeah. It ''has'' happened on Earth.

J: What?

B: Something like that, for ''centuries''. These flood basalt volcanoes will erupt for centuries. Then they take a little bit of a break. Then they start up again.

J: They might actually be worse than Oprah.

B: (Laughs). Half right.

E: Let's not get crazy.

B: It's funny. The article was referring to these as the “biggest mass murderers in history.” It was like, okay, well that's kind of taking a little bit of a liberty. Mass murderers? That's kind of weird. But – so this one, this Guadalupian mass extinction, this volcanic eruption – they said that it lasted for over half a million years. I found that on one or two websites. Now, it happened in China – in Southwest China. But, of course, China wasn't China back then. That long ago there was one supercontinent, called Pangaea. I'm sure you've heard of that. Like I said, this wasn't the biggest and worst volcanic eruption, but it actually had a huge negative impact on the Earth. Basically, the lava that was being spewed quickly hit the shallow seas that were in Pangaea at that time. When the lava hit these seas, apparently it was like putting Mentos candy into a soda bottle. It created this incredible reaction that pumped just immense amounts of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. And, this formed clouds all over the Earth, which cooled the Earth, and then sent down acid rain all over the world. It was pretty nasty.

J: I mean, really, what else – what else could happen. I mean, this is like – this is a never-ending story of, like, walls of lava, acid rain.

B: And, it actually took – it took about a half a million years for life to recover – to get back to, kind of, where it was.

J: What life? What was left after cur– Bob, we're talking curtains of lava, here. What survived?

B: I guess it was somewhat isolated. You know, it only knocked out half of the life. Which is a lot of life, but still there was a lot of species still left over. The take-home, though – the take-home for all of this, though, isn't really any of that. The really interesting thing about this, is that these scientists are claiming that they're the ''first'' to find a ''direct'' link between a volcano and an extinction. Now, you might be surprised because you might think, “Oh, haven't we already done that?” But, actually, the links have been, kind of, a little bit tenuous. There haven't been as direct – not nearly as direct as what they're claiming that they found. And this is because the way the rock was laid down since the eruption took place – since it took place in shallow seas, it basically made a nice “lava sandwich”. Right? You've got this sedimentary rock –

R: Mmm, lava.

J: (Jewish accent) It makes a nice sandwich! 

B: – You've got the sedimentary rock. Then you've got the lava, which becomes igneous rock. And then you've got sedimentary rock on top of ''that''. And when you examine these layers, you know, you find this layer of sedimentary rock with these nice fossils that date really easily. Then you've got the lava, and then you've got sedimentary rock on top of that. And there's, like, almost no fossils in that sedimentary rock. And when they date the rock, it becomes clear that this happened very, very fast, which kind of gives you, like, a cause-and-effect. You know, the lava was laid down quickly, and it apparently caused a lot of these mass extinctions. So, according to paleontologist Professor Paul Wignal – he said that “this link between the extinction and the volcanoes are perfect.”

J: Well, Bob, I want you to know something.

B: (Funny accent) Yes?

J: Because of you, historically, in my life, I've done more googling because of you than any other single person.

B: (Laughing) Oh, yeah?

R: Even more than Jenna Jameson?

B: What, you're verifying all my shit, Jay?

J: No, I'm not ''verifying'' it. But, like, you know, I listen back to the show. But, I'm like, “Oh boy, gotta look ''that'' up, gotta look ''that'' up, gotta look ''that'' up”, You know.

B: Cool, Jay.

S: So, that pretty much paved the way for the dinosaurs, which appeared about 230 million years ago.

B: Yeah. The funny thing is, talk about a double-whammy. 10 million years later – I know, 10 million years is a lot, but in the scheme of things, it's really not. 10 million years later was “The Big Dying”. This was the –

J: (Laughing) What? Is that a technical term, Bob?

B: Yeah, it's called “The Big Dying”. It's the – well, Steve, was it the Permian-Cambrian extinction? This was the ''biggest'' –

S: The single biggest mass extinction, yeah.

B: – Numero Uno. We're talking –

J: That sounds like you translated that from English, to Chinese, back to English.

B: (Laughs) Oh, yeah. One of those? This is so nasty. We're talking 90% of sea life and 70% of land life. So, within 10 million years you had these two huge extinctions, one of them being the absolute biggest the Earth has seen, as far as we can tell. Not a good time to be alive, a quarter-billion years ago.

E: (Laughs) That's for sure!

=== UFO News (17:50) ===
* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5435262/UFOs-above-Merseyside-linked-to-HMS-Daring-military-exercise.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5434040/UFOs-spotted-in-Cambridgeshire.html http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/6868/56/

S: There have been a few UFO stories in the news over the last week.

E: Well, specifically, coming from Europe. And, in England, Cambridgeshire, the Telegraph paper reported that witnesses claim to have seen up to 50 mystery bright beams in the sky the other night. And there's a good picture of them. The picture has, you know, about two dozen of these dots in the sky. Typical picture. And, nobody knows what they are. The reporters ran out there and asked some people, asked some witnesses what they saw. And they share with them their pictures. And they noticed – one person said they noticed three lights floating past their house, only a couple of kilometers away. And, then they noticed big long strings of lights coming from the direction – a specific direction of a town. This was around almost midnight, the other night. They were pretty sure that they weren't aircraft, because they were saying there was no noise, no navigation lights. Their heading and height was relatively constant, and eventually disappeared out of sight.

R: Definitely aliens. We can all agree on that.

E: Definitely, could have, maybe been aliens. Well, what was it? Well, not a few hours later, the same Telegraph newspaper reports that the “mystery” of these lights is probably linked to a military exercise.

R: Hunting aliens?

E: No big surprise there, right?

S: You know, it's funny, because the headlines say that they were linked to a “daring military exercise”. So, like, ooh! A “daring” exercise. What were they doing? Well, it turns out it was an exercise involving the ''HMS Daring''. That was the name of the ship.

B: Oh, man!

(Laughter)

B: Oh, God. That's awesome.

E: That's, that's called –

R: Sneaky!

E: – squeezing everything you can out of a situation to yield the best possible headline.

S: Those headline writers!

E: So, these were countermeasure flares.

S: Flares!

E: Flares.

J: Hey, come on. I mean, really? I've never heard them do that before.

B: So that's a done deal, then? I mean, that's it?

E: It's the most likely candidate.

B: 'Cause, the one article I read, they mentioned – they actually contacted somebody from the military and they said, “Uh, nah. We didn't have anything going on, that I know of.” So, somebody denied it. Which is like, “Oh, great!”

S: Yeah, but who'd they call? They called some guy who didn't know about it. You know...

B: Yeah. But, you know, again – yet again, you have the military denying it initially, and then saying, “Oh, yeah. We had ''this'' going on.” Like, great. The conspiracy people are going to go nuts!

S: Yeah.

E: And there were also planes flying overhead, apparently, that night, that were kind of following the path of these flares, and countermeasures, and other things that were sent up in the air. They were tracking them with radar. There it is. There's your prosaic explanation. But, you know, this wasn't the most interesting UFO story this week.

B: Oh!

S: Not by a long-shot.

R: Really?

E: No, no. Here, this – this is the one that takes the cake. According to the Macedonian International News Agency – here's the headline: “Russian scientist: 'UFO collided with Tunguska meteorite to save Earth'”

B: Oh, yeah.

S: Mm-hm.

E: So, back in 1908, the Tunguska meteorite that fell over Siberia, you know, leveled all the trees in the area in about an 800-mile radius.

J: (Funny voice) Tunguska?

E: Did a lot of damage. Well, it wasn't just a natural impact, or a natural universal occurrence. No. This was a UFO that deliberately put itself in the path of the big meteorite or comet. Those aliens sacrificed their own lives and existence in order to help save the Earth because they felt – the Russian scientist, this fella's name is Yuriy Lavbin. According to his investigation – he believes that the UFO hit the meteorite, which would have weighed over a billion tons. And if something ''that'' big hit the Earth, that would have been the end of civilization, the end of the Earth as we know it. A cataclysmic event. But instead, the aliens moved their ship in line with the meteorite. That's where the impact took place, and spared the Earth a catastrophic disaster. Isn't that incredible?

S: Of course, that wouldn't have worked.

E: (Laughs)

S: That's really true, because –

E: Wait a minute! This is a Russian scientist, Steve. You're gonna –

J: Yeah, what are you saying, Steve? Come on!

E: Yeah!

R: Steve, a ''newspaper'' printed this!

B: (Laughs)

S: I understand that. But –

J: (Laughs)

S: – if you have a meteor that's already entering the Earth atmosphere and, rather than impacting, it blows up – all that kinetic energy is still there. It's still gonna hit the Earth. It's still gonna cause all that damage. So, you're not ''really'' gonna protect the Earth that much, if at all, by having it blow up ''before'' it actually impacts the ground. So –

J: Yeah, well, sometimes, that's actually ''worse''.

B: Steve, real science has no place in this discussion.

S: You're right. You didn't talk about his line of evidence.

E: I was about to bring that up, actually.

S: How does he know this?

E: Because, on his expedition to the site of the explosion he discovered quartz crystals. He found about ten of them. And these quartz crystals had holes in-between them so that they could be united in a chain. So, here's the quote from the scientist –

R: A daisy chain?

E: – Yuriy Lavbin. He says: “What could this chain serve for? Besides, some crystals have strange drawings on them. We don't have any technologies that can print such kinds of drawings on crystals. We found ferrum silicate that cannot be produced anywhere except in space.”

S: And how could a rock from space ''ever'' get down to the Earth?

E: I don't – it had to be –

R: Aliens!

E: – only have been brought in by an intelligent alien vessel.

R: Rocks don't just get up and go to another planet, ''Steve''.

S: They don't just “fall from the sky”!

E: All right...

S: It's funny. He said they found these rocks and said, “these rocks are not found on Earth.” But wait a minute. You just ''found'' that rock on Earth!

E: – found them (laughs).

S: How could you pick up a rock and say, “This rock does not exist on Earth”? It obviously does! Did you see the picture of the rocks? You have to dig through some other news stories to actually get the pictures.

B: They look like cookies.

S: They look like... you know, they look like natural crystal formation. You know, not like something that was etched, or drawn. They're not pictures! They're just ''lines''. You know, the kind of lines you would expect to see ''in crystals''. It's just completely natural. I love what – he claims that these lines are map drawings. And if you fit the rocks together, it makes like a stellar map. I guess a navigation map –

J: Oh! Of course!

E: No confirmation bias there!

S: There you go! So –

B: It's a sophisticated map.

S: Yeah, I was going to say, that's quite a sophisticated map. You think they might have something resembling... I don't know, ''digital technology'' or computers at that point in time, if they have the technology to get here. They're etching their maps onto rocks?

E: Skeptics have never been one to believe in the power of crystals. Whether it's etchings, or healing power, or crystal skulls, or anything like that. We're way too closed-minded.

S: Yes. We have an anti-crystal bias, clearly.

R: Well, and an anti-crystal ''vibe''. I mean, it's our “skeptical aura” that actually causes the crystals to cease working.

J: I hate all you guys just for talking about this.

S&E: (Laughs)

R: Why are you so full of hate?

E: This is news! This is the Macedonian International News Agency!

R: Wow, good job, Macedonia!

=== Texas Evolution Update (25:12) ===
* http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/06/antievolution-bills-die-texas-004818

S: Just some quick followup to finish out the news segment. On the whole Texas Board of Education hubbub.

R: Texas! Not so bad at all!

S: Yeah, some good news. Don “Someone's got to stand up to those experts” McLeroy was not confirmed as the Chairman of the Board of Education for the State of Texas. So, he was essentially removed as the Chairman of the Board of Education. So, good move Texas. Although, they haven't –

R: That's not all!

S: – They haven't replaced him yet. I know, that's not all. Also, two anti-evolution bills – two separate ones – were both allowed to die because the legislature adjourned Right? So, they adjourned on June 1st and, by adjourning, the two bills that –

E: They expired.

S: The two bills expired, right. So, it's House Bill 2800 and House Bill 4224. So –

R: They died of natural causes.

S: They did. They did. They faded into the sunset.

R: Natural selection.

E: They evolved out of existence.

S: The first one was terrible. This one would have ''exempted'' the Institute for Creation Research from having to meet Texas's regulations governing degree-granting institutions. So, basically –

B: Nice.

S: – the ICR –

E: Basically giving them a pass.

S: Yeah, exactly. The ICR, the Institute for Creation Research, wants to grant master's degrees in ''science''. Can you ''imagine''?

R: Oh my God.

E: Man.

S: The ICR being able master's degrees in science? But they couldn't do it, because they didn't meet the criteria for the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. So, the Legislature – some guys there – wanted to pass a bill that would exempt them from those requirements so that they could do it.

R: And now they're – because they didn't get their way – they're suing over it.

S: Oh, it's ridiculous.

J: And all they have to do is watch ten hours of Oprah's new cable TV access show and they will get their degree.

E: Get your master's degree.

S: The second one was to – it was an attempt to – this is 4224 – it was an attempt to restore the “strengths and weaknesses” language in the Texas state science standards. Again, making an end-run around the Board's decision. Although, as we discussed previously, the Board had ultimately decided to introduce other language that essentially does the same thing to – “Students must examine all sides of scientific evidence”, for example. But – this was just some, you know, creationist legislative mischief that they were trying, and it just couldn't – I guess it couldn't get anywhere, and both bills died. At least, for this legislative session. Texas is safe, for now.

== Questions and E-mails ==

=== Question # 1 - Evangelical Skeptics (27:48) ===
<blockquote>Greetings Skeptics! I have listened to and enjoyed every podcast you have put out (except for the infamous Neal Adams interview, which I just can't bring myself to cue up...I think being a huge fan of his comics work is preventing me, or the fact that I generally don't find such raw confrontations entertaining) My question stems from a recent conversation I had with my girlfriend who generally considers herself to be a critical thinker although she does have her 'sacred cow' like almost everyone does...in her case she is a non-practicing pagan. We listen to several podcasts together, but when I ask her to listen to yours she refuses, her reason being that she feels 'you have a tendency to be just as 'evangelical' and at times 'close-minded' as the believers'. I can think of quite a few ways to defend you in response to that comment, but I think hearing from you directly might have a greater impact. Whether you respond via email or on the show I'll make sure she reads/hears your answer. Thanks for your time and keep up the quality work! Shane Nitzsche (pronounced NIT-chee)</blockquote>

S: Well, let's move on to a couple of your questions and emails. The first email comes from Shane Nitzsche. And, he writes:

<blockquote>Greetings Skeptics! I have listened to and enjoyed every podcast you have put out (except for the infamous Neal Adams interview, which I just can't bring myself to cue up. My question stems from a recent conversation I had with my girlfriend who generally considers herself to be a critical thinker although she does have her 'sacred cow' like almost everyone does...in her case she is a non-practicing pagan. We listen to several podcasts together, but when I ask her to listen to yours she refuses, her reason being that she feels 'you have a tendency to be just as 'evangelical' and at times 'close-minded' as the believers'. I can think of quite a few ways to defend you in response to that comment, but I think hearing from you directly might have a greater impact. Whether you respond via email or on the show I'll make sure she reads/hears your answer. Thanks for your time and keep up the quality work!</blockquote>

J: Okay, let me take this one, all right?

S: All right, go ahead Jay.

B: (Impression of Jay) Oh yeah?

J: I can kind of understand what she's thinking, you know, because we come off like we know what we're talking about. Well, part of it is we do research and have a basic understanding of what we're talking about, if not a ''detailed'' understanding of what we talk about. But, the key thing that differs from what we think and believe versus from what a, you know, a believer of a religion or some type of mythology would believe, is that, with better information, that science brings, ''we change our opinion''. Just like that.

S: Right. That's a critical difference. There's a ton of differences. I mean, I would say, first of all, the sense that we are quote/unquote “evangelical” – I think what she may be perceiving there is out passion.

B: Yeah. I agree.

S: I make no excuses for the fact that we're passionate about science, about reason and skepticism. But, that's not the same thing as being evangelical. And, Jay, you hit upon the key difference, is that what we're passionate about is a ''method'' of inquiry. Of asking questions. Of doubting everything. Of trying to think for yourself and reason your way through these things. Not a set of beliefs! We don't have a set of beliefs.

J: Yeah.

S: You know, that's a ''critical'' difference.

R: And, more so, the idea of being evangelical is to have a set of beliefs and then to constantly force them on other people. And, you know, we do have beliefs amongst ourselves, but the point of the show isn't to try to convert anyone away from any other beliefs. You know, like Steve says, it's just about asking questions. So, yeah, sometimes our beliefs creep in. We might comment on them. We all come from different biases, of course. But, what we attempt to do in every episode is to strip away bias and get down to the facts, and the science, and what we can know about the world. And that's what it's all about.

J: You know, I don't think it's wrong that we deliver science and skepticism in a passionate way. I mean, we're all human. It's not like the instant you become a scientist and/or a skeptic that you lose your passion.

S: Yeah, I mean, you know, clearly, we share a world-view. And, we are trying to promote our world-view. But, again, that world-view does not really contain a set of beliefs beyond just, you know, science works, and it's a pretty good thing, and we think that's the method that we should use to answer questions about how nature works. You know, empirical questions.

E: Yeah, I don't like when people mistake that with being closed-minded.

B: Yeah, that's an important point because I could see how somebody would think we're closed-minded. But, the thing is, we could tell you what it would take for us to change our beliefs, which is key.

E: Mm.

B: But, you know, how many times did we have to – you know, when we discuss a blurry ghost photo, a silly UFO picture – you know, I'm sorry if we sound a little bit closed-minded after talking about that for the hundredth time, and it's the same old stuff. Because it's the same old ''lousy'' evidence over, and over, and over, that people find ''so'' compelling, that we don't find compelling.

J: We also get tired of telling people that we're open-minded. (Laughs). Okay. Thank you.

(Chuckles from the Rogues)

R: It does get a little tiresome.

S: But get used to it. The closed-minded thing is something we're going to have to answer to, over and over again, forever.

E: Mm-hm.

J: Mm-hm. Yeah.

S: That's just part of explaining what skepticism is really all about. And, it's okay. I mean, it's just one of those things that we're going to have to continue to explain. The fact is that ''true believers'' are closed-minded, right? People who believe in things without evidence – that's closed-minded. We're maximally open-minded because we have a set of criteria that we use for what we think is compelling evidence, what kind of claims are adequately supported by logic and evidence in order to be accepted, and we apply those universally, across the board. Obviously, I'm not saying we're perfect. Of course, we have biases and errors in our thinking, and our information's imperfect. But, at least we try to be rigorous and consistent in our ''methods'' and valid in the logic that we use. And if you can put together a compelling evidence-based logical argument for something, we'll buy it!

E: Absolutely.

S: We'll change what – as Bob said, we have – there are ways to change what we think about things. That's ''open''-minded.

=== Question # 2 - Begging the Question (33:10) ===
<blockquote>Okay. I give up. After all, with you guys as my role models (and in this case, Stephen) what choice do I have. I've been increasingly depressed at the way the term 'begging the question' has come, in mainstream media, to mean RAISING the question--and not what it always USED to mean. Now I have no problem with language evolving and meanings changing. However, 'begging the question' is such a valuable term for identifying a common logical fallacy--I seem always to be using it to harpoon some blubbering claim. And now? The term is becoming useless. And I know of no other to replace it. Circular argument is almost there, but, unless I'm mistaken, has a different emphasis. In fact, I was about to write to you lot looking for support, a crusade, a suggestion...something--when, what to my wondering ears should I hear.. but you, Stephen, using the term in the NEW, trendy, way, in the last podcast. Aaaarrrgh. I was hoping I could point out that, inconsistently, you have the term in your list of logical fallacies, but, alas, though it appears in virtually all such lists, it does not appear in yours. drat. So, I guess, I just give up. But that begs the question, 'What term do I use instead?' Theo Dombrowski Nanoose bay, British Columbia</blockquote>

S: All right, let's go on to another question. This one comes from Theo Dombrowski from Nanoose Bay, British Columbia. And Theo writes:

<blockquote>Okay. I give up. After all, with you guys as my role models, what choice do I have? I've been increasingly depressed at the way the term 'begging the question' has come, in mainstream media, to mean ''raising'' the question, and not what it always ''used'' to mean. Now I have no problem with language evolving and meanings changing. However, 'begging the question' is such a valuable term for identifying a common logical fallacy. I seem always to be using it to harpoon some blubbering claim. And now, the term is becoming useless. And I know of no other to replace it. Circular argument is almost there, but, unless I'm mistaken, has a different emphasis. In fact, I was about to write to you to look for support, a crusade, a suggestion...something – when, what to my wondering ears should I hear, but you, Stephen, using the term in the ''new'', trendy, way, in the last podcast. I was hoping I could point out that, inconsistently, you have the term in your list of logical fallacies, but, alas, though it appears in virtually all such lists, it does not appear in yours. Drat. So, I guess I just give up. But that begs the question, “What term do I use instead?”</blockquote>

R: Circular reasoning

S: Right. It ''is'' circular reasoning.

R: It's the same thing.

S: Circular reasoning is not almost there, it ''is'' there.

R: Sorry, Theo.

S: So, Theo is correct. I did use the term “beg the question” to mean “raise the question” in the last episode. In fact, I caught it mentally when I said it, and I thought to myself, “should I bother going back and changing it or explain myself”? Eh, I just went past it.

B: (Laughs)

E: Because, no one will write in and complain about it.

S: No, I – whatever.

R: Oh, not on this show.

S: I figured I was taking a chance. But, you know, here's the thing: honestly, I've ''never'', ''ever'' heard anyone, to me, use the term “begging the question” as the logical fallacy. I've only ever heard it used in the sense of “raising the question”. That is the – far and away, the common use for that term. So, essentially, I ''know'' it's the logical fallacy to begging the question, which is, again, circular reasoning. I gave up a long time ago. Because, language does change, it does evolve. The common usage of that term has so overwhelmed its original meaning as a logical fallacy that there's just no point in trying to fight against it anymore.

R: Yeah, that really used to drive me nuts. Even up to about a year ago, or so. But eventually I decided, you know what, there are better things to do than try to tell people what it is. So...

S: Yeah, I mean, usage changes.

R: That too.

S: You know, that's it. It's like, I don't get on Evan and Rebecca for saying “off-ten” instead of “off-en”.

R: What?!

E: Ooh.

S: Just to bring up a random example.

R: Wait, what?

S: (Laughs)

R: What? “off-ten”?

E: You're talking about pronunciation.

S: That's right.

E: That's a little different than –

R: You mean pronouncing my “T”s?

S: Yeah. When they're supposed to be silent. That's right.

R: When they're supposed to be silent?

E: You're not being a very good “Na-eeg-burr” there, Steve.

S&J: (Laughs).

R: That is completely ridiculous.

S: The word's “off-en”. The “T” is silent. But, I've given up years ago correcting people for saying “off-ten”.

R: What?

J: Steve, you know –

S: Because, with use, it's now become correct.

R: It's not – no. Wait, wait. Back up. That is not at all the same thing. You're talking about a difference between dialects.

J: Oh, here we go.

R: Your Connecticut accent doesn't emphasize “T”s in the middle of words.

S: Here we go: “100 most often mispronounced words and phrases in English”.

E: Mm-hm.

S: Guess what's on the list: Often.

R: According to whom?

S: We have mastered the spelling of this word so well its spelling influences the pronunciation. Don't pronounce the “T”. This is an exception to the rule that spelling helps pronunciation. It's not a regional accent. This is actually one of those things that's changed over time.

R: According to whom?

S: Yourdictionary.com

B: Good website.

S: Anyway, it was just an example. And as I said, It's changed with use. And I don't get picky about things like that. So, begging the question, people think it means “raising the question”. And that's how I think of it in my head, because that's how I've always heard it used. The logical fallacy ''is'' circular reasoning. It's to incorporate in the premise of an argument, the conclusion that you're trying to reach. Right? So the premises are the beginning of the argument, the conclusion is where you're trying to go. And if you say, for example, that “the Bible is 100% true” – literally true – how do you know that? “Because the Bible was written by God. And God's perfect.” Well, how do you know that? “Well, that's because the Bible says it was written by God”. You're including in your premises the conclusion that you're trying to prove. And it takes you, again, in this sort of circular reasoning.

J: Well, Steve, I have a quick comment here. This is directed at specifically Richard Saunders. It's “aluminum”. Not “aluminium”.

S: (Laughs)

E: Aluminium.

S: Aluminium?

E: “Vitt-amins”.

S: “Vitt-amins”?

R: (unclear) 

B: Oh God.

S: Obviously, some things are regional accents, or not-so-regional accents. But, other things are just the change of usage over time. And this also gets to our love-hate relationship that we have on the SGU with being pedantic. Because, we do like to be detail-oriented. And, we do appreciate being corrected, and we do appreciate feedback. But there's this line that you cross where you're pointing out nitpicky little things just for the sake of correcting others, even when it doesn't matter. I'm not saying that's the instance in this case, but I'm saying that does happen a lot. To resist the lure of being pedantic myself, because I love being pedantic as much as the next guy –

E: Oh yeah. You're always correcting us.

B: More so.

E: Always.

S: Excuse me? (Laughs)

E: (Laughs) I'm sorry, go ahead. I interrupted.

S: – Is some rules for myself to say, “Is this worth correcting?” So one rule, for example, is “Does this quote/unquote “correction” actually reduce ambiguity, increase specificity.” In medicine, being very precise in your terminology's important.

E: Very important.

S: And almost a day doesn't go by where I'm not telling a medical student or a resident to be more specific in their terminology. Because it actually has importance to meaning. But if it doesn't have any importance to meaning, in my opinion, that's when you're just being pedantic.

J: Yeah.

E: Agreed.

R: Yeah.

B: Sounds reasonable.

R: Yeah, there are certainly – there are examples of people trying to control language. You know, the French, I think, have certainly made a good go at it. But you can't stop the evolution of language, I think. People are gonna do what they're gonna do.

S: It's a good thing.

R: Yeah. Definitely.

S: 'Cause you think about the term “begging the question”. You know why that is so often misused? Because the phrase is not intuitively obvious.

B: Yeah.

E: Right.

S: When you hear the term, “begging the question”, people – it sounds as if you're saying it “raises the question”. So that's how people use it. Okay, so let the usage follow what makes intuitive sense to most people most of the time. Right?

E: Absolutely.

R: Yeah.

S: And, you know what? “Circular reasoning” is a much more better description of that logical fallacy 'cause it's much more intuitive, in my opinion.

J: “Much more better”.

E: “Much more better”.

R: He just said “much more better”.

S: I said “much more better”, “''much'' more better”. (Laughs)

B: Come on! Even though it's “better-er” 

E: Better-er

S: Much more better-er?

R: It's not best-est.

S: It's the best-est! That's what I was going to say. 

R: (Laughs)

== Interview with Simon Singh (40:31) ==
* http://www.simonsingh.net/

S: Well, let's go on with our interview. Joining us now is Simon Singh. Simon, welcome back to the Skeptic's Guide.

SS: It's nice to be back.

S: Now, Simon is an author, journalist, TV producer, specializing in science and mathematics. And a year ago – just about a year a go – we interviewed you about your then-new book, ''Trick or Treatment: Alternative Medicine on Trial'', which you co-authored with Edzard Ernst, who's also awesome. And, now we have you back on to talk about a new issue that's cropped up. You were recently sued by the British Chiropractic Association. Now, I know, probably a lot of our listeners have some information about this. But why don't you get everyone up to speed, and tell us about this lawsuit.

SS: Yes. I mean, it's still ongoing, so I'm limited to some extent as to what I can say. But, I can give you a (unclear)  history of what's happened, and where we're at now, and how things might progress in the coming weeks.

So, the book was published April, 2008. In the book we talk about all sorts of therapies, and around that time we published a few articles to make people aware of what we were writing about, and so on. And I wrote an article for the ''Guardian'' newspaper, one of our national newspapers. And the article was about chiropractic. And it happened to be Chiropractic Awareness Week. And, so, it seemed like a good idea to – to a large extent I think it's a promotional campaign for chiropractors, but the idea of the article was to make people aware of some aspects of chiropractic that they may not be familiar with.

I laid out the groundwork, the history of chiropractic. Which is that some hundred or so years ago, Daniel Palmer invented this idea that there's something called an “innate energy”. The innate energy would flow through our nervous system and provide health to our bodies. And, therefore, a block in this innate energy would cause ill health. And the blockage, typically, would be associated with the spinal column. So, a disjointed, or misaligned spine blocks the innate energy, causes kidney problems, or all sorts of other things. Fix the spine by spinal manipulation, or chiropractic, and you can cure the patient.

The first two people that Palmer treated were, one person who was profoundly deaf, and one person who had a serious heart problem. And Palmer believed he cured those patients using spinal manipulation. And his philosophy was, “let's cure everything with spinal manipulation”. Now, today, most chiropractors have moved away from that rather odd model of medicine, and tend to focus on back problems. And you have a back problem, you manipulate the spine, you might feel better.

S: Although, most – meaning maybe more than half of chiropractors have significantly backed off of that – sort of, what we call “straight chiropractic” notion of “innate intelligence” and subluxations. At least in the United States, estimates are a full 30% or so of chiropractors still practice right in line with D. D. Palmer's original philosophy, there. So, it's still very prevalent among chiropractic.

SS: Yeah, there's very much a spectrum, and it varies across the globe. And then there's some in the middle, who tend to focus on back problems, but who also will treat conditions not necessarily associated with the back. Things like asthma, colic, ear infections, and so on. And that's where I focus my attention in the article. I was worried that these treatments were being promoted for childhood conditions where there wasn't really enough evidence to justify them. The British Chiropractic Association, who were mentioned in the article, obviously took offense to this, and went as fat as eventually suing me for libel. There were a few nasty letters to and fro to start with, but it ended up in a libel suit. And that's sort of been ongoing now, for most of the last year.

S: Right. And, their point is that you were defaming the British Chiropractic Association for saying that the treatments that they're recommending are not supported by the evidence. Which is absolutely true. I mean, the evidence is dead-against using chiropractic to treat asthma, for example. The only really well-designed trials we have show zero effect. So that's a completely fair statement. So, how did they get any headway suing you for libel for saying statements that are true?

SS: It's hard for me to talk about that at the moment. But, your view is certainly not out of line with other peoples' views. The idea was, how much evidence do you need to justify treatment? If you need just some case studies, so case series, is an unblinded trial adequate? Where is the balance of evidence sufficient to justify therapy. Now, maybe I set my bar higher than the chiropractors do. Maybe that's where the disagreement arose. I was more than willing to defend my article in court, and that's why I didn't back down. One of the problems was that the British Chiropractic Association sued ''me'', ''personally'', and ''not'' the ''Guardian'' newspaper, which is rather unusual. And so, personally, it's a lot of pressure. But, you know, I stand by the article and was willing to back it up.

A big problem emerged about a month ago. In fact, exactly four weeks ago today, I think. We had a preliminary hearing at the High Court, in which the judge was going to rule on the ''meaning'' of the article. The defamatory words. What exactly do they ''mean''? So that, when we go to trial eventually, we know exactly what we're arguing about. I know what I have to defend. Unfortunately for me, the judge's ruling is that my article says that, not only are these therapies – treatments – not backed by evidence, but the chiropractors are ''deliberately'' and dishonestly using these treatments, even though they know they are not backed by evidence. I didn't mean to say that, and I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of my article. But it's the judge's interpretation.

B: Isn't it the interpretation of just one word? Wasn't it the word “bogus” that the judge seems to have completely misinterpreted.

SS: “It sort of happily promotes bogus therapies.” And I think the judge has taken “happily” to mean “knowingly”. I would think “happily” means “naïvely”, or “innocently”, or all sorts of possibilities, there. And “bogus” – as you say – does “bogus” mean “deliberately fraudulent” or does it just mean “ineffective and based on shoddy science”? What really worries me is, if you look at the context of the whole article – elsewhere in the article, I talk about Fundamentalists. I talk about some chiropractors having ideas above their station, having wacky ideas. So, for ''me'', the article paints a picture of people who are perhaps eccentric or deluded, not deliberately fraudulent. And it's going to be very, very (missing audio) defend the judge's interpretation at trial. And so, for the last two or three weeks, we've been figuring out what to do next. We can't really defend this at trial. We could try, but it would be very hard. I don't really want to back down and settle. And so the decision we announced just a day or two ago was that we would go to the Court of Appeal and appeal the judge's meaning to see whether we can get what we believe is a more reasonable understanding of the article, and one that I would be able, and willing, and would actually want to defend in court in due course.

S: Mm-hm.

B: Is the judge a chiropractor? I mean, it really seems odd that the judge would do this, putting you in a completely untenable position.

SS: I'm sure he's a very decent man, and a very honorable man. But, there are serious problems with the English libel system. And, one of the reasons for continuing is to perhaps highlight some of the problems with the libel system. So this isn't the judge that I'm talking about, but things like the fact that, at this stage, for example, it's very rare that libel cases get this far. Because, libel in England is incredibly expensive. If you look at countries in Europe, we're top of the tape in terms of the cost of a libel case. We're ten times more expensive than the next country, which is Ireland. And Ireland, in turn, is four times more expensive than the third country. And, in fact, if you compare England, 'cause it's the English libel system as opposed to the British one, the English libel system is 140 times more expensive than the European average. So typically, if a journalist is threatened with libel, the sensible thing to do is to back down early and get out, because it's just not worth the headache, the time, and the resources. It just bankrupts you. So, that's one of the problems with our libel laws. Too, I'm guilty, essentially, until proven innocent. The burden of proof is entirely on me. So, the chiropractors don't have to prove anything. I just have to prove, ''completely'', the accuracy of my article. Which is an uphill struggle when the judge is saying that I'm calling them dishonest. How do I prove what's going on in the mind of an ''association''. Not even an individual, but an association.

B: Right.

SS: So that's going to make it tough. And so, there are problems with English libel. And, by going to the Court of Appeal, one: I'm giving myself the only chance I've got left. And two: I'm hoping that we can highlight some of these issues surrounding libel. In fact, we've just started a campaign. We announced it the same day we announced that we were going to be going to the Court of Appeal. And the idea of the campaign is to encourage the government to re-examine our libel laws. They're a real embarrassment. They give science writers a tough time. You know, science writers have to be able to challenge and question ideas. In a fair way, but in a frank way. And journalists, you know, full-stop have to be able to do that. And the really, really shameful thing, the thing that really embarrasses me, as someone that grew up in England, is that our laws effect everybody else in the world. If you write an article in Boston, and somebody in England reads that article – or buys your book over the Internet – then you could be sued in an English court.

S: Mm-hm.

SS: So our laws of libel go far beyond these shores. And it – there's something called “libel tourism”, whereby if somebody is trying to sue somebody else, they'll typically try and bring it to an English court if they can because the laws are just so severe.

S: Yeah, absolutely. And, it seems that the intention of this lawsuit is to have a chilling effect on criticism and open and honest discussion of controversial pseudoscientific claims, such as those on the part of the British Chiropractic Association. It's directly anti-free speech, in my opinion.

SS: Yes. And when we launched the campaign, we really encouraged people to try and join it if they can and sign up. It's not just a British campaign, because our laws affect everybody. So if anybody can go to – there's a website called senseaboutscience.org.uk. Great support from America. James Randi, your good self –

S: Yeah.

SS: – Phil Plait, and Penn & Teller, and Alan Sokal have all come on board. And, you know, there's a real chance here. There's a government select committee looking at these laws at the moment. And there's a real opportunity to try and apply some encouragement to re-examine these issues. So when we launched all of this, a chap called Nick Cohen, a very brilliant British journalist who writes for the ''Observer'' newspaper, and other magazines and newspapers – Nick said, in Europe, we still haven't come to terms with free speech. We don't have such a liberal policy, and it's time that we actually adopted something much more similar to the American model, whereby if you're a public board, or you're a public individual, it's possible to write about corporations and individuals without the threat of libel. As long as what you're writing is written without malice, or isn't completely reckless.

S: Yeah. In fact, in the US, we, in some states – this is state by state – there are so-called “SLAPP” laws, or a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation”, which is designed specifically to counteract lawsuits which are intended to intimidate or silence critics. So, I think that's a good system. So, yeah, you can bring a libel suit. And if you can prove somebody said something that was wrong and harmful, you have a right to compensation. But if you're doing it frivolously, or with malice, in order to silence your critics, it could rebound back on you. There's got to be a threat both ways. It sounds like in the British system, or the English system, there is no threat to bringing a libel suit. It's like playing the lotto.

SS: That would be an improvement, certainly. But, the other way is to actually ramp down the stakes. At the moment it's like a high-stakes poker game. You go into this, if you win the case, I'm still going to lose money, because I'm never going to get all my costs back. So, if I win, I'd lose a few tens of thousands of dollars. If I lose, then I'd be losing hundreds of thousands of dollars. And so, it's a high-stakes poker game, and if you ratchet up the costs, then that could make it even scarier for people to get involved. The other way to do it, is to start having things like a sort of a “small claims court” for libel. Something that's quick, and sharp, maybe involving enforced mediation. A lot of these claims don't involve large amounts of money. And therefore, it's wrong to have disproportionally expensive trials which block participation –

S: Mm-hm

SS: – When what's really being argued about is just a few thousand dollars here and there.

S: Yeah, so you could have a trial that costs you $30,000 to determine whether or not you owe somebody $3000 is what you're saying.

SS: Or a third of a million dollars, to deal with something that's just $10,000. And that's why the sensible thing to do is back off really early. I'm in an incredibly privileged position that – I've been writing books for 15 years, or getting on for that. And I've been involved in science journalism for a long time. And I care about this issue, I've got the time to dedicate to it. The support has been amazing. Bloggers have written about this extensively, there's a Facebook group. And it's because of that level of support that I'm keen to carry on the battle. Because the warmth, and encouragement, and enthusiasm has been really bolstering.

S: Well, you're really taking a hit for the team. I mean, you're really putting, you know, again, personal liability on the line, here, for an issue that can affect all of us. I mean, my God, I think about the articles that I've written online and, you know, 200-plus podcasts now. I'm sure I've said and written a thousand things that somebody could probably sue me over if they ''really'' wanted to. But, it's obviously – I think I stand behind everything that I've written or said, but, you know, that's the position you put yourself in, ''especially'' if you're skeptical, you know, and you're in the business of criticizing charlatans, you know, quacks, cranks, and the self-deluded. I mean, that is – and now with the Internet Age, the notion that I could be dragged into English court is a frightening proposition. So, I think you have all of our genuine support, but I think a lot of us recognize that this is an issue that deals – that affects all of us. And you are very graciously putting yourself in this position, or as I said, taking a hit for the team. So –

SS: Well, thank you. Thank you very much. I mean, it's much appreciated. And, the more support we can get from – it would be great if the Australians came on board, although I think their libel laws are not too clever. But, if people, globally, started to focus on what we're doing in England because, as you say, we drag in everybody else because of the wondrous Internet –

S: Yeah.

SS: – and the way information travels here and there. And the sort of classic sign of how bad things have got in England with libel tourism is that, my understanding is that, in America, states are beginning to bring in their own laws, one by one, so that if an American journalist is sued in an English court, new laws in America are saying that that judgment is not valid on that American citizen if that same decision wouldn't be upheld in an American court. So, our laws are so bad that you're having to create laws to make up for them.

S: Right.

SS: That shows how bad we've got it.

S: Yeah, I agree.

B: Wow.

S: Yeah, I mean, there almost has to be some kind of an international standard, you know. It – especially, again, now with the Internet, information is global.

SS: Well, one of our hopes is we're applying to the Court of Appeal. It's unusual for the Court of Appeal to overturn this sort of decision, so it's a long shot. But, we'll keep our fingers crossed that they will listen to our appeal, and they'll give us a meaning that we think is more reasonable. But if they don't, then the next stage would be to try and apply to the European Court of Human Rights and see whether they would listen to our case and give us a more reasonable meaning. And by drawing in that European angle, it begins to reflect the way that information is traveling now, via the Internet. It's a European – it's a global issue.

S: Yeah. I completely agree. This is something that we've marveled at for years. Every time it crops up, and it does crop up a lot, again, in the skeptical crowd. We always just have to shake our heads like, how could the laws be so backwards there. And I guess its all relative, but from our perspective it seems that way.

SS: Oh, I think from everybody's perspective. Our laws are pretty backward. You know, apart from, maybe, a few totalitarian regimes. It can't really hold its head up at all very high on this kind of issue. And at the moment, in Britain, there's almost a fashion for taking on science journalists. There's a wonderful professor at University College London called David Colquhoun –

S: Yes.

SS: – who writes a great blog, Improbable Science, and people may have visited it. Somebody complained to his university about his blog being hosted on a university website. Was that appropriate for an academic who was writing about subjects beyond his speciality? And the university caved in and took down his website until – actually, international campaigning, actually, really embarrassed the university into re-hosting it again properly, and standing up to those challenges. And then a few months later, David was threatened by chiropractors in New Zealand for an article he wrote in the ''New Zealand Journal of Medicine''. In that case, the journal stood up to the chiropractors. I think Frank Frizelle said something along the lines of “show us your evidence, not your legal muscle”.

S: Right.

SS: And that's the really important thing. If somebody disagrees about something that's written, then let's discuss it in a proper, reasonable way.

S: Yeah, absolutely. And I think that we can't heap enough criticism and scorn onto the British Chiropractic Association, in my opinion, for doing this. You basically said, “You're promoting these therapies to children without adequate evidence to support them”, and they responded by suing you rather than, oh I don't know, ''publishing the evidence'', or showing evidence to support their decision. It really is scandalous and they, in my opinion, really are scoundrels for doing that.

SS: I mean, I can't really judge them in any way. I mean, they were within their rights to do what they did, and they pursued that legal route. But, very early on, the ''Guardian'' did say, to the British Chiropractic Association, “if you want to write a reply, here's 500 words. Write down what you think your evidence is, and let the readers decide”. And, to me, that seems like a very reasonable option. If they wanted a clarification on what I'd written, if they wanted it expressed in more clear terms, I would have been happy to have done that as well. That was offered as well. But, unfortunately, the British Chiropractic Association did pursue the legal option.

S: Right. I know you can't say too much about it, but that's why I am. And I will extend this to the complimentary and alternative medicine culture in general. In my experience, they really don't like to be criticized. They do whatever they can to exempt themselves from that kind of criticism. One good thing: in the last four or five years, the skeptical movement has really become so plugged in because of the Internet and Web 2.0. You know, we really have – really, we do have almost this rapid response kind of network of skeptics. And when things like this happen – like, I know when David was asked to remove specific articles from his website – literally dozens, if not hundreds, of us fellow science bloggers immediately duplicated all of the material on our own websites. The lesson has to be, if you're going to try to silence your critics by suing them, or intimidating, or calling their boss, or whatever, that's only going to result in the magnification of the criticism two or three-fold, or a hundred-fold, or a thousand-fold. Whatever we can muster. And I think we have to keep doing that. That's one of the really solid things that we could do, as skeptical activists, is make sure that the skeptical point of view is not silenced by these kind of bullying intimidation tactics.

SS: (silence) Um... (silence)

(Laughter)

SS: It's a very interesting point you make.

(Laughter)

S: Thank you.

B: That's great.

S: I appreciate the position that you're in, Simon. Well, thank you, Simon, for having the personal fortitude to stick this out. You certainly have our support. And this does have implications for all of science, you know. Not just skepticism, but, you know, science requires transparent critique. And if people like the British Chiropractic Association are successful in silencing their critics, then we've really lost a very important war. So, thanks for fighting.

SS: It has been ''my'' pleasure. And thank you for your support. And thank you to everybody in North America that has been supporting the case already. and will continue to support in the future, I hope. Thanks a lot!

S: All right. Take care, Simon.

B: Thanks, Simon.

== Science or Fiction (1:02:57) ==
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8081817.stm Item # 1]: Neil Armstrong recently confirmed that his famous “one small step for man” phrase was written for him by a NASA press secretary.
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8077040.stm Item # 2]: Scientists have been able to track emperor penguin colonies in Antarctica from space by using satellites to spot their droppings.
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8078477.stm Item # 3]: Researchers find that space headache is a real and distinct phenomenon and call for it to have its own classification.

''It's time for Science or Fiction''

S: Each week, I come up with three science news items or facts. Two genuine, and one fictitious. And then I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake.

R: Yes!

S: We have a theme this week.

R: Oh, good.

B: Ooh!

S: Haven't had a theme in a while. I know how you ''love'' themes.

R: I do love themes.

S: The theme is “space”.

R: Space!

S: As in “outer space”. That's correct. Here we go: Item number one: Neil Armstrong recently confirmed that his famous “one small step for man” phrase was written for him by a NASA press secretary. Item number two: Scientists have been able to track emperor penguin colonies in Antarctica from space by using satellites to spot their droppings.

R: Hee-hee.

S: And, item number 3: Researchers find that space headache is a real and distinct phenomenon and call for it to have its own classification. Jay, please go first.

J: I'll start with the last one. It said, “Researchers find that space headache is a real and distinct phenomenon and call for it to have its own classification.” Clearly, what they're forgetting here is that astronauts get spaceman ice cream. Okay? And we all know that ice cream causes headaches. Therefore, that one is definitely true. “Scientists have been able to track emperor penguin colonies in Antarctica from space by using satellites to spot their droppings.” Totally, totally believe that. “Neil Armstrong recently confirmed that his famous 'one small step for man' phrase was written for him by a NASA press secretary.” Hmm. I thought he made that up on his own. What do you know, Steve?

S: I know the answer.

J: I'm going to say the first one is the fake. Neil Armstrong.

S: Neil Armstrong? Okay. Bob?

B: Lets see: the space headache being real and distinct. I could see that. With the microgravity affecting blood flow, perhaps, that doesn't sound out of the question to me. The satellites tracking penguin colonies by the droppings. Initially I thought, “Oh wait. How are they going to see something that small”. But I would think that the droppings kind of do add up after a little bit at a size that would be discernible by a satellite. So that's kind of – kind of makes sense to me, as well. The Neil Armstrong, “One small step for ''a'' man”: That one... I don't know. That just doesn't sound right to me. I don't think a secretary had any say in any of that. I'm going to say that that is fiction.

S: Okay. Rebecca?

R: Man! Um... Yeah, that one seems suspicious to me as well. Although, I do seem to remember, like, a long-standing understanding that, you know, this wasn't just something – it wasn't a line that he just made up on the spot. You know, he had, like, practiced it, and rehearsed it. But, I'm not sure I know who came up with it. I do think that – I agree with Bob that satellites ''could'' track emperor penguin poop I there's, you know, a lot of them in the colony. And, plus, I imagine their poop is dark-colored, and it's going on top of snow. So, that could be easy enough. And, space headache: I agree with Jay. Astronauts eat ice cream. Ice cream causes headaches. Therefore, space headaches. So, um, yeah. I think that I'm gonna have to go with the guys on this one. Neil Armstrong – his press secretary did ''not'' write “one small step for man”.

S: Okay. Evan?

E: I'm agreeing with the gaggle. I'm going with that, as well. You know, the space headache, real distinct phenomenon, have it's own classification – yeah. I don't see why not. And then the – the only thing about the – tracking the penguin colonies in Antarctica: spot their droppings. I mean, you know, I'm sure the wind's blowing down there, and the snow. I mean, how long can you see the droppings for? Or, does that matter? Probably only need for a matter of seconds, but that kind of, maybe, was going to throw me off. But I think the Neil Armstrong one is the fiction.

S: Okay. Well, let's take these in reverse order. You all agree that “Researchers find that space headache is a real and distinct phenomenon and call for it to have its own classification” is science. And that one is... science.

R: Yay!

S: But I must point out that the headache could not be an ice cream headache because then that would be an ice cream headache, not a distinct phenomenon.

J: Yeah.

R: Ohhh, darn.

J: Oh, wow.

R: You mean our logic was flawed?

S: Your logic was flawed.

R: Besides the fact that ice cream headaches are caused by the cold?

E: It was Tang.

J: And space ice cream is basically just a cream bar that's room temperature?

R: I ''love'' spaceman ice cream

E: And headaches. Tang headaches.

S: Right, the dehydrated ice cream?

R: Am I the only one that finds it completely delicious?

S: I've had the space ice cream when I was at NASA, but it kind of, like, just melts away in your mouth, you know?

R: Yeah! Like M&Ms.

E: Not in your hands.

S: So, this is a study looking at – they're basically surveying the astronauts. They surveyed 17 astronauts, and 12 of them reported having 21 headaches on different missions. But they were not associated with motion sickness. One of the thinking was, “Okay, they're getting headaches because they're getting motion sickness”. But the headaches occurred independent of symptoms of motion sickness. So that's why – that lead them to think that it's its own phenomenon, not a secondary headache to something else that's happening.

R: What if they're just stressed out? Like, you know, they get headaches 'cause, you know, they're in friggin' space, right? Scary.

S: Uh... yeah, so, I mean, you know, stress could cause like a tension headache. But these headaches were more disabling than you would expect from a tension headache. And they had an “exploding” quality to them, which is also not typical. Tension headaches feel more like a vice around your head, not that – they wouldn't explain that as exploding.

R: Ah.

S: So it doesn't fit, really, any known headache type. It's not an ice cream headache, it's not a motion sickness headache, it's probably not a tension headache. So they said, “Oh, hey, it's its own kind of headache. It's its own phenomenon”. Now, whether or not their recommendation will be picked up remains to be seen. But that's the recommendation that they're making. They do think, Bob, that the root cause is probably microgravity. Right?

B: Yeah. Yeah.

S: The pressures inside our blood vessels, inside our head, you know, is not adapted to microgravity. And in a lot of individuals, they get – gets thrown off and causes headaches.

E: We weren't created that way.

S: We have not been optimized by evolutionary processes to the conditions of microgravity. That's correct.

E: We were intelligently designed, but not ''that'' intelligently designed.

S: Let's go on to number two: Scientists have been able to track emperor penguin colonies in Antarctica from space by using satellites to spot their droppings. And that one… is... science.

J: Yay!

B: Science!

S: That one is science.

R: Yay! Poop!

(Rogues take turns saying “poop” like it is a sonar signal)

R: Do they use sonar to track...

(Laughter)

R: Poop! Poop!

S: So, what they found is that after the penguins have been huddling in an area for a while, that their guano will stain the snow – the ice – a reddish brown. And that that stain remains long enough to be detected by satellites. You can see the pictures on the link that I'll provide. So, this is giving them a lot more information than they've previously had about the number and location of emperor penguin colonies in Antarctica. Because the penguins themselves are too small to be seen by the satellites. So, there you go.

R: Poop!

E: That's remarkable. And therefore...

S: And therefore...

R: We win!

E: A witch! A witch!

S: This means that “Neil Armstrong recently confirmed that his famous 'one small step for man' phrase was written for him by a NASA press secretary” is entirely fiction.

R: Fiction!

J: We knew it. That was too easy.

S: I know. Now, a press secretary's not like ''his'' secretary, right? It's somebody who does press releases and things like that.

R: Correct.

S: So –

E: (falsetto) Coming, Mr. Armstrong!

R: Not that a secretary wouldn't be smart enough to write a simple line.

S: Yeah, but just to clarify.

J: (Mr. Herbert voice) Popsicles?

R: But, yes, that is correct.

S: Anyway. But, a recent analysis of the audio tape of Neil Armstrong's famous phrase, “That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”, did come to a couple of interesting conclusions. Now, there has been this ongoing controversy about whether or not Neil Armstrong actually did say, “one small step for ''a'' man”, but the “a” was either dropped from the transmission, or was lost because he didn't emphasize it enough. And a previous analysis suggested that maybe the “a” is in there if you listen closely enough. But a more recent analysis – this one done by Dr. Chris Riley – did a detailed analysis. And he says that the “a” is simply not there. It's not dropped, it's not rolled into the next word. That Neil Armstrong, basically, did not say it.

E: Flubbed it.

S: Yeah, he flubbed it.

R: Wait. But how does he know, like, if it was lost from the transmission from the Moon to the Earth.

B: Now, what they did was, they – when they examined it, the “r” and the “m” were right next to each other.

S: Yeah.

R: Ah.

B: “For man”. There was no space for the “a”.

S: No dropout. Right? Exactly. There was no space.

B: So imagine the –

E: The ran it through Audacity and looked at the waveform.

B: Yeah, right? Imagine the most important thing you will ever say in your life. And you flub it.

J: What?

E: But he's stepping on the moon at that moment! I mean, come on! I mean, he's probably – I'm sure – why – you know, he'd probably be pissing in his spacesuit. Or, most people would be.

S: Well, they actually had to piss in their spacesuits. But that's...

R & B: (Laughs)

E: I meant at that exact moment, thank you.

S: Yeah. They did piss in their spacesuits. They did other things there too.

E: At that moment.

S: He had other things on his mind. He was very distracted, yes.

R: So, actually, you wouldn't know. Maybe he ''was'' taking a pee at the time he said those immortal words.

S: He probably was. There is general agreement, though, that by dropping the “a”, it made the phrase much more poetic. “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”.

B: I don't buy that.

S: I agree. I think that sounds a lot better than, “That's one small step for ''a'' man, one giant leap for mankind.” It sounds better

R: Uh, yeah, except for “''a'' man” makes sense, and “man” doesn't.

S: Yeah, but everyone knows what he means.

B: Correct.

S: Right? That's what – that's what you mean by poetic license.

R: Mm. We all know what it means 'cause we know what it was supposed to be.

B: I'm not buying it.

R: This isn't a case of language adapting. (Laughs).

S: No, no. It's not. You're right. It's a case of poetic – accidental poetic license, we'll call it. It makes for an interesting story. But he did just forget to say it.

R: I think that's very nice to say, but I think it's wrong.

S: The other question is, did he write that phrase? Or was it written ''for'' him?

J: He wrote it.

S: Now, Neil Armstrong claims he wrote it for himself.

J: He wrote it.

B: But didn't he – didn't he – not just that. Didn't he say he pretty much thought of it on the spot?

R: No.

B: Isn't that what he claimed?

R: No.

B: I think he claimed that he pretty much kind of thought of it –

E: I think he scribbled it on the back of his glove and he tried to read it.

S: Not that he hadn't thought of, before, about what he would say. But, the way in which he was saying it, the exact words that he was saying, were a bit impromptu. This analysis seems to support that interpretation. They are basing their judgment on his inflection, saying that the way he inflected the words and the way they flowed is more consistent with somebody speaking off the cuff than somebody speaking a memorized phrase, or somebody reading.

R: I'm skeptical of that.

S: Yeah. That seems a pretty thin line of evidence. But, for what it's worth, their linguistic analysis they say supports the conclusion that he was speaking off the cuff. I don't know how sensitive or specific that analysis is. You know. So, that's their story and they're sticking with it.

R: Meh.

S: An interesting historical, little aside to one of the greatest moments in ''humanity''. Stepping onto the Moon. How awesome was that?

R: But, anyway, the point being, we won.

B: Yes, we beat the Ruskies.

S: (Laughs)

== Who's That Noisy (1:15:31) ==
* Answer to last week: Brian Brushwood

R: Who's that noisy?

J: (High-pitched sing-song voice) Noisy?

E: (sing-song voice) Who's that noisy? Okay, let's play it back just in case you forgot. Here it is.

<blockquote> That might be a pretty effective demonstration of my supernatural abilities. But if there's one thing I want you guys to take away from this talk, it's that no matter whether you see it in print, whether you see it on TV, whether you hear about it from a fried, if it ''sounds'' supernatural – if it sounds beyond what's possible – you better believe that you are not getting the entire story.</blockquote>

E: Okay, so, that was the voice of one Brian Brushwood.

R: You all got it right.

S: (Laughs)

E: And everybody got it right.

R: Evan, read their names.

E: For some reason. I'll start with the As.

S: Aaron Aaronson.

R: (Laughs)

E: Actually, someone named Aaron ''was'' the first one to get it right.

R: Quadruple A Auto Repair.

E: Ironically. Aaron STL, which I can only imagine is an abbreviation for St. Louis.

R: Or Seattle.

E: St. Louis. He got it first. And so did about a hundred other people. But, I hadn't – you know, I guess shame on me, that I did not know who this person was –

J: Come on.

E: – before. No, I'm serious. I'd not seen any of his material.

S: Well, Evan, to redeem yourself, your task is to book this guy for an interview on the SGU.

E: And many of our listeners gave us that very same suggestion. So, yeah, I'm going to – I'll find Mr. Brushwood and invite him on. Hopefully he'll come on, and –

R: And come up with a more difficult one for this go-around.

E: Ooh. You want a difficult one?

R: Yeah.

E: Okay.

R: Give it to us.

E: Here it is.

(High-pitched scraping sound with strange sci-fi laser-like noises in the background)

E: That's a neti pot.

R: Uh... I think that's the langoliers. (Laughs)

B: Oh my God, the langoliers.

R: Did I get it? Am I right?

E: No.

(Laughter)

E: But that's a – yeah, this one will prove challenging, I think. So give it your best guess, send in your answers.

S: Thank you, Evan.

E: You're welcome.

== Quote of the Week (1:17:43) ==
<blockquote>'Some people try to tell me that science will never answer the big questions we have in life. To them I say: baloney! The real problem is your questions aren’t big enough.' - Phil Plait</blockquote>

S: Jay, ''now'' it's time for the skeptical quote.

J: This is a quote from none other than Phil Plait, sent in by a listener name Robert Fulmer. This is one of the reasons why I love Phil. Check out this quote:

<blockquote>Some people try to tell me that science will never answer the big questions we have in life. To them I say: baloney! The real problem is your questions aren’t big enough. </blockquote>

Phil Plait!

R: Good ol' Phil.

E: I've heard of him.

S: That's a good quote from Phil.

E: Yeah, Phil.

J: I am formally announcing the big secret project. There is a big secret project.

B: What?

J: Indeed. Been working on it too hard and too long. That's why I'm sick and tired right now. But it's coming. And it may very well be revealed at TAM. Nobody knows.

S: Could be. (Laughs)

E: (Laughs) Maybe. Maybe not.

S: It will be ready for TAM.

J: And it will change the way people move around cities. How about that?

(Laughter)

S: Nice segue, Jay. Well, thank you for joining me again this week, everyone.

R: Thank ''you'', Steve

J: Thank you, Steve.

E: It was fun being joined to you.

R: That was a treat.

E: Now let me go.

J: Yes.

S: And, until next week, this is your Skeptic's Guide to the Universe.

{{Outro119}}
== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

SGU Episode 202

2015-02-22T16:04:17Z

Mantis!: Reserving episode for transcription

{{transcribing all
|transcriber = Mantis!
|date = 2015-02-22
}}

{{Editing required
|transcription = y

|time-stamps = y
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 202
|episodeDate = June 3rd 2009 
|episodeIcon = File:Crystals.jpg 
|previous = 
|next = 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|jay = y 
|evan = y 
|perry = 
|guest1 = 
|guest2 = 
|guest3 = 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2009-06-03.mp3
|forumLink =
|qowText = 'Some people try to tell me that science will never answer the big questions we have in life. To them I say: baloney! The real problem is your questions aren’t big enough.' 
|qowAuthor = {{w|Phil Plait}} 
|}}

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

=== Newsweek vs Oprah () ===
* http://www.newsweek.com/id/200025

=== Volcanic Extinction () ===
* http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=aLYx3ji.OiD0&refer=home

=== UFO News () ===
* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5435262/UFOs-above-Merseyside-linked-to-HMS-Daring-military-exercise.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5434040/UFOs-spotted-in-Cambridgeshire.html http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/6868/56/

=== Texas Evolution Update () ===
* http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/06/antievolution-bills-die-texas-004818
== Questions and E-mails () ==

=== Question # 1 - Evangelical Skeptics () ===
<blockquote>Greetings Skeptics! I have listened to and enjoyed every podcast you have put out (except for the infamous Neal Adams interview, which I just can't bring myself to cue up...I think being a huge fan of his comics work is preventing me, or the fact that I generally don't find such raw confrontations entertaining) My question stems from a recent conversation I had with my girlfriend who generally considers herself to be a critical thinker although she does have her 'sacred cow' like almost everyone does...in her case she is a non-practicing pagan. We listen to several podcasts together, but when I ask her to listen to yours she refuses, her reason being that she feels 'you have a tendency to be just as 'evangelical' and at times 'close-minded' as the believers'. I can think of quite a few ways to defend you in response to that comment, but I think hearing from you directly might have a greater impact. Whether you respond via email or on the show I'll make sure she reads/hears your answer. Thanks for your time and keep up the quality work! Shane Nitzsche (pronounced NIT-chee)</blockquote>

=== Question # 2 - Begging the Question () ===
<blockquote>Okay. I give up. After all, with you guys as my role models (and in this case, Stephen) what choice do I have. I've been increasingly depressed at the way the term 'begging the question' has come, in mainstream media, to mean RAISING the question--and not what it always USED to mean. Now I have no problem with language evolving and meanings changing. However, 'begging the question' is such a valuable term for identifying a common logical fallacy--I seem always to be using it to harpoon some blubbering claim. And now? The term is becoming useless. And I know of no other to replace it. Circular argument is almost there, but, unless I'm mistaken, has a different emphasis. In fact, I was about to write to you lot looking for support, a crusade, a suggestion...something--when, what to my wondering ears should I hear.. but you, Stephen, using the term in the NEW, trendy, way, in the last podcast. Aaaarrrgh. I was hoping I could point out that, inconsistently, you have the term in your list of logical fallacies, but, alas, though it appears in virtually all such lists, it does not appear in yours. drat. So, I guess, I just give up. But that begs the question, 'What term do I use instead?' Theo Dombrowski Nanoose bay, British Columbia</blockquote>

== Interview with Simon Singh () ==
* http://www.simonsingh.net/
== Science or Fiction () ==
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8081817.stm Item # 1]: Neil Armstrong recently confirmed that his famous “one small step for man” phrase was written for him by a NASA press secretary.
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8077040.stm Item # 2]: Scientists have been able to track emperor penguin colonies in Antarctica from space by using satellites to spot their droppings.
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8078477.stm Item # 3]: Researchers find that space headache is a real and distinct phenomenon and call for it to have its own classification.
== Who's That Noisy () ==
* Answer to last week: Brian Brushwood
== Quote of the Week () ==
<blockquote>'Some people try to tell me that science will never answer the big questions we have in life. To them I say: baloney! The real problem is your questions aren’t big enough.' - Phil Plait</blockquote>

{{Outro119}}
== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

Template:SGU episode list

2015-02-22T16:01:47Z

Mantis!: changed episode availability of 201 to "mag" and 202 to "i"

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

Where the first pass of transcription is done using Google Speech API, the page should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{a}}</nowiki></code> to add the microphone icon.

Pages currently in progress should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{i}}</nowiki></code> to add the pencil icon, and pages that have sections open to other contributors to transcribe should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{Open}}</nowiki></code> to include the green arrow icon.

Once all the transcription is finished, the page should be marked with <code><nowiki>{{mag}}</nowiki></code> to add the magnifying glass icon, signifying that it needs to be proof-read.

Pages that have been proof-read and verified by a contributor other than the author should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{tick}}</nowiki></code> to include the green tick icon. </noinclude>
Below are links to all the SGU episodes with transcription pages.

Jump to: [[#2013|2013]], [[#2012|2012]], [[#2011|2011]], [[#2010|2010]], [[#2009|2009]], [[#2008|2008]], [[#2007|2007]], [[#2006|2006]], [[#2005|2005]]

{|
!Key:
|-
|    {{tick}}
| –  episode proof-read
|     {{mag}}
|  –  transcription complete and needs proof-reading
|-
|    {{i}}
| –  transcription in progress
|     {{Open}}
|  –  contains sections that need transcribing
|-
|    {{a}}
|colspan="3"| –  first pass of transcription performed by Google Speech API
|}

{|style="margin:1em 3em"
|style="padding-right: 6em;white-space:nowrap" valign="top"|<big>'''2014'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 501]], Feb 14 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 500]], Feb 7 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 499]], Jan 31 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 498]], Jan 24 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 497]], Jan 17 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 496]], Jan 10 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 495]], Jan 3 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 494]], Dec 27 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 493]], Dec 20 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 492]], Dec 13 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 491]], Dec 6 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 490]], Nov 29 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 489]], Nov 22 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 488]], Nov 15 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 487]], Nov 8 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 486]], Nov 1 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 485]], Oct 25 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 484]], Oct 18 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 483]], Oct 11 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 482]], Oct 4 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 481]], Sep 27 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 480]], Sep 20 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 479]], Sep 13 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 478]], Sep 6 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 477]], Aug 30 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 476]], Aug 23 2014 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 475]], Aug 16 2014 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 474]], Aug 9 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 473]], Aug 2 2014 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 472]], Jul 26 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 471]], Jul 19 2014 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 470]], Jul 12 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 469]], Jul 5 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 468]], Jun 28 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 467]], Jun 21 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 466]], Jun 14 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 465]], Jun 7 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 464]], May 31 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 463]], May 24 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 462]], May 17 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 461]], May 10 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 460]], May 3 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 459]], Apr 26 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 458]], Apr 19 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 457]], Apr 12 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 456]], Apr 5 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 455]], Mar 29 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 454]], Mar 22 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 453]], Mar 15 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 452]], Mar 8 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 451]], Mar 1 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 450]], Feb 22 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 449]], Feb 15 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 448]], Feb 10 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 447]], Feb 8 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 446]], Feb 1 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 445]], Jan 25 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 444]], Jan 18 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 443]], Jan 11 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 442]], Jan 4 2014 {{Open}}

<big>'''2013'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 441]], Dec 28 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 440]], Dec 21 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 439]], Dec 14 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 438]], Dec 7 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 437]], Nov 30 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 436]], Nov 23 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 435]], Nov 16 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 434]], Nov 9 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 433]], Nov 2 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 432]], Oct 26 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 431]], Oct 19 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 430]], Oct 12 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 429]], Oct 5 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 428]], Sep 28 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 427]], Sep 21 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 426]], Sep 14 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 425]], Sep 7 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 424]], Aug 31 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 423]], Aug 24 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 422]], Aug 17 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 421]], Aug 10 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 420]], Aug 3 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 419]], Jul 27 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 418]], Jul 20 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 417]], Jul 13 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 416]], Jul 6 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 415]], Jun 29 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 414]], Jun 22 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 413]], Jun 15 2013 {{Open}}{{a}}
* [[SGU Episode 412]], Jun 8 2013 {{i}}{{a}}
* [[SGU Episode 411]], Jun 1 2013 {{a}}
* [[SGU Episode 410]], May 25 2013 {{Tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 409]], May 18 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 408]], May 11 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 407]], May 4 2013 {{Open}}{{a}}
* [[SGU Episode 406]], Apr 27 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 405]], Apr 20 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 404]], Apr 13 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 403]], Apr 6 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 402]], Mar 30 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 401]], Mar 23 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 400]], Mar 16 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 399]], Mar 9 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 398]], Mar 2 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 397]], Feb 23 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 396]], Feb 16 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 395]], Feb 9 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 394]], Feb 2 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 393]], Jan 26 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 392]], Jan 19 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 391]], Jan 12 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 390]], Jan 5 2013 {{tick}}

<big>'''2012'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 389]], Dec 29 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 388]], Dec 22 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 387]], Dec 15 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 386]], Dec 8 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 385]], Dec 1 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 384]], Nov 24 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 383]], Nov 17 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 382]], Nov 10 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 381]], Nov 3 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 380]], Oct 27 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 379]], Oct 20 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 378]], Oct 13 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 377]], Oct 6 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 376]], Sep 29 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 375]], Sep 22 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 374]], Sep 15 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 373]], Sep 8 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 372]], Sep 1 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 371]], Aug 25 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 370]], Aug 18 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 369]], Aug 11 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 368]], Aug 4 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 367]], Jul 28 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 366]], Jul 21 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 365]], Jul 14 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 364]], Jul 7 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 363]], Jun 30 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 362]], Jun 23 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 361]], Jun 16 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 360]], Jun 9 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 359]], Jun 2 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 358]], May 26 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 357]], May 19 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 356]], May 12 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 355]], May 5 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 354]], Apr 28 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 353]], Apr 21 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 352]], Apr 14 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 351]], Apr 7 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 350]], Mar 31 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 349]], Mar 24 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 348]], Mar 17 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 347]], Mar 10 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 346]], Mar 3 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 345]], Feb 25 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 341]], Jan 28 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 340]], Jan 21 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 339]], Jan 14 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 338]], Jan 7 2012 {{tick}}
<big>'''2011'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 337]], Dec 31 2011 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 336]], Dec 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 335]], Dec 17 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 334]], Dec 10 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 333]], Dec 3 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 332]], Nov 26 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 331]], Nov 19 2011 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 330]], Nov 11 2011 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 329]], Nov 5 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 328]], Oct 29 2011 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 327]], Oct 22 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 326]], Oct 15 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 325]], Oct 8 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 324]], Oct 1 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 323]], Sep 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 322]], Sep 17 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 321]], Sep 10 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU 24hr]], Sep 23-24 2011
* [[SGU Episode 320]], Aug 29 2011 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 319]], Aug 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 318]], Aug 17 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 317]], Aug 10 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 316]], Aug 3 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 315]], Jul 27 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 314]], Jul 20 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 313]], Jul 13 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 312]], Jul 5 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 311]], Jun 29 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 310]], Jun 22 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 309]], Jun 13 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 308]], Jun 08 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 307]], May 31 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 306]], May 25 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 305]], May 18 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 304]], May 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 303]], May 4 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 302]], Apr 27 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 301]], Apr 20 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 300]], Apr 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 299]], Apr 4 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 298]], Mar 30 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 297]], Mar 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 296]], Mar 16 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 295]], Mar 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 294]], Mar 2 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 293]], Feb 23 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 292]], Feb 16 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 291]], Feb 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 290]], Jan 31 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 289]], Jan 26 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 288]], Jan 19 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 287]], Jan 12 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 286]], Jan 5 2011 {{Open}}
<big>'''2010'''</big>

----
* [[SGU Episode 285]], Dec 29 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 284]], Dec 22 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 283]], Dec 15 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 282]], Dec 8 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 281]], Dec 1 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 280]], Nov 24 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 279]], Nov 15 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 278]], Nov 10 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 277]], Nov 3 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 276]], Oct 27 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 275]], Oct 19 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 274]], Oct 13 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 273]], Oct 6 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 272]], Sep 30 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 271]], Sep 22 2010 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 270]], Sep 15 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 269]], Sep 8 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 268]], Sep 1 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 267]], Aug 25 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 266]], Aug 19 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 265]], Aug 11 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 264]], Aug 4 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 263]], Jul 29 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 262]], Jul 21 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 261]], Jul 10 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 260]], Jun 30 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 259]], Jun 28 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 258]], Jun 16 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 257]], Jun 14 2010 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 256]], Jun 9 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 255]], Jun 2 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 254]], May 26 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 253]], May 19 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 252]], May 12 2010 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 251]], May 5 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 250]], Apr 28 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 249]], Apr 17 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 248]], Apr 13 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 247]], Apr 7 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 246]], Mar 31 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 245]], Mar 25 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 244]], Mar 18 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 243]], Mar 11 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 242]], Mar 3 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 241]], Feb 24 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 240]], Feb 17 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 239]], Feb 10 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 238]], Feb 3 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 237]], Jan 27 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 236]], Jan 20 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 235]], Jan 13 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 234]], Nov 15 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 233]], Jan 6 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 232]], Jan 1 2010 {{mag}}

|valign="top" style=white-space:nowrap|<big>'''2009'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 231]], Dec 21 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 230]], Dec 16 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 229]], Dec 9 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 228]], Dec 2 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 227]], Nov 25 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 226]], Nov 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 225]], Nov 11 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 224]], Nov 4 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 223]], Oct 28 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 222]], Oct 21 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 221]], Oct 14 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 220]], Oct 7 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 219]], Sep 28 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 218]], Sep 23 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 217]], Sep 12 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 216]], Sep 9 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 215]], Sep 1 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 214]], Aug 25 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 213]], Aug 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 212]], Aug 12 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 211]], Aug 4 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 210]], Jul 29 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 209]], Jul 22 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 208]], Jul 11 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 207]], Jul 1 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 206]], Jun 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 205]], Jun 16 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 204]], Jun 11 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 203]], Jun 9 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 202]], Jun 3 2009 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 201]], May 27 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 200]], May 20 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 199]], May 13 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 198]], May 7 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 197]], Apr 30 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 196]], Apr 22 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 195]], Apr 15 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 194]], Apr 8 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 193]], Apr 1 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 192]], Mar 25 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 191]], Mar 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 190]], Mar 12 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 189]], Mar 4 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 188]], Feb 26 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 187]], Feb 11 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 186]], Feb 9 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 185]], Feb 4 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 184]], Jan 28 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 183]], Jan 21 2009 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 182]], Jan 15 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 181]], Jan 7 2009 {{Open}}

<big>'''2008'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 180]], Dec 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 179]], Dec 23 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 178]], Dec 16 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 177]], Dec 3 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 176]], Nov 20 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 175]], Nov 10 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 174]], Nov 18 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 173]], Nov 12 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 172]], Nov 5 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 171]], Oct 29 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 170]], Oct 22 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 169]], Oct 11 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 168]], Oct 8 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 167]], Oct 1 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 166]], Sep 24 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 165]], Sep 17 2008 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 164]], Sep 10 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 163]], Sep 3 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 162]], Aug 26 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 161]], Aug 20 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 160]], Aug 13 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 159]], Aug 6 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 158]], Jul 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 157]], Jul 23 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 156]], Jul 16 2008 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 155]], Jul 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 154]], Jul 2 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 153]], Jun 21 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 152]], Jun 11 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 151]], Jun 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 150]], Jun 4 2008 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 149]], May 28 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 148]], May 21 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 147]], May 14 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 146]], May 7 2008 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 145]], Apr 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 144]], Apr 23 2008 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 143]], Apr 16 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 142]], Apr 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 141]], Apr 2 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 140]], Mar 26 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 139]], Mar 19 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 138]], Mar 12 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 137]], Mar 5 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 136]], Feb 27 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 135]], Feb 20 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 134]], Feb 13 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 133]], Feb 6 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 132]], Jan 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 131]], Jan 23 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 130]], Jan 16 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 129]], Jan 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 128]], Jan, 2 2008 {{Open}}

<big>'''2007'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 127]], Dec 26 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 126]], Dec 19 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 125]], Dec 12 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 124]], Dec 5 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 122]], Nov 20 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 121]], Nov 14 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 120]], Nov 7 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 119]], Oct 30 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 118]], Oct 24 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 117]], Oct 17 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 116]], Oct 10 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 115]], Oct 3 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 114]], Sep 27 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 113]], Sep 19 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 112]], Sep 12 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 111]], Sep 5 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 110]], Aug 28 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 108]], Aug 11 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 107]], Aug 8 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 106]], Aug 1 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 105]], Jul 25 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 104]], Jul 18 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 103]], Jul 11 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 102]], Jul 3 2007 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 101]], June 20 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 100]], June 19 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 99]], June 13 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 98]], June 6 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 97]], May 30 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 96]], May 23 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 95]], May 16 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 94]], May 9 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 93]], May 3 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 92]], Apr 25 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 91]], Apr 18 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 90]], Apr 10 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 89]], Apr 4 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 88]], Mar 28 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 87]], Mar 21 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 86]], Mar 14 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 85]], Mar 7 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 84]], Feb 28 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 83]], Feb 21 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 82]], Feb 15 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 81]], Feb 7 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 80]], Jan 31 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 78]], Jan 15 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 77]], Jan 10 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 76]], Jan 3 2007 {{open}}

<big>'''2006'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 75]], Dec 27 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 74]], Dec 20 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 73]], Dec 13 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 73]], Dec 13 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 72]], Dec 6 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 71]], Nov 29 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 70]], Nov 21 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 69]], Nov 15 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 68]], Nov 8 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 67]], Nov 1 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 66]], Oct 25 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 65]], Oct 18 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 64]], Oct 11 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 63]], Oct 4 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 62]], Sep 27 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 61]], Sep 20 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 60]], Sep 13 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 59]], Sep 5 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 58]], Aug 30 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 57]], Aug 23 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 56]], Aug 15 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 55]], Aug 9 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 54]], Aug 2 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 53]], Jul 26 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 52]], Jul 19 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 51]], Jul 12 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 50]], Jul 5 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 49]], Jun 28 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 48]], Jun 21 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 47]], Jun 14 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 46]], Jun 7 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 45]], May 31 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 44]], May 24 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 43]], May 17 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 42]], May 10 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 41]], May 3 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 40]], Apr 26 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 39]], Apr 19 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 38]], Apr 12 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 37]], Apr 6 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 36]], Mar 29 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 35]], Mar 22 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 34]], Mar 15 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 33]], Mar 9 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 32]], Mar 1 2006 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 31]], Feb 22 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 30]], Feb 15 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 29]], Feb 8 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 28]], Feb 1 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 27]], Jan 25 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 26]], Jan 17 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 25]], Jan 11 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 24]], Jan 6 2006 {{mag}}

<big>'''2005'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 23]], Dec 21 2005 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 22]], Dec 14 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 21]], Dec 7 2005 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 20]], Nov 23 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 19]], Nov 16 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 18]], Nov 2 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 17]], Oct 26 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 16]], Oct 12 2005 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 15]], Oct 6 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 14]], Sep 28 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 13]], Sep 14 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 12]], Sep 7 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 11]], Aug 31 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 10]], Aug 23 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 9]], Aug 10 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 8]], Aug 2 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 7]], Jul 20 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 6]], Jul 7 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 5]], Jun 29 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 4]], Jun 15 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 3]], Jun 7 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 2]], Jun 1 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 1]], May 4 2005 {{tick}}
|}

<noinclude>
[[Category: List templates]]
</noinclude>

SGU Episode 201

2015-02-22T15:59:28Z

Mantis!: Added raw transcript and timestamps. Proofreading needed.

{{Editing required
|transcription =

|time-stamps =
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 201
|episodeDate = May 27th 2009 
|episodeIcon = File:Polonium.jpg 
|previous = 
|next = 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|jay = y 
|evan = y 
|perry = 
|guest1 = P: Phil Plait 
|guest2 = 
|guest3 = 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2009-05-27.mp3
|forumLink =
|qowText = “I have adequately answered all your inquiries. I ask you to quietly rephrase these inquiries to yourself until they match my replies.” 
|qowAuthor = {{w|Elbot (a chatterbot created by Fred Roberts)}} 
|}}

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

S: Hello, and welcome to the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, May 27th 2009, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella...

B: Hey, everybody!

S: Rebecca Watson...

R: Hello, everyone!

S: Jay Novella...

J: Hey guys!

S: And Evan Bernstein.

== This Day in Skepticism (00:30) ==

E: Hey, everyone! And, did you know on May 30th, in 1898, it was Sir William Ramsay and Morris Travers discovered... krypton! The element krypton.

J: Wow!

S: Awesome.

J: That's cool.

E: By doing an experiment. Very, very cool.

R: And from ''Superman'', right?

E: Yes. Yes, that is the exact same one. Yes. Later, William Ramsay won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for discovery of a bunch of noble gases, actually.

S: Right. And then he became a super villain, didn't he?

B: (Laughs)

E: Was that it?

S: Well, we have a lot of news to get through this week. We have Phil Plait coming on later in the show to talk about the science of Star Trek and some other things. But first, some news.

== News Items ==

=== Whooping Cough on the Rise (01:10) ===
* http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-26-whooping-cough_N.htm?csp=usat.me

S: The first news item is yet more evidence that Jenny McCarthy is an idiot. By which I mean, her anti-vaccination propaganda, along with all her other colleagues, is actually causing disease and spreading mischief around. We've seen increases in measles, and mumps, and now we're seeing pockets of whooping cough in the unvaccinated. This is a new study that was published in ''Pediatrics'' this week. They found that those children who were not vaccinated with the DPT vaccine, the one that includes the pertussis vaccine against whooping cough, were 23 times more likely to develop the disease than children who got all of their vaccines on time. That's a pretty dramatic increase.

R: Yeah, it's not just more evidence that she's an idiot. It's more evidence that she's a ''dangerous'' idiot.

S: Yeah. Exactly.

R: Which is why we keep bringing her up, week after week. And just want her to ''please'' shut up.

B: Well, I just went to the Jenny McCarthy Body Count page. You guys have seen that, right?

S: Oh, yeah.

E: Yeah.

B: It's up to 168 preventable deaths and 44,901 preventable illnesses. Thank you!

S: So, this was actually a study looking at patients enrolled in Kaiser Permanente in Colorado, 751 children. So, it's a fairly sizable study. And they found that of all the cases of whooping cough, or pertussis, that presented there, 11 to 12 percent were in the unvaccinated. Now, interestingly, if you read in the comments to these articles, they're always interesting. Because you have, you know, random people throwing out their comments. And somebody said, “Wait a minute, 11 to 12 percent were in the unvaccinated. That means 88 to 89 percent were in the vaccinated. So, I guess the vaccine doesn't work.” Classic error of statistics there.

E: Right.

S: The reason why the majority of the cases happen in the vaccinated is because the vaccinated tremendously outnumber the unvaccinated. You have to look at the ''percentage'' of vaccinated versus the percentage of unvaccinated. And, there, we see again the 23 ''times'' increase. Not 23 percent, 23 times increase in risk of developing whooping cough if you're unvaccinated than if you're vaccinated. So, yet more evidence that vaccines actually work.

J: Hm.

E: Yeah.

S: Which is incredible, because a lot of the anti-vaxxers say “There's no evidence that vaccines work.” Unless, if you course you just count all that evidence that it works.

R: Look, don't confuse us with facts, Steve.

S: Right.

E: It's incredible. As we get older, we hear more about people, you know, the Jenny McCarthys and other folks out there who are advocating against vaccination. I don't recall anyone speaking out against vaccination in the 70s, the 80s, and so forth. It seems to be this -

S: They were. I mean the -

E: - this recent phenomenon. Yeah, I'm sure they were out there -

S: It's on the rise. It's on the rise. 'Cause, they're well-funded, and they got some celebrity idiots backing them up. But – it is on the rise. But it's been a really – you know – vaccine – anti-vaccinationist kooks have been around as long as vaccines. And, they probably always will be.

=== Scientology On Trial (04:10) ===
* http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/scientologists-in-france-go-on-trial-for-fraud-1690579.html

S: Jay, this next news item is right up your alley. Scientologists in France are on trial for fraud.

E: Ah-ho!

J: I'm not going to lie to you: I love this kind of stuff so much it just makes me want to giggle.

S: (Comedic German accent) Like a little girl!

(Rogues chuckle)

J: It looks like the Parisians ''in France''... that was deliberate.

(Rogues laugh)

S: As opposed to the Parisians in Germany?

J: (Laughs) Yeah.

E: Paris (unclear) 

J: Uh, they are not so Thetan-free. Uh...

B: Paris Thomas.

E: Paris Hilton.

J: Excuse me. They're not so Thetan-free as Tommy-Boy would like them. The local Scientology headquarters – apparently, like, some Scientology book shop, I guess. I don't really know what, like, the setup is. But, it's just two different entities there. Both pretty much make up the Church of Scientology in France. They're on trial for “Frew-Ed”.

S: That's right.

J: That's basically what's going on. So, the quick skinny on it is, there was seven leading French Scientology members who were basically put on the docket as - they're being accused of fraud. Some are actually charged with illegally practicing as pharmacists as well. Those people could actually spend up to ten years in prison with fines. This started in '98 when a complaint was registered by a woman who said she joined the church after members approached her, I guess in the street, and convinced her to do one of their personality tests. Remember when Rebecca told us the story?

B: Yep.

J: One of my favorite Rebecca stories, by the way. It was pretty much - that's their M.O. They do that -

R: Yeah

J: - In the street a lot. They come off very friendly, and all that. And they're, you know, they're just basically like, “Here, take a free personality test”. Well, this is what they're doing in France, as well. And as this typical story goes, she joined. She paid heavily in, over time. I mean, this particular woman paid about 21,000 Euros. She purchased vitamins that were said – she was told were going to purify her. Sauna, which I actually haven't even heard of the Scientology sauna treatments before. And, the typical E-meter sessions which Rebecca described in detail at that time.

R: What's the sauna thing? Is the “Sauna” meaning she just, like, “sweat out the toxins” sort of sauna?

J: Yeah, like the continuing the purification thing.

R: Yeah.

J: So, after her complaint was made public, a bunch of other people came out and started filing complaints, too. And some reported spending ''hundreds'' of thousands of Euros for the same crap. Which, you know, we've heard this before, but yet again here's, you know, more evidence that people are dumping tons of money into that church. And, as these cases were investigated it was discovered that all the people were harassed by phone calls to their homes, nightly visits to their homes –

E: Oof!

J: – where these people would come and actually pressure them to take out more bank loans and to pay their outstanding bills to the church. And all 7 of the plaintiffs were considered to be “vulnerable” by psychological experts. So I guess that, you know, they did some psychological testings on these people and, lo and behold, the Scientologists are preying upon weak-minded people, which is no big surprise there. And to quickly finish up here, investigators did some testing on the E-meters. They found out that they're useless. They found out that the vitamins that they were selling actually – I guess they were powerful enough or, you know, the concoction that they had come up with, they were actually considered to be a medication, and they shouldn't have actually even been selling these things legally there.

S: Right.

J: And, you know, right now Scientology has a pretty serious problem in France. There was members being convicted of fraud in '97 and in '99. And in 2002 the court fined them for violating privacy laws and said that they could be dissolved if involved in similar cases. And here are the similar cases. So, a guilty verdict would mean that the practice of Scientology would have to be – would be end it – they'd have to end it in France.

R: Well, I think that it means that they would have to stop selling their services, at least. Which is the real thing. Like, people can worship anything they want. They can practice Scientology if they want. But the problem is that Scientologists are peddling this crap. And it's about time somebody took them to task for it. It's amazing to me that, in the US, we have so many protections in place for consumers but as soon as it's a consumer of something that happens to be religious in nature all of a sudden we throw all those protections away and allow these people to keep pulling one over on the gullible and it's just really pathetic. So I –

J: Yeah, call it a loophole, or whatever. But you're right, Rebecca. I mean, it's one of those deals where, you know, you use the term “religion” and then people have to start treading lightly and walking on eggshells around it and the bottom line is, it doesn't matter if it's a religion or if it's just some regular huckster selling snake oil. This is crap. It's hurting people. It's damaging people that are easily taken advantage of and we really need to change our laws worldwide to fight things like this.

S: Well, the interesting thing is that L. Ron Hubbard was trying to sell his, you know, fake treatments back before he thought of the idea of Scientology and he basically invented a religion to surround his snake oil in order to give it cover.

E: A vehicle, as it were.

S: Yeah. And, that's happening more and more these days. So, a lot of alternative medicine now are very specifically couching their claims in religious terms in order to get cover under this umbrella of religion. Because freedom of religion is so protected in this country that it is this huge loophole that they can go through. And sometimes they're very overt and callous about it. So, that's happening more and more. And it's really – it is an interesting dilemma because, certainly I'm against fraud and, you know, callously using religion in order to conceal fraud and to abuse and take advantage of a vulnerable population, which is what they're being accused of here. But at the same time, you know, how do you parse that. So, if you say “Okay, well, their – the E-meter is fake, and they're accepting money from lots of people in order to sell this bogus service which scientifically can't be shown to do anything.” And then you get to the problem of, well, how do you distinguish that from pretty much anything that religion is selling or doing or accepting donations for, you know what I mean? 'Cause none of it's scientific. None of it's provable.

R: I know you probably don't mean it in this way, but I've heard that before and – used in a very fallacious way in that – you know – I think it's – what's it called? The “Spectrum Fallacy”, or what have you. But, there are always going to be loopholes. There are always going to be ways around it. You can always say, “Oh, I'm not selling this. I'm just asking for donations. Blah, blah, blah.”

S: Right.

R: But, we have to go after the outright frauds who are literally selling merchandise and selling bogus pseudoscience. And, you know, it just is a form of basic consumer protections. We do it for every other business. Why shouldn't we do it for religion?

S: I agree. And I think the answer probably is that the courts, you know, that judges have to make an individual decision about individual cases. Is this a legitimate practice of religion? Or, is this a commercial fraudulent transaction that is overtly hiding behind religion? And if the courts do not feel empowered to make those kind of judgments then con artists do just have free rein to do whatever they want. All they have to do is just slap the label of religion on it and they basically get a free pass. So, I think the problem is that, in this country, I think that there's a lot of reluctance to do that. You know, that the political will isn't there.

R: Yeah. That's true.

S: That's the problem.

=== RNA World (12:21) ===
* http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=541

S: Couple of interesting science news items this week. There was an interesting paper published recently, looking at the development of RNA as sort of the “chemical evolution” that led from, you know, non-life to life. So, this is one of the huge, enduring mysteries in science. How did life arise on the planet Earth from non-life? And what we know must have happened – obviously, there was a period of time when there was no life on Earth. And, then, at some point, there was life. So, life had to come from somewhere. The thinking is that there was a period of purely “chemical evolution”, and what I mean by that is, that chemical reactions alone were creating the molecules that would eventually lead to life without any living system already in place to help those chemical reactions along. Right? So, in a cell, for example, we have proteins that are made by the cell but then act as enzymes to catalyze reactions. But, without life you just have the chemicals reacting by themselves without organic catalysts helping those reactions along. So any system that we come up with to explain how life arose has to allow for these chemicals to react without life already existing. One of the main hypotheses as to the pathway that chemical evolution took in order to create the first life – the first cells – is that it was RNA. That RNA, or ribonucleic acid, was the first molecule that was able to make a copy of itself. Once you have that, once you have a molecule that can copy itself, and then there could be, you know, variation, mutations in those copies. And the copies that are better at copying themselves, you know, are the ones that will tend to survive and compete better for raw material, and they'll make more copies of themselves. Right? So, one you have that you have the foot in the door to evolution, and then you're off to the races. But how did we get to the first RNA molecule? That's the question of this new research. The problem with the RNA hypothesis has been that nobody knew how the chemical reactions could have taken place in order to arrive at RNA. And some people said, “Well, it's impossible. The reactions are too slow or they really just can't happen. RNA couldn't have been the first molecule to bridge the chemical evolution to life.” So what these researchers did was, they created what they call a plausible pre-biotic environment, right? So they duplicated, as much as we can, as much as we understand, the likely environment of the early Earth, before life existed. And then they tried to find out if there were different chemical pathways that could lead to the major building-blocks of RNA in order to bypass these roadblocks. So if you imagine there are sort-of “blocks” in the chemical pathways to make RNA that – reactions just wouldn't happen. So they said, “Okay, well maybe if these alternate pathways were plausible or existed in these conditions, that could get you to RNA. And they basically showed that it worked. So they were able to show, and again, we'll link to the actual paper, but – I'm not going to go over the actual chemical reactions 'cause it's, you know, it's hard to describe in words and it's very technical in detail. But the bottom line is –

R: Would you rather do an interpretive dance of some sort?

S: I could. I could do an interpretive dance.

E: You could mime it, too.

J: God, that would be so awesome.

B: Just write a haiku.

S: All right, I'm going to mime it. Ready?

E: Ready. Uh-huh.

R: Oh, I totally get it.

E: Oh!

B: Ah!

S: Okay!

E: Oh, now it makes sense.

S: So, cool. So this actually – it sounds a little dry. But the bottom line is, this is a ''huge'' step forward in figuring out how life could have arisen on Earth, 'cause now there's a plausible pathway to get to RNA. And once you get to RNA, there's other research, which we actually talked about on this show before, to show how, in an RNA world, that could lead to self-organization and cells and life. You're basically – we're really starting to put the pieces together in showing how life ''could have'' arisen on the Earth. We probably will never be able to show how it actually did occur because, you know, we're talking about 4 billion years ago and things don't fossilize very well when you're talking about just chemicals, you know? Really, all we need to do is show a plausible pathway that life could have taken, and that's really what we're getting very close to. And this takes us a huge step of the way, so... Very exciting research, in my opinion, that kind of, I thought, got lost in the shuffle. Not a lot of people were talking about it. But I found it very exciting.

R: Yes! Yes, it is.

E: (Laughs)

=== Rook Tool Use (17:18) ===
* http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6360754.ece

S: The next news item is about how intelligent birds are, which we love to talk about on this show.

E: Which they, um –

R: Boo!

E&S: (Laughs)

R: Sorry.

E: I know. The term “bird brains” will suddenly become a, you know, a –

S: A compliment! Is that the word you were looking for?

E: A compliment, you're right. Instead of insulting. Thank you. The term “Bird brabns” will become a compliment as opposed to an insult to be thrown around after you learn about this. So they've got these birds called rooks, and – which is part of the – 

S: They're in the crow family.

E: They are in the crow family.

S: They look almost just like crows.

E: What the scientists did is, these tests for these rooks, in which the rooks were challenged to try to obtain their food in a certain way, in which it was put into this container. And the rooks had to figure out exactly what it was they needed to do in order to get the food to come out.

R: Turns out they could only go straight ahead or sideways.

E&S: (Laughs)

E: It's amazing. They were able – the rooks were able to select the right tools for the job by, for example, choosing the right size little rock to put down the plastic cylinder, which would then drop onto the plate that released the food. And the rooks were able to discern, apparently, which rocks would be the best ones to put down that cylinder in order to get the food to come out. They had 4 rooks – different rooks that they'd test. And they, just about in all the tests that they presented to them, all showed the capacity to figure out this problem. The other thing that they saw them doing, the rooks were making tools. In one series of tests they had to take – the rooks utilized a straight wire, and they actually put a little bend in the wire in order to create a hook so that they could lift out the little plate underneath and bring it up through the cylinder and hook their food out that way. Fascinating stuff, I mean, to see – and there is video that accompanies these articles. And to actually see it ''happening'' is pretty amazing.

S: Yeah. This family of birds, which includes jays, and crows, and what-not are very intelligent, and actually have demonstrated this ability for problem-solving, this exact kind of problem-solving behavior. And, it really is amazing. They were able – as you said, they fashioned tools, they actually, like, stripped twigs to fashion them to be useful. And, they actually could do two-step problem solving. So, if you had to obtain from one rock in order to use it in the next step to get the food, they figured out how to do that.

E: Right.

S: So, really incredible. And, of course, completely separate evolutionary line from, say primates like chimpanzees. And, yet, they're showing about the same level of tool-use that chimpanzees do. In fact, they were specifically compared to them by the researchers. So, who would have thought that these little birds could be so bright when it comes to this kind of problem solving and tool fashioning?

E: And, in nature, a rook's not going to come across a piece of wire, on its own, in order to fashion it into a tool, in order to get its meal. You know, it was – this caged animal is specifically given this obstacle to get this food out, and it's presented this wire, and it actually made a hook out of it. It's just fascinating.

S: That's a really interesting point that these birds are displaying abilities that they do not have to use in nature, and that they don't display in nature. So, that would beg the question of, then, why did they evolve the ability to do this? But that's the adaptationalist fallacy. Right? That, anything a creature can do, or a life-form could do, it must have specifically evolved. And, what this shows is that, well, no, you know, you evolve a certain amount of intelligence because that does have a survival advantage. But intelligence is not a narrow thing. You know, once you have a bigger brain, or you have some problem-solving skills, that can be utilized, can be co-opted for a very – a broad range of abilities and behaviors that may have nothing to do with what the trait was specifically evolved for. So, that's important to keep in mind, and I think this is actually a really good example of that.

B: Steve, is there anything unusual about the organization of the rooks' or crows' brains? That they're able to pack so much punch in such a little space?

S: Well, that's a good question. There are definitely researchers working on that. I don't know what the answer to that question is or how close we are to an answer. That's probably something we can explore in the future.

=== NECSS (22:09) ===
* NECSS (nexus) - Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism Date: September 12, 2009 Time: 10AM-6PM Location: New York City Featured Speakers: - James Randi - Carl Zimmer - John Rennie - Paul Offit - Massimo Pigliucci - George Hrab - Kaja Perina - Howard Schneider - John Snyder - Michael De Dora - Jamy Ian Swiss (MC)

S: One more quick news item before we go on to a couple of emails. The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, in collaboration with the New York City Skeptics, is going to be holding a conference. The conference is called the Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism. So, you know how to pronounce that acronym?

B: “Nexus”.

S: “Nexus”. So, NECSS –

E: “Nexus?” (Laughs).

S: So this is the “Nexus” conference. You won't believe how long it took us to come up with that. Seriously.

E: I like it.

(Rogues Laugh)

B: I believe it.

E: At least 12 parsecs.

S: Right. This'll be on September 12th, 2009, this year. This'll be our 2nd annual Perry DeAngelis live SGU show. But in addition, it's going to be an all-day conference. And here's the lineup of speakers we have so far. You ready?

J: Do it.

E: Ready.

S: James Randi

E: Woo-hoo!

R: I know him.

S: Carl Zimmer

R: Oh, I know him!

E: Cool.

S: John Rennie.

B: Johnny!

R: Holy crap!

J: Oh, John Rennie's awesome.

S: Paul Offit.

E: Nice!

S: Massimo Pigliucci.

J: Well, he's a cool dude.

S: He's a cool guy. George Hrab

R: Hey!

E: Oh, you got George!

J: I love that man.

S: Kaja Perina, Howard Schneider, John Snyder. It's “Schneider” and “Snyder”. Don't get those confused.

(Rogues laugh)

S: Michael De Dora, and Jamy Ian Swiss, who's going to emcee it for us, this year.

R: Very cool.

E: That's a nice, nice lineup.

B: What a lineup!

S: That's quite a lineup, isn't it?

B: Sweet!

E: And us!

S: So, the venue is, like, 90 percent solid. But we're not gonna tell you what it is yet, until it's 100 percent solid. We'll probably have that within the next week or two. But this is sort of a “save the date” announcement. September 12th, 2009. It's a Saturday. All-day conference. Of course, there'll be a live SGU show. But, around that there'll be all these great speakers and panels. It's gonna be awesome. This is, because of the venue and travel expenses and what-not, we are going to be charging for this event. We're setting up tickets through Ticketmaster, actually. Of course, you could also just pay at the door. And, we'll have that information, too, again, in the next week or two. So, this is, again, save the date, September 12th, 2009. Full details in the next week or two. And, we're hoping to make this, like, our annual northeastern skeptical conference. You know, it's – this is especially, like, for example, for people who live in the northeast who can't fly out all the way to Vegas. Well, you know, you're gonna get to see Randi, and us, and a lot of other people shortly after that at the NECSS conference.

R: Good times to be had.

J: So, Steve, you need to me to go to this, or what?

S: Jay, you're invited, man.

J: Okay. Thank you.

E: Yeah. You have a seat in the twelfth row, on the side.

(Laughter)

R: Aw.

E: And, this is something we've been discussing, even long before a podcast.

S: Yeah.

E: As part of the NESS, and in the '90s and early 2000s, we always wanted to have a northeastern conference.

S: Absolutely. If it's successful –

R: Yeah.

S: – then this is absolutely the kind of thing we want to do every year.

R: Of course it's going to be successful, Steve. You have to envision it as though it's already happened.

S: (Laughs) That's right.

R: That's what I learned from Oprah.

S: Is that The Secret?

B: (Laughs)

E: And the secret.

R: That's the secret.

E: Shh – the secret!

S: (Laughs) It will be successful!

E: You said, “the secret”!

S: And thanks to all the guys at the New York City Skeptics. They're really doing a lot of the heavy lifting on this one.

R: They're so fantastic. Mike Feldman.

S: Oh, yeah. Awesome guys.

R: He's been kicking butt.

J: (Doing an impression) It's fantastic, man! (Laughs) 

(Rogues laugh)

== Questions and E-mails ==

=== Question # 1 - Polonium Halos (25:29) ===
<blockquote>As a former creationist, one of the most persuasive arguments that I remember is that of polonium halos in granite. Dr. Robert Gentry claims to have discovered proof of an instantaneous creation of earth in the form of the halos of radioactive polonium in undisturbed granite. He challenges mainstream science to reproduce such an artifact in the laboratory or explain how such a thing could happen naturally. What do you think about this guy, and are his claims at all weighty? Thanks for the great show, guys. I regularly listen to about ten podcasts, and I've got to say that yours is the one I most eagerly wait for every week. P.S. I recently listened to your 2008 year-in-review episode again and had an idea. I've purchased all of the bonus content of the show and loved it, and I would unhesitatingly pay twice as much for an uncensored clip of the show in which Jay's cat barfed on his keyboard. What do you say, Skeptics? Please? Trinity Melvin Valparaiso, Florida</blockquote>

S: All right, let's go on to a couple of your questions and emails. The first one comes from Trinity Melvin, from Valparaiso, Florida.

E: I love that name, by the way.

S: Trinity?

E: Yeah. Well, Trinity Melvin.

J: Well, I like Valparaiso.

S: (Laughs) (Doing a Jerry Lewis impression) Melvin, Melvin!

J: (Doing a Jerry Lewis impression) Mel, Mel, Mel, Melvin!

(Laughter)

S: She writes,

<blockquote>As a former creationist, one of the most persuasive arguments that I remember is that of polonium halos in granite. Dr. Robert Gentry claims to have discovered proof of an instantaneous creation of earth in the form of the halos of radioactive polonium in undisturbed granite. He challenges mainstream science to reproduce such an artifact in the laboratory or explain how such a thing could happen naturally. What do you think about this guy, and are his claims all that weighty? Thanks for the great show, guys. I regularly listen to about ten podcasts, and I've got to say that yours is the one I most eagerly wait for every week.</blockquote>

R: Aw.

E: Awesome.

R: Well, thank you, Trinity. This is a good question. I actually, prior to your question, I'd never heard of polonium halos.

B: Yeah, I didn't either.

S: And I thought I'd heard every creationist bull-crap argument out there. But this was a new one. But Bob and I looked into it. And, why don't you give us the skinny, Bob?

B: Yeah. This one's been around, apparently, for quite a while. First off, Robert V. Gentry, I found him on the “Who's Who in Creation/Evolution website. They list him first and foremost, he's listed as a creationist. Then, below that, physicist and chemist. He has an honorary doctorate from the Fundamentalist Columbia Union College. And he has a Master's in Physics from the University of Florida. So –

J: Imagine having all that and putting “creationist” first?

B: Yeah.

(Laughter)

B: Absolutely.

J: Jackass.

B: The halos that Trinity's talking about, these halos in rock, they're called pleochroic halos. They can appear in rock like granite. What they are, essentially, are spherical bands of discoloration. Or, perhaps, a better term would be “shells of radiation damage”, 'cause that's, essentially, what these discolorations are. They're bits of radiation damage. And they're caused by alpha particles. Alpha particles are – it's a type of radiation, it's basically two protons and neutrons that are released by unstable atoms. These alpha particles are very ionizing radiation, and they – what happens, though, during alpha decay, when these protons leave the atom, you're basically changing the atom into a different element, right? Because the protons that are in the nucleus, that's what determines the chemical properties. So, that, when you have some protons leaving the nucleus – bam, you must have a different element. Now, if it was neutrons, it would be a different story. 'Cause the neutrons just determines the isotope. It's still that element, but just a different isotope of that element. Now, what happens is, when you have this radiation leaving the element in, say, in granite, it leaves a ring. It creates these distinctive, nested concentric rings of damage to the rock. So, if you would – say you had a bit of uranium-238 in rock. It would slowly decay and create a ring from the alpha particles being – the high-energy alpha particles being released. And then you go through to all the daughter elements: thorium, radium, radon, polonium, and lead. So, each different element would then create a different ring that would maybe be further apart – further away from the center. So, can you see what I'm saying? You've got this alpha decay creating these concentric rings of discoloration depending on what element the parent particle has decayed into. Okay?

S: Right.

B: So, Gentry – the anomaly that Gentry is primarily talking about – he found polonium rings. He found these polonium ring halos, but they didn't have any parent rings inside of it that would of – like, say, uranium or thorium. So, you've got these naked polonium rings. What do you think that would mean? If you have this ring all by itself, then that means that polonium was somehow there when the rock was formed. So, that's what he believes. That polonium was there, the rock cooled, and then it made this ring when the polonium decayed. The problem is, is that the half-life of polonium is very, very short. On the matter of either minutes, seconds, or microseconds, depending on the isotope.

S: Or days

B: Or days, on the higher end.

S: Seconds to days is the range, yeah.

B: Right. The higher end was days. But, that doesn't matter. Most geologists will tell you that granite takes many, many years to cool. So, then, how could this possibly happen? How could granite cool on one hand in many, many years, or even millions of years, but the half-life of polonium is very, very brief. So how could you – you know, how do you justify those two things? I actually found a great – an excellent analogy on a very credulous site. But I'm going to use their analogy anyway, 'cause it was very good. “It was like coming across Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water.” Say you find frozen water and there's Alka-Seltzer bubbles. Clearly, for whatever tests you perform, these are Alka-Seltzer – you know, the bubbles formed in a liquid when you drop Alka-Seltzer tablets in water. Well, your only conclusion would have to be that the water froze very, very fast in order for these Alka-Seltzer bubbles to remain, right? 'Cause they're –

S: To be captured. Yeah.

B: – They don't last very long. These bubbles are very fleeting. The water would actually have to be flash-frozen very quickly in order for these things to remain. So, in a similar way, the radiation from the polonium must have created these halos right after the granite froze. So, the conclusion that they would like everyone to come to is that the Earth – the granite in the Earth – did not form in thousands or millions of years, but within maybe thirty minutes, or less.

S: Or instantaneously.

B: Clearly requiring some sort of supernatural agency to come in and do this. 'Cause he's trying to promote his Young Earth Creationism, and that just totally plays into that. They keep saying, “Oh, how could – you know – science has no explanation for this.” And, it's true that there's no clear-cut experiment that a geologist can perform to show you exactly how this is done. But I think it's pretty widely accepted, and a lot of websites I came across – a lot of geologists believe that what happens, is that the uranium decays into radon gas, which is a precursor to the polonium. So, you've got the various uranium, and thorium and other elements decomposing. And, one of these elements that it decomposes into is radon gas. Which, then, can migrate away from the original site where the uranium was originally. And, then, that would decay into polonium, which would then make these naked polonium halos without any apparent connection to the uranium.

S: Right.

B: This belief is supported by the fact that a lot of, or all of Gentry's polonium halos are found near cracks in rock that contain uranium halos. So, there's always a connection between these naked polonium halos and the uranium halos. So, there's clearly a connection between them, and as far as I could tell, they have not found any polonium halos in rock without any uranium, either deposits or halos nearby. So, to me, that's – it seems much more likely that that is the reason why you've got these halos than the Earth was created instantaneously. But the problems don't end there. There's lots of problems with just this guy's geology. This guy's not a geologist. He's got a master's in physics, but he's not a geologist. And he makes basic errors that regular geologists would not make, according to, at least, a lot of the authors on talk.origins website. One quote from that website said that “In Gentry's model, any rock looking vaguely like granite and carrying the label 'Precambrian' is considered to be primordial rock.”

S: Yeah, so, basically, he's saying that these polonium halos occur in the original crust of the Earth – the oldest crust of the Earth. But he's counting anything Precambrian, which is up to, say, 600 million years ago –

B: Yeah.

S: – as primordial Earth crust. When, in fact, there's, like, 3 ½ billion years in the Precambrian. He's counting all of it as primordial. He even, however, had some rock – granite that he was labeling as primordial that was above, and therefore younger than, fossil-bearing strata, and, clearly, like, recent strata. You know, more recent, even, than the Cambrian. So, he totally blew the geology.

B: He did.

S: And then – he was anomaly hunting, right? He thought he had an anomaly, but there's completely plausible explanations. And, also, his physics requires that, in order for his dating – his timeline to work out, the Earth is whatever – Young Earth Creationist – 10 thousand years old. Again, this is something that the Young Earth Creationists have to do, is argue that the decay rate of different elements – different radioactive elements is not constant, right? 'Cause if we use decay rates to age rocks, even if we use different decay rates, we come up – so, independently, to date rocks, we come up with roughly the same date. You know, rocks will date to be 4 billion years old, even if you use different methods to figure out how old they are. So, that's pretty good confirmation that it's actually 4 billion years old. But Gentry says, “No. That's because decay rates are not the same today as they were 10 thousand years ago. That they've, essentially, been slowing down. Things decayed much, much faster back then.” But his argument would require that different elements vary to different degrees, but all conspire to come up with the same age, even when you use different dating methods. Except for –

B: Polonium!

S: Polonium!

B: Right!

S: Which is the one element whose decay rate is the same as it was before. So that's a ''massive'' amount of special pleading. It's just miracle after, you know, supernatural intervention, after special pleading. All to jury-rig it to make it all work out so that it's consistent with the Young Earth. And, of course, that's all BS.

B: One writer referred to, though, Steve – is, he called them “singularities”, where he had, you know, “divine intervention” to help save his theory. And I could see maybe one or two divine interventions, but when you go to three divine interventions, that's just one too many.

R: One to many... that's how many you need to be a saint, so maybe he's applying for something.

S: You're saying he went a miracle too far, Bob?

B: Yeah. At least one.

S: So, that's like that famous New Yorker cartoon with the complex mathematical equation, and then at the end it says, “And then a miracle happens”. And then you get your answer. You can't do that in science. You can't do it once, let alone three times. Sorry.

== Interview with Phil Plait ==
* http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/ www.randi.org

=== Star Trek Movie (36:36) ===

S: Well, let's go on with our interview.

(Musical Interlude)

S: Joining us once again is Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer. Phil, welcome back to the SGU.

P: Hey, SGUers! S-Gooers? Sgooers?

S: (Laughs) Sgooers! Yeah.

P: Do you have a collective noun for you guys?

S: We're The Rogues.

P&J: The Rogues.

E: We're The Rogues!

P: Well, I always got the impression that Steve was in charge, and the rest of you guys were Rogues.

J: Actually, yeah, you're really not a Rogue, Steve.

E: He is. He's like Alex, and we're his Troupies.

J: You're like a pimp of The Rogues.

S: Well, whatever. I'm like Gladys Knight, and you're the Pips?

J: No, I said that you're a pimp. (Laughing) And we're The Rogues!

(Laughter)

S: So, Phil. You are here to talk about – a few things – but primarily the latest Star Trek movie. So, first of all, tell me how awesome you thought that movie was.

P: On a scale of one to ten, it was “warp factor 9”! Um....

S: (Laughs)

P: Yeah, I don't know, how dorky can I be? I mean, you guys aren't big Star Trek fans, are you?

(Rogues laugh)

P: I never hear you talking about it. No, okay, I know. I hear you guys dorking out over Trek every episode. You talked about Trek – I – One of you slipped in a Trek line with Rusty Schweickart, and I'm not sure if he got it or not. But, it sounded like he might have.

S: Bob did, and it sounded like he got it. You know, he at least off it well enough.

P: That was pretty awesome.

(Rogues laugh)

P: You know, I liked this movie quite a bit. I was walking into it, thinking –

B: “Please, please, please...”

P: “Yeah, well, you know, J.J. Abrams. You know, I liked ''Cloverfield''. And ''Lost'', I watched one episode and said, “Yeah, this is going nowhere”.

J&E: (Laugh)

P: So, I wasn't sure what to expect. And, you know, I knew it was going to reboot, and I knew it was going to be different. But, in fact, you know, I think going in with lower expectations sometimes works –

B: Oh –

P: – 'cause I really liked it.

S: Oh yeah.

B: Absolutely.

P: So, I watched it a second time... and liked it just as much. So, yeah, I dug this movie.

S: And, just before we go on, there's going to be no way to talk about this without huge spoilers coming in. So, if you haven't seen the Star Trek movie yet and you don't want any spoilers, go see it now, and then come back and listen to the rest of the show.

P: Yeah, we'll wait.

E: Yeah, all five of you who haven't seen it yet who listen to the show.

(Rogues laugh)

S: Okay. They're back.

J: (Laughs)

P: Welcome back, everyone!

E: (Laughs)

S: Now, Phil, you wrote a blog entry, doing as you do, examining the science in the science fiction movie of “Star Trek”. So, some of it good. Some if it, you know, meh. Some of it speculative, some of it not so good. What was the biggest howler you thought of, in this movie?

P: Well, you gotta be a little bit careful here, because, you know, that blog post has almost 400 comments on it.

S: Yeah.

P: Clearly, people, you know, they take Trek to heart, whether they love it or hate it. I'm not going to talk about, you know, time travel, or warp drive, or phasers, or transporters. When you watch a movie that's Star Trek, you're buying into the background of it. Just like in Star Wars, you can argue endlessly over whether a parsec is a unit of distance or time, or whether they went around black holes, or whatever.. You just gotta buy into it. And with Star Trek, I'm not going to argue that – you know, I'll only start talking about either introduced science, something that's new to the show, or when they do things inconsistently, like they regenerate Doctor Pulaski to when she was younger using the transporter and a bit of DNA, and in the next episode they totally forget about that.

E: (Laughs)

P: It's like, “You know, we can all be young forever. Hey!” But, you know.

S: Right.

P: So, in this movie I'm not gonna – you know, I don't worry about warp drive. Warp drive is just as fast as the writers need it to be to get the Enterprise where it needs to be for maximum dramatic effect. That's how fast warp drive is, right?

S: Exactly.

J: (Laughs) That's actually true, that's good.

P: And you can argue time travel as much as you want. It's kind of fun. I'll always be happy to talk to people about paradoxes or, you know, whether you're creating an alternate universe, or something like that. But, you know, I'm not too worried about that for discussion of the science in the movie. I'm more concerned about, you know, the depiction of other things that happen. Like, when the guys are jumping out of a shuttle and free-falling down to Vulcan. What's gonna happen? So that was kind of cool. But, to answer your question, which always seems to take me a long time when I'm on this show, obviously, it's the red matter. I mean, that was, really, just a – you know, ''really? Red matter?'' That's where we're going with this?

S: Yeah.

P: You know, it's a giant center of a target symbol. That was just kind of silly. That was too big of a MacGuffin to ignore. I kind of wish they had done it some other way.

B: Or at least give a better name.

P: Yeah. The name was pretty silly.

B: (Pompous voice) Red matter!

P: But, then again, you know, they would have just called it “the decatron field”, or something like that.

E: Mm-hm. Yeah.

P: The idea here is that Romulan nutzoid-guy convinces Spock and the Vulcan Science Academy to use this material called “Red Matter” to create, basically, an artificial black hole – it's a real black hole, but they artificially create it – to stop a supernova from wiping out the galaxy

B: Ooh!

P: And, there's just hordes of nasty, ridiculous plot holes here. You know, one supernova can't wipe out the galaxy. And some people said, “Oh, there were some comic books that came out that --

B: Right.

P: – described that it created a chain of supernovae.” And, I think, “Yeah, but you know what? These guys, 400 years from now? They got warp drive and huge ships. 'Evacuate your planet!'” You know –

S: Right.

P: – maybe you can save somebody. You know, it doesn't make any sense.

S: Well, there was some speculation that it was like a subspace hypernova or something. But –

P: Oh, well, then there you go.

S: There you go. But even then –

P: You should publish these, Steve. That's good. An astrophysical journal would love that.

S: If there was a phenomenon that could wipe out the galaxy, you would think it would happen every now and then.

P: Um, well, yeah. You know, it's been a few thousand years since the last one happened, right? So...

B: (Laughs)

P: And it was just kind of silly. You know, if you're creating a black hole, it's a little tiny black hole. When you collapse a planet down to become a black hole, it's only about a centimeter across. That's how much you have to compress a planet before, by definition, it becomes a black hole. And, so, it would be very difficult to fit a large Romulan mining ship into a black hole that is a ''centimeter'' across. Not to mention the tidal effects, which would rip the ship apart. And a billion other problems. So, you know, it's – at some level you have to say “Yep, Star Trek”, and not worry about it.

J: Real quick, stupid question, maybe. So, the more of that Red Matter they use, the bigger the black hole?

P: It's unclear. You know, they only need to use a little drop to collapse a planet. And in the end of the movie, Spock rams a ball of the stuff a meter across into the Romulan ship. And it doesn't seem to create a black hole any bigger. So, I think this is one of those things where it just becomes, “this is something we need to do so we have an excuse to reboot the franchise.” and just say, “All right, got it. Let's move on from there.”

J: Yeah.

S: Yeah, I agree. But I think it gets a little lazy. I mean, I understand that why they needed to do what they did for plot reasons. But, you know, it's a science fiction movie. Think about the science a little bit, and come up with an interesting sort of way of doing it. It's still going to be speculative. It's still going to involve future science that isn't real or that we don't have yet. That was just a little to close to just saying, “Okay, it's magic. There's this magic stuff which does whatever we want to do.

P: Yeah, really. I mean, if they had talked to – well, they did talk to an astronomer, Carolyn Porco, who is the imaging lead of the Cassini Saturn probe. They consulted her for one scene, and it's pretty obvious in the movie what scene that would be, when you see Titan and Saturn. And they used her idea. And they actually did a relatively decent job of it, although they kind of screwed up the graphics a little bit. They show Titan orbiting Saturn in an orbit it isn't orbiting it in. And you might say, well, that's silly. But, in fact, Titan orbits in the same plane as Saturn's rings. So, if you're on Titan, and you look at Saturn, the rings would be a terribly thin line. You'd barely be able to see it. In the movie they depict it as being way above the plane of the rings. But, you know. You gotta do that.

B: Yeah.

E: They look cool. Yeah.

P: If you're at Saturn, you gotta show the rings, right? So, all right, the rings don't have a magnetic field, so Chekov was wrong about that. All right, all right. It was still a really cool scene.

J: Phil, you know what I love?

P: And it was inspired by a scientist who said, “You should do it this way.” So that kind of rocked.

J: Phil, it's so cool that you know enough that you watch the movie and you're like, “Aw, the perspective is way off here.” Like, I would 'never' know that fact that you just said. Never.

B: (Laughs)

P: Well, it also makes me a little bit of an anal dickhead. You know, you gotta be – if I do say so myself. You gotta be careful not to 'over'-analyze this stuff. And, that's sorta where I'm coming in. If you're creating a movie, and you're spending a bazillion dollars on it and everything, sometimes it pays off to talk to a scientist. Especially someone like Carolyn, who knows Saturn like the back of her hand, and can come up with something really cool. And, typically, you know, I've been approached by directors and producers in the past, of TV shows or whatever, to say, “You know, we're trying to do this. We want to make it realistic.” And then, what happens is that the ''real'' science turns out to be ''totally'' awesome and a lot better –

B: Ha!

P: – than anything they would have come up with.

S: Right.

P: That happened in ''Deep Impact''. I won't give a specific example, but there was one TV show where I said, “You know, you guys could do it ''this'' way, and then you'll wind up having – you'll have your spaceship screaming into a gas giant atmosphere, and it'll be ''really'' cool.” And they really loved that idea. And I actually don't know if they ever used it. But that happens, you know. So, had they come to someone who knows about supernovae or gamma ray bursts, you know, maybe we could have come up with something better than “red matter” and a supernova. But, who knows. Maybe not. And even if we had, they may have opted not to use it. You know, they're just gonna do what they're gonna do. The best we can hope for is to come up with something cool and basically hope they can use it.

J: Yeah. So, basically, everyone, Phil Plait: “Dickhead for hire”. Just give a call.

P: That's true. For a million bucks, I will vet ''your'' script. So there.

E: (Laughs) And point out all the flaws.

P: Oh, great!

S: One thing that I think is coming up here is that there's a difference between taking poetic license. Like, okay, you gotta put Titan above the plane of Saturn's rings so that we can see the beautiful rings. That's purely an aesthetic choice. Okay. I could buy that. Versus just laziness and in not exploring the real science, 'cause as you say when you do that it turns out to be a lot more interesting than the crap that people come up with on their own, who don't really understand the science.

P: I think this is a point worth emphasizing. Because, you know, if I'm a director like JJ Abrams, or someone like that, my first thought is not gonna be to care about the real science. You know, I'm making a movie and if the science is depicted incorrectly or not, I don't care. The point is, if you talk to a real scientist they are likely to show you something that would never have occurred to you. As imaginative as these writers are, as the directors are, as the special effects team is, a real scientist will have a different perspective and may be able to come up with something that, visually, would be tremendously appealing. Whether it's accurate or not, it might be just simply a perspective that the team of writers doesn't have.

J: You know, also, one issue that bothers us quite often, here, like, as a group – Skeptic's Guide – you know, we don't like science being misrepresented in the news and everything. You know, and I'd have to say that does go for even science fiction movies. The idea here is, show things that are as accurate as it can be with our knowledge of science today just so you don't spread misinformation.

P: I'm just more concerned that they'll just get a – a sort of a – pardon the pun – a warped sense of what science is and what it can do.

S: Right.

P: On the other hand, if you go to any astronaut today, or any astronomer around my age, and say, “What inspired you to do this?” They will say, “Star Trek, Lost in Space, Space 1999, Star Wars”, for the younger astronomers these days. And, so, as terrible as these shows are for the depiction of science, the do inspire people. So, it's possible they're inspiring despite the science in them. And it makes me wonder, what would happen if the science were done a little bit more accurately and if ''scientists'' were portrayed a little more accurately, which is something that ''is'' being done a lot better today than it was, certainly, in the 1950s. So, you know, the next generation of scientists is being inspired by the movies that are coming out today. And I'd like to see that being done even better than it's being done now.

S: Yeah. To some degree fiction is the mythology of our modern culture. You know, the movies serve the same role in our culture that, you know, Shakespeare did hundreds of years ago, and plays did thousands of years ago. So, it does reflect back on the culture, but also influences the culture as well. That's why I get more concerned about the portrayal of science and scientists, as you say, than picky details about scientific facts.

E: Yeah. You know what I get reminded of, Steve? Brent Spiner's character in ''Independence Day''.

S: Yeah.

E: If you remember that movie. He was kind of this, you know –

B: Mad scientist.

S: The mad scientist.

E: Frizzled hair, recluse mad scientist. And the movies definitely, definitely help –

B: Foster that.

E: – portray that stereotype and perpetuate it.

S: Yeah.

P: They reflect and they direct our perception of science and scientists.

S: Yeah.

J: Phil, was there any other parts of the movie that you wanted to talk about that stuck out? That you didn't like?

S: Or that you did like. Like, I know you mentioned the one scene where they had had silence in space was a refreshing change.

E: Yeah.

P: Not only was the silence in space cool – and, you know, sure. They have, you know, when the ships go into warp they whoosh away and all that. But the two times they showed silence in space that I recall –

B: It's effective.

P – Both times were ''incredibly'' dramatic. Where the Kelvin is getting just ''pummeled'' by the Romulan ship. And there's explosions, and noise, and everything, and then a crewman gets blown out into space. And, suddenly, there's silence, which made it ''really'' dramatic.

B: How rare is that?

P: ''2001'' did it, and so did ''Firefly''. And a handful of other shows have done it as well.

B: Yeah, not many!

S: Yeah.

P: I don't think it's been done to such dramatic effect. To have all the noise, and then that. And the second time was when Kirk and McCoy and, basically, Officer Redshirt are on the shuttle, and do their little spaceship dive to Vulcan–

B: It was Sulu. Not McCoy, Sulu.

P: Excuse me, Sulu. Yeah. And there's a lot of noise and everything, and then they're ejected out, and then once again it's silent. It's jarring. It shakes you out of the background of the movie itself. It makes you pay more attention to what you're seeing.

E: Yes.

S: That's always been interesting to me, because I thought that Kubrick used the silence of space to ''incredibly'' dramatic effect in ''2001''. And I'm surprised that didn't set the standard for the genre after that. I'm still not sure why that is.

P: It's simply because you're not used to it. And there's that legend, and I still don't know if it's true or not, that Roddenberry was showing rushes of the show to test groups, basically, with no sound in space –

B: Who?

P: – everybody said they hated it.

B: Ooh, wow.

P: And, so, in Star Trek, they added the sound in because people didn't like it.

=== Million Dollar Challenge (52:07) ===

S: Well, Phil, before we let you go, I wanted to touch on a couple of other topics. You've written, recently, about the most recent million dollar psychic challenge. Can you give us a quick synopsis of that? It was kind of interesting.

P: Right. This last challenge was actually done in the UK. And Professors Chris French and Richard Wiseman actually are the ones who ran it. Patricia Putt applied to win James Randi's million dollar paranormal challenge, where if you can prove that you have some sort of psychic power, paranormal or supernatural claim, we'll give you a million bucks. It's not quite that simple, but it's not too much harder than that. This was a preliminary test. The person has to, basically, negotiate protocols. If you have a claim that you can, for example, predict the throw of a pair of dice every time then you would set up something where somebody throws dice randomly, and then you have to agree on how many times you can predict it such that, you know, it can't be one-sixth of the time, for example, because that's – or one, or whatever the statistics are. If you can guess a random number between 1 and 10 one-tenth of the time, you're not psychic. You're Gaussian, is what you are.

S: Yeah.

P: And, so, we have to negotiate those protocols. Both sides, or both parties have to agree to these protocols. And, so that was negotiated in advance. Patricia Putt went through this with Alison Smith, who is a staff member of the JREF, and the protocols were set up. And, basically, Patricia Putt's claim, in a nut shell, is that by listening to someone talking, she can write down all sorts of things about their personality. So, she read ten women, and she wrote down their personality readings – their profiles. And, then, after the fact, these ten women each got to look at these ten profiles and pick the one that they felt represented them the best. Statistically, you should expect something like one out of ten, because that's just random chance that one person is going to randomly pick theirs. The limit for this in the protocols, what Patricia Putt predicted she would be able to do, was five out of ten, which was hugely over statistical randomness. And, we agreed that if she could pick five, then something was going on, and then she could move on to the final challenge, where it would be done again, basically.

What happened was, after the fact, the women were allowed to choose their readings, and she scored zero. That would be ''zero'', for those of you reading at home. Nothing. Zilch. None of the women picked the profile that Patricia wrote for them, specifically. What was interesting is what happened ''after'' this. Immediately afterwards, and Richard Wiseman wrote about this on his blog, if you look up his website, Richard Wiseman on the web. He wrote this up, and evidently she was quite shaken by this. Miss Putt was shocked, and didn't – she didn't say, “Wow, I must not be psychic”, or anything like that. But she felt that the test was fair, and was actually rather magnanimous about the whole thing. But, then, later, she changed her mind a little bit. And we see this a lot. We see this a lot, that, after the fact, there's rationalizations. And she said that the women that she was trying to read were “bound up too much” and could not perform. She couldn't “read” them that way. That's not true. The women weren't “bound up”. They were hidden from her view in such a way that she couldn't read their faces if they subconsciously, you know, smiled, or grimaced, or anything like that that would allow her to read them basically using cold-reading techniques. So, that wasn't true. And then she left a comment on Richard Wiseman's blog saying that, in fact, she did not get zero out of ten. She got ''ten'' out of ten correct. And because – and this just slays me – each woman did, in fact, pick a profile that matched her. It's like –

S: Yeah.

P: No, it doesn't work that way. Part of the protocol was that each woman had to pick the one that matched her ''best''. Of course they had to pick one. It was, you know – there's a 100 percent chance that each woman's gonna pick one. It doesn't matter what she said. And, therefore, her saying that she got ten out of ten is simply a rationalization after the fact. Now, there have been – I've seen some complaints – I wrote about this on my blog. Richard Wiseman has. Christopher French wrote about it in ''The Guardian'', the newspaper in the UK. And there have been some interesting comments. One person saying, “Well, this isn't a scientific test.” And I find that kind of humorous, because it's not a ''rigorously'' scientific test. But the variables are, in some sense, controlled. In a scientific test, you know, yes. We should do 10,000 of these readings, and that would give us good statistics. But, in a scientific test you have to control some of the variables, and that's been done. Miss Putt couldn't look at the faces of these women, couldn't – they were all women, so she couldn't write down “she” versus “he is a person that does this”, so that, right away, you can eliminate some of the readings. All of these variables were controlled in such a way that, if she were psychic, she should have been able to do better than a random distribution would say. She didn't, and so we cannot say psychic powers don't exist. We cannot say psychic powers ''do'' exist. We can't even say Patricia Putt is not a psychic. All we can say is that she agreed to the protocols, the protocols were statistically derived, and would have been statistically significant, and she did not do better than random chance. Therefore, in this particular case, there was no proof of psychic abilities.

S: One again.

P: Yes. Once again.

S: What she's doing is the equivalent, logically, of the “one ahead” trick that ESP researchers have done for a while. The results come back negative, but then they look to see if they can make ''any'' match between the predictions and the data. Right? So, oh, well if you look at the card ''ahead'' of what they were guessing, that was a little bit better than chance. Or the one ''behind''. Or, if you discard the first 50, and then start counting from there. Right?

P: Right.

S: There's all sorts of ways to increase the probability. Although she found a way to increase it to 100 percent. So that's very creative of her to do that. Because, as you said, they each picked something, right? So, she couldn't lose.

P: I like to tell people, sometimes, when I give talks, that ''90 percent'', ''90 percent'' or ''more'', of all violent crimes occur within a week of the new or full moon.

(Rogues laugh)

P: And people don't get it, right? You guys get it, right? Because within a week of the new or full moon, you add that up, that's four weeks. And the moon goes – you know, it's 28 days – the moon goes around the Earth in 29 days. So, 28 out of 29, statistically, of violent crime, should happen within that time period. It ''sounds'' like you're saying, “within a week of each other. All violent crimes happen” – you know –

E: Mm-hm.

S: Yeah.

P: So, that's a way of changing the goal posts and relying on people's poorly understood statistics to pull one over. Now, I'm not saying she's trying to pull one over. According – you know, I haven't met the woman. I've only read what she's written. But, according to Richard and Christopher, she seems like an honest person.

J: It's so classic, though, that the woman goes home, thinks about it for a little while, and then very, very decisively deludes herself into thinking, “Nope. They were wrong and I was right.”

P: Yeah. In Richard Wiseman's blog comments she said that she walked into this thinking it was going to be one-sided biased towards the JREF. That's ''really'' unfair because she agreed to the protocols and said that everything was fine. Now it's – you know, after the fact you can say, “Oh”. Who hasn't signed a contract and looked back on it and thought, “What was I thinking?” But this is such a gross misreading that it seems to defy belief, if you pardon the expression, that somebody would agree to a contract like that, thinking they would walk into it, that it was so biased for the JREF and against the claimant. So, I'm not buying that argument. It just seems that, you know, they always seem to complain about these protocols after they lose and ''never'' before they take the test.

=== TAM (1:00:31) ===

J: Hey, Phil. Let's talk about TAM, babe. What do we got?

E: What don't we have? That's a shorter list.

P: Oh, man. TAM is steaming along. TAM, I should say TAM ''Vegas'', TAM ''7'', is steaming along very well. This is July 9th through 12th, 2009 at the Southpoint Hotel, Casino, and Spa, in sunny – and believe me, it's gonna be sunny. Like “surface of the sun” sunny – in Vegas. We got – our speakers are lined up. We've got so many speakers, we're trying to figure out, you know, how to schedule all of this incredible talent. You know, I don't want to sound like I'm shoveling something, here, but I'm ''so'' excited about this.

E: (Laughs)

P: Our keynote speaker is Bill Prady from ''The Big Bang Theory'', he's the Executive Producer. I've been talking with him and I'm really excited about – he's a – the guy's a true geek, and so he's gonna have a lot of fun up there showing clips and discussing it. Jennifer Ouellette from Cocktail Party Physics Blog, who's also part of the Science & Entertainment Exchange, talking to big time, and I mean ''big time'' Hollywood producers and directors to get better science in the movies, apropos of our discussion earlier. We got, you know, the usual lineup of Penn & Teller, and Shermer, Adam Savage, Randi, me. But we also have you guys, right? Every morning!

S: Absolutely.

P: Do an SGU Live. You guys will be doing some interviews while we're there. And, of course, Steve is also, on Thursday, running the Science-based Medicine meeting, which I hear is actually doing pretty well.

S: Yeah, it's gonna be really exciting. Again, it's gonna – we're gonna offer continuing medical education credits for physicians, but the conference is gonna be geared towards a general audience. So, if you want to hear – I think there's 7 of us – different physicians talking about science-based medicine and skills you could use to navigate the health claims that are out there on the internet, and dealing with your physician, et cetera. It'll be a fun conference for anybody.

P: You have great speakers lined up for that, and I'm actually hoping to be able to split my time between listening to someone like Dave Gorski talking, as well as attending the workshops. We have some extra-curricular workshops that we're running on Thursday, July 9th. We're also doing – we have a vaccination clinic in Las Vegas. You can donate money so that kids in Las Vegas can get vaccinated. Las Vegas has some of the lowest vaccination rates –

E: Yeah.

P: – in the country. And we know what happens when we lose our herd immunity. We're hearing about that in the news. When people like Jenny McCarthy get traction –

E: Ugh.

P: – babies start dying. It's really just that simple. When the claims of the anti-vaxxers get spread in the populace, we start getting kids with pertussis, and measles, and it's putting them at risk of horrible diseases as well as possibly dying. We can't have that happen. So, we're running a vaccination clinic. I've just got a ton of stuff going on, and I'm really excited about it.

S: Well, Phil, thanks again for joining us. It's always a pleasure.

P: Oh, my pleasure. Thank you. It's even better when Rebecca's not around.

(Rogues laugh)

S: And we all can't wait to see you in Vegas, man.

P: Oh, I'm totally, totally fired up for this.

J: Yeah, we are too.

E: It's gonna be awesome.

S: Take care.

B: See ya, Phil.

P: Thanks!

== Science or Fiction (1:03:43) ==
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090526202805.htm Item # 1]: Epidemiologists warn of a surge in the incidence of leprosy in India and other parts of Asia, which they fear may return to epidemic proportions.
[http://www.sciencecodex.com/following_a_healthy_lifestyle_is_on_the_decline_in_the_us Item # 2]: Researchers find that in the last 18 years the percentage of Americans following basic healthy lifestyle recommendations has declined.
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090526202730.htm Item # 3]: A cancer patient was detained at customs for several hours because the chemotherapy he was on caused him to lose his finger prints.

''It's time for “Science or Fiction”''

S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two real and one fictitious. And I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. And you all can play along at home. Is everyone ready for this week's items?

J: Absolutely.

B: Mm-hm.

R: Ready.

S: All right. Good. I don't want to take you by surprise, so I always check. Here we go. Item #1: Epidemiologists warn of a surge in the incidence of leprosy in India and other parts of Asia, which they fear may return to epidemic proportions. Item #2: Researchers find that in the last 18 years the percentage of Americans following basic healthy lifestyle recommendations has declined. Item #3: A cancer patient was detained at customs for several hours because the chemotherapy he was on caused him to lose his finger prints.

J: What?

S: You heard me.

B&E: (Laugh)

S: Evan, go first.

E: Okay. So, a surge in leprosy in India and other parts of Asia. Okay. The next one was “in the last 18 years the percentage of Americans following basic healthy lifestyle recommendations has declined”. I think that's tragically, probably true. And, then the last one was the cancer patient “detained at customs for several hours because the chemotherapy he was on caused him to lose his finger prints”. Oh, boy. Is that possible? How is – how would – chemotherapy can cause you to lose your fingerprints? Cause you to lose your hair. Well, but I think that one's – I think that's actually gonna be – wind up being true. And, therefore, I'll say that the healthy lifestyle recommendations declining over the last 18 years, I'll say that one is fiction.

S: Okay. Jay.

J: Epidemiologists warn of a surge of leprosy in India, and they fear it might return to epidemic proportions. I mean, I can definitely buy that for lots of different reasons. “Researchers find that in the last 18 years the percentage of Americans following basic healthy lifestyle recommendations has declined.” I don't know about that. I mean, I could see in the United States weight gain seems to be on the rise, ha-ha. But, I don't know. Not sure about that one. And the guy losing his fingerprints because of being on chemotherapy. What would the chemo do to his skin? You know, I'm dying to ask a question, Steve, like is all of his skin affected or just his fingerprints?

S: No comment.

E: Wow.

J: Okay. Well, then I will go with – I'll take – I'll say that the second one, the 18 years percentage of Americans following basic healthy lifestyle recommendations has declined, I'll say that's the fake.

S: Okay. Bob.

B: The leprosy one. Epidemic proportions. Ooh, I don't know about that one. It just feels like one of those things that you just never really think of coming back. Kind of like whooping cough, I guess. Not sure about that one. The 18 years of the basic lifestyle recommendations declining. I don't know. Yeah, that doesn't sound that right to me. I think that people following them probably is low as it's been in a while. Maybe even a little bit better, considering – I think, aren't less people smoking, at least in the States? And then the cancer one with the fingerprints. That certainly is bizarre. That's so bizarre I'm gonna say – I'm not going to doubt that for now. So, let me see. Between 1 and 2 –

R: Just pick one, Bob.

B: I know, I know. I'll go with the group then, with Jay and Evan, number 2. The lifestyle.

E: Yeah!

S: Okay. Rebecca

R: Okay, I too am torn between the leprosy and the healthy lifestyle options. And, my initial reation was to go with the healthy lifestyle thing because that seems like the sort of thing that you might make up. You know, because it sounds true, so obviously it's false. But, maybe that's what you ''want'' us to think, Steve.

B&E: (Laugh)

R: I haven't read anything about either of these. However, I did read something about leprosy recently. I believe it was something about the first person who had leprosy. I don't know. There's something in the news about that. I don't know. But, I'm wondering if maybe you're trying to rely upon us remembering leprosy was in the news and assuming that one's true. So I'm going to go against the group and say that the leprosy item is in fact false.

S: Okay. So we'll start with number 3. All of you think a cancer patient was detained at customs for several hours because the chemotherapy he was on caused him to lose his finger prints. And that one is... science.

B: That's interesting.

S: Yeah, that was an interesting one. Isn't it?

E: Remarkable.

S: Nobody went for that one. This is a patient who was taking a anti-cancer drug, a fairly common called Capecitabine, I think that's how you pronounce it. One of the adverse effects is called hand-foot syndrome, which is a chronic inflammation of the palms or soles of the feet. And if this is allowed to occur for a while, you could have, sort of, multiple episodes of inflammation of the palms and the skin coming off and blistering, et cetera that could actually remove the fingerprints, or eradicate the fingerprints from the palm, over time.

J: So, Steve, this is really localized to the hands, then?

S: The hands and feet. Hence, hand-foot syndrome.

E: Wow.

J: Oh, okay.

E: Oh, yeah.

S: Yeah. So, this actually happened to a patient who was getting this chemotherapy, and he was held up at immigration because he was coming in from another country, and they routinely, now, will fingerprint people just to check them against a list of, like, known terrorists. He didn't have any fingerprints, so they didn't know what to do with him. Eventually, they were able to verify his medical condition. So, this case actually led to recommendations for patients with this condition to carry a letter on them from their physician describing their medical condition and why they don't have any fingerprints. And there have been other cases similarly reported of patients losing their fingerprints as a side effect of this chemotherapy.

B: Interesting.

S: Yeah. Interesting. So, I guess we'll go back to number 1. Epidemiologists warn of a surge in the incidence of leprosy in India and other parts of Asia, which they fear may return to epidemic proportions. And, that one is... the fiction.

E: Hmm.

R: Ha, ha!

B: Ugh.

S: Good job, Rebecca.

R: (Laughs)

S: And, you're right. I did take this from – the real item was “The oldest evidence of leprosy found in India”.

R: (Laughs) I win!

S: So...

J: That's bullshit. This was rigged.

E&R: (Laugh)

S: They were able to find evidence of ''Mycobacterium leprae'' from a 4,000 year old skeleton from India. And this is now the oldest evidence of human infection with this disease.

E: Ew.

S: This was published in the journal, ''PLOS One'', or the Public Library of Science One. It's a medical – online, peer-reviewed medical journal. Demonstrates that leprosy was present in human populations in India at the very beginning of civilization, 2000 BC.

E: I thought you were going to say it was in a leprosy journal. Which I subscribe to. My editions always seem to fall apart though, as they come through the mail. I don't know why.

B: (Laughs)

E: Thanks, Bob!

S: Leprosy is not surging. It was that part I made up. And, it's – you know, whether or not you consider it an epidemic is a matter of definition. But, it's simmering along. But, the World Health Organization reports that “99.9% of regional populations have eliminated the disease”. So, it's pretty decreased.

E: 'Til they get Jenny McCarthy to come down.

S: Yeah, the last real outbreak that I could find was in the 1980s. So, the prevalence of leprosy has dropped 85 percent over the last ten years. So, it's actually on the wane.

E: Thank goodness.

S: What's interesting is that leprosy is not very contagious. It actually takes a long term intimate contact in order to spread the disease.

E: Ugh!

S: So, the people who are at risk are really family members. You know, people living with somebody with leprosy over years. That's almost what it takes to really spread it. So, it doesn't spread very easily or very quickly. But, it's a chronic disease. Once you have it, you have it.

J: What was that whole bit with, like, you know, people being, like, in the catacombs in Rome and all that and then that's, like, leprosy spread like crazy there.

S: What is true about this sort of – the classic image we have of leprosy of these sort of leper colonies on the edges of urban centers. It was a disease that really didn't start to spread in human populations until we really were crowded together in urban locations. Again, it really requires a high density to spread, because it is so minimally contagious. So, it really did crop up for the first time in the first cities. You know, in the first civilizations, in the first cities. And they did keep lepers segregated on the outskirts of these urban centers where it was spreading. So, that much is true. But, it really isn't very contagious, you know, as I said. Which means, that researchers find that in the last 18 years the percentage of Americans following basic healthy lifestyle recommendations has declined is... science!

B: (Laughs)

R: (Laughs)

S: Is also science. In fact, Americans are getting less healthy. So here are the – these are two large-scale studies of the US population, 1988 to 1994 compared to 2001 to 2006. So, encompassing a total of 18 years. And, they looked at adults 40 to 74 years old. And what they found was that – so, one healthy lifestyle factor that they looked at was maintaining a body mass index less than 30. And, the number of people are – looked at it the other way – the number of people who have a body mass index greater than 30 has increased from 28 percent to 36 percent. So –

B: Oh my God.

S: So, everyone knows that Americans are getting fatter, right? That's old news. So, that one was obvious. However, physical activity 12 times a month or more, so that's basically, you know, you're working out three days a week, decreased from 53 percent to 43 percent.

E: Ouch.

S: Smoking rates have not changed significantly. 26.9 percent to 26.1 percent. So, really, a minimal decrease. 26.9 to 26.1.

B: Wow.

S: Eating five or more fruits and vegetables a day has decreased from 42 percent to 26 percent. And, moderate alcohol use has increased from 40 percent to 51 percent. So, increasing too much alcohol use. The number of people adhering to all five healthy habits has decreased from 15 percent to 8 percent.

R&B: Wow.

S: Yeah, it's bad. So, we're going in the wrong direction despite all of the public awareness and, you know, really pushing it. People are just not adhering to these well-established healthy lifestyles.

R: I'm guessing that it's only going to get worse now that the economy has tanked, too. People tend to drink more, exercise less.

S: Yeah, probably. Eat cheaper food, which tends to be more high caloric. Yeah, it's interesting. You wonder, so, what are we not doing that we should be doing? What are we doing wrong? You know, of course I know a lot of people will blame physicians, but honestly, the evidence shows that physicians have a pretty minimal effect on these things. Yes, we should be telling patients, “don't smoke”, you know, “lose weight”, “eat better”, and we do. I mean, that's now so much a part of, just, basic medical care that – you know, physicians basically are telling patients to do these things, but the evidence shows that it just doesn't have that much of an impact.

R: Yeah, well, you know – but, I think there's no – you're not going to be able to pinpoint any one thing –

S: Yeah. I agree

R: – I mean, it's not the doctors it's – it's personal responsibility, it's crap marketing, it's, you know, awful companies pushing awful products. You know, it's all those things together. So, yeah, we just ''suck''.

S: I agree. But we do like to find our favorite things to blame, right? So we'll each find the thing that we dislike and blame that. Like, I like to blame the self help industry, which I think distracts people from the real answers by selling them the cheap and easy answers that don't actually work. Right?

R: Yeah. I think that's part of it. So, anyway, I won.

S: So, Rebecca won. Yeah, Rebecca won. Good job. You guys all tanked. You all fell for my leprosy dodge.

R: (Laughs)

== Who's That Noisy (1:16:56) ==
* Atlantic Croaker Fish

S: Evan. Remind me what you played last week again, for Who's That Noisy.

(Evan plays last week's clip. No dialogue)

S: And, what was that thumping noise?

E: That was a recording of a fish, if you can believe it. And, specifically, the Atlantic Croaker fish.

S: The Atlantic Croaker!

E: A recording made by scientists from the University of Rhode Island from 1962.

S: It reminded me a little bit of electric eels. Have you ever been at the aquarium and they have –

R: Yeah.

S: – a microphone in the electric eel tank and when –

E: Yeah.

S: – it sets off the discharges –

R: And gearing up.

S: Yeah. It kind of sounds like that.

E: That was, I think, the best guess. And someone from the message boards actually did guess electric eel, which I guess was the closest.

R: Did anyone guess “Croaker”?

E: No. Nobody guessed the Atlantic Croaker.

S: Ooh!

E: This was a very tough one. Lot of people guessed woodpeckers.

S: I was surprised that some people guess the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. I mean, come on!

E: (Laughs)

B: That was funny.

S: You don't think you would have heard about that on the SGU if we discovered the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker?

R: I hope you've got an easier one this time.

E: Yeah. I think I do. Well, at least it's a person. But, you'll hear in just a second, so here's this weeks Who's That Noisy?

<blockquote>That might be a pretty effective demonstration of my supernatural abilities. But, if there's one thing I want you guys to take away from this talk, it's that no matter whether you see it in print, whether you see it on TV, whether you hear about it from a friend. If it sounds supernatural, if it sounds beyond what's possible, you better believe that you are not getting the entire story.</blockquote>

E: All right. There you go. Who is that? Identify him! And good luck.

== Quote of the Week (1:18:44) ==
<blockquote>“I have adequately answered all your inquiries. I ask you to quietly rephrase these inquiries to yourself until they match my replies.” - Elbot (a chatterbot created by Fred Roberts)</blockquote>

J: Jay, do you have a quote for us?

J: I have a cool quote tonight, sent in by a listener named Ian Blackstone. And, Ian sent me a quote by Elbot. And, I don't know if any of you guys have ever heard about Elbot. I thought this was incredible. I love things like this. Elbot is actually a chatterbox program, which is a computer program that is designed to simulate intelligent conversation. So, what they do is, they have this textual conversation between Elbot and humans. And they test how many humans and for how long they can fool the humans into believing that this is actually another human that they're chatting with. This type of test was created by a man named Alan Turing. And, if you've ever heard of the Turing Test, that is the test. The test is, can a human decide whether they're talking to a machine or another human? But, the quote is actually from a conversation that somebody had with Elbot.

Computer voice: I have adequately answered all your inquiries. I ask you to quietly rephrase these inquiries to yourself until they match my replies.

J: Elbot didn't actually speak in a computer-generated voice, and – the reason why I did that was, I just thought it was funny that Elbot kind of gave back a really witty answer to the question I guess that the human was asking, so – so there it is.

S: Okay. Well, thank you for joining me, everyone, this week.

R: Thank you, Steve

E: Well done on two-oh-one.

B: Certainly.

S: Good job. Always a pleasure. And, until next week, this is your Skeptic's Guide to the Universe.

{{Outro119}}
== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

SGU Episode 200

2015-02-03T06:22:49Z

Mantis!: Proofread through Ida. Feel free to re-proof that portion, however. Found some typos and formatting issues.

{{Editing required
|transcription =
|proof-reading = y
|time-stamps =
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories =
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 200
|episodeDate = May 20th 2009 
|episodeIcon = File:Ida.jpg 
|previous = 
|next = 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|jay = y 
|evan = y 
|perry = 
|guest1 = 
|guest2 = 
|guest3 = 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2009-05-20.mp3
|forumLink =
|qowText = Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic. 
|qowAuthor = {{w|Thomas Henry Huxley}} 
|}}

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

S: Hello and welcome to the {{SGU}}. Today is Wednesday, May 20th, 2009, and this is episode number 200.

R: Yay!

E: Woo-hoo!

J: 200!

B: Don't you love the odometer effect?

S: Yeah, this is your host, Steven Novella, and joining me this week, as always, is Bob Novella …

B: Hey everybody.

S: … Rebecca Watson …

R: Hello everyone.

S: … Jay Novella …

J: Hey, guys!

S: … And Evan Bernstein …

E: And, hello! 200... incredible.

J: (Laughs) Evan! What the hell? That was so cheesy!

(Rogues Laugh)

R: That was pretty cheesy

J: (Snooty accent) And, hello!

E: (Snooty accent) Hello!

R: I feel like he just opened up a hotel room holding a glass of cheap champagne.

J: (Laughs)

B: Steve will fix it in post production. Steve, you have a “de-cheesy” button, right?

R: (Laughs) De-cheesify that.

S: There's a “De-fromage” filter.

B & R: (Laughs)

J: So what's happening? Is this a podcast? What are we doing here?

R: I think it is. It's our 200th!

E: Oh, it is our 200. I mean, it was May 4th in which we—of 2005—in which we actually recorded out very first episode. And we just celebrated that a couple weeks ago. And it so happens around the same time is now our 200th episode. So it's a series of celebrations this month.

R: We're always just looking for a reason to party.

E: Absolutely.

B: That's right.

J: Did anything else happen, though? This time?

== This Day in Skepticism (1:31) ==
* Marie Curie is presented with a gram of radium worth $100,000 at the White House in Washington DC in 1921.

E: Oh, well yes, actually. Okay, so here's something funny that happened, kind of. In 1921, Marie Curie, you remember her?

S: (Sarcastic) Yeah, she was hilarious.

E: (Laughs) She was presented with a gram of radium worth a hundred thousand dollars at the White House in Washington DC.

R: Which promptly gave her cancer.

E: (Laughs) It's about the most interesting thing I could find today...

R: Too soon?

E: ...as far as science goes.

S: That was it. She was presented with the... radium

E: She was presented with a gram of radium.

J: Well, what can you do with radium? What would be the things you'd use if for?

S: Uh... ruining film?

R: Yeah, destroying your enemies. There's a lot you can do with it.

E: Marie Curie discovered radioactivity.

R: The hard way.

E: Was she awarded the Nobel Prize for that?

R: Marie Curie won two Nobel Prizes. One in physics in 1903 and one in chemistry in 1911. She is the first person to have won two Nobel Prizes. And she was awesome.

E: She was. And at a time in which, you know, women could not even vote. Uh, so, that was pretty impressive.

== News Items ==

=== Missing Link Ida (2:33) ===
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8057465.stm http://tinyurl.com/lemurlink

R: Yeah. I feel like there was a big announcement this week. Google's homepage is telling me that there was something going on.

S: Something about a missing link. You know, these things come out every other week.

R: Yeah.

E: Finally.

S: This was the big news item of the week. Scientists have unveiled – this is a fossil that was actually discovered a number of years ago. I think it's been sitting around in somebody's private collection -

R: I think it was like '85 or something.

S: - Yeah, for like 24 or 25 years and then it came to the attention of scientists about 2 years ago, who have been studying this fossil and now they're unveiling the fossil and their initial findings. This is a fossil of a transitional species – what is alleged to be a transitional species between prosimians, which are the earliest primates, and the other branch of primates which led to monkeys, apes, and humans. This, again, dates to about 47 million years ago. This species makes a connection between these two major branches of primates and one of the remarkable features of this particular specimen is that it is over 95% complete. It is a remarkably -

E: Wow.

S: - complete specimen. Beautifully preserved. One of those specimens that fell to the bottom of a lake, probably. Died in the mud and then was soon covered by layers of mud and was perfectly preserved in that fashion. In fact, it's one of the rare specimens that where you can still see the impression of the fur of the animal.

R: That's so cool.

B: That's wicked.

S: It is definitely cool. 

J: Wouldn't they have, uh, – wouldn't what's-his-face have collected 2 of those creatures and...

R: Yeah, where's the – where's the boy?

E: Uh, that would be Noah, not “what's-his-face”.

J: Yeah, whatever.

R: (Laughs)

S: (Laughing) What's-his-face, yeah.

E: “What's-his-Bible”

S: As interesting as this fossil is – of course we're also interested in the way these news stories are reported, and this one has been all over the map. The first news story I saw on this was from ''Sky News''.

E: Yeah, so did I.

S: And this is just about the worst science news reporting I have seen in a while. I know we criticize the way the main stream media presents science stories a lot on this podcast – and there are good – there's good reporting and there's bad reporting often on issues. This was the worst. They – they crammed about as many misconceptions into their story as possible. In addition to that, it seems to me as if the scientists themselves, who are unveiling this fossil, were engaging in a lot of hype and hyperbole. You know, you always wonder, were the being quoted out of context? You know, were they being treated fairly? But even allowing for a little bit of that, they just – you know, the sound bytes that they were offering up to the press, you know, to me were irresponsible.

So, this fossil which is dubbed “Ida”, I-D-A after the daughter of the – of the – probably one of the researchers. One of the experts is quoted as saying that this is the “Eighth Wonder of the World” – said “The impact on paleontology will be something like an asteroid falling down to Earth.” So... not quite. You know, first let's have the scientific community take a look at this fossil and see what it ''really'' means. But then, in 'Sky News' – this is what – this is what they say about it: “Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution.”

B: Oh. My. God.

S: Finally!

R: We've all been waiting.

E: All that other stuff, it was just speculation, and theory, and conjecture.

R: Yeah, we don't even know where Darwin came up with that crap. Surely, he didn't have evidence.

E: There was nothing before this!

S: There is a tendency in reporting new and interesting findings – and sometimes the scientists do this themselves, sometimes it's their press office, but often the media – to overemphasize the previous state of our ignorance, right? So they want to say, “We knew nothing, but now this discovery changes everything."

E: Yeah. (Laughs)

S: That's always how they want to couch it, but in so doing they really completely misrepresent the current state of knowledge. Come on – ''This''? ''This'' one fossil confirms Darwin's Theory of Evolution? ''Please''.

R: Yeah, I mean there are a million biologists slapping their foreheads –

S: Yeah.

R: – like, “Oh, well just forget about all that work we've been doing. ''This'' is it.

E: Yeah! A parad – They're treating it like a paradigm shift.

J: You know, and that one fossil would also disprove all of Intelligent Design and everything like – you know – they're putting so much weight on this one thing. It's ridiculous.

S: Yeah. Yeah, it's very – it's counterproductive! Here's another misconception that – it seems as if the scientists themselves were promoting to the media, 'cause there was, there was at least quote marks around these statements. Oh, another interesting thing is that the scientists waited two years to present this and there's already a documentary starring Sir David Attenborough about this fossil and so some of these quote are from David Attenborough who said that “This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals." As though this is the one that connects us directly with them.

R: Also – you know – that quote could have been taken out of context. If it comes from the documentary they've been doing it might have just been used as an introduction. Like, “We're going to use this piece to show you exactly how we're connected to the rest of the mammals.”

S: Yes, all these (unintelligible). But here's the other quotes he gives: “The link they would have said up to now is missing. Well, it's no longer missing.” referring to the link between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. So here's another trend in reporting fossils. Whatever connection can be made to humanity is always overemphasized as well. This is a link between the two earliest branches within primates: prosimians and then the monkeys, apes, and hominids.

J: (Creepy voice) Monkey.

S: But it's not the link that connects the human branch to the rest of primates any more than it's a link between apes and primates, you know what I mean? Or – 

R: Yeah.

S: – That's completely the wrong context. This is 40 million years in the past of humans branching off from the rest of primates or the rest of mammals. I mean, it just is nonsensical. I'm not even sure what they're trying to convey there, except trying to make it seem like this has some very direct and specific implications for ''human'' evolution which it really doesn't except that it's a primate.

B: How many similar other branchings happened in the past?

S: Right.

B: That are just as cool as this one. I mean, it's not unique in that regard.

S: Right.

B: But, Steve. Real quick, you mentioned the movie with Attenborough and stuff. But you're only really scratching the surface at the level of this coordinated event between the scientists and the History Channel. There was the unveiling at the American Museum of Natural History. There was the publishing of a peer-reviewed article. A film like – that you mentioned – going into detail about the secretive two year study of the fossil. A book release, an exclusive arrangement with ABC News, and an elaborate website. All, you know, orchestrated by the History Channel and these scientists. And, regarding this, the scientists at the University of Oslo – One of the guys who kind of put all this team together – He said any pop band is doing the same thing. Uh, any athlete is doing the same thing. We have to start thinking the same way in science.

S: But it's really diluting the science, I think.

R: But is there – is there a point to be made in there though? That scientists do have to think about the perception and how to get the word out about scientific discoveries. I mean, obviously, things have gone terribly wrong in this case when it comes to some of the news that's being reported. But, at its heart, you know, I can certainly understand the sentiment of wanting your work recognized and wanting to reach out to a mainstream audience.

S: Yeah, absolutely. Just don't distort the science in the process, that's all.

R: Yeah.

B: That's true, but there's another factor – there's another point to this. And this isn't really just a couple guys that were looking at this fossil for the past couple years. This is an international team of scientists that have been vetting this fossil for all this time. So, to me that gives it maybe a little bit more credence in that, you know, it's a pretty big team of pretty good scientists that already have checked this out for ''two years'' –

S: Yeah.

B: – So, it's not like – it's not like Hans Fleischmann that got some –

S: Pons. Pons and Fleishmann.

B: – I'm sorry

J: (Creepy German Accent) Hans.

E: Hans and Franz. (Laughs)

S: Hans and Franz!

B: (Laughs) It's not like Pons and Fleischmann who got a little extra heat coming down, like “Oh, we got Cold Fusion.” You know, it's been vetted for quite a while. So, it's - 

S: Yeah, it's a legitimate fossil, I'm sure it's going to have very significant implications in terms of our understanding of primate evolution. It is a quote-unquote “Missing Link”, although that term is misleading and we should really try to get away from it. It is a transitional species, clearly. And it's also -- you know -- the researchers acknowledge it's probably not a direct ancestor. So, again, not the “Grandmother” but the “Great-Aunt”, as we say.

B: Right, I like that. Yep.

S: So they acknowledge that. But, the hype was so disgusting that the – and the distortion – again, downplaying what we already know about evolution, for example, as well as saying, like “This is the ''most'' significant transitional specimen ever found." Whereas other scientists are like, “Um... it's nice but it's no archeopteryx.” This is no feathered dinosaur. I mean, ''come on''! Let's put things in perspective –

R: Yeah.

S: – We have lots of other fossils that are more significant in terms of their implications as a transitional species.

J: You know what's ironic about this is that we – in the big scheme of things – that, you know, any news that supports evolution is fantastic, in a way. But, we're also skeptics. We're also sticklers for information not only being correct, but we also want the information ''explained'' properly.

S: Yeah.

J: If we were creationists, we would be jumping all over this exploiting it to the nth degree, but here we are on our podcast criticizing something that we should – you know – most people would just say “Yeah, that's great. It's a good article.” you know. But we're here criticizing it because it wasn't even presented correctly.

E: It distorted the science. It distorted the truth. They're treating it like a paradigm shift and it's merely another piece of the puzzle that was predicted that we would eventually find.

S: Yeah. You know, you shouldn't make the science enthusiasts cringe, right? Yes, you want to reach out to the public that – you know, where it's just one other piece of news in the news cycle and may not have a preexisting deep interest in science. And you can make it sexy, you can make it interesting. But if you do it in a way that makes anybody who knows what they're talking about – you know – again, do the face-palm and cringe, you failed. I mean, you've made some major mistakes if you've done that and I think this is contributing to the – you know, ironically I think they contributed to the public ''misunderstanding'' of the science.

Jay, the creationists, like my favorite “Evolution News and Views”, the Discovery Institute propaganda blog, of course they did jump all over the media circus surrounding this fossil. They – obviously, they have nothing significant to say about the science. This is a transitional species, beautifully preserved, well dated, rigorously examined scientifically. It fills in – yes, it does fill in a piece of the puzzle in terms of the history of evolution on the Earth. But, they opened the door to criticizing the media hype and ascribing it to quote-unquote “Those Darwinists”, right? Whereas we're sitting here saying – you know – the news media and these irresponsible scientists are presenting this with inappropriate hype. But they're criticizing the same things we're criticizing but attaching it to “Those Darwinists”, as if we're trying to “pull one over” on the public by deceiving them about the implications of this fossil. So when you – you know – if when you're dealing with evolution, and the presentation of evolution to the public. If you do that and you have no recognition that ''half'' of the public doesn't believe in evolution and that there are dedicated critics out there. I mean, that's just incredibly naïve. You have to – every statement you say, every sound bite you hand the media has to be done very deliberately with the knowledge that this is a controversial subject about which this – the public is profoundly confused – which has extreme ideological enemies. And if you just ignore that – you know – you're going to be just handing gifts to the anti-scientific side of this equation.

B: It just shows how they're just not on their radar – it seems – right? They're not even thinking about it.

S: It's terrible. It's like that guy we were talking about – the other scientist – about the Cambrian Explosion – talking about it as if these fossils just appeared out of a magic box.

B: Right. Oh, no. God! 

S: You just can't say things like that! You know – it's just – It's misleading and it's wrong first of all.

E: Really? A magic box?

S: It's hyperbole that is just gift-wrapped for the critics of evolution, you know? But some media outlets did get it right. The BBC article in particular was very good.

=== GPS Failure (16:22) ===
* http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/165224/with_a_gps_failure_possible_is_it_still_safe_to_buy.html

R: I heard that my GPS System is going to explode. Oh noes!!! What do I do?

J: Well, let's talk about it then.

B: We love out acronyms. ATM, IBM, LASER, FUBAR is one of my favorites. Here's one that's pretty –

R: WTF, BBQ

B: – indispensible: GPS. I'm sure you guys have all heard of GPS. Don't even need to say what it means.

E: Oh, yeah. They ship anywhere. Oh wait, that's UPS.

B: (Laughs) Global Positioning System. So, I was pretty shocked then when I ran across headlines like these today: “A world without GPS? Unthinkable”, “GPS on verge of breakdown, report finds”. So, needless to say, I had to find out what the hubbub was about. It turns out, the US Government Accountability Office. Imagine – Don't they sound – You don't want them breathing down your back, right? The US Government Accountability Office.

R: Do we have one of those? Seriously? I can't believe that our government is accountable for anything.

(Rogues Laugh)

B: Yeah, right. There you go.

E: Very good point, Rebecca.

R: What have they been doing the past 10 years?

B: They've been looking at GPS, I guess. They're basically a government watchdog agency as you might have surmised. They recently warned congress that because of poor management with a 2 billion dollar upgrade – it's actually going to threaten the GPS service.

J: The upgrade is going to threaten it?

B: Well, yeah. The upgrade is a 2 billion dollar upgrade program that's being worked on – it's actually threatening the GPS service. Now, from the report – I read the summary of the report – and what they're saying is that the oldest satellites that comprise the GPS system is – they're going to start “dying” – quote-unquote – next year. And replacements are not going to be ready.

J: What?

R: (Gasp)

B: Right. That's what they're saying. And it's because of two reasons, basically. There's technical problems, as you might imagine. I guess it's pretty complicated to put this stuff together. And they're having troubles with the contractor. I think they got a new contractor and they're having some trouble with this firm, or whatever it is. So the result has been a 870 ''million'' dollar cost overrun.

J: What? Oh, yeah, let's –

B: It does sound like a lot of money.

J: – Yeah, let's just overrun by almost ''half'' the amount of money that it was costing.

B: Yeah, right!

R: Alright, well – but – I mean – who cares? Like, is this really a life or death situation? Are we going to freak out because we might have to go back to – you know –

E: 1994

R: – using primitive tools like maps and stopping at the gas station to ask for directions? Ahhhhh!

S: Obviously, Rebecca, you don't understand the implications.

B: No! Oh, absolutely not!

J: What she just told the world was that she doesn't have a GPS system. Because if she did –

R: Where am I going to put a GPS on my bike?

E: Travels by block. 

S: You want guys – you want a guy to pull over and ''talk'' to somebody rather than use a gadget to know where they're going?

B: Oh, I think – clearly – I need to do a little bit of background of exactly what GPS is and what it does for us.

R: Alright, but make it quick.

J: Bob, everybody knows what the hell it is and what it does for us.

R: Yeah, you stick it in your car and it drives you around Boston and gets you lost.

B: The details are interesting. Our GPS is the ''only'' fully functional global navigation satellite system in the world, becoming fully operational in '95.

J: (Palpatine impression?) Station is fully functional.

B: The Russians actually had one. I wasn't aware of this. The Russians had a global navigation satellite system. But, because of all the economic problems they were going through it totally went into disrepair, and now it's essentially unusable. So, they actually have the satellites up there – enough to cover the globe – but it's actually just kinda – you know – they're just limping along and not doing what they need to do. And there are other countries, actually – China is working on one that's global and the European Union is actually going to have one that's going to come on line in 2013. The Russian one might be back online in 2010. They're predicting it might come back online. Although, I don't know if it could interface with our system.

J: Nyet

B: So these satellites – is a constellation – they call these ''constellations'' of satellites – they're in orbit – in medium Earth orbit around the Earth – a thousand to 22 thousand miles up is this area called “Medium Earth Orbit” and we've got about 31 to 32 satellites – depending on who you talk to about this and --

E: (Laughs)

R: Is one Pluto?

E: “I'll say 31!” “I'll say 32.”

B: – So, Rebecca – so what this thing – this isn't just navigation on your iPhone or your car navigator. This is map-making, land-surveying, commerce, geocaching, ''geo-shagging''

R: Geoca – wait, geo-shagging? –

B: Look it up!

E: Geo-shagging!

R: – Is that like geocaching but with sex?

B: You got it!

R: Oh, that's 'so' nerdy!

B: And, not to mention all the military uses. So this technology is just ubiquitous.

R: Meh.

B: And if we lost it, it would impact national security. So this is a big deal, if it's true. If this is true.

Alright, so what are the symptoms? Say, worst case scenario, and this report is correct and we start getting these GPS brownouts. What's going to happen?

S: So, Bob. Can you tell me what's failing about these satellites? Cuz they seem to be so high up it's not like their orbit's decaying or anything, right? They're just running out of juice or just – what's going on?

B: These satellites have a lifespan. When they go up they say “This satellite is going to last for so many years.” That's how long the productive life is –

J: Okay...

B: – And that kind of keys into why I don't think that this is going to be much of a problem. Because... the expected lifespan is not necessarily the actual lifespan, especially for military –

E: Right.

B: – Military space equipment. They last longer. I mean, look at these probes –

E: Space shuttle!

B: – No. Look at the probes we send to 'Mars'. They say, “Well, we're going to use this thing for six months.” and then 30 years later this thing is still kicking around. I mean, these things just – they last longer. So this is not hard and fast. It's not like these “birds” are going to drop out of the sky.

J: Bob, you know we have to kind of also trust the experts. You know, these are people that understand the technology, understand the hardware. And if they say that things could start potentially be breaking down as early as next year – I mean – I would tend to agree with them and not go on what you just said.

B: No, it could. It definitely could. But one satellite's not going to do it. We only need a minimum of 24 satellites and we have 31. So what are the odds of seven of them failing before replacements start getting into orbit? It's –

E: What are the odds?

B: – Its – you know – I don't think this is – It doesn't sound urgent to me. It's something that we should be looking into. But don't forget, Jay, that GPS is so important that if the shit really started hitting the fan and this was starting to look nasty our government would – I think they would do pretty much what – exactly what was needed. They would throw money at this, whatever was needed to get this stuff fixed. Because there's no way. There's no way.

R: Billions!

J: Are we at that point right now? I mean, if it is as serious as you say.

R: He's saying that it's not serious.

B: Look at the worst symptoms that I was able to find regarding this. It's going to take longer for your computer to compute your location.

J: (Falsetto) No!

B: So, you wait a few more seconds and then it's gonna be – it'll be a little bit worse in areas that have poor sky views like, say – they call these downtown canyons. Like, you're between all these buildings –

J: Yeah.

B: -- Or you're inside buildings. It's going to take a little bit longer. The military applications will be worse because they rely on much more precise locations that it would be a little tougher for them. But the consumers wouldn't – would barely see this, I think. At least initially. It would take – It's not gonna – it's not like your Navigator's gonna take an hour to find out where you are and make it unusable. So –

J: Well, for everybody's sake I hope that they figure out what's going on, they mop this thing up quick, and no – there'll be no disturbance for the military or for –

E: In the Force.

J: – And the fact that I love my Garmin. So there it is.

S: It's just a matter of getting satellites up in the – to replace the ones that are failing.

J: Yeah, but you gotta build the satellites, guys. And if a contractor's screwing up –

B: Right.

J: – They don't have the satellites ready to launch. I mean, that's what it probably boils down to.

B: But – There's a workaround though and we've got these other global systems coming online in the next four or five years and they're specifically being designed to interface with GPS so they'll augment each other and help each other. So you'll be able to kind of like “fuse” these global navigation satellite systems together with, say, the Galileo one in the European Union or GLONAS, perhaps. So, they'll help each others' reliability and their accuracy. And don't forget: worst case scenario, all we gotta do is tap into the alien satellites and use their network, and we can probably be accurate to within one angstrom.

R: Perfect.

S: Right.

J: Okay.

R: So, bottom line: don't panic. Okay. Next!

=== Stem Cell Quackery in China (25:02) ===
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8052227.stm

S: Well, stem cells have been in the news again. I know we've actually spoken before about the fact that there are many clinics throughout the world, especially in China, selling stem cell therapy, usually for something on the order of $20,000 per treatment. And there's another clinic out there that's been getting a lot of news in the east. This Beike Biotech clinic in northeast China.

E: (Disgusted) Huh!

S: And, same deal. They're making claims that – for amazing clinical therapeutic effects but they're not publishing any science. They're not – nobody knows what they're actually injecting into people and the bottom line is that while the potential for stem cell research is tremendous – I mean, I think stem cells – you know, there's the tremendous potential there to be very effective therapies for a lot of things in 5 to 20 years. There really isn't anything right now that's available clinically. There are – you know – there's clinical research going on, etc. but –

R: So these guys basically are like – they sound no better than faith healers or anybody selling miracle cures to desperate people.

S: That's basically it. At really incredible prices. So, unfortunately, they've been very successful in getting their stories told in Western media. And even when the Western media tries to be responsible and does a reasonable job at covering the story, the bottom line is it's still – to people who are sick or to parents – they're only going to see the story that they wrap – you know, the personal anecdote that they wrap the story around. So, unfortunately, that's what they did in this case. This is a BBC reporting on this. And, again, generally BBC does a great job with these science stories. But they tell the story of a 3-year-old girl named Dakota whose parents spent 30,000 Pounds to bring her to this Beike Biotech clinic to treat her blindness.

R: It's incredibly sad because –

S: It is very sad.

R: – And – you know – like you said, just by publishing the information it somehow does make it worse and in this case the mother specifically said that basically the doctors told them, “Don't bother going online just to find some crazy out-there cure cuz they're not going to work.” And that's exactly what she did. She went online. She searched until she found something that offered a glimmer of hope to give her child sight back and went for it. And the result is that she brings the kid back and they test the kid and she still doesn't have any sight. Yet, the mother says she does. She wants to believe it so badly that she's thinking that her daughter can see now despite the fact that she obviously cannot.

B: Ugh.

S: The parents, confident in the therapy, agreed to have the child's vision tested and it showed ''zero'' difference before and after the therapy. But the mother is quoted as saying, “If a specialist wants to argue the point, come and watch my child and tell me that the child isn't seeing anything and that it never made a difference.” Very sad. And this is typical of cons, actually, that people would rather believe they made the right decision and not admit that they were victimized, right?

R: Yeah.

S: And this is especially true when – and in this case I've actually personally seen this exact scenario play out. You have a parent taking care of a sick child, they want to do everything possible. There's this “miracle cure” that's being dangled before them and they can't afford the incredibly ridiculous price tag. So, what do they do? They have a fund-raiser among all their friends and their neighborhood and their family. Everyone gets together, raises a lot of money so that they can hand it over to some quack selling them false hope. And then the treatment doesn't work, but the parents – at that point there's almost no way, psychologically, they're going to be able to admit that there was no effect. So they look for anything – you know, the confirmation bias – to convince themselves that there was some effect.

R: And, of course, ''this'' case is bad, but at least it's not the worst case in which the kid is, for instance, on chemo, but is taken off it so that they can fly him across, you know, the world so he can get some quack treatment –

S: Right.

R: – ends up causing more damage. In this case it looks like they've only lost, you know, a great deal of money and spent a lot of – worth, you know, a lot of time for nothing. But...

S: Right. And, you know, of course when they're confronted by the media – the people who are part of this clinic – about what they're doing they say, “Oh, well, scientists in the West don't pay attention to Chinese scientists and we're publishing in Chinese journals and they don't know what we're doing. But, that's BS. That's just not true. They're not publishing any scientific results other than sometimes maybe some case series, which is, essentially, they're just their own anecdotal experience. But –

B: I guess they don't want American money, either.

S: Well, they're getting the American money, right? They're –

B: Yeah, but not in the quantities they would get it if they actually marketed this successfully in the United States. If it actually worked, you know, that'd be a great motivator to go everywhere, not be isolated where you are, but spread it all over the world.

S: The thing is, science has to be transparent, right? And, in medicine it's the same way. If there's one clinic in the world doing something it's almost guaranteed that it's fake, that it's a con job. The only possible exception to that is if you have a particularly gifted surgeon who personally perfected a new surgical technique and, therefore, that's the only guy at the moment, or only woman, who has the technical skill and knowledge to do a ''new'' surgical technique. So, in that case it's actually plausible that there may be only one Center that can do it. But if it's just a ''therapy'', if it's a drug, or stem cells, or whatever – if the science is there, then there'll be hundreds, if not thousands of institutions around the world that will be able to do it, right? But, in this case the science just isn't there. You know, there are tons of technical problems that have yet to be worked out in the stem cell technology, and they're not just saying that they've made one or two steps in stem cell therapy. If their clinical claims are true, then they've made a dozen or twenty steps and – you know – they're ten to twenty years ahead of the rest of the world, and they have nothing to show for it. That just is beyond credibility, unfortunately. But people will read even a skeptical article and they will see, “These parents believe their 3-year-old girl was helped. That's enough for me. That's enough of a desperate hope.” From their perspective it's not even unreasonable. If you're facing a death sentence from an incurable disease, even a thin hope might be rational, you know. You really can't put it on the patient or on the family – you know – parents of a sick child. Very sad, but this is not going to go away any time soon, unfortunately.

== James Randi Bumper (32:18) ==

''This is James Randi, and you're listening to the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe''

== Questions and E-mails ==

=== Question # 1 - Candiru Fish Story (32:27) ===

S: Let's do a couple of emails this week.

J: Let's do that.

R: Let's.

S: Let's do that. First email comes from Eddie G. from Saint Louis.

J: (Laughing) Steve!

E: You have to say it like this: Eddie G.

R: (Laughs)

S: And Eddie – reminds me of Neil G. Remember him? Neil G?

E: (Laughs) Oh, yeah!

J: Yeah, me like! Me like!

R: Neil Gaiman? Oh, right... (groans)

S: And he writes:

<blockquote>Several years ago a coworker brought an article to my attention in an issue of Maxim referring to the 'fish feared by all men of the Amazon', for its tendency to follow the flow of urine and swim up the human male urethra, thereby lodging itself and being nearly impossible to remove. He was convinced it had to be true, 'Why else would Maxim print it?' I had my doubts. To me it all sounded like the kind of nonsense tailor made to strike fear in the heart (and other dearer parts) of a Maxim subscriber. I noted it made no mention of the fish being attracted to women, or other mammals, for that matter, merely to urine produced by human males. The article went so far as to imply this was a stage of the catfish's life cycle. Since then this fish story has reemerged over and over again, but my attempts to find any information on it haven't been terribly successful. Mostly it sounds like an urban legend, but I was wondering if you had any insights. Eddie G. St. Louis</blockquote>

R: Okay, first of all, can we address the idea that 'Why else would Maxim print it?' People, let's not go to Maxim for our science, okay? Whether this turns out to be right or wrong, you know, like, 'How to get in her pants' is not – that's not news and it's not logical and it's just... Put down the magazine! Stop buying that crap!

B: But it is important!

R: It's... it's so not important. I mean, really! Maxim? Come on!

S: Yeah, that's a separate issue, and you're absolutely right. Yeah.

R: All right.

E: I read it for the technical articles, myself.

R: (Laughing) Shut up!

E: (unintelligible) 

S: So, what do you guys think?

R: Yeah, I mean, just get the porn!

S: Tell me, what do you guys think? Does a fish swim up the stream of urine into the end of the penis and lodge itself in the urethra?

R: Yes!

J: What is this, Science or Fiction?

B: A stream? How long does it stay a stream? I mean, it's totally getting attenuated probably, you know, an inch or two from the end.

S: No it isn't!

J: I would say that yes, that creature exists. That's my guess.

R: Well, the candiru exists. The question is whether or not it actually does that.

J: I say it does that.

S: So, kind of. You know, I was actually surprised how true this is.

R: Well, how ''maybe'' true this is.

S: Yeah, well I – you know. There are pictures.

R: Cecil covered this on Straight Dope –

S: Yeah.

J: Cecil?

R: – is what you're going to bring up, right? Uncle Cecil, who we all know and love and trust. And, he had originally posted that it doesn't exist, that it's an urban legend, or that he was, at least, very skeptical –

S: Yeah.

R: – of whether or not it does exist. But then this study came up, or this case study came up in which a doctor claims to have discovered this very thing and – I don't know. Steve, do you want to address this case study?

S: Yeah, so there's a published, or at least presented case study where a man claims to have been standing in a river, in the Amazon, up to his thighs and peeing in the river. And that a, like, about two-inch long fish jumped out of the water and into his urethra. It basically latched on and then wiggled its way in there. Now, so, it didn't swim up the stream of his urine. Right, so that part was embellishment. At least, if you're taking this story at face value. So there doesn't seem to be any support for the notion that it's, like, swimming up the urine stream. Or even, really, that it's attracted to urine or that urine has anything to do with this at all. What this fish does do though is, this fish is a parasite. And it crawls inside of animals. It will find any orifice, work its way inside, and then, you know, eat and reproduce on the inside of an animal. That is the life cycle of this case. But this is an individual case where I guess the fish was looking for an orifice and there was one so it jumped in. The man eventually presented to medical care and a urologist actually endoscopically removed the now dead fish from inside his scrotum. What I can say is, this doesn't mean that this is a true case, but what I can say is the doctors are named, which is always a good point, you know, it makes a story more credible when you actually have the individuals referred to by name. And the description of the medical procedure sounded completely kosher to me. It made sense, and sounded like an actual medical description of a procedure. So, it didn't have the red flags of “this is somebody making up a fake medical story” to make it sound legitimate. You know what I mean?

R: Oh, but, can I – yeah, there is – I agree with you, on those points. However, I do think that the doctors sound very legit and Cecil says he talked to one of the doctors that was involved, and it all sounds like it's on the up-and-up. But, what the doctors know is that there was a fish inside this man's urethra and that they removed it.

S: Right.

R: What they're taking on faith is the man's story –

S: Is how it got there, right.

R: Yes. And, I feel that in this case Cecil was not skeptical enough of the story. Because, there are other ways for objects to become lodged in a penis.

S: Right.

R: And –

B: I don't want to hear this.

J: And you would know.

R: I know this because I have access to the internet and... (laughs)

S: That's the only way that you know.

E: (Laughs)

R: And as we all know, if there's something pervy out there that has been thought of, then someone has done it and uploaded it to the internet. And, you know there is a certain fetish that involves sticking things in your penis and –

J: Oh, come on. Really? Really?

R: – I think that it's – yes, really.

J: We're not going to talk about this.

R: Well, no. I think that this is a legitimate issue. It's very, you know, common that people get things stuck inside them and have to go to the emergency room.

S: That's true, but are you going to put a carnivorous parasite in there? I mean, come on. That's –

R: Hey. Hey, it might not be ''my'' thing.

S: Talk about poor judgment.

B: Steve, they put hamsters up there.

R: But I also wouldn't put – yeah. I wouldn't put a lot of things.

S: Hamsters aren't known for eating animals from the inside out.

R: I'm not saying that this is necessarily what happened. I'm just saying there are other explanations.

S: Here's my hypothesis – is that the guy was submerged from the waist down at some point and the thing crawled in there, 'cause that's what it does!

E: Yeah.

S: You know, jumping out of the water is not that – you know – if he – and maybe he was only – you know, by his description, you imagine, he was only up to his thighs. You know, that's pretty much right there. It's not like it would had to have gone very far. You know what I mean?

R: Yeah.

S: So, the bit that always seemed the most extraordinary to me was the actually swimming up the stream of the urine. That always seemed ridiculous, and I think we can safely remove that element from the story.

B: I thought he meant when he was urinating within, you know, waist-deep –

E: Yeah.

B: – and following the stream. I didn't know you meant the stream was outside the water.

S: Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

E: It wasn't clear, but you kind of have to draw your own conclusions.

B: That's whacked.

S: Well, that's the – that's the urban legend is, like, so you imagine somebody standing on the shore and the fish swimming up the urine.

B: Oh, that's crazy.

S: Yeah, that's crazy.

R: I've heard sharks can do that too.

S: All right, that's just the – right, the embellishment of the story.

R: Swim up your stream and eat you.

S: All right. So, yeah, and the other bit that sounds reasonable is that the fish normally is not a parasite on humans, does not normally crawl in the urethra. It does though, however, just find its way inside mammals and is a parasite from the inside. And that this is just an accidental thing that happens, rarely. There are reports of, like finding a dead mammal in a river, and you cut it open and these things spill out of it, you know, 'cause they were basically feasting from the inside.

R: Well, now that our male audience has now completely torn off all their –

S: Right.

R: – headphones and thrown away their iPods. Um, should we continue?

S: Yeah. But, it's interesting because this is more true than I thought it was gonna be when I first read the story. You know, it's interesting.

R: Yeah.

E: Hm.

J: All right, so the bottom line is that, indeed, this thing will crawl up your Willy Wonka.

S: Yeah.

E: If it can get up there, yeah.

R: Did you just say, “your Willy Wonka”? That's just wrong.

S: Don't swim naked in the Amazon. That's the lesson. All right!

E: That's great advice!

R: Man, if only... only I'd learned that sooner.

S: That's a safety tip. I think what we need to do, is we need to do a safety tip each week.

E: Oh, “Tip of the Week”, right.

S: “Safety Tip of the Week”.

J: Steve, we're going to give those kind of safety tips? Like, “don't set yourself on fire”, “don't let a fish swim up your –

S: Yeah!

E: Exactly!

J: – Gizmo”, I mean...

S: As a public service announcement.

R: “Don't chop off your arm with a machete”.

S: Yeah! Exactly, exactly.

(Rogues laugh)

S: Right? “Don't eat uranium”.

E: (Laughs) “Don't take silver colloidal medicine”.

S: Yeah, “Don't drink silver”. Right, stuff like that.

E: Things they don't tell you about at school.

R: “Don't put monkeys in your pants”.

E: Yeah, or birds.

S: “Don't put monkeys, or birds, in your pants”. Right, exactly. All right, let's go on to one more email.

=== Question # 2 - One Million Dollars (41:56) ===

S: This one comes from... the pronunciation guide is almost as bad as the words! Why – why give –

R: It's Lasse –

S: Lasse Maruen. But why give a pronunciation guide that has “R-E-U-X” in it?

E: Yeah, why?

S: I mean, come one. All right, let's say “Maruen”. This one comes from Lasse Maruen. And they write:

<blockquote>I understand that you do all this show on your free time, and that your expenses are covered by donations. So I wonder, what would you do with [insert Dr. Evil] one million dollars? More seriously - what would you do if somebody donated huge amounts of cash to SGU? Would you do more shows? Quit your day jobs? Hire people to help with production? Spend it all on one huge party? I wish to stress that I am not a crazy rich person, but you never know, there might be somebody listening, so keep that in mind when you discuss this Thanks for a great show! Lasse MarÃ¸en (Pronunciation guide: La-seh Ma-reux-an) e body of the email here</blockquote>

J: (Dr. Evil impression) Million dollars! What would we do with a million bucks?

S: (Continue email.) I wish to stress that I am not a crazy rich person – Ugh!

E: (Disappointed) Oh!

S: (finish email.)

E: We always keep that in mind.

R: Solid gold rocket bike!

S: Right. Honestly, I've never thought about this. What would we do if someone –

E: Two hundred thousand transcripts of Nightline. That's what I would buy. 5 dollars each.

R: I'd quit my job, yes, in an instant. And I would do an SGU every day.

J: Yeah, well, we wouldn't do one every day. I mean, if we had enough money to really do this full time, I mean, I think would reasonably say we'd do 3 a week and we'd produce other content too. I mean, let's face it, we do have ''a ton'' of ideas.

S: Yeah.

R: Yeah.

J: Some of which we may be executing right now, which is a secret.

R: Ton of ideas, not a ton of time.

S: Exactly, (unintelligible) 

B: You know what I would do? I would stop looking for work.

S: (laughs)

R: (Pityingly) Awww!

E: (Laughs) Oh!

R: Seriously, my job takes up, you know, like, 12 hours of my day, every day. If I could get those 12 hours back, think of how awesome I would be!

S: Right.

B: Ha-ha!

R: I'd be twice as awesome.

E: It would be nice if we could all have professional careers, and what I mean by professional is: we get paid for it –

S: For doing this.

E: – Careers in skepticism. That would be really nice. It would take more than a million bucks, though, to get us all –

R: Not me!

E: – You know, full-time working in the field of skepticism and make a living for our families and so forth.

R: Not for me. I'm cheap! Just going to put that out there. I don't mean that in a sexy way. I just mean, I am literally inexpensive.

S: There are different answers depending on exactly the level of cash that you're talking about. And, we would upscale what we do to meet, really, almost any amount of money that somebody would throw our way. So, absolutely we would hire people to do things that, right now, we're slumming for volunteers to do, right? We could hire people to do the website full-time, hire people to do post-production. You know, we would obviously get better equipment than we have.

R: Clip Jay's toenails.

S: Right. We could hire people to do video production. We could basically have a skeptical studio where we produce all skeptical content, not only our own. I mean, you can just keep scaling this up. You know, a video production company, et cetera.

R: An official skeptical pony.

S: (Laughs) Skeptical pony?

R: We could ride.

(Rogues laugh)

J: But, most importantly though, I mean, what would we do? We would attend every event that we could.

E: Mm-hm.

S: Right.

E: Yeah.

J: There's just so many other things that we could spend time doing –

R: Yeah.

J: – that would be adding to our content, you know?

S: Right.

J: And, Steve has been begging me not to say anything, but we have some secret stuff that we're working on right now that we could do a lot more of.

S: We're hoping to have some of it ready for TAM 7. I'd like to have it ''actually'' ready before I promise it. But, you know, there may be some –

R: Yes, we could have, you know, more live shows. 

E: As long as we're dreaming right now.

S: More live shows? Yeah. Oh, you know, more conferences. You know, absolutely. There's so much – ''actual'' marketing. Can you imagine?

E: Yeah, real marketing is what we really need.

J: (High-pitched disbelief) What? 

S: See, obviously, we're not waiting around for somebody like Bill Gates to drop 10 million dollars on us. Although, that would be nice if you're listening, Bill!

E: Yeah, Bill!

S: But, we certainly would put it to good use. I would also point out that “The Other Side”, on almost every issue that we cover, has millions of dollars. I mean, it's incredible –

E: Ugh, ''billions''.

S: The Discovery Institute has millions of dollars. Those jack-asses at Age of Autism, they make $400,000 a year –

E: Kevin Trudeau.

S: – they spend, marketing misinformation about vaccines. And here we are, doing it for free in our spare time, trying to counteract ''all'' of these things. It's incredible.

E: Just look what Kevin Trudeau, a one man band, look what he did.

S: Yeah. Well, it's just that there is millions of dollars to be ''made'' on the other side. That's unfortunately the case. Wherein – as we say, as we've proven, there is no money in skepticism. But...

E: (Laughs)

== Correction (46:32) ==

S: So we had a minor correction or clarification from last week, Bob, on your piece about heavy water and the ultra-dense deuterium.

B: Yeah, a lot of people pointed out correctly that the heavy water ice would not, in fact, sink if our oceans were made of heavy water. It would not sink, because even though the heavy water ice is denser than regular water ice it's not denser than heavy water itself. So, it would, in fact, float as well. What I should have pointed out – what I should have said was that if water, H2O, didn't have that bizarre property that it does not get denser when it freezes like most other elements, that it would do that, it would not float – the ice would not float, it would freeze from the bottom up. But, luckily, it has that unusual property and – 'cause life, I think, would be very different –

S: Right.

B: – if –

S: So, regular water, H2O, does get denser as it cools down to about 4 degrees Celsius, and then it actually gets lighter. And, ice is actually lighter than water, so it floats on the surface. So, water freezes from the top down rather than the bottom up. And the bottom of oceans is typically always exactly 4 degrees Celsius, 'cause that's what the densest water's gonna be. Whereas, deuterium water, D2O, becomes densest at around 6 to 7 degrees, and then it gets lighter again. So, deuterium ice would sink in regular water, but it would still float in deuterium water, is the bottom line. So, we wanted to just clarify that one point.

B: And thanks for everybody for pointin' that out.

S: Yeah, thanks to all 1 million of you who wrote in to tell us about that.

B: Ha-ha!

== Science or Fiction (48:15) ==
[http://www.physorg.com/news162017188.html Item # 1]: Scientists have developed a new dating technique for ceramics and pottery that involves measuring its water content with a microscale capable of detecting 1/10 of a millionth of gram.
[http://mednews.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/14199.html Item # 2]: Neuroscientists mapping brain networks find that children younger than 12 have disorganized and chaotic brain function.
[http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3377 Item # 3]: New research finds that attaining goals of fame, fortune, and good looks are associated with less, not more, happiness.

S: Well, let's go on to Science or Fiction.

''It's time for Science or Fiction''

S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two real and one fake. And then I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Is everyone ready?

R: So ready.

E: (Sean Connery impression) Well met!

S: Here we go, item number 1: Scientists have developed a new dating technique for ceramics and pottery that involves measuring its water content with a microscale capable of detecting 1/10 of a millionth of gram. Item number 2: Neuroscientists mapping brain networks find that children younger than 12 have disorganized and chaotic brain function. And item number 3: New research finds that attaining goals of fame, fortune, and good looks are associated with less, not more, happiness. Bob, go first.

B: A dating technique, ceramics and pottery that involves measuring its water content with a microscale capable of detecting 1/10th of a millionth of a gram. That's not much water. A microscale? I guess a microscale isn't what I think it is. But, um, I mean it's just – yeah, that sounds interesting and nothing's jumping out at me on that one. Um, what is it assuming now, that the amount of water content changes over time, so therefore they can determine how old it is, I guess. I don't know.

Let's see, the second one here. Neuroscientists mapping brain networks find that children younger than 12 have disorganized and chaotic brain function. Disorganized and chaotic. Sounds... possible. As the brain matures, it's more organized and less chaotic, I guess.

Let's look at number 3, then. Uh, attaining goals of fame, fortune, and good looks are associated with ''less'', not more, happiness. That makes perfect sense to me. So few people can attain fame, fortune, and good looks that a lot of people are pretty frustrated and not as happy. Um, so that makes probably the most sense of any of the other ones, so let's see which one – which of the other ones are less likely, then. Um... (silence)

R: Yeah, any moment now. Any moment, it's going to happen. I can feel it.

B: Yep. Yep. Any moment –

R: We're getting close.

B: – Any moment. When you say that, it actually slows me down.

S: If you weigh these choices, Bob, and organize your thoughts, I trust you'll be happy.

B: (Sarcastic) Ha... ha.

E: Disorganized and chaotic brain functions, Bob.

B: Wouldn't the water content change depending on the environment that it's in? For some reason, number 2, I'm going to say the disorganized and chaotic brain function – I'm just – Flip a coin, and say that that one's fiction.

S: Okay, Jay?

J: You know, after reading these through I really think that the second one about the disorganized brain function, that one seems to be the most likely off. I mean, it seems – I mean, I'm sorry – that one seems to be most likely the fake. And I can understand the idea of the brain, like, in mid-development and going through changes. It's not only going through changes, but it's actually growing. You know, the size of the brain is growing and everything. There's got to be something, you know, not completely settled happening in a child's mind. I mean, it's underdeveloped, and with the changes that are taking place over the next 5 to 10 years, I'm sure that that – wait, wait a second.

S: You just said it's fake and then made a case for it being true.

E: Yeah, contradicted yourself.

R: Did you just talk yourself out of it?

J: All right, you know, the children having disorganized and chaotic brain functions... is the fake, I think.

S: Okay.

J: That's it, yeah.

S: All right, Rebecca.

R: I tend to agree, because I can't imagine something as cool and amazing as the brain could ever be called “disorganized and chaotic” at any time during our lives. It forms these pathways, like, immediately and – I don't know, everything I've ever read about the brain shows that it wouldn't be called that, normally. So, um, and then, as for the others, um, dating ceramics and pottery by measuring its water. That makes sense, because I'm thinking of how the come out of the kiln, you know, and then I can see that the water content would change over time. So, uh, yeah. I think that makes sense. And, I agree with what Bob said about happiness. Um, fame, and fortune, and good looks. They're fleeting and difficult to meet the standards set by our society. So, that would cause less happiness. So, I'm saying that the second one is, in fact, false. Children younger than 12 do, in fact, have organized brain function.

S: Okay, Evan?

E: I'll agree with everyone else. Here was my thinking – is that, you know, we think of 12, we think of how young that is, and so forth. But, it was only what? A hundred, 150 years ago that people, what, lived to an average of 40, 45 years old. We're living to 78 nowadays, so we kind of take it for granted. So, I would say you pretty much had to have your brain wired up pretty well by then. So that's why I think 2 is fiction.

S: Okay. So, let's take these in order.

J: Okay.

S: Number 1: Scientists have developed a new dating technique for ceramics and pottery that involves measuring its water content with a microscale capable of detecting 1/10th of a millionth of a gram. And that one... is... science!

B: Cool.

S: Yeah, this one is very cool. Very cool.

B: So is the microscale so accurate with the weight that it could tell from day to day how the weight is changing?

S: Not from day to day, no. So, this is used to date archaeological finds and they say that it's accurate for pottery or ceramics that are up to about 2000 years old. But they think that with some tweaking they might be able to push that to about 10,000 years old. And, what they do – this is called “rehydroxylation dating”. Rehydroxylation dating. And, Rebecca's right. When you fire a brick, or a tile, or pottery, or whatever in the kiln, that sort of resets the clock, right? That bakes out all the water –

R: Right.

S: – So you know that, at the moment of creation, it essentially has no water content 'cause it's all been baked out.

R: See, I know this because I do a lot of “paint your own pottery” classes.

S: Is that right?

R: (Laughs)

E: I thought it was 'cause you shop at Pottery Barn.

S: (Laughs)

R: That doesn't even make sense.

S: No, it doesn't.

B & R: (Laughs)

S: And then, water will slowly, slowly, slowly, over the years bind with the pottery. So what they do, if they find a little piece of pottery in an archaeological find, they weigh it, they bake out all the water –

B: Ah.

S: – Weigh it again. So now they know how much water was in it. And then –

B: Excellent.

S: – In order to calibrate it, they then will observe it over time. And this is where the microscale really comes into play. They say, okay, now how quickly is it going to accrue water over time. And then they extrapolate from that to the total water content and, therefore, its total age. Does that make sense?

J: Mm-hm.

E: Very much so.

S: Very cool. It's very clever. Very cool technique.

J: That is pretty cool.

S: Now, interestingly, they say that if we know the exact age of a piece of pottery from other lines of evidence –

B: Verify it.

S: Yeah, you could verify, we know this thing was made in 1250 AD, right? Or whatever. Then, they can – knowing the date – they can use this technique in order to calibrate the rate at which, over historical time, the water would have bound with that piece of pottery. They could say, “This is how fast it's binding water now. This is the average rate at which it was binding water over its lifetime.” And that may become a way of estimating the average temperature over historical time. Isn't that interesting? So if you know –

B: Wow.

S: – You can guess the temperature. You can say, “All right. We're gonna basically assume that the current rates are the same as the average rates over historical time” to estimate the age. But if we actually knew the age, then we could use that to estimate the average temperature over the historical time. So this might be another way, another line of evidence, to sort of get at the whole question of Global Warming or Climate Change. What have temperatures been in the past? So, very cool. And of course – you know – archaeologists will love this. I mean, to date a find. I mean, these kind of bricks and bits of ceramics and clay and whatever is very common in a lot of archaeological finds. This'll be a huge boon to archaeology.

B: Wouldn't the environment be a huge factor in determining how quickly it binds with water?

S: You mean like, is it buried under the ground –

B: Right. Right.

S: – versus laying on the surface versus under a lake?

B: Yeah.

S: I would assume.

B: So then, when they weigh it, and then they fire it again, and then they see how quickly it binds, they really should be putting it in a similar environment that it was for the majority of its lifetime in order to be apples to apples.

S: Yeah.

B: I'm sure they thought of that, but I just wonder how they deal with it.

S: Yeah, I didn't have access to the technical paper, only the press stories about it, so I don't – I couldn't find anything. I thought – I had that same thought. I mean, what about the environment? And, they didn't mention anything about that. I'm sure they take that into consideration, but that sounds like a variable that might introduce some error.

R: Next!

S: Next! Neuroscientists mapping brain networks find that children younger than 12 have disorganized and chaotic brain function. Clearly, Rebecca, you don't have kids, right?

R: (Laughs)

E: Not that she knows of.

S: Not that she knows of.

R: I've met some.

S: You have?

R: Before. I think. Once or twice. Hey, I ran a magic shop. Come on.

S: Neuroscientists mapping brain networks find that children younger than 12 have disorganized and chaotic brain function. And, this one, you guys all thought was the fiction.

E: We thought.

S: Those with and without children thought that this one was fiction. And this one... is... fiction.

E: Yeah!

R: Ah-ha! Yeah!

B: Just didn't sound right. 

R: See, I know kids. I know 12-year-olds.

S: Yes.

J: Oh, yeah?

E: You know to avoid them, right?

R: I practically am a 12-year-old.

S: That's true.

E: Well, goes without saying.

S: In fact, this was based upon a real story where they did compare the brain mapping of children and adults. The senior author, Steven Peterson, is quoted as saying, “Regardless of how tempting it might be to assume otherwise, a normal child's brain is ''not'' inherently disorganized or chaotic.” So, it's exactly the opposite of true. But, what is true is that kids' brains are organized ''differently'' than adults'. And they undergo a fairly significant reorganization as they age, as they mature. But they're still organized throughout the whole process. It's just different. The way – and when I mean organized, I mean – you know, there are different parts of the brain, different “modules”, if you will that participate in different functions. And they network together in order to perform tasks. And the pattern by which these different brain structures network with each other during different tasks changes significantly as we age or mature. That's what they found.

R: Cool.

S: Right.

R: Makes sense.

S: But it's still – Of course, this is still a functioning brain every step of the way. But it's interesting that kids – what that means is that kids, you know, especially very young kids, they tested down to 7 years old. They didn't test younger than 7. They think differently than adults, you know?

B: They're not human. They're not human.

S: (Laughs)

E: (Laughs)

S: It's funny to think about that 'cause, you know, I have a 9-year-old, and Bob has an 11-year-old, and it's funny – even at 9 years old, it's interesting because, in a lot of ways you can actually relate to her and almost think of her like a little adult. But, then every now and then she'll –

B: Right.

S: – reveal that, wow, she's really thinking about things in a very different way than the way an adult would think about things –

B: Yeah.

S: – and the way they construct their world really is interestingly different. But they can fool you, you know, just conversation and whatnot. You tend to assume it's like a little adult talking to you, but it really isn't.

R: Yeah, I've been reading Bruce Hood's new book, ''SuperSense'', and hopefully we'll have him on the show soon. It's a very good book.

S: I'm reading that book, too.

R:. Oh, what are the chances?

S: What are the odds?

R: So, he discusses a lot of really interesting research that's been done on children, and a lot that's been done on babies. And, it's really cool to see how they test exactly how kids think and, in the case of “SuperSense”, he's looking into how they view the supernatural world and how they process information in that way. So – and he makes the case that they do think very differently from adults.

S: Right.

R: It's really interesting.

S: It is very interesting. So, congratulations everyone.

J: Why, thank you.

R: Thank you.

E: Yes, 

S: Of course, all this means that number 3, new research finds that attaining goals of fame, fortune, and good looks are associated with less, not more, happiness is... science.

R: So, Jay, just give up on that.

S: Right. I guess that means if we did become famous skeptics and become wealthy, then we'd all be unhappy.

R: Really, 'cause I still kind of want that million dollars, though.

S: Yeah, yeah. Doesn't seem right.

E: Yeah.

S: So, these were psychological researchers which were following up on previous research that finds that people do find happiness when they set a goal for themselves and then they work to achieve that goal. But, that does lead to happiness. So-called “determination”.

E: Yeah. Hard work. Definitely.

S: Right. But what they were saying – what they further explored with this rather long-term survey they did was, does it matter what kind of goals people are achieving? And what they found was that goals that essentially involve personal growth: developing close relationships, community involvement, physical health, et cetera did lead to happiness. While goals that involved extrinsic things like riches, or good looks, or fame actually led to less happiness. And they say, well, this was the first time that that question was asked, separating out the ''kinds'' of goals as opposed to just seeking goals versus not seeking goals. So, it's good to have goals and it's good to work towards them, but they should be ones that are fulfilling to you, personally. And, if you're trying to achieve this extrinsic goal, or superficial, or whatever, that tends to lead to unhappiness and disappointment. But, you know, I think kind of confirms conventional wisdom, you know.

R: Yeah, makes sense.

E: I think so. Yeah.

S: Kind of makes a certain sense. Yeah. Although, yeah, I still want the million bucks.

E: (Laughs) Yeah.

R: And we still win. Yay!

S: (Laughs) Good job, everyone. All right, Evan.

== Who's That Noisy (1:03:56) ==
* Answer to last week - Dean Radin

''This is the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe: Who's That Noisy?''

(Hums Imperial March)

c

R: Who's that noisy? 

E: I love this time of the show. Let's play last week's “Who's That Noisy?”

<blockquote>So of course, there's plenty of reaction to these kinds of things. There's lots of skeptical comments that basically say that there are billions of people out there with trillions of experiences and so we hear the weird stuff. Occasionally there's going to be an unusual coincidence and those are the things that bubble up to the top. And, so, while the experience that I just read, which is a true experience, maybe it's a 1 in a trillion chance. But it's because there's all these other experiences that we don't hear about.</blockquote>

E: Any guesses? No?

R: Um... no.

E: No. That's okay, because someone guessed, rather quickly, and they were correct, from the message board, that that was our old friend Dean Radin talking.

S: Dean Radin.

E: I don't think I ever heard him speak before, before I actually went to look him up. You know, I've certainly read about – read some stuff that he's published and so forth. And Magnus M from the message boards was the first one to correctly guess. So, congratulations.

S: Congratulations.

R: Well done.

E: Dean Radin. What doesn't he believe? That's the question – that's a shorter list.

R: (Laughs)

E: You want one for this week?

S: Yes, Evan, please give us the –

R: Mm, kind of, yeah.

S: – Who's That Noisy for this week. I can't wait to hear it.

E: All right. I challenge our listeners to figure out “Who's That Noisy?”

(Who's That Noisy Clip (1:05:31): Rapid rhythmic tapping like a woodpecker, but more hollow sounding)

E: All right, that's it

R: I think it's what happens right before the firing squad.

S: (Laughs)

E: (Laughs) The drum roll?

R: Yeah.

E: Cigarette, bandana, er – blindfold, and...

R: Do I win?

S: All right. That's interesting, Evan.

E: It was a good one. So, see what you can come up with, and good luck everyone.

== Quote of the Week (1:06:03) ==
<blockquote>Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic. - Thomas Henry Huxley</blockquote>

J: All right, so, Thomas Henry Huxley. Who doesn't know about this guy? Steve who is –

S: T. H. Huxley is one of my favorite intellectuals.

S&B: Darwin's Bulldog.

S: Yeah. Essentially coined the term “agnosticism” to describe his own beliefs.

E: Big man.

S: Just an incredible, incredible intellect.

E: What did he say?

R: And, were you bringing him up for a reason, or did you just want to talk about him?

J: “Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.” How about that? … T. H. Hux!

S: (Laughs)

R: “T. H. Hux”?

J: There it is.

S: “Hux”?

E: “Hux” to his friends.

S: “Hux” to his friends? I don't think I've ever seen a quote from T. H. Huxley that I didn't think was awesome.

B: (Laughs)

S: He's always good for a quote.

== Perry DeAngelis Tribute (1:06:56) ==

S: Well, to celebrate our 200th episode we are going to do a quick look back at the Rogue who didn't make it to 200 with us, Perry DeAngelis. Evan put together a brief compilation of some Perry quotes, including some material that never made it to the podcast. So take a listen:

“Aw, God... DNA? The double helix thing? Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Perry got it right! Double helix! Thank you. Secretaries. Double helix! It's a helix thing. It's science-ish. Remember Helix and Oscar, two men living together... what? Sorry.”

“Yay! Steve, you gotta insert a roaring crowd there. Seriously, on the edit. Insert a roaring crowd. All right.”

“Whatever Rosie has from Disney, I want that. Whatever – they wouldn't give her the contract she wanted, according to her. She wanted more money. She wanted 10 mil, and they wouldn't do it. I think the final straw was that diatribe she did at that awards show. I forget the awards.”

“So Bob, you think that this – yeah, good – you think that this planet is also in the vicious grip of Global Warming, like we are? The universe is pretty big, you know? It's pretty big. There's probably a lot of Class M planets out there. Yeah, yeah. Ecos? Yeah. It's a bad place.”

“Well, now wait a minute, Steve. I heard a creationist correct himself about... uh... you know, actually, I think in the whole 6000 history – year history of the Earth I don't think a creationist has ever corrected himself. About anything.”

“(Laughs) I stand corrected. I stand corrected. See? I'm willing to admit it! I'm willing to admit it. Thank you.”

“There's a lot that's big about me, baby. What? Sorry.”

“But, I want to just say, I don't know about reading. I am on the cutting edge. I have a ''television'' in my bathroom, thank you very much. So when I sit on the can I can get absorbed into a program. I can sit there for an hour!”

“What are you talking about? Sometimes I lounge in the tub for hours, you know, with a good movie on.”

“But you never got a marriage proposal from me! (Laughs) So there you go! Thank you! All right, come on.”

“Jay's a member! So they pickle you and ''then'' freeze you, Jay? (Creepy voice) We thawed out another one for dinner! (Scared voice) It's game over man! (Different creepy accent) I love them frozen – I love them frozen babies!”

“Excuse me. Don't talk over my jokes, please.”

“Yeah! And you can't say George Bush is like Hitler. You can only use that for people who are actually ''like'' Hitler! Like, say, Rosie!”

“I ''dare'' you to leave that in the podcast, Steve. I ''dare'' you to leave that in the podcast.”

“(Laughs hysterically) That's cool. Yeah, let's move on. Let's just keep recording. Let's just finish this up. Let's finish this abortion up. That oughta hold the little sons of bitches til next week (Laughs). Come on!”

J: Yeah, Perry unedited was... was, you know, indescribable.

S: It was. Perry in the raw. That was only a little taste of Perry.

R: Yeah, seriously. (laughs)

S: I wish you could have made it to 200 with us.

R: Yeah.

E: Definitely. Definitely, these – yes. Yep. But, we're always thinking about him and he's always part of us –

S: Always.

E: – and he's always part of this show. No doubt about it.

S: Always.

E: He will always be.

B: I wish he was frozen.

R: And he's still there in the archives.

E: Yeah, right. Jay, if only he took your advice and froze his head, we might some day be reacquainted with him.

S & R: (Laughs)

E: Oh, well.

S: Perry's frozen head is missing!

E & R: (Laughs)

S: Well, thanks for that, Evan. Thanks for ''200'' episodes of SGU, guys.

E: Woo-hoo!

S: What can I say?

B: Wow. 200 hours.

R: Hey, thanks for having me. Not for all 200 though.

S: And thanks to all of our listeners for making this the fun ride that it is.

R: Yeah. Thanks everyone.

S: This wouldn't be nearly as much fun if there weren't people actually listening to the show.

E: Listening, giving us feedback.

J: Yeah, definitely.

R: Uh, no. And if there weren't people actually listening then we would probably all be in a crazy hospital or something.

S: (Laughs)

R: A nice padded room. “They just keep talking!”

E: (Laughs)

J: Of course, it makes a difference, but... you know to me it's like... the fact that we – we're doing something that has an effect is important. But, you know, I would want to be – I would be working at this in one way or another, I guess, no matter how successful or unsuccessful we were. But I also really love spending time with you guys. I mean, the show is fun ''because'' of you guys.

R: Yeah. We have a good time.

E: Yeah, without a doubt, the company. It's good company.

J: Yeah.

E: I look forward to it every week.

S: Yeah. And I think that that comes across.

B: Yeah. Most of you guys are awesome.

S: Yeah. (Laughs).

(Rogues laugh)

R: Hey! Man, you skip out to go to one Star Trek movie and...

S: (Laughs)

E: On a Thursday!

J: (Laughs)

R: It was the premiere!

E: The day before release!

J: Rebecca, the fact is, you're a total geek/dork, just like the rest of us. You have –

R: Yeah, I'm just mega-cool about it.

J: – completely – you tipped your hand. Everybody knows. And there's nothing bad about it. I mean, it's –

R: There's no hand tipping! I know I'm a dork! I'm just the coolest dork ever.

(Rogues laugh)

J: Oh, no, no, no. I'm sorry. You have to be part Geek to go to a Star Trek movie. You went and you were – 

R: Yeah.

J: – you're the perfect girl to be on the show with us. That's it.

R: I'm an ultra-rad geek!. (Laughs)

J: Yes. We love you.

R: Aw. I love you too.

B: As Perry would say, you're a hippie-geek.

R: Um, he would call me a liberal hippie. Yeah.

S: Yeah.

E: Yeah. Who's starving herself slowly with a vegetarian diet.

R: (Laughs)

E: That's what he'd say.

R: The length of my life is... what is it? Inversely proportional to the quality of it?

S: To the torture. The horror.

R: Oh, that's right. The horror of my... (Laughs) The amount of years I'll live is proportional to the horror of my life. (Laughs) Aw.

E: Good stuff. It would never have been said without a podcast. So...

R: (Laughs)

S: Well, thanks again, guys.

B: Surely.

R: Thank you, Steve.

E: I look forward to another 200 and then some.

J: Thanks, Steve.

R: Indeed.

S: Here's to another 200, absolutely. And until next week –

E: And then more.

S: – this –

E: 201!

S: – This is your Skeptic's Guide to the Universe.

{{Outro119}}
== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

SGU Episode 201

2015-02-03T02:03:10Z

Mantis!: Reserving episode for transcription

{{transcribing all
|transcriber = mantis!
|date = 2015-02-02
}}

{{Editing required
|transcription = y

|time-stamps = y
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 201
|episodeDate = May 27th 2009 
|episodeIcon = File:Polonium.jpg 
|previous = 
|next = 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|jay = y 
|evan = y 
|perry = 
|guest1 = 
|guest2 = 
|guest3 = 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2009-05-27.mp3
|forumLink =
|qowText = “I have adequately answered all your inquiries. I ask you to quietly rephrase these inquiries to yourself until they match my replies.” 
|qowAuthor = {{w|Elbot (a chatterbot created by Fred Roberts)}} 
|}}

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

=== Whooping Cough on the Rise () ===
* http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-26-whooping-cough_N.htm?csp=usat.me

=== Scientology On Trial () ===
* http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/scientologists-in-france-go-on-trial-for-fraud-1690579.html

=== RNA World () ===
* http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=541

=== Rook Tool Use () ===
* http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6360754.ece

=== NECSS () ===
* NECSS (nexus) - Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism Date: September 12, 2009 Time: 10AM-6PM Location: New York City Featured Speakers: - James Randi - Carl Zimmer - John Rennie - Paul Offit - Massimo Pigliucci - George Hrab - Kaja Perina - Howard Schneider - John Snyder - Michael DeDora - Jamy Ian Swiss (MC)
== Questions and E-mails () ==

=== Question # 1 - Polonium Halos () ===
<blockquote>As a former creationist, one of the most persuasive arguments that I remember is that of polonium halos in granite. Dr. Robert Gentry claims to have discovered proof of an instantaneous creation of earth in the form of the halos of radioactive polonium in undisturbed granite. He challenges mainstream science to reproduce such an artifact in the laboratory or explain how such a thing could happen naturally. What do you think about this guy, and are his claims at all weighty? Thanks for the great show, guys. I regularly listen to about ten podcasts, and I've got to say that yours is the one I most eagerly wait for every week. P.S. I recently listened to your 2008 year-in-review episode again and had an idea. I've purchased all of the bonus content of the show and loved it, and I would unhesitatingly pay twice as much for an uncensored clip of the show in which Jay's cat barfed on his keyboard. What do you say, Skeptics? Please? Trinity Melvin Valparaiso, Florida</blockquote>

== Interview with Phil Plait () ==
* http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/ www.randi.org
== Science or Fiction () ==
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090526202805.htm Item # 1]: Epidemiologists warn of a surge in the incidence of leprosy in India and other parts of Asia, which they fear may return to epidemic proportions.
[http://www.sciencecodex.com/following_a_healthy_lifestyle_is_on_the_decline_in_the_us Item # 2]: Researchers find that in the last 18 years the percentage of Americans following basic healthy lifestyle recommendations has declined.
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090526202730.htm Item # 3]: A cancer patient was detained at customs for several hours because the chemotherapy he was on caused him to lose his finger prints.
== Who's That Noisy () ==
* Atlantic Croaker Fish
== Quote of the Week () ==
<blockquote>“I have adequately answered all your inquiries. I ask you to quietly rephrase these inquiries to yourself until they match my replies.” - Elbot (a chatterbot created by Fred Roberts)</blockquote>

{{Outro119}}
== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

Template:SGU episode list

2015-02-03T02:01:27Z

Mantis!: changed episode availability of 200 to "mag" and 201 to "i"

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

Where the first pass of transcription is done using Google Speech API, the page should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{a}}</nowiki></code> to add the microphone icon.

Pages currently in progress should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{i}}</nowiki></code> to add the pencil icon, and pages that have sections open to other contributors to transcribe should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{Open}}</nowiki></code> to include the green arrow icon.

Once all the transcription is finished, the page should be marked with <code><nowiki>{{mag}}</nowiki></code> to add the magnifying glass icon, signifying that it needs to be proof-read.

Pages that have been proof-read and verified by a contributor other than the author should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{tick}}</nowiki></code> to include the green tick icon. </noinclude>
Below are links to all the SGU episodes with transcription pages.

Jump to: [[#2013|2013]], [[#2012|2012]], [[#2011|2011]], [[#2010|2010]], [[#2009|2009]], [[#2008|2008]], [[#2007|2007]], [[#2006|2006]], [[#2005|2005]]

{|
!Key:
|-
|    {{tick}}
| –  episode proof-read
|     {{mag}}
|  –  transcription complete and needs proof-reading
|-
|    {{i}}
| –  transcription in progress
|     {{Open}}
|  –  contains sections that need transcribing
|-
|    {{a}}
|colspan="3"| –  first pass of transcription performed by Google Speech API
|}

{|style="margin:1em 3em"
|style="padding-right: 6em;white-space:nowrap" valign="top"|<big>'''2014'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 499]], Jan 31 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 498]], Jan 24 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 497]], Jan 17 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 496]], Jan 10 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 495]], Jan 3 2015 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 494]], Dec 27 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 493]], Dec 20 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 492]], Dec 13 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 491]], Dec 6 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 490]], Nov 29 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 489]], Nov 22 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 488]], Nov 15 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 487]], Nov 8 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 486]], Nov 1 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 485]], Oct 25 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 484]], Oct 18 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 483]], Oct 11 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 482]], Oct 4 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 481]], Sep 27 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 480]], Sep 20 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 479]], Sep 13 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 478]], Sep 6 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 477]], Aug 30 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 476]], Aug 23 2014 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 475]], Aug 16 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 474]], Aug 9 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 473]], Aug 2 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 472]], Jul 26 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 471]], Jul 19 2014 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 470]], Jul 12 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 469]], Jul 5 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 468]], Jun 28 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 467]], Jun 21 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 466]], Jun 14 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 465]], Jun 7 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 464]], May 31 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 463]], May 24 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 462]], May 17 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 461]], May 10 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 460]], May 3 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 459]], Apr 26 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 458]], Apr 19 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 457]], Apr 12 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 456]], Apr 5 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 455]], Mar 29 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 454]], Mar 22 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 453]], Mar 15 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 452]], Mar 8 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 451]], Mar 1 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 450]], Feb 22 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 449]], Feb 15 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 448]], Feb 10 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 447]], Feb 8 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 446]], Feb 1 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 445]], Jan 25 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 444]], Jan 18 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 443]], Jan 11 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 442]], Jan 4 2014 {{Open}}

<big>'''2013'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 441]], Dec 28 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 440]], Dec 21 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 439]], Dec 14 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 438]], Dec 7 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 437]], Nov 30 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 436]], Nov 23 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 435]], Nov 16 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 434]], Nov 9 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 433]], Nov 2 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 432]], Oct 26 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 431]], Oct 19 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 430]], Oct 12 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 429]], Oct 5 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 428]], Sep 28 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 427]], Sep 21 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 426]], Sep 14 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 425]], Sep 7 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 424]], Aug 31 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 423]], Aug 24 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 422]], Aug 17 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 421]], Aug 10 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 420]], Aug 3 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 419]], Jul 27 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 418]], Jul 20 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 417]], Jul 13 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 416]], Jul 6 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 415]], Jun 29 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 414]], Jun 22 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 413]], Jun 15 2013 {{Open}}{{a}}
* [[SGU Episode 412]], Jun 8 2013 {{i}}{{a}}
* [[SGU Episode 411]], Jun 1 2013 {{a}}
* [[SGU Episode 410]], May 25 2013 {{Tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 409]], May 18 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 408]], May 11 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 407]], May 4 2013 {{Open}}{{a}}
* [[SGU Episode 406]], Apr 27 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 405]], Apr 20 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 404]], Apr 13 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 403]], Apr 6 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 402]], Mar 30 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 401]], Mar 23 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 400]], Mar 16 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 399]], Mar 9 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 398]], Mar 2 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 397]], Feb 23 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 396]], Feb 16 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 395]], Feb 9 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 394]], Feb 2 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 393]], Jan 26 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 392]], Jan 19 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 391]], Jan 12 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 390]], Jan 5 2013 {{tick}}

<big>'''2012'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 389]], Dec 29 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 388]], Dec 22 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 387]], Dec 15 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 386]], Dec 8 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 385]], Dec 1 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 384]], Nov 24 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 383]], Nov 17 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 382]], Nov 10 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 381]], Nov 3 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 380]], Oct 27 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 379]], Oct 20 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 378]], Oct 13 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 377]], Oct 6 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 376]], Sep 29 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 375]], Sep 22 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 374]], Sep 15 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 373]], Sep 8 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 372]], Sep 1 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 371]], Aug 25 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 370]], Aug 18 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 369]], Aug 11 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 368]], Aug 4 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 367]], Jul 28 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 366]], Jul 21 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 365]], Jul 14 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 364]], Jul 7 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 363]], Jun 30 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 362]], Jun 23 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 361]], Jun 16 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 360]], Jun 9 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 359]], Jun 2 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 358]], May 26 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 357]], May 19 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 356]], May 12 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 355]], May 5 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 354]], Apr 28 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 353]], Apr 21 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 352]], Apr 14 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 351]], Apr 7 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 350]], Mar 31 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 349]], Mar 24 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 348]], Mar 17 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 347]], Mar 10 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 346]], Mar 3 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 345]], Feb 25 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 341]], Jan 28 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 340]], Jan 21 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 339]], Jan 14 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 338]], Jan 7 2012 {{tick}}
<big>'''2011'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 337]], Dec 31 2011 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 336]], Dec 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 335]], Dec 17 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 334]], Dec 10 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 333]], Dec 3 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 332]], Nov 26 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 331]], Nov 19 2011 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 330]], Nov 11 2011 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 329]], Nov 5 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 328]], Oct 29 2011 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 327]], Oct 22 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 326]], Oct 15 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 325]], Oct 8 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 324]], Oct 1 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 323]], Sep 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 322]], Sep 17 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 321]], Sep 10 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU 24hr]], Sep 23-24 2011
* [[SGU Episode 320]], Aug 29 2011 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 319]], Aug 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 318]], Aug 17 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 317]], Aug 10 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 316]], Aug 3 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 315]], Jul 27 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 314]], Jul 20 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 313]], Jul 13 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 312]], Jul 5 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 311]], Jun 29 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 310]], Jun 22 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 309]], Jun 13 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 308]], Jun 08 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 307]], May 31 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 306]], May 25 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 305]], May 18 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 304]], May 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 303]], May 4 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 302]], Apr 27 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 301]], Apr 20 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 300]], Apr 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 299]], Apr 4 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 298]], Mar 30 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 297]], Mar 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 296]], Mar 16 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 295]], Mar 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 294]], Mar 2 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 293]], Feb 23 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 292]], Feb 16 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 291]], Feb 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 290]], Jan 31 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 289]], Jan 26 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 288]], Jan 19 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 287]], Jan 12 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 286]], Jan 5 2011 {{Open}}
<big>'''2010'''</big>

----
* [[SGU Episode 285]], Dec 29 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 284]], Dec 22 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 283]], Dec 15 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 282]], Dec 8 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 281]], Dec 1 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 280]], Nov 24 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 279]], Nov 15 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 278]], Nov 10 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 277]], Nov 3 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 276]], Oct 27 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 275]], Oct 19 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 274]], Oct 13 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 273]], Oct 6 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 272]], Sep 30 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 271]], Sep 22 2010 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 270]], Sep 15 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 269]], Sep 8 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 268]], Sep 1 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 267]], Aug 25 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 266]], Aug 19 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 265]], Aug 11 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 264]], Aug 4 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 263]], Jul 29 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 262]], Jul 21 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 261]], Jul 10 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 260]], Jun 30 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 259]], Jun 28 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 258]], Jun 16 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 257]], Jun 14 2010 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 256]], Jun 9 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 255]], Jun 2 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 254]], May 26 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 253]], May 19 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 252]], May 12 2010 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 251]], May 5 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 250]], Apr 28 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 249]], Apr 17 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 248]], Apr 13 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 247]], Apr 7 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 246]], Mar 31 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 245]], Mar 25 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 244]], Mar 18 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 243]], Mar 11 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 242]], Mar 3 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 241]], Feb 24 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 240]], Feb 17 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 239]], Feb 10 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 238]], Feb 3 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 237]], Jan 27 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 236]], Jan 20 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 235]], Jan 13 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 234]], Nov 15 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 233]], Jan 6 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 232]], Jan 1 2010 {{mag}}

|valign="top" style=white-space:nowrap|<big>'''2009'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 231]], Dec 21 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 230]], Dec 16 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 229]], Dec 9 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 228]], Dec 2 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 227]], Nov 25 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 226]], Nov 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 225]], Nov 11 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 224]], Nov 4 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 223]], Oct 28 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 222]], Oct 21 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 221]], Oct 14 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 220]], Oct 7 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 219]], Sep 28 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 218]], Sep 23 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 217]], Sep 12 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 216]], Sep 9 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 215]], Sep 1 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 214]], Aug 25 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 213]], Aug 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 212]], Aug 12 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 211]], Aug 4 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 210]], Jul 29 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 209]], Jul 22 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 208]], Jul 11 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 207]], Jul 1 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 206]], Jun 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 205]], Jun 16 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 204]], Jun 11 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 203]], Jun 9 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 202]], Jun 3 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 201]], May 27 2009 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 200]], May 20 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 199]], May 13 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 198]], May 7 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 197]], Apr 30 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 196]], Apr 22 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 195]], Apr 15 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 194]], Apr 8 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 193]], Apr 1 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 192]], Mar 25 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 191]], Mar 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 190]], Mar 12 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 189]], Mar 4 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 188]], Feb 26 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 187]], Feb 11 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 186]], Feb 9 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 185]], Feb 4 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 184]], Jan 28 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 183]], Jan 21 2009 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 182]], Jan 15 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 181]], Jan 7 2009 {{Open}}

<big>'''2008'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 180]], Dec 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 179]], Dec 23 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 178]], Dec 16 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 177]], Dec 3 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 176]], Nov 20 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 175]], Nov 10 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 174]], Nov 18 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 173]], Nov 12 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 172]], Nov 5 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 171]], Oct 29 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 170]], Oct 22 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 169]], Oct 11 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 168]], Oct 8 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 167]], Oct 1 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 166]], Sep 24 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 165]], Sep 17 2008 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 164]], Sep 10 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 163]], Sep 3 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 162]], Aug 26 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 161]], Aug 20 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 160]], Aug 13 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 159]], Aug 6 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 158]], Jul 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 157]], Jul 23 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 156]], Jul 16 2008 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 155]], Jul 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 154]], Jul 2 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 153]], Jun 21 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 152]], Jun 11 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 151]], Jun 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 150]], Jun 4 2008 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 149]], May 28 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 148]], May 21 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 147]], May 14 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 146]], May 7 2008 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 145]], Apr 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 144]], Apr 23 2008 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 143]], Apr 16 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 142]], Apr 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 141]], Apr 2 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 140]], Mar 26 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 139]], Mar 19 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 138]], Mar 12 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 137]], Mar 5 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 136]], Feb 27 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 135]], Feb 20 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 134]], Feb 13 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 133]], Feb 6 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 132]], Jan 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 131]], Jan 23 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 130]], Jan 16 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 129]], Jan 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 128]], Jan, 2 2008 {{Open}}

<big>'''2007'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 127]], Dec 26 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 126]], Dec 19 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 125]], Dec 12 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 124]], Dec 5 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 122]], Nov 20 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 121]], Nov 14 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 120]], Nov 7 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 119]], Oct 30 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 118]], Oct 24 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 117]], Oct 17 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 116]], Oct 10 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 115]], Oct 3 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 114]], Sep 27 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 113]], Sep 19 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 112]], Sep 12 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 111]], Sep 5 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 110]], Aug 28 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 108]], Aug 11 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 107]], Aug 8 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 106]], Aug 1 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 105]], Jul 25 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 104]], Jul 18 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 103]], Jul 11 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 102]], Jul 3 2007 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 101]], June 20 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 100]], June 19 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 99]], June 13 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 98]], June 6 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 97]], May 30 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 96]], May 23 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 95]], May 16 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 94]], May 9 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 93]], May 3 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 92]], Apr 25 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 91]], Apr 18 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 90]], Apr 10 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 89]], Apr 4 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 88]], Mar 28 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 87]], Mar 21 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 86]], Mar 14 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 85]], Mar 7 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 84]], Feb 28 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 83]], Feb 21 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 82]], Feb 15 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 81]], Feb 7 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 80]], Jan 31 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 78]], Jan 15 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 77]], Jan 10 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 76]], Jan 3 2007 {{open}}

<big>'''2006'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 75]], Dec 27 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 74]], Dec 20 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 73]], Dec 13 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 73]], Dec 13 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 72]], Dec 6 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 71]], Nov 29 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 70]], Nov 21 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 69]], Nov 15 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 68]], Nov 8 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 67]], Nov 1 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 66]], Oct 25 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 65]], Oct 18 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 64]], Oct 11 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 63]], Oct 4 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 62]], Sep 27 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 61]], Sep 20 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 60]], Sep 13 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 59]], Sep 5 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 58]], Aug 30 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 57]], Aug 23 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 56]], Aug 15 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 55]], Aug 9 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 54]], Aug 2 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 53]], Jul 26 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 52]], Jul 19 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 51]], Jul 12 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 50]], Jul 5 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 49]], Jun 28 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 48]], Jun 21 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 47]], Jun 14 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 46]], Jun 7 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 45]], May 31 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 44]], May 24 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 43]], May 17 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 42]], May 10 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 41]], May 3 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 40]], Apr 26 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 39]], Apr 19 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 38]], Apr 12 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 37]], Apr 6 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 36]], Mar 29 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 35]], Mar 22 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 34]], Mar 15 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 33]], Mar 9 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 32]], Mar 1 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 31]], Feb 22 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 30]], Feb 15 2006 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 29]], Feb 8 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 28]], Feb 1 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 27]], Jan 25 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 26]], Jan 17 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 25]], Jan 11 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 24]], Jan 6 2006 {{mag}}

<big>'''2005'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 23]], Dec 21 2005 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 22]], Dec 14 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 21]], Dec 7 2005 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 20]], Nov 23 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 19]], Nov 16 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 18]], Nov 2 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 17]], Oct 26 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 16]], Oct 12 2005 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 15]], Oct 6 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 14]], Sep 28 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 13]], Sep 14 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 12]], Sep 7 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 11]], Aug 31 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 10]], Aug 23 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 9]], Aug 10 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 8]], Aug 2 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 7]], Jul 20 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 6]], Jul 7 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 5]], Jun 29 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 4]], Jun 15 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 3]], Jun 7 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 2]], Jun 1 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 1]], May 4 2005 {{tick}}
|}

<noinclude>
[[Category: List templates]]
</noinclude>

SGU Episode 200

2015-02-03T01:59:06Z

Mantis!: Changed the "editing needed" header and removed the "Reserved" header

{{Editing required
|transcription =
|proof-reading = y
|time-stamps =
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories =
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 200
|episodeDate = May 20th 2009 
|episodeIcon = File:Ida.jpg 
|previous = 
|next = 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|jay = y 
|evan = y 
|perry = 
|guest1 = 
|guest2 = 
|guest3 = 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2009-05-20.mp3
|forumLink =
|qowText = Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic. 
|qowAuthor = {{w|Thomas Henry Huxley}} 
|}}

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

S: Hello and welcome to the {{SGU}}. Today is Wednesday, May 20th, 2009, and this is episode number 200.

R: Yay!

E: Woo-hoo!

J: 200!

B: Don't you love the odometer effect?

S: Yeah, this is your host, Steven Novella, and joining me this week, as always, is Bob Novella …

B: Hey everybody.

S: … Rebecca Watson …

R: Hello everyone.

S: … Jay Novella …

J: Hey, guys!

S: … And Evan Bernstein …

E: And, hello! 200... incredible.

J: (Laughs) Evan! What the hell? That was so cheesy!

(Rogues Laugh)

R: That was pretty cheesy

J: (Snooty accent) And, hello!

E: (Snooty accent) Hello!

R: I feel like he just opened up a hotel room holding a glass of cheap champagne.

J: (Laughs)

B: Steve will fix it in post production. Steve, you have a “de-cheesy” button, right?

R: (Laughs) De-cheesify that.

S: There's a “De-fromage” filter.

B & R: (Laughs)

J: So what's happening? Is this a podcast? What are we doing here?

R: I think it is. It's our 200th!

E: Oh, it is our 200. I mean, it was May 4th in which we—of 2005—in which we actually recorded out very first episode. And we just celebrated that a couple weeks ago. And it so happens around the same time is now our 200th episode. So it's a series of celebrations this month.

R: We're always just looking for a reason to party.

E: Absolutely.

B: That's right.

J: Did anything else happen, though? This time?

== This Day in Skepticism (1:31) ==
* Marie Curie is presented with a gram of radium worth $100,000 at the White House in Washington DC in 1921.

E: Oh, well yes, actually. Okay, so here's something funny that happened, kind of. In 1921, Marie Curie, you remember her?

S: (Sarcastic) Yeah, she was hilarious.

E: (Laughs) She was presented with a gram of radium worth a hundred thousand dollars at the White House in Washington DC.

R: Which promptly gave her cancer.

E: (Laughs) It's about the most interesting thing I could find today...

R: Too soon?

E: ...as far as science goes.

S: That was it. She was presented with the... radium

E: She was presented with a gram of radium.

J: Well, what can you do with radium? What would be the things you'd use if for?

S: Uh... ruining film?

R: Yeah, destroying your enemies. There's a lot you can do with it.

E: Marie Curie discovered radioactivity.

R: The hard way.

E: Was she awarded the Nobel Prize for that?

R: Marie Curie won two Nobel Prizes. One in physics in 1903 and one in chemistry in 1911. She is the first person to have won two Nobel Prizes. And she was awesome.

E: She was. And at a time in which, you know, women could not even vote. Uh, so, that was pretty impressive.

== News Items ==

=== Missing Link Ida (2:33) ===
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8057465.stm http://tinyurl.com/lemurlink

R: Yeah. I feel like there was a big announcement this week. Google's homepage is telling me that there was something going on.

S: Something about a missing link. You know, these things come out every other week.

R: Yeah.

E: Finally.

S: This was the big news item of the week. Scientists have unveiled – this is a fossil that was actually discovered a number of years ago. I think it's been sitting around in somebody's private collection...

R: I think it was like '85 or something.

S: Yeah, for like 24 or 25 years and then it came to the attention of scientists about 2 years ago, who have been studying this fossil and now they're unveiling the fossil and their initial findings. This is a fossil of a transitional species – what is alleged to be a transitional species between prosimians, which are the earliest primates, and the other branch of primates which led to monkeys, apes, and humans. This, again, dates to about 47 million years ago. This species makes a connection between these two major branches of primates and one of the remarkable features of this particular specimen is that it is over 95% complete. It is a remarkably complete specimen. Beautifully preserved. One of those specimens that fell to the bottom of a lake, probably. Died in the mud and the was soon covered by layers of mud and was perfectly preserved in that fashion. In fact, it's one of the rare specimens that where you can still see the impression of the fur of the animal.

R: That's so cool.

B: That's wicked.

S: It is definitely cool. 

J: Wouldn't they have, uh, – wouldn't what's-his-face have collected 2 of those creatures and...

R: Yeah, where's the – where's the boy?

E: Uh, that would be Noah, not “what's-his-face”.

J: Yeah, whatever.

R: (Laughs)

S: (Laughing) What's-his-face, yeah.

E: “What's-his-Bible”

S: As interesting as this fossil is – of course we're also interested in the way these news stories are reported, and this one has been all over the map. The first news story I saw on this was from ''Sky News''.

E: Yeah, so did I

S: And this is just about the worst science news reporting I have seen in a while. I know we criticize the way the main stream media presents science stories a lot on this podcast – and there are good – there's good reporting and there's bad reporting often on issues. This was the worst. They – they crammed about as many misconceptions into their story as possible. In addition to that, it seems to me as if the scientists themselves, who are unveiling this fossil, were engaging in a lot of hype and hyperbole. You know, you always wonder were the being quoted out of context? You know, were they being treated fairly? But even allowing for a little bit of that they just – you know, the sound bytes that they were offering up to the press, you know, to me were irresponsible.

So, this fossil which is dubbed “Ida”, I-D-A after the daughter of the – of the – probably one of the researchers. One of the experts is quoted as saying that this is the “Eighth Wonder of the World” – said “The impact on paleontology will be something like an asteroid falling down to Earth.” So... not quite. You know, first let's have the scientific community take a look at this fossil and see what it ''really'' means. But then, in 'Sky News' – This is what – this is what they say about it: “Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution.”

B: Oh. My. God.

S: Finally!

R: We've all been waiting.

E: All that other stuff, it was just speculation, and theory, and conjecture.

R: Yeah, we don't even know where Darwin came up with that crap. Surely he didn't have evidence.

E: There was nothing before this!

S: There is a tendency in reporting new and interesting findings – and sometimes the scientists do this themselves, sometimes it's their press office, but often the media – to overemphasize the previous state of our ignorance, right? So they want to say, “We knew nothing, but now this discovery changes everything."

E: Yeah. (Laughs)

S: That's always how they want to couch it, but in so doing they really completely misrepresent the current state of knowledge. Come on – ''This''? ''This'' one fossil confirms Darwin's Theory of Evolution? ''Please''.

R: Yeah, I mean there are a million biologists slapping their foreheads –

S: Yeah.

R: – like, “Oh, well just forget about all that work we've been doing. ''This'' is it.

E: Yeah! A parad – They're treating it like a paradigm shift.

J: You know, and that one fossil would also disprove all of Intelligent Design and everything like – you know – they're putting so much weight on this one thing. It's ridiculous.

S: Yeah. Yeah, it's very – it's counterproductive! Here's another misconception that – it seems as if the scientists themselves were promoting to the media, cuz there was, there was at least quote marks around these statements. Oh, another interesting thing is that the scientists waited two years to present this and there's already a documentary starring Sir David Attenborough about this fossil and so some of these quote are from David Attenborough who said that “This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals. As though this is the one that connects us directly with them.

R: Also – you know – that quote could have been taken out of context. If it comes from the documentary they've been doing it might have just been used as an introduction. Like, “We're going to use this piece to show you exactly how we're connected to the rest of the mammals.”

S: Yes, all these (unintelligible). But here's the other quotes he gives: “The link they would have said up to now is missing. Well, it's no longer missing.” referring to the link between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. So here's another trend in reporting fossils. Whatever connection can be made to humanity is always overemphasized as well. This is a link between the two earliest branches within primates: prosimians and then the monkeys, apes, and hominids. But it's not the link that connects the human branch to the rest of primates any more than it's a link between apes and primates, you know what I mean? Or – 

R: Yeah.

S: – That's completely the wrong context. This is 40 million years in the past or humans branching off from the rest of primates or the rest of mammals. I mean, it just is nonsensical. I'm not even sure what they're trying to convey there, except trying to make it seem like this has some very direct and specific implications for ''human'' evolution which it really doesn't except that it's a primate.

B: How many similar other branchings happened in the past?

S: Right.

B: That are just as cool as this one. I mean, it's not unique in that regard.

S: Right.

B: But, Steve. Real quick, you mentioned the movie with Attenborough and stuff. But you're only really scratching the surface at the level of this coordinated event between the scientists and the History Channel. There was the unveiling at the American Museum of Natural History. There was the publishing of a peer-reviewed article. A film like – that you mentioned – going into detail about the secretive two year study of the fossil. A book release, an exclusive arrangement with ABC News, and an elaborate website. All, you know, orchestrated by the History Channel and these scientists. And, regarding this, the scientists at the University of Oslo – One of the guys who kind of put all this team together – He said any pop band is doing the same thing. Uh, any athlete is doing the same thing. We have to start thinking the same way in science.

S: But it's really diluting the science, I think.

R: But is there – is there a point to be made in there though? That scientists do have to think about the perception and how to get the word out about scientific discoveries. I mean, obviously, things have gone terribly wrong in this case when it comes to some of the news that's being reported. But, at its heart, you know, I can certainly understand the sentiment of wanting your work recognized and wanting to reach out to a mainstream audience.

S: Yeah, absolutely. Just don't distort the science in the process, that's all.

R: Yeah.

B: That's true, but there's another factor – there's another point to this. And this isn't really just a couple guys that were looking at this fossil for the past couple years. This is an international team of scientists that have been vetting this fossil for all this time. So, to me that gives it maybe a little bit more credence in that, you know, it's a pretty big team of pretty good scientists that already have checked this out for ''two years'' –

S: Yeah.

B: – So, it's not like – it's not like Hans Fleischmann that got some –

S: Pons. Pons and Fleishmann.

B: – I'm sorry

J: (Creepy German Accent) Hans.

E: Hans and Franz. (Laughs)

S: Hans and Franz!

B: (Laughs) It's not like Pons and Fleischmann (unclear) get a little extra heat coming down, like “Oh, we got Cold Fusion.” You know, it's been vetted for quite a while. 

S: Yeah, it's a legitimate fossil, I'm sure it's going to have very significant implications in terms of our understanding of primate evolution. It is a quote-unquote “Missing Link”, although that term is misleading and we should really try to get away from it. It is a transitional species, clearly. And it's also -- you know -- the researchers acknowledge it's probably not a direct ancestor, so, again, not the “Grandmother” but the “Great-Aunt”, as we say.

B: Right, I like that. Yep.

S: So they acknowledge that. But, the hype was so disgusting that the – and the distortion – again, downplaying what we already know about evolution, for example, as well as saying, like “This is the ''most'' significant transitional specimen ever found. Whereas other scientists are like, “Um... it's nice but it's no archeopteryx.” This is no feathered dinosaur. I mean, ''come on''! Let's put things in perspective –

R: Yeah.

S: – We have lots of other fossils that are more significant in terms of their implications as a transitional species.

J: You know what's ironic about this is that we – in the big scheme of things – that, you know, any news that supports evolution is fantastic, in a way. But, we're also skeptics. We're also sticklers for information not only being correct, but we also want the information ''explained'' properly.

S: Yeah.

J: If we were creationists we would be jumping all over this exploiting it to the nth degree, but here we are on our podcast criticizing something that we should – you know – most people would just say “Yeah, that's great. It's a good article.” you know. But we're here criticizing it because it wasn't even presented correctly.

E: It distorted the science. It distorted the truth. They're treating it like a paradigm shift and it's merely another piece of the puzzle that was predicted that we would eventually find.

S: Yeah. You know, you shouldn't make the science enthusiasts cringe, right? Yes, you want to reach out to the public that – you know, where it's just one other piece of news in the news cycle and may not have a preexisting deep interest in science. And you can make it sexy, you can make it interesting. But if you do it in a way that makes anybody who knows what they're talking about – you know – again, do the face-palm and cringe, you failed. I mean, you've made some major mistakes if you've done that and I think this is contributing to the – you know, ironically I think they contributed to the public ''misunderstanding'' of the science.

Jay, the creationists, like my favorite “Evolution News and Views”, the Discovery Institute propaganda blog, of course they did jump all over the media circus surrounding this fossil. They – obviously they have nothing significant to say about the science. This is a transitional species, beautifully preserved, well dated, rigorously examined scientifically. It fills in – yes, it does fill in a piece of the puzzle in terms of the history of evolution on the Earth. But, they opened the door to criticizing the media hype and ascribing it to quote-unquote “Those Darwinists”, right? Whereas we're sitting here saying – you know – the news media and these irresponsible scientists are presenting this with inappropriate hype. But they're criticizing the same things we're criticizing but attaching it to “Those Darwinists”, as if we're trying to “pull one over” on the public by deceiving them about the implications of this fossil. So when you – you know – if when you're dealing with evolution, and the presentation of evolution to the public. If you do that and you have no recognition that ''half'' of the public doesn't believe in evolution and that there are dedicated critics out there. I mean, that's just incredibly naïve. You have to – every statement you say, every sound bite you hand the media has to be done very deliberately with the knowledge that this is a controversial subject about which this – the public is profoundly confused – which has extreme ideological enemies. And if you just ignore that – you know – you're going to be just handing gifts to the anti-scientific side of this equation.

B: It just shows how they're just not on their radar – it seems – right? They're not even thinking about it.

S: It's terrible. It's like that guy we were talking about – the other scientist – about the Cambrian Explosion – talking about it as if these fossils just appeared out of a magic box.

B: Right. 

S: You just can't say things like that! You know – it's just – It's misleading and it's wrong first of all.

E: Really? A magic box?

S: It's hyperbole that is just gift-wrapped for the critics of evolution, you know? But some media outlets did get it right. The BBC article in particular was very good.

=== GPS Failure (16:22) ===
* http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/165224/with_a_gps_failure_possible_is_it_still_safe_to_buy.html

R: I heard that my GPS System is going to explode. Oh noes!!! What do I do?

J: Well, let's talk about it then.

B: We love out acronyms. ATM, IBM, LASER, FUBAR is one of my favorites. Here's one that's pretty –

R: WTF, BBQ

B: – indispensible: GPS. I'm sure you guys have all heard of GPS. Don't even need to say what it means.

E: Oh, yeah. They ship anywhere. Oh wait, that's UPS.

B: (Laughs) Global Positioning System. So, I was pretty shocked then when I ran across headlines like these today: “A world without GPS? Unthinkable”, “GPS on verge of breakdown, report finds”. So, needless to say, I had to find out what the hubbub was about. It turns out, the US Government Accountability Office. Imagine – Don't they sound – You don't want them breathing down your back, right? The US Government Accountability Office.

R: Do we have one of those? Seriously? I can't believe that our government is accountable for anything.

(Rogues Laugh)

B: Yeah, right. There you go.

E: Very good point, Rebecca.

R: What have they been doing the past 10 years?

B: They've been looking at GPS, I guess. They're basically a government watchdog agency as you might have surmised. They recently warned congress that because of poor management with a 2 billion dollar upgrade – it's actually going to threaten the GPS service.

J: The upgrade is going to threaten it?

B: Well, yeah. The upgrade is a 2 billion dollar upgrade program that's being worked on – it's actually threatening the GPS service. Now, from the report – I read the summary of the report – and what they're saying is that the oldest satellites that comprise the GPS system is – they're going to start “dying” – quote-unquote – next year. And replacements are not going to be ready.

J: What?

R: (Gasp)

B: Right. That's what they're saying. And it's because of two reasons, basically. There's technical problems, as you might imagine. I guess it's pretty complicated to put this stuff together. And they're having troubles with the contractor. I think they got a new contractor and they're having some trouble with this firm, or whatever it is. So the result has been a 870 ''million'' dollar cost overrun.

J: What? Oh, yeah, let's –

B: It does sound like a lot of money.

J: – Yeah, let's just overrun by almost ''half'' the amount of money that it was costing.

B: Yeah, right!

R: Alright, well – but – I mean – who cares? Like, is this really a life or death situation? Are we going to freak out because we might have to go back to – you know –

E: 1994

R: – using primitive tools like maps and stopping at the gas station to ask for directions? Ahhhhh!

S: Obviously, Rebecca, you don't understand the implications.

B: No! Oh, absolutely not!

J: What she just told the world was that she doesn't have a GPS system. Because if she did –

R: Where am I going to put a GPS on my bike?

E: Travels by block. 

S: You want guys – you want a guy to pull over and ''talk'' to somebody rather than use a gadget to know where they're going?

B: Oh, I think – clearly – I need to do a little bit of background of exactly what GPS is and what it does for us.

R: Alright, but make it quick.

J: Bob, everybody knows what the hell it is and what it does for us.

R: Yeah, you stick it in your car and it drives you around Boston and gets you lost.

B: The details are interesting. Our GPS is the ''only'' fully functional global navigation satellite system in the world, becoming fully operational in '95.

J: (Palpatine impression?) Station is fully functional.

B: The Russians actually had one. I wasn't aware of this. The Russians had a global navigation satellite system. But, because of all the economic problems they were going through it totally went into disrepair, and now it's essentially unusable. So, they actually have the satellites up there – enough to cover the globe – but it's actually just kinda – you know – they're just limping along and not doing what they need to do. And there are other countries, actually – China is working on one that's global and the European Union is actually going to have one that's going to come on line in 2013. The Russian one might be back online in 2010. They're predicting it might come back online. Although, I don't know if it could interface with our system.

J: Nyet

B: So these satellites – is a constellation – they call these ''constellations'' of satellites – they're in orbit – in medium Earth orbit around the Earth – a thousand to 22 thousand miles up is this area called “Medium Earth Orbit” and we've got about 31 to 32 satellites – depending on who you talk to about this and --

E: (Laughs)

R: Is one Pluto?

E: “I'll say 31!” “I'll say 32.”

B: – So, Rebecca – so what this thing – this isn't just navigation on your iPhone or your car navigator. This is map-making, land-surveying, commerce, geocaching, ''geo-shagging''

R: Geoca – wait, geo-shagging? –

B: Look it up!

E: Geo-shagging!

R: – Is that like geocaching but with sex?

B: You got it!

R: Oh, that's 'so' nerdy!

B: And, not to mention all the military uses. So this technology is just ubiquitous.

R: Meh.

B: And if we lost it, it would impact national security. So this is a big deal, if it's true. If this is true.

Alright, so what are the symptoms? Say, worst case scenario, and this report is correct and we start getting these GPS brownouts. What's going to happen?

S: So, Bob. Can you tell me what's failing about these satellites? Cuz they seem to be so high up it's not like their orbit's decaying or anything, right? They're just running out of juice or just – what's going on?

B: These satellites have a lifespan. When they go up they say “This satellite is going to last for so many years.” That's how long the productive life is –

J: Okay...

B: – And that kind of keys into why I don't think that this is going to be much of a problem. Because... the expected lifespan is not necessarily the actual lifespan, especially for military –

E: Right.

B: – Military space equipment. They last longer. I mean, look at these probes –

E: Space shuttle!

B: – No. Look at the probes we send to 'Mars'. They say, “Well, we're going to use this thing for six months.” and then 30 years later this thing is still kicking around. I mean, these things just – they last longer. So this is not hard and fast. It's not like these “birds” are going to drop out of the sky.

J: Bob, you know we have to kind of also trust the experts. You know, these are people that understand the technology, understand the hardware. And if they say that things could start potentially be breaking down as early as next year – I mean – I would tend to agree with them and not go on what you just said.

B: No, it could. It definitely could. But one satellite's not going to do it. We only need a minimum of 24 satellites and we have 31. So what are the odds of seven of them failing before replacements start getting into orbit? It's –

E: What are the odds?

B: – Its – you know – I don't think this is – It doesn't sound urgent to me. It's something that we should be looking into. But don't forget, Jay, that GPS is so important that if the shit really started hitting the fan and this was starting to look nasty our government would – I think they would do pretty much what – exactly what was needed. They would throw money at this, whatever was needed to get this stuff fixed. Because there's no way. There's no way.

R: Billions!

J: Are we at that point right now? I mean, if it is as serious as you say.

R: He's saying that it's not serious.

B: Look at the worst symptoms that I was able to find regarding this. It's going to take longer for your computer to compute your location.

J: (Falsetto) No!

B: So, you wait a few more seconds and then it's gonna be – it'll be a little bit worse in areas that have poor sky views like, say – they call these downtown canyons. Like, you're between all these buildings –

J: Yeah.

B: -- Or you're inside buildings. It's going to take a little bit longer. The military applications will be worse because they rely on much more precise locations that it would be a little tougher for them. But the consumers wouldn't – would barely see this, I think. At least initially. It would take – It's not gonna – it's not like your Navigator's gonna take an hour to find out where you are and make it unusable. So –

J: Well, for everybody's sake I hope that they figure out what's going on, they mop this thing up quick, and no – there'll be no disturbance for the military or for –

E: In the Force.

J: – And the fact that I love my Garmin. So there it is.

S: It's just a matter of getting satellites up in the – to replace the ones that are failing.

J: Yeah, but you gotta build the satellites, guys. And if a contractor's screwing up –

B: Right.

J: – They don't have the satellites ready to launch. I mean, that's what it probably boils down to.

B: But – There's a workaround though and we've got these other global systems coming online in the next four or five years and they're specifically being designed to interface with GPS so they'll augment each other and help each other. So you'll be able to kind of like “fuse” these global navigation satellite systems together with, say, the Galileo one in the European Union or GLONAS, perhaps. So, they'll help each others' reliability and their accuracy. And don't forget: worst case scenario, all we gotta do is tap into the alien satellites and use their network, and we can probably be accurate to within one angstrom.

R: Perfect.

S: Right.

J: Okay.

R: So, bottom line: don't panic. Okay. Next!

=== Stem Cell Quackery in China (25:02) ===
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8052227.stm

S: Well, stem cells have been in the news again. I know we've actually spoken before about the fact that there are many clinics throughout the world, especially in China, selling stem cell therapy, usually for something on the order of $20,000 per treatment. And there's another clinic out there that's been getting a lot of news in the east. This Beike Biotech clinic in northeast China.

E: (Disgusted) Huh!

S: And, same deal. They're making claims that – for amazing clinical therapeutic effects but they're not publishing any science. They're not – nobody knows what they're actually injecting into people and the bottom line is that while the potential for stem cell research is tremendous – I mean, I think stem cells – you know, there's the tremendous potential there to be very effective therapies for a lot of things in 5 to 20 years. There really isn't anything right now that's available clinically. There are – you know – there's clinical research going on, etc. but –

R: So these guys basically are like – they sound no better than faith healers or anybody selling miracle cures to desperate people.

S: That's basically it. At really incredible prices. So, unfortunately, they've been very successful in getting their stories told in Western media. And even when the Western media tries to be responsible and does a reasonable job at covering the story, the bottom line is it's still – to people who are sick or to parents – they're only going to see the story that they wrap – you know, the personal anecdote that they wrap the story around. So, unfortunately, that's what they did in this case. This is a BBC reporting on this. And, again, generally BBC does a great job with these science stories. But they tell the story of a 3-year-old girl named Dakota whose parents spent 30,000 Pounds to bring her to this Beike Biotech clinic to treat her blindness.

R: It's incredibly sad because –

S: It is very sad.

R: – And – you know – like you said, just by publishing the information it somehow does make it worse and in this case the mother specifically said that basically the doctors told them, “Don't bother going online just to find some crazy out-there cure cuz they're not going to work.” And that's exactly what she did. She went online. She searched until she found something that offered a glimmer of hope to give her child sight back and went for it. And the result is that she brings the kid back and they test the kid and she still doesn't have any sight. Yet, the mother says she does. She wants to believe it so badly that she's thinking that her daughter can see now despite the fact that she obviously cannot.

B: Ugh.

S: The parents, confident in the therapy, agreed to have the child's vision tested and it showed ''zero'' difference before and after the therapy. But the mother is quoted as saying, “If a specialist wants to argue the point, come and watch my child and tell me that the child isn't seeing anything and that it never made a difference.” Very sad. And this is typical of cons, actually, that people would rather believe they made the right decision and not admit that they were victimized, right?

R: Yeah.

S: And this is especially true when – and in this case I've actually personally seen this exact scenario play out. You have a parent taking care of a sick child, they want to do everything possible. There's this “miracle cure” that's being dangled before them and they can't afford the incredibly ridiculous price tag. So, what do they do? They have a fund-raiser among all their friends and their neighborhood and their family. Everyone gets together, raises a lot of money so that they can hand it over to some quack selling them false hope. And then the treatment doesn't work, but the parents – at that point there's almost no way, psychologically, they're going to be able to admit that there was no effect. So they look for anything – you know, the confirmation bias – to convince themselves that there was some effect.

R: And, of course, ''this'' case is bad, but at least it's not the worst case in which the kid is, for instance, on chemo, but is taken off it so that they can fly him across, you know, the world so he can get some quack treatment –

S: Right.

R: – ends up causing more damage. In this case it looks like they've only lost, you know, a great deal of money and spent a lot of – worth, you know, a lot of time for nothing. But...

S: Right. And, you know, of course when they're confronted by the media – the people who are part of this clinic – about what they're doing they say, “Oh, well, scientists in the West don't pay attention to Chinese scientists and we're publishing in Chinese journals and they don't know what we're doing. But, that's BS. That's just not true. They're not publishing any scientific results other than sometimes maybe some case series, which is, essentially, they're just their own anecdotal experience. But –

B: I guess they don't want American money, either.

S: Well, they're getting the American money, right? They're –

B: Yeah, but not in the quantities they would get it if they actually marketed this successfully in the United States. If it actually worked, you know, that'd be a great motivator to go everywhere, not be isolated where you are, but spread it all over the world.

S: The thing is, science has to be transparent, right? And, in medicine it's the same way. If there's one clinic in the world doing something it's almost guaranteed that it's fake, that it's a con job. The only possible exception to that is if you have a particularly gifted surgeon who personally perfected a new surgical technique and, therefore, that's the only guy at the moment, or only woman, who has the technical skill and knowledge to do a ''new'' surgical technique. So, in that case it's actually plausible that there may be only one Center that can do it. But if it's just a ''therapy'', if it's a drug, or stem cells, or whatever – if the science is there, then there'll be hundreds, if not thousands of institutions around the world that will be able to do it, right? But, in this case the science just isn't there. You know, there are tons of technical problems that have yet to be worked out in the stem cell technology, and they're not just saying that they've made one or two steps in stem cell therapy. If their clinical claims are true, then they've made a dozen or twenty steps and – you know – they're ten to twenty years ahead of the rest of the world, and they have nothing to show for it. That just is beyond credibility, unfortunately. But people will read even a skeptical article and they will see, “These parents believe their 3-year-old girl was helped. That's enough for me. That's enough of a desperate hope.” From their perspective it's not even unreasonable. If you're facing a death sentence from an incurable disease, even a thin hope might be rational, you know. You really can't put it on the patient or on the family – you know – parents of a sick child. Very sad, but this is not going to go away any time soon, unfortunately.

== James Randi Bumper (32:18) ==

''This is James Randi, and you're listening to the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe''

== Questions and E-mails ==

=== Question # 1 - Candiru Fish Story (32:27) ===

S: Let's do a couple of emails this week.

J: Let's do that.

R: Let's.

S: Let's do that. First email comes from Eddie G. from Saint Louis.

J: (Laughing) Steve!

E: You have to say it like this: Eddie G.

R: (Laughs)

S: And Eddie – reminds me of Neil G. Remember him? Neil G?

E: (Laughs) Oh, yeah!

J: Yeah, me like! Me like!

R: Neil Gaiman? Oh, right... (groans)

S: And he writes:

<blockquote>Several years ago a coworker brought an article to my attention in an issue of Maxim referring to the 'fish feared by all men of the Amazon', for its tendency to follow the flow of urine and swim up the human male urethra, thereby lodging itself and being nearly impossible to remove. He was convinced it had to be true, 'Why else would Maxim print it?' I had my doubts. To me it all sounded like the kind of nonsense tailor made to strike fear in the heart (and other dearer parts) of a Maxim subscriber. I noted it made no mention of the fish being attracted to women, or other mammals, for that matter, merely to urine produced by human males. The article went so far as to imply this was a stage of the catfish's life cycle. Since then this fish story has reemerged over and over again, but my attempts to find any information on it haven't been terribly successful. Mostly it sounds like an urban legend, but I was wondering if you had any insights. Eddie G. St. Louis</blockquote>

R: Okay, first of all, can we address the idea that 'Why else would Maxim print it?' People, let's not go to Maxim for our science, okay? Whether this turns out to be right or wrong, you know, like, 'How to get in her pants' is not – that's not news and it's not logical and it's just... Put down the magazine! Stop buying that crap!

B: But it is important!

R: It's... it's so not important. I mean, really! Maxim? Come on!

S: Yeah, that's a separate issue, and you're absolutely right. Yeah.

R: All right.

E: I read it for the technical articles, myself.

R: (Laughing) Shut up!

E: (unintelligible) 

S: So, what do you guys think?

R: Yeah, I mean, just get the porn!

S: Tell me, what do you guys think? Does a fish swim up the stream of urine into the end of the penis and lodge itself in the urethra?

R: Yes!

J: What is this, Science or Fiction?

B: A stream? How long does it stay a stream? I mean, it's totally getting attenuated probably, you know, an inch or two from the end.

S: No it isn't!

J: I would say that yes, that creature exists. That's my guess.

R: Well, the candiru exists. The question is whether or not it actually does that.

J: I say it does that.

S: So, kind of. You know, I was actually surprised how true this is.

R: Well, how ''maybe'' true this is.

S: Yeah, well I – you know. There are pictures.

R: Cecil covered this on Straight Dope –

S: Yeah.

J: Cecil?

R: – is what you're going to bring up, right? Uncle Cecil, who we all know and love and trust. And, he had originally posted that it doesn't exist, that it's an urban legend, or that he was, at least, very skeptical –

S: Yeah.

R: – of whether or not it does exist. But then this study came up, or this case study came up in which a doctor claims to have discovered this very thing and – I don't know. Steve, do you want to address this case study?

S: Yeah, so there's a published, or at least presented case study where a man claims to have been standing in a river, in the Amazon, up to his thighs and peeing in the river. And that a, like, about two-inch long fish jumped out of the water and into his urethra. It basically latched on and then wiggled its way in there. Now, so, it didn't swim up the stream of his urine. Right, so that part was embellishment. At least, if you're taking this story at face value. So there doesn't seem to be any support for the notion that it's, like, swimming up the urine stream. Or even, really, that it's attracted to urine or that urine has anything to do with this at all. What this fish does do though is, this fish is a parasite. And it crawls inside of animals. It will find any orifice, work its way inside, and then, you know, eat and reproduce on the inside of an animal. That is the life cycle of this case. But this is an individual case where I guess the fish was looking for an orifice and there was one so it jumped in. The man eventually presented to medical care and a urologist actually endoscopically removed the now dead fish from inside his scrotum. What I can say is, this doesn't mean that this is a true case, but what I can say is the doctors are named, which is always a good point, you know, it makes a story more credible when you actually have the individuals referred to by name. And the description of the medical procedure sounded completely kosher to me. It made sense, and sounded like an actual medical description of a procedure. So, it didn't have the red flags of “this is somebody making up a fake medical story” to make it sound legitimate. You know what I mean?

R: Oh, but, can I – yeah, there is – I agree with you, on those points. However, I do think that the doctors sound very legit and Cecil says he talked to one of the doctors that was involved, and it all sounds like it's on the up-and-up. But, what the doctors know is that there was a fish inside this man's urethra and that they removed it.

S: Right.

R: What they're taking on faith is the man's story –

S: Is how it got there, right.

R: Yes. And, I feel that in this case Cecil was not skeptical enough of the story. Because, there are other ways for objects to become lodged in a penis.

S: Right.

R: And –

B: I don't want to hear this.

J: And you would know.

R: I know this because I have access to the internet and... (laughs)

S: That's the only way that you know.

E: (Laughs)

R: And as we all know, if there's something pervy out there that has been thought of, then someone has done it and uploaded it to the internet. And, you know there is a certain fetish that involves sticking things in your penis and –

J: Oh, come on. Really? Really?

R: – I think that it's – yes, really.

J: We're not going to talk about this.

R: Well, no. I think that this is a legitimate issue. It's very, you know, common that people get things stuck inside them and have to go to the emergency room.

S: That's true, but are you going to put a carnivorous parasite in there? I mean, come on. That's –

R: Hey. Hey, it might not be ''my'' thing.

S: Talk about poor judgment.

B: Steve, they put hamsters up there.

R: But I also wouldn't put – yeah. I wouldn't put a lot of things.

S: Hamsters aren't known for eating animals from the inside out.

R: I'm not saying that this is necessarily what happened. I'm just saying there are other explanations.

S: Here's my hypothesis – is that the guy was submerged from the waist down at some point and the thing crawled in there, 'cause that's what it does!

E: Yeah.

S: You know, jumping out of the water is not that – you know – if he – and maybe he was only – you know, by his description, you imagine, he was only up to his thighs. You know, that's pretty much right there. It's not like it would had to have gone very far. You know what I mean?

R: Yeah.

S: So, the bit that always seemed the most extraordinary to me was the actually swimming up the stream of the urine. That always seemed ridiculous, and I think we can safely remove that element from the story.

B: I thought he meant when he was urinating within, you know, waist-deep –

E: Yeah.

B: – and following the stream. I didn't know you meant the stream was outside the water.

S: Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

E: It wasn't clear, but you kind of have to draw your own conclusions.

B: That's whacked.

S: Well, that's the – that's the urban legend is, like, so you imagine somebody standing on the shore and the fish swimming up the urine.

B: Oh, that's crazy.

S: Yeah, that's crazy.

R: I've heard sharks can do that too.

S: All right, that's just the – right, the embellishment of the story.

R: Swim up your stream and eat you.

S: All right. So, yeah, and the other bit that sounds reasonable is that the fish normally is not a parasite on humans, does not normally crawl in the urethra. It does though, however, just find its way inside mammals and is a parasite from the inside. And that this is just an accidental thing that happens, rarely. There are reports of, like finding a dead mammal in a river, and you cut it open and these things spill out of it, you know, 'cause they were basically feasting from the inside.

R: Well, now that our male audience has now completely torn off all their –

S: Right.

R: – headphones and thrown away their iPods. Um, should we continue?

S: Yeah. But, it's interesting because this is more true than I thought it was gonna be when I first read the story. You know, it's interesting.

R: Yeah.

E: Hm.

J: All right, so the bottom line is that, indeed, this thing will crawl up your Willy Wonka.

S: Yeah.

E: If it can get up there, yeah.

R: Did you just say, “your Willy Wonka”? That's just wrong.

S: Don't swim naked in the Amazon. That's the lesson. All right!

E: That's great advice!

R: Man, if only... only I'd learned that sooner.

S: That's a safety tip. I think what we need to do, is we need to do a safety tip each week.

E: Oh, “Tip of the Week”, right.

S: “Safety Tip of the Week”.

J: Steve, we're going to give those kind of safety tips? Like, “don't set yourself on fire”, “don't let a fish swim up your –

S: Yeah!

E: Exactly!

J: – Gizmo”, I mean...

S: As a public service announcement.

R: “Don't chop off your arm with a machete”.

S: Yeah! Exactly, exactly.

(Rogues laugh)

S: Right? “Don't eat uranium”.

E: (Laughs) “Don't take silver colloidal medicine”.

S: Yeah, “Don't drink silver”. Right, stuff like that.

E: Things they don't tell you about at school.

R: “Don't put monkeys in your pants”.

E: Yeah, or birds.

S: “Don't put monkeys, or birds, in your pants”. Right, exactly. All right, let's go on to one more email.

=== Question # 2 - One Million Dollars (41:56) ===

S: This one comes from... the pronunciation guide is almost as bad as the words! Why – why give –

R: It's Lasse –

S: Lasse Maruen. But why give a pronunciation guide that has “R-E-U-X” in it?

E: Yeah, why?

S: I mean, come one. All right, let's say “Maruen”. This one comes from Lasse Maruen. And they write:

<blockquote>I understand that you do all this show on your free time, and that your expenses are covered by donations. So I wonder, what would you do with [insert Dr. Evil] one million dollars? More seriously - what would you do if somebody donated huge amounts of cash to SGU? Would you do more shows? Quit your day jobs? Hire people to help with production? Spend it all on one huge party? I wish to stress that I am not a crazy rich person, but you never know, there might be somebody listening, so keep that in mind when you discuss this Thanks for a great show! Lasse MarÃ¸en (Pronunciation guide: La-seh Ma-reux-an) e body of the email here</blockquote>

J: (Dr. Evil impression) Million dollars! What would we do with a million bucks?

S: (Continue email.) I wish to stress that I am not a crazy rich person – Ugh!

E: (Disappointed) Oh!

S: (finish email.)

E: We always keep that in mind.

R: Solid gold rocket bike!

S: Right. Honestly, I've never thought about this. What would we do if someone –

E: Two hundred thousand transcripts of Nightline. That's what I would buy. 5 dollars each.

R: I'd quit my job, yes, in an instant. And I would do an SGU every day.

J: Yeah, well, we wouldn't do one every day. I mean, if we had enough money to really do this full time, I mean, I think would reasonably say we'd do 3 a week and we'd produce other content too. I mean, let's face it, we do have ''a ton'' of ideas.

S: Yeah.

R: Yeah.

J: Some of which we may be executing right now, which is a secret.

R: Ton of ideas, not a ton of time.

S: Exactly, (unintelligible) 

B: You know what I would do? I would stop looking for work.

S: (laughs)

R: (Pityingly) Awww!

E: (Laughs) Oh!

R: Seriously, my job takes up, you know, like, 12 hours of my day, every day. If I could get those 12 hours back, think of how awesome I would be!

S: Right.

B: Ha-ha!

R: I'd be twice as awesome.

E: It would be nice if we could all have professional careers, and what I mean by professional is: we get paid for it –

S: For doing this.

E: – Careers in skepticism. That would be really nice. It would take more than a million bucks, though, to get us all –

R: Not me!

E: – You know, full-time working in the field of skepticism and make a living for our families and so forth.

R: Not for me. I'm cheap! Just going to put that out there. I don't mean that in a sexy way. I just mean, I am literally inexpensive.

S: There are different answers depending on exactly the level of cash that you're talking about. And, we would upscale what we do to meet, really, almost any amount of money that somebody would throw our way. So, absolutely we would hire people to do things that, right now, we're slumming for volunteers to do, right? We could hire people to do the website full-time, hire people to do post-production. You know, we would obviously get better equipment than we have.

R: Clip Jay's toenails.

S: Right. We could hire people to do video production. We could basically have a skeptical studio where we produce all skeptical content, not only our own. I mean, you can just keep scaling this up. You know, a video production company, et cetera.

R: An official skeptical pony.

S: (Laughs) Skeptical pony?

R: We could ride.

(Rogues laugh)

J: But, most importantly though, I mean, what would we do? We would attend every event that we could.

E: Mm-hm.

S: Right.

E: Yeah.

J: There's just so many other things that we could spend time doing –

R: Yeah.

J: – that would be adding to our content, you know?

S: Right.

J: And, Steve has been begging me not to say anything, but we have some secret stuff that we're working on right now that we could do a lot more of.

S: We're hoping to have some of it ready for TAM 7. I'd like to have it ''actually'' ready before I promise it. But, you know, there may be some –

R: Yes, we could have, you know, more live shows. 

E: As long as we're dreaming right now.

S: More live shows? Yeah. Oh, you know, more conferences. You know, absolutely. There's so much – ''actual'' marketing. Can you imagine?

E: Yeah, real marketing is what we really need.

J: (High-pitched disbelief) What? 

S: See, obviously, we're not waiting around for somebody like Bill Gates to drop 10 million dollars on us. Although, that would be nice if you're listening, Bill!

E: Yeah, Bill!

S: But, we certainly would put it to good use. I would also point out that “The Other Side”, on almost every issue that we cover, has millions of dollars. I mean, it's incredible –

E: Ugh, ''billions''.

S: The Discovery Institute has millions of dollars. Those jack-asses at Age of Autism, they make $400,000 a year –

E: Kevin Trudeau.

S: – they spend, marketing misinformation about vaccines. And here we are, doing it for free in our spare time, trying to counteract ''all'' of these things. It's incredible.

E: Just look what Kevin Trudeau, a one man band, look what he did.

S: Yeah. Well, it's just that there is millions of dollars to be ''made'' on the other side. That's unfortunately the case. Wherein – as we say, as we've proven, there is no money in skepticism. But...

E: (Laughs)

== Correction (46:32) ==

S: So we had a minor correction or clarification from last week, Bob, on your piece about heavy water and the ultra-dense deuterium.

B: Yeah, a lot of people pointed out correctly that the heavy water ice would not, in fact, sink if our oceans were made of heavy water. It would not sink, because even though the heavy water ice is denser than regular water ice it's not denser than heavy water itself. So, it would, in fact, float as well. What I should have pointed out – what I should have said was that if water, H2O, didn't have that bizarre property that it does not get denser when it freezes like most other elements, that it would do that, it would not float – the ice would not float, it would freeze from the bottom up. But, luckily, it has that unusual property and – 'cause life, I think, would be very different –

S: Right.

B: – if –

S: So, regular water, H2O, does get denser as it cools down to about 4 degrees Celsius, and then it actually gets lighter. And, ice is actually lighter than water, so it floats on the surface. So, water freezes from the top down rather than the bottom up. And the bottom of oceans is typically always exactly 4 degrees Celsius, 'cause that's what the densest water's gonna be. Whereas, deuterium water, D2O, becomes densest at around 6 to 7 degrees, and then it gets lighter again. So, deuterium ice would sink in regular water, but it would still float in deuterium water, is the bottom line. So, we wanted to just clarify that one point.

B: And thanks for everybody for pointin' that out.

S: Yeah, thanks to all 1 million of you who wrote in to tell us about that.

B: Ha-ha!

== Science or Fiction (48:15) ==
[http://www.physorg.com/news162017188.html Item # 1]: Scientists have developed a new dating technique for ceramics and pottery that involves measuring its water content with a microscale capable of detecting 1/10 of a millionth of gram.
[http://mednews.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/14199.html Item # 2]: Neuroscientists mapping brain networks find that children younger than 12 have disorganized and chaotic brain function.
[http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3377 Item # 3]: New research finds that attaining goals of fame, fortune, and good looks are associated with less, not more, happiness.

S: Well, let's go on to Science or Fiction.

''It's time for Science or Fiction''

S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two real and one fake. And then I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Is everyone ready?

R: So ready.

E: (Sean Connery impression) Well met!

S: Here we go, item number 1: Scientists have developed a new dating technique for ceramics and pottery that involves measuring its water content with a microscale capable of detecting 1/10 of a millionth of gram. Item number 2: Neuroscientists mapping brain networks find that children younger than 12 have disorganized and chaotic brain function. And item number 3: New research finds that attaining goals of fame, fortune, and good looks are associated with less, not more, happiness. Bob, go first.

B: A dating technique, ceramics and pottery that involves measuring its water content with a microscale capable of detecting 1/10th of a millionth of a gram. That's not much water. A microscale? I guess a microscale isn't what I think it is. But, um, I mean it's just – yeah, that sounds interesting and nothing's jumping out at me on that one. Um, what is it assuming now, that the amount of water content changes over time, so therefore they can determine how old it is, I guess. I don't know.

Let's see, the second one here. Neuroscientists mapping brain networks find that children younger than 12 have disorganized and chaotic brain function. Disorganized and chaotic. Sounds... possible. As the brain matures, it's more organized and less chaotic, I guess.

Let's look at number 3, then. Uh, attaining goals of fame, fortune, and good looks are associated with ''less'', not more, happiness. That makes perfect sense to me. So few people can attain fame, fortune, and good looks that a lot of people are pretty frustrated and not as happy. Um, so that makes probably the most sense of any of the other ones, so let's see which one – which of the other ones are less likely, then. Um... (silence)

R: Yeah, any moment now. Any moment, it's going to happen. I can feel it.

B: Yep. Yep. Any moment –

R: We're getting close.

B: – Any moment. When you say that, it actually slows me down.

S: If you weigh these choices, Bob, and organize your thoughts, I trust you'll be happy.

B: (Sarcastic) Ha... ha.

E: Disorganized and chaotic brain functions, Bob.

B: Wouldn't the water content change depending on the environment that it's in? For some reason, number 2, I'm going to say the disorganized and chaotic brain function – I'm just – Flip a coin, and say that that one's fiction.

S: Okay, Jay?

J: You know, after reading these through I really think that the second one about the disorganized brain function, that one seems to be the most likely off. I mean, it seems – I mean, I'm sorry – that one seems to be most likely the fake. And I can understand the idea of the brain, like, in mid-development and going through changes. It's not only going through changes, but it's actually growing. You know, the size of the brain is growing and everything. There's got to be something, you know, not completely settled happening in a child's mind. I mean, it's underdeveloped, and with the changes that are taking place over the next 5 to 10 years, I'm sure that that – wait, wait a second.

S: You just said it's fake and then made a case for it being true.

E: Yeah, contradicted yourself.

R: Did you just talk yourself out of it?

J: All right, you know, the children having disorganized and chaotic brain functions... is the fake, I think.

S: Okay.

J: That's it, yeah.

S: All right, Rebecca.

R: I tend to agree, because I can't imagine something as cool and amazing as the brain could ever be called “disorganized and chaotic” at any time during our lives. It forms these pathways, like, immediately and – I don't know, everything I've ever read about the brain shows that it wouldn't be called that, normally. So, um, and then, as for the others, um, dating ceramics and pottery by measuring its water. That makes sense, because I'm thinking of how the come out of the kiln, you know, and then I can see that the water content would change over time. So, uh, yeah. I think that makes sense. And, I agree with what Bob said about happiness. Um, fame, and fortune, and good looks. They're fleeting and difficult to meet the standards set by our society. So, that would cause less happiness. So, I'm saying that the second one is, in fact, false. Children younger than 12 do, in fact, have organized brain function.

S: Okay, Evan?

E: I'll agree with everyone else. Here was my thinking – is that, you know, we think of 12, we think of how young that is, and so forth. But, it was only what? A hundred, 150 years ago that people, what, lived to an average of 40, 45 years old. We're living to 78 nowadays, so we kind of take it for granted. So, I would say you pretty much had to have your brain wired up pretty well by then. So that's why I think 2 is fiction.

S: Okay. So, let's take these in order.

J: Okay.

S: Number 1: Scientists have developed a new dating technique for ceramics and pottery that involves measuring its water content with a microscale capable of detecting 1/10th of a millionth of a gram. And that one... is... science!

B: Cool.

S: Yeah, this one is very cool. Very cool.

B: So is the microscale so accurate with the weight that it could tell from day to day how the weight is changing?

S: Not from day to day, no. So, this is used to date archaeological finds and they say that it's accurate for pottery or ceramics that are up to about 2000 years old. But they think that with some tweaking they might be able to push that to about 10,000 years old. And, what they do – this is called “rehydroxylation dating”. Rehydroxylation dating. And, Rebecca's right. When you fire a brick, or a tile, or pottery, or whatever in the kiln, that sort of resets the clock, right? That bakes out all the water –

R: Right.

S: – So you know that, at the moment of creation, it essentially has no water content 'cause it's all been baked out.

R: See, I know this because I do a lot of “paint your own pottery” classes.

S: Is that right?

R: (Laughs)

E: I thought it was 'cause you shop at Pottery Barn.

S: (Laughs)

R: That doesn't even make sense.

S: No, it doesn't.

B & R: (Laughs)

S: And then, water will slowly, slowly, slowly, over the years bind with the pottery. So what they do, if they find a little piece of pottery in an archaeological find, they weigh it, they bake out all the water –

B: Ah.

S: – Weigh it again. So now they know how much water was in it. And then –

B: Excellent.

S: – In order to calibrate it, they then will observe it over time. And this is where the microscale really comes into play. They say, okay, now how quickly is it going to accrue water over time. And then they extrapolate from that to the total water content and, therefore, its total age. Does that make sense?

J: Mm-hm.

E: Very much so.

S: Very cool. It's very clever. Very cool technique.

J: That is pretty cool.

S: Now, interestingly, they say that if we know the exact age of a piece of pottery from other lines of evidence –

B: Verify it.

S: Yeah, you could verify, we know this thing was made in 1250 AD, right? Or whatever. Then, they can – knowing the date – they can use this technique in order to calibrate the rate at which, over historical time, the water would have bound with that piece of pottery. They could say, “This is how fast it's binding water now. This is the average rate at which it was binding water over its lifetime.” And that may become a way of estimating the average temperature over historical time. Isn't that interesting? So if you know –

B: Wow.

S: – You can guess the temperature. You can say, “All right. We're gonna basically assume that the current rates are the same as the average rates over historical time” to estimate the age. But if we actually knew the age, then we could use that to estimate the average temperature over the historical time. So this might be another way, another line of evidence, to sort of get at the whole question of Global Warming or Climate Change. What have temperatures been in the past? So, very cool. And of course – you know – archaeologists will love this. I mean, to date a find. I mean, these kind of bricks and bits of ceramics and clay and whatever is very common in a lot of archaeological finds. This'll be a huge boon to archaeology.

B: Wouldn't the environment be a huge factor in determining how quickly it binds with water?

S: You mean like, is it buried under the ground –

B: Right. Right.

S: – versus laying on the surface versus under a lake?

B: Yeah.

S: I would assume.

B: So then, when they weigh it, and then they fire it again, and then they see how quickly it binds, they really should be putting it in a similar environment that it was for the majority of its lifetime in order to be apples to apples.

S: Yeah.

B: I'm sure they thought of that, but I just wonder how they deal with it.

S: Yeah, I didn't have access to the technical paper, only the press stories about it, so I don't – I couldn't find anything. I thought – I had that same thought. I mean, what about the environment? And, they didn't mention anything about that. I'm sure they take that into consideration, but that sounds like a variable that might introduce some error.

R: Next!

S: Next! Neuroscientists mapping brain networks find that children younger than 12 have disorganized and chaotic brain function. Clearly, Rebecca, you don't have kids, right?

R: (Laughs)

E: Not that she knows of.

S: Not that she knows of.

R: I've met some.

S: You have?

R: Before. I think. Once or twice. Hey, I ran a magic shop. Come on.

S: Neuroscientists mapping brain networks find that children younger than 12 have disorganized and chaotic brain function. And, this one, you guys all thought was the fiction.

E: We thought.

S: Those with and without children thought that this one was fiction. And this one... is... fiction.

E: Yeah!

R: Ah-ha! Yeah!

B: Just didn't sound right. 

R: See, I know kids. I know 12-year-olds.

S: Yes.

J: Oh, yeah?

E: You know to avoid them, right?

R: I practically am a 12-year-old.

S: That's true.

E: Well, goes without saying.

S: In fact, this was based upon a real story where they did compare the brain mapping of children and adults. The senior author, Steven Peterson, is quoted as saying, “Regardless of how tempting it might be to assume otherwise, a normal child's brain is ''not'' inherently disorganized or chaotic.” So, it's exactly the opposite of true. But, what is true is that kids' brains are organized ''differently'' than adults'. And they undergo a fairly significant reorganization as they age, as they mature. But they're still organized throughout the whole process. It's just different. The way – and when I mean organized, I mean – you know, there are different parts of the brain, different “modules”, if you will that participate in different functions. And they network together in order to perform tasks. And the pattern by which these different brain structures network with each other during different tasks changes significantly as we age or mature. That's what they found.

R: Cool.

S: Right.

R: Makes sense.

S: But it's still – Of course, this is still a functioning brain every step of the way. But it's interesting that kids – what that means is that kids, you know, especially very young kids, they tested down to 7 years old. They didn't test younger than 7. They think differently than adults, you know?

B: They're not human. They're not human.

S: (Laughs)

E: (Laughs)

S: It's funny to think about that 'cause, you know, I have a 9-year-old, and Bob has an 11-year-old, and it's funny – even at 9 years old, it's interesting because, in a lot of ways you can actually relate to her and almost think of her like a little adult. But, then every now and then she'll –

B: Right.

S: – reveal that, wow, she's really thinking about things in a very different way than the way an adult would think about things –

B: Yeah.

S: – and the way they construct their world really is interestingly different. But they can fool you, you know, just conversation and whatnot. You tend to assume it's like a little adult talking to you, but it really isn't.

R: Yeah, I've been reading Bruce Hood's new book, ''SuperSense'', and hopefully we'll have him on the show soon. It's a very good book.

S: I'm reading that book, too.

R:. Oh, what are the chances?

S: What are the odds?

R: So, he discusses a lot of really interesting research that's been done on children, and a lot that's been done on babies. And, it's really cool to see how they test exactly how kids think and, in the case of “SuperSense”, he's looking into how they view the supernatural world and how they process information in that way. So – and he makes the case that they do think very differently from adults.

S: Right.

R: It's really interesting.

S: It is very interesting. So, congratulations everyone.

J: Why, thank you.

R: Thank you.

E: Yes, 

S: Of course, all this means that number 3, new research finds that attaining goals of fame, fortune, and good looks are associated with less, not more, happiness is... science.

R: So, Jay, just give up on that.

S: Right. I guess that means if we did become famous skeptics and become wealthy, then we'd all be unhappy.

R: Really, 'cause I still kind of want that million dollars, though.

S: Yeah, yeah. Doesn't seem right.

E: Yeah.

S: So, these were psychological researchers which were following up on previous research that finds that people do find happiness when they set a goal for themselves and then they work to achieve that goal. But, that does lead to happiness. So-called “determination”.

E: Yeah. Hard work. Definitely.

S: Right. But what they were saying – what they further explored with this rather long-term survey they did was, does it matter what kind of goals people are achieving? And what they found was that goals that essentially involve personal growth: developing close relationships, community involvement, physical health, et cetera did lead to happiness. While goals that involved extrinsic things like riches, or good looks, or fame actually led to less happiness. And they say, well, this was the first time that that question was asked, separating out the ''kinds'' of goals as opposed to just seeking goals versus not seeking goals. So, it's good to have goals and it's good to work towards them, but they should be ones that are fulfilling to you, personally. And, if you're trying to achieve this extrinsic goal, or superficial, or whatever, that tends to lead to unhappiness and disappointment. But, you know, I think kind of confirms conventional wisdom, you know.

R: Yeah, makes sense.

E: I think so. Yeah.

S: Kind of makes a certain sense. Yeah. Although, yeah, I still want the million bucks.

E: (Laughs) Yeah.

R: And we still win. Yay!

S: (Laughs) Good job, everyone. All right, Evan.

== Who's That Noisy (1:03:56) ==
* Answer to last week - Dean Radin

''This is the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe: Who's That Noisy?''

(Hums Imperial March)

c

R: Who's that noisy? 

E: I love this time of the show. Let's play last week's “Who's That Noisy?”

<blockquote>So of course, there's plenty of reaction to these kinds of things. There's lots of skeptical comments that basically say that there are billions of people out there with trillions of experiences and so we hear the weird stuff. Occasionally there's going to be an unusual coincidence and those are the things that bubble up to the top. And, so, while the experience that I just read, which is a true experience, maybe it's a 1 in a trillion chance. But it's because there's all these other experiences that we don't hear about.</blockquote>

E: Any guesses? No?

R: Um... no.

E: No. That's okay, because someone guessed, rather quickly, and they were correct, from the message board, that that was our old friend Dean Radin talking.

S: Dean Radin.

E: I don't think I ever heard him speak before, before I actually went to look him up. You know, I've certainly read about – read some stuff that he's published and so forth. And Magnus M from the message boards was the first one to correctly guess. So, congratulations.

S: Congratulations.

R: Well done.

E: Dean Radin. What doesn't he believe? That's the question – that's a shorter list.

R: (Laughs)

E: You want one for this week?

S: Yes, Evan, please give us the –

R: Mm, kind of, yeah.

S: – Who's That Noisy for this week. I can't wait to hear it.

E: All right. I challenge our listeners to figure out “Who's That Noisy?”

(Who's That Noisy Clip (1:05:31): Rapid rhythmic tapping like a woodpecker, but more hollow sounding)

E: All right, that's it

R: I think it's what happens right before the firing squad.

S: (Laughs)

E: (Laughs) The drum roll?

R: Yeah.

E: Cigarette, bandana, er – blindfold, and...

R: Do I win?

S: All right. That's interesting, Evan.

E: It was a good one. So, see what you can come up with, and good luck everyone.

== Quote of the Week (1:06:03) ==
<blockquote>Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic. - Thomas Henry Huxley</blockquote>

J: All right, so, Thomas Henry Huxley. Who doesn't know about this guy? Steve who is –

S: T. H. Huxley is one of my favorite intellectuals.

S&B: Darwin's Bulldog.

S: Yeah. Essentially coined the term “agnosticism” to describe his own beliefs.

E: Big man.

S: Just an incredible, incredible intellect.

E: What did he say?

R: And, were you bringing him up for a reason, or did you just want to talk about him?

J: “Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.” How about that? … T. H. Hux!

S: (Laughs)

R: “T. H. Hux”?

J: There it is.

S: “Hux”?

E: “Hux” to his friends.

S: “Hux” to his friends? I don't think I've ever seen a quote from T. H. Huxley that I didn't think was awesome.

B: (Laughs)

S: He's always good for a quote.

== Perry DeAngelis Tribute (1:06:56) ==

S: Well, to celebrate our 200th episode we are going to do a quick look back at the Rogue who didn't make it to 200 with us, Perry DeAngelis. Evan put together a brief compilation of some Perry quotes, including some material that never made it to the podcast. So take a listen:

“Aw, God... DNA? The double helix thing? Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Perry got it right! Double helix! Thank you. Secretaries. Double helix! It's a helix thing. It's science-ish. Remember Helix and Oscar, two men living together... what? Sorry.”

“Yay! Steve, you gotta insert a roaring crowd there. Seriously, on the edit. Insert a roaring crowd. All right.”

“Whatever Rosie has from Disney, I want that. Whatever – they wouldn't give her the contract she wanted, according to her. She wanted more money. She wanted 10 mil, and they wouldn't do it. I think the final straw was that diatribe she did at that awards show. I forget the awards.”

“So Bob, you think that this – yeah, good – you think that this planet is also in the vicious grip of Global Warming, like we are? The universe is pretty big, you know? It's pretty big. There's probably a lot of Class M planets out there. Yeah, yeah. Ecos? Yeah. It's a bad place.”

“Well, now wait a minute, Steve. I heard a creationist correct himself about... uh... you know, actually, I think in the whole 6000 history – year history of the Earth I don't think a creationist has ever corrected himself. About anything.”

“(Laughs) I stand corrected. I stand corrected. See? I'm willing to admit it! I'm willing to admit it. Thank you.”

“There's a lot that's big about me, baby. What? Sorry.”

“But, I want to just say, I don't know about reading. I am on the cutting edge. I have a ''television'' in my bathroom, thank you very much. So when I sit on the can I can get absorbed into a program. I can sit there for an hour!”

“What are you talking about? Sometimes I lounge in the tub for hours, you know, with a good movie on.”

“But you never got a marriage proposal from me! (Laughs) So there you go! Thank you! All right, come on.”

“Jay's a member! So they pickle you and ''then'' freeze you, Jay? (Creepy voice) We thawed out another one for dinner! (Scared voice) It's game over man! (Different creepy accent) I love them frozen – I love them frozen babies!”

“Excuse me. Don't talk over my jokes, please.”

“Yeah! And you can't say George Bush is like Hitler. You can only use that for people who are actually ''like'' Hitler! Like, say, Rosie!”

“I ''dare'' you to leave that in the podcast, Steve. I ''dare'' you to leave that in the podcast.”

“(Laughs hysterically) That's cool. Yeah, let's move on. Let's just keep recording. Let's just finish this up. Let's finish this abortion up. That oughta hold the little sons of bitches til next week (Laughs). Come on!”

J: Yeah, Perry unedited was... was, you know, indescribable.

S: It was. Perry in the raw. That was only a little taste of Perry.

R: Yeah, seriously. (laughs)

S: I wish you could have made it to 200 with us.

R: Yeah.

E: Definitely. Definitely, these – yes. Yep. But, we're always thinking about him and he's always part of us –

S: Always.

E: – and he's always part of this show. No doubt about it.

S: Always.

E: He will always be.

B: I wish he was frozen.

R: And he's still there in the archives.

E: Yeah, right. Jay, if only he took your advice and froze his head, we might some day be reacquainted with him.

S & R: (Laughs)

E: Oh, well.

S: Perry's frozen head is missing!

E & R: (Laughs)

S: Well, thanks for that, Evan. Thanks for ''200'' episodes of SGU, guys.

E: Woo-hoo!

S: What can I say?

B: Wow. 200 hours.

R: Hey, thanks for having me. Not for all 200 though.

S: And thanks to all of our listeners for making this the fun ride that it is.

R: Yeah. Thanks everyone.

S: This wouldn't be nearly as much fun if there weren't people actually listening to the show.

E: Listening, giving us feedback.

J: Yeah, definitely.

R: Uh, no. And if there weren't people actually listening then we would probably all be in a crazy hospital or something.

S: (Laughs)

R: A nice padded room. “They just keep talking!”

E: (Laughs)

J: Of course, it makes a difference, but... you know to me it's like... the fact that we – we're doing something that has an effect is important. But, you know, I would want to be – I would be working at this in one way or another, I guess, no matter how successful or unsuccessful we were. But I also really love spending time with you guys. I mean, the show is fun ''because'' of you guys.

R: Yeah. We have a good time.

E: Yeah, without a doubt, the company. It's good company.

J: Yeah.

E: I look forward to it every week.

S: Yeah. And I think that that comes across.

B: Yeah. Most of you guys are awesome.

S: Yeah. (Laughs).

(Rogues laugh)

R: Hey! Man, you skip out to go to one Star Trek movie and...

S: (Laughs)

E: On a Thursday!

J: (Laughs)

R: It was the premiere!

E: The day before release!

J: Rebecca, the fact is, you're a total geek/dork, just like the rest of us. You have –

R: Yeah, I'm just mega-cool about it.

J: – completely – you tipped your hand. Everybody knows. And there's nothing bad about it. I mean, it's –

R: There's no hand tipping! I know I'm a dork! I'm just the coolest dork ever.

(Rogues laugh)

J: Oh, no, no, no. I'm sorry. You have to be part Geek to go to a Star Trek movie. You went and you were – 

R: Yeah.

J: – you're the perfect girl to be on the show with us. That's it.

R: I'm an ultra-rad geek!. (Laughs)

J: Yes. We love you.

R: Aw. I love you too.

B: As Perry would say, you're a hippie-geek.

R: Um, he would call me a liberal hippie. Yeah.

S: Yeah.

E: Yeah. Who's starving herself slowly with a vegetarian diet.

R: (Laughs)

E: That's what he'd say.

R: The length of my life is... what is it? Inversely proportional to the quality of it?

S: To the torture. The horror.

R: Oh, that's right. The horror of my... (Laughs) The amount of years I'll live is proportional to the horror of my life. (Laughs) Aw.

E: Good stuff. It would never have been said without a podcast. So...

R: (Laughs)

S: Well, thanks again, guys.

B: Surely.

R: Thank you, Steve.

E: I look forward to another 200 and then some.

J: Thanks, Steve.

R: Indeed.

S: Here's to another 200, absolutely. And until next week –

E: And then more.

S: – this –

E: 201!

S: – This is your Skeptic's Guide to the Universe.

{{Outro119}}
== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

SGU Episode 200

2015-02-03T01:53:16Z

Mantis!: Submitted the raw transcript of the full episode with time stamps. Needs editing, links, reference, today I learned, etc. There are some words I could not make out. I noted & timestamped those.

{{transcribing all
|transcriber = mantis!
|date = 2014-12-19
}}

{{Editing required
|transcription = y

|time-stamps = y
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeNum = 200
|episodeDate = May 20th 2009 
|episodeIcon = File:Ida.jpg 
|previous = 
|next = 
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|jay = y 
|evan = y 
|perry = 
|guest1 = 
|guest2 = 
|guest3 = 
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2009-05-20.mp3
|forumLink =
|qowText = Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic. 
|qowAuthor = {{w|Thomas Henry Huxley}} 
|}}

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

S: Hello and welcome to the {{SGU}}. Today is Wednesday, May 20th, 2009, and this is episode number 200.

R: Yay!

E: Woo-hoo!

J: 200!

B: Don't you love the odometer effect?

S: Yeah, this is your host, Steven Novella, and joining me this week, as always, is Bob Novella …

B: Hey everybody.

S: … Rebecca Watson …

R: Hello everyone.

S: … Jay Novella …

J: Hey, guys!

S: … And Evan Bernstein …

E: And, hello! 200... incredible.

J: (Laughs) Evan! What the hell? That was so cheesy!

(Rogues Laugh)

R: That was pretty cheesy

J: (Snooty accent) And, hello!

E: (Snooty accent) Hello!

R: I feel like he just opened up a hotel room holding a glass of cheap champagne.

J: (Laughs)

B: Steve will fix it in post production. Steve, you have a “de-cheesy” button, right?

R: (Laughs) De-cheesify that.

S: There's a “De-fromage” filter.

B & R: (Laughs)

J: So what's happening? Is this a podcast? What are we doing here?

R: I think it is. It's our 200th!

E: Oh, it is our 200. I mean, it was May 4th in which we—of 2005—in which we actually recorded out very first episode. And we just celebrated that a couple weeks ago. And it so happens around the same time is now our 200th episode. So it's a series of celebrations this month.

R: We're always just looking for a reason to party.

E: Absolutely.

B: That's right.

J: Did anything else happen, though? This time?

== This Day in Skepticism (1:31) ==
* Marie Curie is presented with a gram of radium worth $100,000 at the White House in Washington DC in 1921.

E: Oh, well yes, actually. Okay, so here's something funny that happened, kind of. In 1921, Marie Curie, you remember her?

S: (Sarcastic) Yeah, she was hilarious.

E: (Laughs) She was presented with a gram of radium worth a hundred thousand dollars at the White House in Washington DC.

R: Which promptly gave her cancer.

E: (Laughs) It's about the most interesting thing I could find today...

R: Too soon?

E: ...as far as science goes.

S: That was it. She was presented with the... radium

E: She was presented with a gram of radium.

J: Well, what can you do with radium? What would be the things you'd use if for?

S: Uh... ruining film?

R: Yeah, destroying your enemies. There's a lot you can do with it.

E: Marie Curie discovered radioactivity.

R: The hard way.

E: Was she awarded the Nobel Prize for that?

R: Marie Curie won two Nobel Prizes. One in physics in 1903 and one in chemistry in 1911. She is the first person to have won two Nobel Prizes. And she was awesome.

E: She was. And at a time in which, you know, women could not even vote. Uh, so, that was pretty impressive.

== News Items ==

=== Missing Link Ida (2:33) ===
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8057465.stm http://tinyurl.com/lemurlink

R: Yeah. I feel like there was a big announcement this week. Google's homepage is telling me that there was something going on.

S: Something about a missing link. You know, these things come out every other week.

R: Yeah.

E: Finally.

S: This was the big news item of the week. Scientists have unveiled – this is a fossil that was actually discovered a number of years ago. I think it's been sitting around in somebody's private collection...

R: I think it was like '85 or something.

S: Yeah, for like 24 or 25 years and then it came to the attention of scientists about 2 years ago, who have been studying this fossil and now they're unveiling the fossil and their initial findings. This is a fossil of a transitional species – what is alleged to be a transitional species between prosimians, which are the earliest primates, and the other branch of primates which led to monkeys, apes, and humans. This, again, dates to about 47 million years ago. This species makes a connection between these two major branches of primates and one of the remarkable features of this particular specimen is that it is over 95% complete. It is a remarkably complete specimen. Beautifully preserved. One of those specimens that fell to the bottom of a lake, probably. Died in the mud and the was soon covered by layers of mud and was perfectly preserved in that fashion. In fact, it's one of the rare specimens that where you can still see the impression of the fur of the animal.

R: That's so cool.

B: That's wicked.

S: It is definitely cool. 

J: Wouldn't they have, uh, – wouldn't what's-his-face have collected 2 of those creatures and...

R: Yeah, where's the – where's the boy?

E: Uh, that would be Noah, not “what's-his-face”.

J: Yeah, whatever.

R: (Laughs)

S: (Laughing) What's-his-face, yeah.

E: “What's-his-Bible”

S: As interesting as this fossil is – of course we're also interested in the way these news stories are reported, and this one has been all over the map. The first news story I saw on this was from ''Sky News''.

E: Yeah, so did I

S: And this is just about the worst science news reporting I have seen in a while. I know we criticize the way the main stream media presents science stories a lot on this podcast – and there are good – there's good reporting and there's bad reporting often on issues. This was the worst. They – they crammed about as many misconceptions into their story as possible. In addition to that, it seems to me as if the scientists themselves, who are unveiling this fossil, were engaging in a lot of hype and hyperbole. You know, you always wonder were the being quoted out of context? You know, were they being treated fairly? But even allowing for a little bit of that they just – you know, the sound bytes that they were offering up to the press, you know, to me were irresponsible.

So, this fossil which is dubbed “Ida”, I-D-A after the daughter of the – of the – probably one of the researchers. One of the experts is quoted as saying that this is the “Eighth Wonder of the World” – said “The impact on paleontology will be something like an asteroid falling down to Earth.” So... not quite. You know, first let's have the scientific community take a look at this fossil and see what it ''really'' means. But then, in 'Sky News' – This is what – this is what they say about it: “Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution.”

B: Oh. My. God.

S: Finally!

R: We've all been waiting.

E: All that other stuff, it was just speculation, and theory, and conjecture.

R: Yeah, we don't even know where Darwin came up with that crap. Surely he didn't have evidence.

E: There was nothing before this!

S: There is a tendency in reporting new and interesting findings – and sometimes the scientists do this themselves, sometimes it's their press office, but often the media – to overemphasize the previous state of our ignorance, right? So they want to say, “We knew nothing, but now this discovery changes everything."

E: Yeah. (Laughs)

S: That's always how they want to couch it, but in so doing they really completely misrepresent the current state of knowledge. Come on – ''This''? ''This'' one fossil confirms Darwin's Theory of Evolution? ''Please''.

R: Yeah, I mean there are a million biologists slapping their foreheads –

S: Yeah.

R: – like, “Oh, well just forget about all that work we've been doing. ''This'' is it.

E: Yeah! A parad – They're treating it like a paradigm shift.

J: You know, and that one fossil would also disprove all of Intelligent Design and everything like – you know – they're putting so much weight on this one thing. It's ridiculous.

S: Yeah. Yeah, it's very – it's counterproductive! Here's another misconception that – it seems as if the scientists themselves were promoting to the media, cuz there was, there was at least quote marks around these statements. Oh, another interesting thing is that the scientists waited two years to present this and there's already a documentary starring Sir David Attenborough about this fossil and so some of these quote are from David Attenborough who said that “This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals. As though this is the one that connects us directly with them.

R: Also – you know – that quote could have been taken out of context. If it comes from the documentary they've been doing it might have just been used as an introduction. Like, “We're going to use this piece to show you exactly how we're connected to the rest of the mammals.”

S: Yes, all these (unintelligible). But here's the other quotes he gives: “The link they would have said up to now is missing. Well, it's no longer missing.” referring to the link between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. So here's another trend in reporting fossils. Whatever connection can be made to humanity is always overemphasized as well. This is a link between the two earliest branches within primates: prosimians and then the monkeys, apes, and hominids. But it's not the link that connects the human branch to the rest of primates any more than it's a link between apes and primates, you know what I mean? Or – 

R: Yeah.

S: – That's completely the wrong context. This is 40 million years in the past or humans branching off from the rest of primates or the rest of mammals. I mean, it just is nonsensical. I'm not even sure what they're trying to convey there, except trying to make it seem like this has some very direct and specific implications for ''human'' evolution which it really doesn't except that it's a primate.

B: How many similar other branchings happened in the past?

S: Right.

B: That are just as cool as this one. I mean, it's not unique in that regard.

S: Right.

B: But, Steve. Real quick, you mentioned the movie with Attenborough and stuff. But you're only really scratching the surface at the level of this coordinated event between the scientists and the History Channel. There was the unveiling at the American Museum of Natural History. There was the publishing of a peer-reviewed article. A film like – that you mentioned – going into detail about the secretive two year study of the fossil. A book release, an exclusive arrangement with ABC News, and an elaborate website. All, you know, orchestrated by the History Channel and these scientists. And, regarding this, the scientists at the University of Oslo – One of the guys who kind of put all this team together – He said any pop band is doing the same thing. Uh, any athlete is doing the same thing. We have to start thinking the same way in science.

S: But it's really diluting the science, I think.

R: But is there – is there a point to be made in there though? That scientists do have to think about the perception and how to get the word out about scientific discoveries. I mean, obviously, things have gone terribly wrong in this case when it comes to some of the news that's being reported. But, at its heart, you know, I can certainly understand the sentiment of wanting your work recognized and wanting to reach out to a mainstream audience.

S: Yeah, absolutely. Just don't distort the science in the process, that's all.

R: Yeah.

B: That's true, but there's another factor – there's another point to this. And this isn't really just a couple guys that were looking at this fossil for the past couple years. This is an international team of scientists that have been vetting this fossil for all this time. So, to me that gives it maybe a little bit more credence in that, you know, it's a pretty big team of pretty good scientists that already have checked this out for ''two years'' –

S: Yeah.

B: – So, it's not like – it's not like Hans Fleischmann that got some –

S: Pons. Pons and Fleishmann.

B: – I'm sorry

J: (Creepy German Accent) Hans.

E: Hans and Franz. (Laughs)

S: Hans and Franz!

B: (Laughs) It's not like Pons and Fleischmann (unclear) get a little extra heat coming down, like “Oh, we got Cold Fusion.” You know, it's been vetted for quite a while. 

S: Yeah, it's a legitimate fossil, I'm sure it's going to have very significant implications in terms of our understanding of primate evolution. It is a quote-unquote “Missing Link”, although that term is misleading and we should really try to get away from it. It is a transitional species, clearly. And it's also -- you know -- the researchers acknowledge it's probably not a direct ancestor, so, again, not the “Grandmother” but the “Great-Aunt”, as we say.

B: Right, I like that. Yep.

S: So they acknowledge that. But, the hype was so disgusting that the – and the distortion – again, downplaying what we already know about evolution, for example, as well as saying, like “This is the ''most'' significant transitional specimen ever found. Whereas other scientists are like, “Um... it's nice but it's no archeopteryx.” This is no feathered dinosaur. I mean, ''come on''! Let's put things in perspective –

R: Yeah.

S: – We have lots of other fossils that are more significant in terms of their implications as a transitional species.

J: You know what's ironic about this is that we – in the big scheme of things – that, you know, any news that supports evolution is fantastic, in a way. But, we're also skeptics. We're also sticklers for information not only being correct, but we also want the information ''explained'' properly.

S: Yeah.

J: If we were creationists we would be jumping all over this exploiting it to the nth degree, but here we are on our podcast criticizing something that we should – you know – most people would just say “Yeah, that's great. It's a good article.” you know. But we're here criticizing it because it wasn't even presented correctly.

E: It distorted the science. It distorted the truth. They're treating it like a paradigm shift and it's merely another piece of the puzzle that was predicted that we would eventually find.

S: Yeah. You know, you shouldn't make the science enthusiasts cringe, right? Yes, you want to reach out to the public that – you know, where it's just one other piece of news in the news cycle and may not have a preexisting deep interest in science. And you can make it sexy, you can make it interesting. But if you do it in a way that makes anybody who knows what they're talking about – you know – again, do the face-palm and cringe, you failed. I mean, you've made some major mistakes if you've done that and I think this is contributing to the – you know, ironically I think they contributed to the public ''misunderstanding'' of the science.

Jay, the creationists, like my favorite “Evolution News and Views”, the Discovery Institute propaganda blog, of course they did jump all over the media circus surrounding this fossil. They – obviously they have nothing significant to say about the science. This is a transitional species, beautifully preserved, well dated, rigorously examined scientifically. It fills in – yes, it does fill in a piece of the puzzle in terms of the history of evolution on the Earth. But, they opened the door to criticizing the media hype and ascribing it to quote-unquote “Those Darwinists”, right? Whereas we're sitting here saying – you know – the news media and these irresponsible scientists are presenting this with inappropriate hype. But they're criticizing the same things we're criticizing but attaching it to “Those Darwinists”, as if we're trying to “pull one over” on the public by deceiving them about the implications of this fossil. So when you – you know – if when you're dealing with evolution, and the presentation of evolution to the public. If you do that and you have no recognition that ''half'' of the public doesn't believe in evolution and that there are dedicated critics out there. I mean, that's just incredibly naïve. You have to – every statement you say, every sound bite you hand the media has to be done very deliberately with the knowledge that this is a controversial subject about which this – the public is profoundly confused – which has extreme ideological enemies. And if you just ignore that – you know – you're going to be just handing gifts to the anti-scientific side of this equation.

B: It just shows how they're just not on their radar – it seems – right? They're not even thinking about it.

S: It's terrible. It's like that guy we were talking about – the other scientist – about the Cambrian Explosion – talking about it as if these fossils just appeared out of a magic box.

B: Right. 

S: You just can't say things like that! You know – it's just – It's misleading and it's wrong first of all.

E: Really? A magic box?

S: It's hyperbole that is just gift-wrapped for the critics of evolution, you know? But some media outlets did get it right. The BBC article in particular was very good.

=== GPS Failure (16:22) ===
* http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/165224/with_a_gps_failure_possible_is_it_still_safe_to_buy.html

R: I heard that my GPS System is going to explode. Oh noes!!! What do I do?

J: Well, let's talk about it then.

B: We love out acronyms. ATM, IBM, LASER, FUBAR is one of my favorites. Here's one that's pretty –

R: WTF, BBQ

B: – indispensible: GPS. I'm sure you guys have all heard of GPS. Don't even need to say what it means.

E: Oh, yeah. They ship anywhere. Oh wait, that's UPS.

B: (Laughs) Global Positioning System. So, I was pretty shocked then when I ran across headlines like these today: “A world without GPS? Unthinkable”, “GPS on verge of breakdown, report finds”. So, needless to say, I had to find out what the hubbub was about. It turns out, the US Government Accountability Office. Imagine – Don't they sound – You don't want them breathing down your back, right? The US Government Accountability Office.

R: Do we have one of those? Seriously? I can't believe that our government is accountable for anything.

(Rogues Laugh)

B: Yeah, right. There you go.

E: Very good point, Rebecca.

R: What have they been doing the past 10 years?

B: They've been looking at GPS, I guess. They're basically a government watchdog agency as you might have surmised. They recently warned congress that because of poor management with a 2 billion dollar upgrade – it's actually going to threaten the GPS service.

J: The upgrade is going to threaten it?

B: Well, yeah. The upgrade is a 2 billion dollar upgrade program that's being worked on – it's actually threatening the GPS service. Now, from the report – I read the summary of the report – and what they're saying is that the oldest satellites that comprise the GPS system is – they're going to start “dying” – quote-unquote – next year. And replacements are not going to be ready.

J: What?

R: (Gasp)

B: Right. That's what they're saying. And it's because of two reasons, basically. There's technical problems, as you might imagine. I guess it's pretty complicated to put this stuff together. And they're having troubles with the contractor. I think they got a new contractor and they're having some trouble with this firm, or whatever it is. So the result has been a 870 ''million'' dollar cost overrun.

J: What? Oh, yeah, let's –

B: It does sound like a lot of money.

J: – Yeah, let's just overrun by almost ''half'' the amount of money that it was costing.

B: Yeah, right!

R: Alright, well – but – I mean – who cares? Like, is this really a life or death situation? Are we going to freak out because we might have to go back to – you know –

E: 1994

R: – using primitive tools like maps and stopping at the gas station to ask for directions? Ahhhhh!

S: Obviously, Rebecca, you don't understand the implications.

B: No! Oh, absolutely not!

J: What she just told the world was that she doesn't have a GPS system. Because if she did –

R: Where am I going to put a GPS on my bike?

E: Travels by block. 

S: You want guys – you want a guy to pull over and ''talk'' to somebody rather than use a gadget to know where they're going?

B: Oh, I think – clearly – I need to do a little bit of background of exactly what GPS is and what it does for us.

R: Alright, but make it quick.

J: Bob, everybody knows what the hell it is and what it does for us.

R: Yeah, you stick it in your car and it drives you around Boston and gets you lost.

B: The details are interesting. Our GPS is the ''only'' fully functional global navigation satellite system in the world, becoming fully operational in '95.

J: (Palpatine impression?) Station is fully functional.

B: The Russians actually had one. I wasn't aware of this. The Russians had a global navigation satellite system. But, because of all the economic problems they were going through it totally went into disrepair, and now it's essentially unusable. So, they actually have the satellites up there – enough to cover the globe – but it's actually just kinda – you know – they're just limping along and not doing what they need to do. And there are other countries, actually – China is working on one that's global and the European Union is actually going to have one that's going to come on line in 2013. The Russian one might be back online in 2010. They're predicting it might come back online. Although, I don't know if it could interface with our system.

J: Nyet

B: So these satellites – is a constellation – they call these ''constellations'' of satellites – they're in orbit – in medium Earth orbit around the Earth – a thousand to 22 thousand miles up is this area called “Medium Earth Orbit” and we've got about 31 to 32 satellites – depending on who you talk to about this and --

E: (Laughs)

R: Is one Pluto?

E: “I'll say 31!” “I'll say 32.”

B: – So, Rebecca – so what this thing – this isn't just navigation on your iPhone or your car navigator. This is map-making, land-surveying, commerce, geocaching, ''geo-shagging''

R: Geoca – wait, geo-shagging? –

B: Look it up!

E: Geo-shagging!

R: – Is that like geocaching but with sex?

B: You got it!

R: Oh, that's 'so' nerdy!

B: And, not to mention all the military uses. So this technology is just ubiquitous.

R: Meh.

B: And if we lost it, it would impact national security. So this is a big deal, if it's true. If this is true.

Alright, so what are the symptoms? Say, worst case scenario, and this report is correct and we start getting these GPS brownouts. What's going to happen?

S: So, Bob. Can you tell me what's failing about these satellites? Cuz they seem to be so high up it's not like their orbit's decaying or anything, right? They're just running out of juice or just – what's going on?

B: These satellites have a lifespan. When they go up they say “This satellite is going to last for so many years.” That's how long the productive life is –

J: Okay...

B: – And that kind of keys into why I don't think that this is going to be much of a problem. Because... the expected lifespan is not necessarily the actual lifespan, especially for military –

E: Right.

B: – Military space equipment. They last longer. I mean, look at these probes –

E: Space shuttle!

B: – No. Look at the probes we send to 'Mars'. They say, “Well, we're going to use this thing for six months.” and then 30 years later this thing is still kicking around. I mean, these things just – they last longer. So this is not hard and fast. It's not like these “birds” are going to drop out of the sky.

J: Bob, you know we have to kind of also trust the experts. You know, these are people that understand the technology, understand the hardware. And if they say that things could start potentially be breaking down as early as next year – I mean – I would tend to agree with them and not go on what you just said.

B: No, it could. It definitely could. But one satellite's not going to do it. We only need a minimum of 24 satellites and we have 31. So what are the odds of seven of them failing before replacements start getting into orbit? It's –

E: What are the odds?

B: – Its – you know – I don't think this is – It doesn't sound urgent to me. It's something that we should be looking into. But don't forget, Jay, that GPS is so important that if the shit really started hitting the fan and this was starting to look nasty our government would – I think they would do pretty much what – exactly what was needed. They would throw money at this, whatever was needed to get this stuff fixed. Because there's no way. There's no way.

R: Billions!

J: Are we at that point right now? I mean, if it is as serious as you say.

R: He's saying that it's not serious.

B: Look at the worst symptoms that I was able to find regarding this. It's going to take longer for your computer to compute your location.

J: (Falsetto) No!

B: So, you wait a few more seconds and then it's gonna be – it'll be a little bit worse in areas that have poor sky views like, say – they call these downtown canyons. Like, you're between all these buildings –

J: Yeah.

B: -- Or you're inside buildings. It's going to take a little bit longer. The military applications will be worse because they rely on much more precise locations that it would be a little tougher for them. But the consumers wouldn't – would barely see this, I think. At least initially. It would take – It's not gonna – it's not like your Navigator's gonna take an hour to find out where you are and make it unusable. So –

J: Well, for everybody's sake I hope that they figure out what's going on, they mop this thing up quick, and no – there'll be no disturbance for the military or for –

E: In the Force.

J: – And the fact that I love my Garmin. So there it is.

S: It's just a matter of getting satellites up in the – to replace the ones that are failing.

J: Yeah, but you gotta build the satellites, guys. And if a contractor's screwing up –

B: Right.

J: – They don't have the satellites ready to launch. I mean, that's what it probably boils down to.

B: But – There's a workaround though and we've got these other global systems coming online in the next four or five years and they're specifically being designed to interface with GPS so they'll augment each other and help each other. So you'll be able to kind of like “fuse” these global navigation satellite systems together with, say, the Galileo one in the European Union or GLONAS, perhaps. So, they'll help each others' reliability and their accuracy. And don't forget: worst case scenario, all we gotta do is tap into the alien satellites and use their network, and we can probably be accurate to within one angstrom.

R: Perfect.

S: Right.

J: Okay.

R: So, bottom line: don't panic. Okay. Next!

=== Stem Cell Quackery in China (25:02) ===
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8052227.stm

S: Well, stem cells have been in the news again. I know we've actually spoken before about the fact that there are many clinics throughout the world, especially in China, selling stem cell therapy, usually for something on the order of $20,000 per treatment. And there's another clinic out there that's been getting a lot of news in the east. This Beike Biotech clinic in northeast China.

E: (Disgusted) Huh!

S: And, same deal. They're making claims that – for amazing clinical therapeutic effects but they're not publishing any science. They're not – nobody knows what they're actually injecting into people and the bottom line is that while the potential for stem cell research is tremendous – I mean, I think stem cells – you know, there's the tremendous potential there to be very effective therapies for a lot of things in 5 to 20 years. There really isn't anything right now that's available clinically. There are – you know – there's clinical research going on, etc. but –

R: So these guys basically are like – they sound no better than faith healers or anybody selling miracle cures to desperate people.

S: That's basically it. At really incredible prices. So, unfortunately, they've been very successful in getting their stories told in Western media. And even when the Western media tries to be responsible and does a reasonable job at covering the story, the bottom line is it's still – to people who are sick or to parents – they're only going to see the story that they wrap – you know, the personal anecdote that they wrap the story around. So, unfortunately, that's what they did in this case. This is a BBC reporting on this. And, again, generally BBC does a great job with these science stories. But they tell the story of a 3-year-old girl named Dakota whose parents spent 30,000 Pounds to bring her to this Beike Biotech clinic to treat her blindness.

R: It's incredibly sad because –

S: It is very sad.

R: – And – you know – like you said, just by publishing the information it somehow does make it worse and in this case the mother specifically said that basically the doctors told them, “Don't bother going online just to find some crazy out-there cure cuz they're not going to work.” And that's exactly what she did. She went online. She searched until she found something that offered a glimmer of hope to give her child sight back and went for it. And the result is that she brings the kid back and they test the kid and she still doesn't have any sight. Yet, the mother says she does. She wants to believe it so badly that she's thinking that her daughter can see now despite the fact that she obviously cannot.

B: Ugh.

S: The parents, confident in the therapy, agreed to have the child's vision tested and it showed ''zero'' difference before and after the therapy. But the mother is quoted as saying, “If a specialist wants to argue the point, come and watch my child and tell me that the child isn't seeing anything and that it never made a difference.” Very sad. And this is typical of cons, actually, that people would rather believe they made the right decision and not admit that they were victimized, right?

R: Yeah.

S: And this is especially true when – and in this case I've actually personally seen this exact scenario play out. You have a parent taking care of a sick child, they want to do everything possible. There's this “miracle cure” that's being dangled before them and they can't afford the incredibly ridiculous price tag. So, what do they do? They have a fund-raiser among all their friends and their neighborhood and their family. Everyone gets together, raises a lot of money so that they can hand it over to some quack selling them false hope. And then the treatment doesn't work, but the parents – at that point there's almost no way, psychologically, they're going to be able to admit that there was no effect. So they look for anything – you know, the confirmation bias – to convince themselves that there was some effect.

R: And, of course, ''this'' case is bad, but at least it's not the worst case in which the kid is, for instance, on chemo, but is taken off it so that they can fly him across, you know, the world so he can get some quack treatment –

S: Right.

R: – ends up causing more damage. In this case it looks like they've only lost, you know, a great deal of money and spent a lot of – worth, you know, a lot of time for nothing. But...

S: Right. And, you know, of course when they're confronted by the media – the people who are part of this clinic – about what they're doing they say, “Oh, well, scientists in the West don't pay attention to Chinese scientists and we're publishing in Chinese journals and they don't know what we're doing. But, that's BS. That's just not true. They're not publishing any scientific results other than sometimes maybe some case series, which is, essentially, they're just their own anecdotal experience. But –

B: I guess they don't want American money, either.

S: Well, they're getting the American money, right? They're –

B: Yeah, but not in the quantities they would get it if they actually marketed this successfully in the United States. If it actually worked, you know, that'd be a great motivator to go everywhere, not be isolated where you are, but spread it all over the world.

S: The thing is, science has to be transparent, right? And, in medicine it's the same way. If there's one clinic in the world doing something it's almost guaranteed that it's fake, that it's a con job. The only possible exception to that is if you have a particularly gifted surgeon who personally perfected a new surgical technique and, therefore, that's the only guy at the moment, or only woman, who has the technical skill and knowledge to do a ''new'' surgical technique. So, in that case it's actually plausible that there may be only one Center that can do it. But if it's just a ''therapy'', if it's a drug, or stem cells, or whatever – if the science is there, then there'll be hundreds, if not thousands of institutions around the world that will be able to do it, right? But, in this case the science just isn't there. You know, there are tons of technical problems that have yet to be worked out in the stem cell technology, and they're not just saying that they've made one or two steps in stem cell therapy. If their clinical claims are true, then they've made a dozen or twenty steps and – you know – they're ten to twenty years ahead of the rest of the world, and they have nothing to show for it. That just is beyond credibility, unfortunately. But people will read even a skeptical article and they will see, “These parents believe their 3-year-old girl was helped. That's enough for me. That's enough of a desperate hope.” From their perspective it's not even unreasonable. If you're facing a death sentence from an incurable disease, even a thin hope might be rational, you know. You really can't put it on the patient or on the family – you know – parents of a sick child. Very sad, but this is not going to go away any time soon, unfortunately.

== James Randi Bumper (32:18) ==

''This is James Randi, and you're listening to the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe''

== Questions and E-mails ==

=== Question # 1 - Candiru Fish Story (32:27) ===

S: Let's do a couple of emails this week.

J: Let's do that.

R: Let's.

S: Let's do that. First email comes from Eddie G. from Saint Louis.

J: (Laughing) Steve!

E: You have to say it like this: Eddie G.

R: (Laughs)

S: And Eddie – reminds me of Neil G. Remember him? Neil G?

E: (Laughs) Oh, yeah!

J: Yeah, me like! Me like!

R: Neil Gaiman? Oh, right... (groans)

S: And he writes:

<blockquote>Several years ago a coworker brought an article to my attention in an issue of Maxim referring to the 'fish feared by all men of the Amazon', for its tendency to follow the flow of urine and swim up the human male urethra, thereby lodging itself and being nearly impossible to remove. He was convinced it had to be true, 'Why else would Maxim print it?' I had my doubts. To me it all sounded like the kind of nonsense tailor made to strike fear in the heart (and other dearer parts) of a Maxim subscriber. I noted it made no mention of the fish being attracted to women, or other mammals, for that matter, merely to urine produced by human males. The article went so far as to imply this was a stage of the catfish's life cycle. Since then this fish story has reemerged over and over again, but my attempts to find any information on it haven't been terribly successful. Mostly it sounds like an urban legend, but I was wondering if you had any insights. Eddie G. St. Louis</blockquote>

R: Okay, first of all, can we address the idea that 'Why else would Maxim print it?' People, let's not go to Maxim for our science, okay? Whether this turns out to be right or wrong, you know, like, 'How to get in her pants' is not – that's not news and it's not logical and it's just... Put down the magazine! Stop buying that crap!

B: But it is important!

R: It's... it's so not important. I mean, really! Maxim? Come on!

S: Yeah, that's a separate issue, and you're absolutely right. Yeah.

R: All right.

E: I read it for the technical articles, myself.

R: (Laughing) Shut up!

E: (unintelligible) 

S: So, what do you guys think?

R: Yeah, I mean, just get the porn!

S: Tell me, what do you guys think? Does a fish swim up the stream of urine into the end of the penis and lodge itself in the urethra?

R: Yes!

J: What is this, Science or Fiction?

B: A stream? How long does it stay a stream? I mean, it's totally getting attenuated probably, you know, an inch or two from the end.

S: No it isn't!

J: I would say that yes, that creature exists. That's my guess.

R: Well, the candiru exists. The question is whether or not it actually does that.

J: I say it does that.

S: So, kind of. You know, I was actually surprised how true this is.

R: Well, how ''maybe'' true this is.

S: Yeah, well I – you know. There are pictures.

R: Cecil covered this on Straight Dope –

S: Yeah.

J: Cecil?

R: – is what you're going to bring up, right? Uncle Cecil, who we all know and love and trust. And, he had originally posted that it doesn't exist, that it's an urban legend, or that he was, at least, very skeptical –

S: Yeah.

R: – of whether or not it does exist. But then this study came up, or this case study came up in which a doctor claims to have discovered this very thing and – I don't know. Steve, do you want to address this case study?

S: Yeah, so there's a published, or at least presented case study where a man claims to have been standing in a river, in the Amazon, up to his thighs and peeing in the river. And that a, like, about two-inch long fish jumped out of the water and into his urethra. It basically latched on and then wiggled its way in there. Now, so, it didn't swim up the stream of his urine. Right, so that part was embellishment. At least, if you're taking this story at face value. So there doesn't seem to be any support for the notion that it's, like, swimming up the urine stream. Or even, really, that it's attracted to urine or that urine has anything to do with this at all. What this fish does do though is, this fish is a parasite. And it crawls inside of animals. It will find any orifice, work its way inside, and then, you know, eat and reproduce on the inside of an animal. That is the life cycle of this case. But this is an individual case where I guess the fish was looking for an orifice and there was one so it jumped in. The man eventually presented to medical care and a urologist actually endoscopically removed the now dead fish from inside his scrotum. What I can say is, this doesn't mean that this is a true case, but what I can say is the doctors are named, which is always a good point, you know, it makes a story more credible when you actually have the individuals referred to by name. And the description of the medical procedure sounded completely kosher to me. It made sense, and sounded like an actual medical description of a procedure. So, it didn't have the red flags of “this is somebody making up a fake medical story” to make it sound legitimate. You know what I mean?

R: Oh, but, can I – yeah, there is – I agree with you, on those points. However, I do think that the doctors sound very legit and Cecil says he talked to one of the doctors that was involved, and it all sounds like it's on the up-and-up. But, what the doctors know is that there was a fish inside this man's urethra and that they removed it.

S: Right.

R: What they're taking on faith is the man's story –

S: Is how it got there, right.

R: Yes. And, I feel that in this case Cecil was not skeptical enough of the story. Because, there are other ways for objects to become lodged in a penis.

S: Right.

R: And –

B: I don't want to hear this.

J: And you would know.

R: I know this because I have access to the internet and... (laughs)

S: That's the only way that you know.

E: (Laughs)

R: And as we all know, if there's something pervy out there that has been thought of, then someone has done it and uploaded it to the internet. And, you know there is a certain fetish that involves sticking things in your penis and –

J: Oh, come on. Really? Really?

R: – I think that it's – yes, really.

J: We're not going to talk about this.

R: Well, no. I think that this is a legitimate issue. It's very, you know, common that people get things stuck inside them and have to go to the emergency room.

S: That's true, but are you going to put a carnivorous parasite in there? I mean, come on. That's –

R: Hey. Hey, it might not be ''my'' thing.

S: Talk about poor judgment.

B: Steve, they put hamsters up there.

R: But I also wouldn't put – yeah. I wouldn't put a lot of things.

S: Hamsters aren't known for eating animals from the inside out.

R: I'm not saying that this is necessarily what happened. I'm just saying there are other explanations.

S: Here's my hypothesis – is that the guy was submerged from the waist down at some point and the thing crawled in there, 'cause that's what it does!

E: Yeah.

S: You know, jumping out of the water is not that – you know – if he – and maybe he was only – you know, by his description, you imagine, he was only up to his thighs. You know, that's pretty much right there. It's not like it would had to have gone very far. You know what I mean?

R: Yeah.

S: So, the bit that always seemed the most extraordinary to me was the actually swimming up the stream of the urine. That always seemed ridiculous, and I think we can safely remove that element from the story.

B: I thought he meant when he was urinating within, you know, waist-deep –

E: Yeah.

B: – and following the stream. I didn't know you meant the stream was outside the water.

S: Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

E: It wasn't clear, but you kind of have to draw your own conclusions.

B: That's whacked.

S: Well, that's the – that's the urban legend is, like, so you imagine somebody standing on the shore and the fish swimming up the urine.

B: Oh, that's crazy.

S: Yeah, that's crazy.

R: I've heard sharks can do that too.

S: All right, that's just the – right, the embellishment of the story.

R: Swim up your stream and eat you.

S: All right. So, yeah, and the other bit that sounds reasonable is that the fish normally is not a parasite on humans, does not normally crawl in the urethra. It does though, however, just find its way inside mammals and is a parasite from the inside. And that this is just an accidental thing that happens, rarely. There are reports of, like finding a dead mammal in a river, and you cut it open and these things spill out of it, you know, 'cause they were basically feasting from the inside.

R: Well, now that our male audience has now completely torn off all their –

S: Right.

R: – headphones and thrown away their iPods. Um, should we continue?

S: Yeah. But, it's interesting because this is more true than I thought it was gonna be when I first read the story. You know, it's interesting.

R: Yeah.

E: Hm.

J: All right, so the bottom line is that, indeed, this thing will crawl up your Willy Wonka.

S: Yeah.

E: If it can get up there, yeah.

R: Did you just say, “your Willy Wonka”? That's just wrong.

S: Don't swim naked in the Amazon. That's the lesson. All right!

E: That's great advice!

R: Man, if only... only I'd learned that sooner.

S: That's a safety tip. I think what we need to do, is we need to do a safety tip each week.

E: Oh, “Tip of the Week”, right.

S: “Safety Tip of the Week”.

J: Steve, we're going to give those kind of safety tips? Like, “don't set yourself on fire”, “don't let a fish swim up your –

S: Yeah!

E: Exactly!

J: – Gizmo”, I mean...

S: As a public service announcement.

R: “Don't chop off your arm with a machete”.

S: Yeah! Exactly, exactly.

(Rogues laugh)

S: Right? “Don't eat uranium”.

E: (Laughs) “Don't take silver colloidal medicine”.

S: Yeah, “Don't drink silver”. Right, stuff like that.

E: Things they don't tell you about at school.

R: “Don't put monkeys in your pants”.

E: Yeah, or birds.

S: “Don't put monkeys, or birds, in your pants”. Right, exactly. All right, let's go on to one more email.

=== Question # 2 - One Million Dollars (41:56) ===

S: This one comes from... the pronunciation guide is almost as bad as the words! Why – why give –

R: It's Lasse –

S: Lasse Maruen. But why give a pronunciation guide that has “R-E-U-X” in it?

E: Yeah, why?

S: I mean, come one. All right, let's say “Maruen”. This one comes from Lasse Maruen. And they write:

<blockquote>I understand that you do all this show on your free time, and that your expenses are covered by donations. So I wonder, what would you do with [insert Dr. Evil] one million dollars? More seriously - what would you do if somebody donated huge amounts of cash to SGU? Would you do more shows? Quit your day jobs? Hire people to help with production? Spend it all on one huge party? I wish to stress that I am not a crazy rich person, but you never know, there might be somebody listening, so keep that in mind when you discuss this Thanks for a great show! Lasse MarÃ¸en (Pronunciation guide: La-seh Ma-reux-an) e body of the email here</blockquote>

J: (Dr. Evil impression) Million dollars! What would we do with a million bucks?

S: (Continue email.) I wish to stress that I am not a crazy rich person – Ugh!

E: (Disappointed) Oh!

S: (finish email.)

E: We always keep that in mind.

R: Solid gold rocket bike!

S: Right. Honestly, I've never thought about this. What would we do if someone –

E: Two hundred thousand transcripts of Nightline. That's what I would buy. 5 dollars each.

R: I'd quit my job, yes, in an instant. And I would do an SGU every day.

J: Yeah, well, we wouldn't do one every day. I mean, if we had enough money to really do this full time, I mean, I think would reasonably say we'd do 3 a week and we'd produce other content too. I mean, let's face it, we do have ''a ton'' of ideas.

S: Yeah.

R: Yeah.

J: Some of which we may be executing right now, which is a secret.

R: Ton of ideas, not a ton of time.

S: Exactly, (unintelligible) 

B: You know what I would do? I would stop looking for work.

S: (laughs)

R: (Pityingly) Awww!

E: (Laughs) Oh!

R: Seriously, my job takes up, you know, like, 12 hours of my day, every day. If I could get those 12 hours back, think of how awesome I would be!

S: Right.

B: Ha-ha!

R: I'd be twice as awesome.

E: It would be nice if we could all have professional careers, and what I mean by professional is: we get paid for it –

S: For doing this.

E: – Careers in skepticism. That would be really nice. It would take more than a million bucks, though, to get us all –

R: Not me!

E: – You know, full-time working in the field of skepticism and make a living for our families and so forth.

R: Not for me. I'm cheap! Just going to put that out there. I don't mean that in a sexy way. I just mean, I am literally inexpensive.

S: There are different answers depending on exactly the level of cash that you're talking about. And, we would upscale what we do to meet, really, almost any amount of money that somebody would throw our way. So, absolutely we would hire people to do things that, right now, we're slumming for volunteers to do, right? We could hire people to do the website full-time, hire people to do post-production. You know, we would obviously get better equipment than we have.

R: Clip Jay's toenails.

S: Right. We could hire people to do video production. We could basically have a skeptical studio where we produce all skeptical content, not only our own. I mean, you can just keep scaling this up. You know, a video production company, et cetera.

R: An official skeptical pony.

S: (Laughs) Skeptical pony?

R: We could ride.

(Rogues laugh)

J: But, most importantly though, I mean, what would we do? We would attend every event that we could.

E: Mm-hm.

S: Right.

E: Yeah.

J: There's just so many other things that we could spend time doing –

R: Yeah.

J: – that would be adding to our content, you know?

S: Right.

J: And, Steve has been begging me not to say anything, but we have some secret stuff that we're working on right now that we could do a lot more of.

S: We're hoping to have some of it ready for TAM 7. I'd like to have it ''actually'' ready before I promise it. But, you know, there may be some –

R: Yes, we could have, you know, more live shows. 

E: As long as we're dreaming right now.

S: More live shows? Yeah. Oh, you know, more conferences. You know, absolutely. There's so much – ''actual'' marketing. Can you imagine?

E: Yeah, real marketing is what we really need.

J: (High-pitched disbelief) What? 

S: See, obviously, we're not waiting around for somebody like Bill Gates to drop 10 million dollars on us. Although, that would be nice if you're listening, Bill!

E: Yeah, Bill!

S: But, we certainly would put it to good use. I would also point out that “The Other Side”, on almost every issue that we cover, has millions of dollars. I mean, it's incredible –

E: Ugh, ''billions''.

S: The Discovery Institute has millions of dollars. Those jack-asses at Age of Autism, they make $400,000 a year –

E: Kevin Trudeau.

S: – they spend, marketing misinformation about vaccines. And here we are, doing it for free in our spare time, trying to counteract ''all'' of these things. It's incredible.

E: Just look what Kevin Trudeau, a one man band, look what he did.

S: Yeah. Well, it's just that there is millions of dollars to be ''made'' on the other side. That's unfortunately the case. Wherein – as we say, as we've proven, there is no money in skepticism. But...

E: (Laughs)

== Correction (46:32) ==

S: So we had a minor correction or clarification from last week, Bob, on your piece about heavy water and the ultra-dense deuterium.

B: Yeah, a lot of people pointed out correctly that the heavy water ice would not, in fact, sink if our oceans were made of heavy water. It would not sink, because even though the heavy water ice is denser than regular water ice it's not denser than heavy water itself. So, it would, in fact, float as well. What I should have pointed out – what I should have said was that if water, H2O, didn't have that bizarre property that it does not get denser when it freezes like most other elements, that it would do that, it would not float – the ice would not float, it would freeze from the bottom up. But, luckily, it has that unusual property and – 'cause life, I think, would be very different –

S: Right.

B: – if –

S: So, regular water, H2O, does get denser as it cools down to about 4 degrees Celsius, and then it actually gets lighter. And, ice is actually lighter than water, so it floats on the surface. So, water freezes from the top down rather than the bottom up. And the bottom of oceans is typically always exactly 4 degrees Celsius, 'cause that's what the densest water's gonna be. Whereas, deuterium water, D2O, becomes densest at around 6 to 7 degrees, and then it gets lighter again. So, deuterium ice would sink in regular water, but it would still float in deuterium water, is the bottom line. So, we wanted to just clarify that one point.

B: And thanks for everybody for pointin' that out.

S: Yeah, thanks to all 1 million of you who wrote in to tell us about that.

B: Ha-ha!

== Science or Fiction (48:15) ==
[http://www.physorg.com/news162017188.html Item # 1]: Scientists have developed a new dating technique for ceramics and pottery that involves measuring its water content with a microscale capable of detecting 1/10 of a millionth of gram.
[http://mednews.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/14199.html Item # 2]: Neuroscientists mapping brain networks find that children younger than 12 have disorganized and chaotic brain function.
[http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3377 Item # 3]: New research finds that attaining goals of fame, fortune, and good looks are associated with less, not more, happiness.

S: Well, let's go on to Science or Fiction.

''It's time for Science or Fiction''

S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts, two real and one fake. And then I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Is everyone ready?

R: So ready.

E: (Sean Connery impression) Well met!

S: Here we go, item number 1: Scientists have developed a new dating technique for ceramics and pottery that involves measuring its water content with a microscale capable of detecting 1/10 of a millionth of gram. Item number 2: Neuroscientists mapping brain networks find that children younger than 12 have disorganized and chaotic brain function. And item number 3: New research finds that attaining goals of fame, fortune, and good looks are associated with less, not more, happiness. Bob, go first.

B: A dating technique, ceramics and pottery that involves measuring its water content with a microscale capable of detecting 1/10th of a millionth of a gram. That's not much water. A microscale? I guess a microscale isn't what I think it is. But, um, I mean it's just – yeah, that sounds interesting and nothing's jumping out at me on that one. Um, what is it assuming now, that the amount of water content changes over time, so therefore they can determine how old it is, I guess. I don't know.

Let's see, the second one here. Neuroscientists mapping brain networks find that children younger than 12 have disorganized and chaotic brain function. Disorganized and chaotic. Sounds... possible. As the brain matures, it's more organized and less chaotic, I guess.

Let's look at number 3, then. Uh, attaining goals of fame, fortune, and good looks are associated with ''less'', not more, happiness. That makes perfect sense to me. So few people can attain fame, fortune, and good looks that a lot of people are pretty frustrated and not as happy. Um, so that makes probably the most sense of any of the other ones, so let's see which one – which of the other ones are less likely, then. Um... (silence)

R: Yeah, any moment now. Any moment, it's going to happen. I can feel it.

B: Yep. Yep. Any moment –

R: We're getting close.

B: – Any moment. When you say that, it actually slows me down.

S: If you weigh these choices, Bob, and organize your thoughts, I trust you'll be happy.

B: (Sarcastic) Ha... ha.

E: Disorganized and chaotic brain functions, Bob.

B: Wouldn't the water content change depending on the environment that it's in? For some reason, number 2, I'm going to say the disorganized and chaotic brain function – I'm just – Flip a coin, and say that that one's fiction.

S: Okay, Jay?

J: You know, after reading these through I really think that the second one about the disorganized brain function, that one seems to be the most likely off. I mean, it seems – I mean, I'm sorry – that one seems to be most likely the fake. And I can understand the idea of the brain, like, in mid-development and going through changes. It's not only going through changes, but it's actually growing. You know, the size of the brain is growing and everything. There's got to be something, you know, not completely settled happening in a child's mind. I mean, it's underdeveloped, and with the changes that are taking place over the next 5 to 10 years, I'm sure that that – wait, wait a second.

S: You just said it's fake and then made a case for it being true.

E: Yeah, contradicted yourself.

R: Did you just talk yourself out of it?

J: All right, you know, the children having disorganized and chaotic brain functions... is the fake, I think.

S: Okay.

J: That's it, yeah.

S: All right, Rebecca.

R: I tend to agree, because I can't imagine something as cool and amazing as the brain could ever be called “disorganized and chaotic” at any time during our lives. It forms these pathways, like, immediately and – I don't know, everything I've ever read about the brain shows that it wouldn't be called that, normally. So, um, and then, as for the others, um, dating ceramics and pottery by measuring its water. That makes sense, because I'm thinking of how the come out of the kiln, you know, and then I can see that the water content would change over time. So, uh, yeah. I think that makes sense. And, I agree with what Bob said about happiness. Um, fame, and fortune, and good looks. They're fleeting and difficult to meet the standards set by our society. So, that would cause less happiness. So, I'm saying that the second one is, in fact, false. Children younger than 12 do, in fact, have organized brain function.

S: Okay, Evan?

E: I'll agree with everyone else. Here was my thinking – is that, you know, we think of 12, we think of how young that is, and so forth. But, it was only what? A hundred, 150 years ago that people, what, lived to an average of 40, 45 years old. We're living to 78 nowadays, so we kind of take it for granted. So, I would say you pretty much had to have your brain wired up pretty well by then. So that's why I think 2 is fiction.

S: Okay. So, let's take these in order.

J: Okay.

S: Number 1: Scientists have developed a new dating technique for ceramics and pottery that involves measuring its water content with a microscale capable of detecting 1/10th of a millionth of a gram. And that one... is... science!

B: Cool.

S: Yeah, this one is very cool. Very cool.

B: So is the microscale so accurate with the weight that it could tell from day to day how the weight is changing?

S: Not from day to day, no. So, this is used to date archaeological finds and they say that it's accurate for pottery or ceramics that are up to about 2000 years old. But they think that with some tweaking they might be able to push that to about 10,000 years old. And, what they do – this is called “rehydroxylation dating”. Rehydroxylation dating. And, Rebecca's right. When you fire a brick, or a tile, or pottery, or whatever in the kiln, that sort of resets the clock, right? That bakes out all the water –

R: Right.

S: – So you know that, at the moment of creation, it essentially has no water content 'cause it's all been baked out.

R: See, I know this because I do a lot of “paint your own pottery” classes.

S: Is that right?

R: (Laughs)

E: I thought it was 'cause you shop at Pottery Barn.

S: (Laughs)

R: That doesn't even make sense.

S: No, it doesn't.

B & R: (Laughs)

S: And then, water will slowly, slowly, slowly, over the years bind with the pottery. So what they do, if they find a little piece of pottery in an archaeological find, they weigh it, they bake out all the water –

B: Ah.

S: – Weigh it again. So now they know how much water was in it. And then –

B: Excellent.

S: – In order to calibrate it, they then will observe it over time. And this is where the microscale really comes into play. They say, okay, now how quickly is it going to accrue water over time. And then they extrapolate from that to the total water content and, therefore, its total age. Does that make sense?

J: Mm-hm.

E: Very much so.

S: Very cool. It's very clever. Very cool technique.

J: That is pretty cool.

S: Now, interestingly, they say that if we know the exact age of a piece of pottery from other lines of evidence –

B: Verify it.

S: Yeah, you could verify, we know this thing was made in 1250 AD, right? Or whatever. Then, they can – knowing the date – they can use this technique in order to calibrate the rate at which, over historical time, the water would have bound with that piece of pottery. They could say, “This is how fast it's binding water now. This is the average rate at which it was binding water over its lifetime.” And that may become a way of estimating the average temperature over historical time. Isn't that interesting? So if you know –

B: Wow.

S: – You can guess the temperature. You can say, “All right. We're gonna basically assume that the current rates are the same as the average rates over historical time” to estimate the age. But if we actually knew the age, then we could use that to estimate the average temperature over the historical time. So this might be another way, another line of evidence, to sort of get at the whole question of Global Warming or Climate Change. What have temperatures been in the past? So, very cool. And of course – you know – archaeologists will love this. I mean, to date a find. I mean, these kind of bricks and bits of ceramics and clay and whatever is very common in a lot of archaeological finds. This'll be a huge boon to archaeology.

B: Wouldn't the environment be a huge factor in determining how quickly it binds with water?

S: You mean like, is it buried under the ground –

B: Right. Right.

S: – versus laying on the surface versus under a lake?

B: Yeah.

S: I would assume.

B: So then, when they weigh it, and then they fire it again, and then they see how quickly it binds, they really should be putting it in a similar environment that it was for the majority of its lifetime in order to be apples to apples.

S: Yeah.

B: I'm sure they thought of that, but I just wonder how they deal with it.

S: Yeah, I didn't have access to the technical paper, only the press stories about it, so I don't – I couldn't find anything. I thought – I had that same thought. I mean, what about the environment? And, they didn't mention anything about that. I'm sure they take that into consideration, but that sounds like a variable that might introduce some error.

R: Next!

S: Next! Neuroscientists mapping brain networks find that children younger than 12 have disorganized and chaotic brain function. Clearly, Rebecca, you don't have kids, right?

R: (Laughs)

E: Not that she knows of.

S: Not that she knows of.

R: I've met some.

S: You have?

R: Before. I think. Once or twice. Hey, I ran a magic shop. Come on.

S: Neuroscientists mapping brain networks find that children younger than 12 have disorganized and chaotic brain function. And, this one, you guys all thought was the fiction.

E: We thought.

S: Those with and without children thought that this one was fiction. And this one... is... fiction.

E: Yeah!

R: Ah-ha! Yeah!

B: Just didn't sound right. 

R: See, I know kids. I know 12-year-olds.

S: Yes.

J: Oh, yeah?

E: You know to avoid them, right?

R: I practically am a 12-year-old.

S: That's true.

E: Well, goes without saying.

S: In fact, this was based upon a real story where they did compare the brain mapping of children and adults. The senior author, Steven Peterson, is quoted as saying, “Regardless of how tempting it might be to assume otherwise, a normal child's brain is ''not'' inherently disorganized or chaotic.” So, it's exactly the opposite of true. But, what is true is that kids' brains are organized ''differently'' than adults'. And they undergo a fairly significant reorganization as they age, as they mature. But they're still organized throughout the whole process. It's just different. The way – and when I mean organized, I mean – you know, there are different parts of the brain, different “modules”, if you will that participate in different functions. And they network together in order to perform tasks. And the pattern by which these different brain structures network with each other during different tasks changes significantly as we age or mature. That's what they found.

R: Cool.

S: Right.

R: Makes sense.

S: But it's still – Of course, this is still a functioning brain every step of the way. But it's interesting that kids – what that means is that kids, you know, especially very young kids, they tested down to 7 years old. They didn't test younger than 7. They think differently than adults, you know?

B: They're not human. They're not human.

S: (Laughs)

E: (Laughs)

S: It's funny to think about that 'cause, you know, I have a 9-year-old, and Bob has an 11-year-old, and it's funny – even at 9 years old, it's interesting because, in a lot of ways you can actually relate to her and almost think of her like a little adult. But, then every now and then she'll –

B: Right.

S: – reveal that, wow, she's really thinking about things in a very different way than the way an adult would think about things –

B: Yeah.

S: – and the way they construct their world really is interestingly different. But they can fool you, you know, just conversation and whatnot. You tend to assume it's like a little adult talking to you, but it really isn't.

R: Yeah, I've been reading Bruce Hood's new book, ''SuperSense'', and hopefully we'll have him on the show soon. It's a very good book.

S: I'm reading that book, too.

R:. Oh, what are the chances?

S: What are the odds?

R: So, he discusses a lot of really interesting research that's been done on children, and a lot that's been done on babies. And, it's really cool to see how they test exactly how kids think and, in the case of “SuperSense”, he's looking into how they view the supernatural world and how they process information in that way. So – and he makes the case that they do think very differently from adults.

S: Right.

R: It's really interesting.

S: It is very interesting. So, congratulations everyone.

J: Why, thank you.

R: Thank you.

E: Yes, 

S: Of course, all this means that number 3, new research finds that attaining goals of fame, fortune, and good looks are associated with less, not more, happiness is... science.

R: So, Jay, just give up on that.

S: Right. I guess that means if we did become famous skeptics and become wealthy, then we'd all be unhappy.

R: Really, 'cause I still kind of want that million dollars, though.

S: Yeah, yeah. Doesn't seem right.

E: Yeah.

S: So, these were psychological researchers which were following up on previous research that finds that people do find happiness when they set a goal for themselves and then they work to achieve that goal. But, that does lead to happiness. So-called “determination”.

E: Yeah. Hard work. Definitely.

S: Right. But what they were saying – what they further explored with this rather long-term survey they did was, does it matter what kind of goals people are achieving? And what they found was that goals that essentially involve personal growth: developing close relationships, community involvement, physical health, et cetera did lead to happiness. While goals that involved extrinsic things like riches, or good looks, or fame actually led to less happiness. And they say, well, this was the first time that that question was asked, separating out the ''kinds'' of goals as opposed to just seeking goals versus not seeking goals. So, it's good to have goals and it's good to work towards them, but they should be ones that are fulfilling to you, personally. And, if you're trying to achieve this extrinsic goal, or superficial, or whatever, that tends to lead to unhappiness and disappointment. But, you know, I think kind of confirms conventional wisdom, you know.

R: Yeah, makes sense.

E: I think so. Yeah.

S: Kind of makes a certain sense. Yeah. Although, yeah, I still want the million bucks.

E: (Laughs) Yeah.

R: And we still win. Yay!

S: (Laughs) Good job, everyone. All right, Evan.

== Who's That Noisy (1:03:56) ==
* Answer to last week - Dean Radin

''This is the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe: Who's That Noisy?''

(Hums Imperial March)

c

R: Who's that noisy? 

E: I love this time of the show. Let's play last week's “Who's That Noisy?”

<blockquote>So of course, there's plenty of reaction to these kinds of things. There's lots of skeptical comments that basically say that there are billions of people out there with trillions of experiences and so we hear the weird stuff. Occasionally there's going to be an unusual coincidence and those are the things that bubble up to the top. And, so, while the experience that I just read, which is a true experience, maybe it's a 1 in a trillion chance. But it's because there's all these other experiences that we don't hear about.</blockquote>

E: Any guesses? No?

R: Um... no.

E: No. That's okay, because someone guessed, rather quickly, and they were correct, from the message board, that that was our old friend Dean Radin talking.

S: Dean Radin.

E: I don't think I ever heard him speak before, before I actually went to look him up. You know, I've certainly read about – read some stuff that he's published and so forth. And Magnus M from the message boards was the first one to correctly guess. So, congratulations.

S: Congratulations.

R: Well done.

E: Dean Radin. What doesn't he believe? That's the question – that's a shorter list.

R: (Laughs)

E: You want one for this week?

S: Yes, Evan, please give us the –

R: Mm, kind of, yeah.

S: – Who's That Noisy for this week. I can't wait to hear it.

E: All right. I challenge our listeners to figure out “Who's That Noisy?”

(Who's That Noisy Clip (1:05:31): Rapid rhythmic tapping like a woodpecker, but more hollow sounding)

E: All right, that's it

R: I think it's what happens right before the firing squad.

S: (Laughs)

E: (Laughs) The drum roll?

R: Yeah.

E: Cigarette, bandana, er – blindfold, and...

R: Do I win?

S: All right. That's interesting, Evan.

E: It was a good one. So, see what you can come up with, and good luck everyone.

== Quote of the Week (1:06:03) ==
<blockquote>Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic. - Thomas Henry Huxley</blockquote>

J: All right, so, Thomas Henry Huxley. Who doesn't know about this guy? Steve who is –

S: T. H. Huxley is one of my favorite intellectuals.

S&B: Darwin's Bulldog.

S: Yeah. Essentially coined the term “agnosticism” to describe his own beliefs.

E: Big man.

S: Just an incredible, incredible intellect.

E: What did he say?

R: And, were you bringing him up for a reason, or did you just want to talk about him?

J: “Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.” How about that? … T. H. Hux!

S: (Laughs)

R: “T. H. Hux”?

J: There it is.

S: “Hux”?

E: “Hux” to his friends.

S: “Hux” to his friends? I don't think I've ever seen a quote from T. H. Huxley that I didn't think was awesome.

B: (Laughs)

S: He's always good for a quote.

== Perry DeAngelis Tribute (1:06:56) ==

S: Well, to celebrate our 200th episode we are going to do a quick look back at the Rogue who didn't make it to 200 with us, Perry DeAngelis. Evan put together a brief compilation of some Perry quotes, including some material that never made it to the podcast. So take a listen:

“Aw, God... DNA? The double helix thing? Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Perry got it right! Double helix! Thank you. Secretaries. Double helix! It's a helix thing. It's science-ish. Remember Helix and Oscar, two men living together... what? Sorry.”

“Yay! Steve, you gotta insert a roaring crowd there. Seriously, on the edit. Insert a roaring crowd. All right.”

“Whatever Rosie has from Disney, I want that. Whatever – they wouldn't give her the contract she wanted, according to her. She wanted more money. She wanted 10 mil, and they wouldn't do it. I think the final straw was that diatribe she did at that awards show. I forget the awards.”

“So Bob, you think that this – yeah, good – you think that this planet is also in the vicious grip of Global Warming, like we are? The universe is pretty big, you know? It's pretty big. There's probably a lot of Class M planets out there. Yeah, yeah. Ecos? Yeah. It's a bad place.”

“Well, now wait a minute, Steve. I heard a creationist correct himself about... uh... you know, actually, I think in the whole 6000 history – year history of the Earth I don't think a creationist has ever corrected himself. About anything.”

“(Laughs) I stand corrected. I stand corrected. See? I'm willing to admit it! I'm willing to admit it. Thank you.”

“There's a lot that's big about me, baby. What? Sorry.”

“But, I want to just say, I don't know about reading. I am on the cutting edge. I have a ''television'' in my bathroom, thank you very much. So when I sit on the can I can get absorbed into a program. I can sit there for an hour!”

“What are you talking about? Sometimes I lounge in the tub for hours, you know, with a good movie on.”

“But you never got a marriage proposal from me! (Laughs) So there you go! Thank you! All right, come on.”

“Jay's a member! So they pickle you and ''then'' freeze you, Jay? (Creepy voice) We thawed out another one for dinner! (Scared voice) It's game over man! (Different creepy accent) I love them frozen – I love them frozen babies!”

“Excuse me. Don't talk over my jokes, please.”

“Yeah! And you can't say George Bush is like Hitler. You can only use that for people who are actually ''like'' Hitler! Like, say, Rosie!”

“I ''dare'' you to leave that in the podcast, Steve. I ''dare'' you to leave that in the podcast.”

“(Laughs hysterically) That's cool. Yeah, let's move on. Let's just keep recording. Let's just finish this up. Let's finish this abortion up. That oughta hold the little sons of bitches til next week (Laughs). Come on!”

J: Yeah, Perry unedited was... was, you know, indescribable.

S: It was. Perry in the raw. That was only a little taste of Perry.

R: Yeah, seriously. (laughs)

S: I wish you could have made it to 200 with us.

R: Yeah.

E: Definitely. Definitely, these – yes. Yep. But, we're always thinking about him and he's always part of us –

S: Always.

E: – and he's always part of this show. No doubt about it.

S: Always.

E: He will always be.

B: I wish he was frozen.

R: And he's still there in the archives.

E: Yeah, right. Jay, if only he took your advice and froze his head, we might some day be reacquainted with him.

S & R: (Laughs)

E: Oh, well.

S: Perry's frozen head is missing!

E & R: (Laughs)

S: Well, thanks for that, Evan. Thanks for ''200'' episodes of SGU, guys.

E: Woo-hoo!

S: What can I say?

B: Wow. 200 hours.

R: Hey, thanks for having me. Not for all 200 though.

S: And thanks to all of our listeners for making this the fun ride that it is.

R: Yeah. Thanks everyone.

S: This wouldn't be nearly as much fun if there weren't people actually listening to the show.

E: Listening, giving us feedback.

J: Yeah, definitely.

R: Uh, no. And if there weren't people actually listening then we would probably all be in a crazy hospital or something.

S: (Laughs)

R: A nice padded room. “They just keep talking!”

E: (Laughs)

J: Of course, it makes a difference, but... you know to me it's like... the fact that we – we're doing something that has an effect is important. But, you know, I would want to be – I would be working at this in one way or another, I guess, no matter how successful or unsuccessful we were. But I also really love spending time with you guys. I mean, the show is fun ''because'' of you guys.

R: Yeah. We have a good time.

E: Yeah, without a doubt, the company. It's good company.

J: Yeah.

E: I look forward to it every week.

S: Yeah. And I think that that comes across.

B: Yeah. Most of you guys are awesome.

S: Yeah. (Laughs).

(Rogues laugh)

R: Hey! Man, you skip out to go to one Star Trek movie and...

S: (Laughs)

E: On a Thursday!

J: (Laughs)

R: It was the premiere!

E: The day before release!

J: Rebecca, the fact is, you're a total geek/dork, just like the rest of us. You have –

R: Yeah, I'm just mega-cool about it.

J: – completely – you tipped your hand. Everybody knows. And there's nothing bad about it. I mean, it's –

R: There's no hand tipping! I know I'm a dork! I'm just the coolest dork ever.

(Rogues laugh)

J: Oh, no, no, no. I'm sorry. You have to be part Geek to go to a Star Trek movie. You went and you were – 

R: Yeah.

J: – you're the perfect girl to be on the show with us. That's it.

R: I'm an ultra-rad geek!. (Laughs)

J: Yes. We love you.

R: Aw. I love you too.

B: As Perry would say, you're a hippie-geek.

R: Um, he would call me a liberal hippie. Yeah.

S: Yeah.

E: Yeah. Who's starving herself slowly with a vegetarian diet.

R: (Laughs)

E: That's what he'd say.

R: The length of my life is... what is it? Inversely proportional to the quality of it?

S: To the torture. The horror.

R: Oh, that's right. The horror of my... (Laughs) The amount of years I'll live is proportional to the horror of my life. (Laughs) Aw.

E: Good stuff. It would never have been said without a podcast. So...

R: (Laughs)

S: Well, thanks again, guys.

B: Surely.

R: Thank you, Steve.

E: I look forward to another 200 and then some.

J: Thanks, Steve.

R: Indeed.

S: Here's to another 200, absolutely. And until next week –

E: And then more.

S: – this –

E: 201!

S: – This is your Skeptic's Guide to the Universe.

{{Outro119}}
== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}

Template:SGU episode list

2014-12-19T23:01:42Z

Mantis!:

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

Where the first pass of transcription is done using Google Speech API, the page should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{a}}</nowiki></code> to add the microphone icon.

Pages currently in progress should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{i}}</nowiki></code> to add the pencil icon, and pages that have sections open to other contributors to transcribe should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{Open}}</nowiki></code> to include the green arrow icon.

Once all the transcription is finished, the page should be marked with <code><nowiki>{{mag}}</nowiki></code> to add the magnifying glass icon, signifying that it needs to be proof-read.

Pages that have been proof-read and verified by a contributor other than the author should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{tick}}</nowiki></code> to include the green tick icon. </noinclude>
Below are links to all the SGU episodes with transcription pages.

Jump to: [[#2013|2013]], [[#2012|2012]], [[#2011|2011]], [[#2010|2010]], [[#2009|2009]], [[#2008|2008]], [[#2007|2007]], [[#2006|2006]], [[#2005|2005]]

{|
!Key:
|-
|    {{tick}}
| –  episode proof-read
|     {{mag}}
|  –  transcription complete and needs proof-reading
|-
|    {{i}}
| –  transcription in progress
|     {{Open}}
|  –  contains sections that need transcribing
|-
|    {{a}}
|colspan="3"| –  first pass of transcription performed by Google Speech API
|}

{|style="margin:1em 3em"
|style="padding-right: 6em;white-space:nowrap" valign="top"|<big>'''2014'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 492]], Dec 13 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 491]], Dec 6 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 490]], Nov 29 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 489]], Nov 22 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 488]], Nov 15 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 487]], Nov 8 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 486]], Nov 1 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 485]], Oct 25 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 484]], Oct 18 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 483]], Oct 11 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 482]], Oct 4 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 481]], Sep 27 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 480]], Sep 20 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 479]], Sep 13 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 478]], Sep 6 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 477]], Aug 30 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 476]], Aug 23 2014 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 475]], Aug 16 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 474]], Aug 9 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 473]], Aug 2 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 472]], Jul 26 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 471]], Jul 19 2014 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 470]], Jul 12 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 469]], Jul 5 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 468]], Jun 28 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 467]], Jun 21 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 466]], Jun 14 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 465]], Jun 7 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 464]], May 31 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 463]], May 24 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 462]], May 17 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 461]], May 10 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 460]], May 3 2014 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 459]], Apr 26 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 458]], Apr 19 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 457]], Apr 12 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 456]], Apr 5 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 455]], Mar 29 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 454]], Mar 22 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 453]], Mar 15 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 452]], Mar 8 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 451]], Mar 1 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 450]], Feb 22 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 449]], Feb 15 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 448]], Feb 10 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 447]], Feb 8 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 446]], Feb 1 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 445]], Jan 25 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 444]], Jan 18 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 443]], Jan 11 2014 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 442]], Jan 4 2014 {{Open}}

<big>'''2013'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 441]], Dec 28 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 440]], Dec 21 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 439]], Dec 14 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 438]], Dec 7 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 437]], Nov 30 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 436]], Nov 23 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 435]], Nov 16 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 434]], Nov 9 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 433]], Nov 2 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 432]], Oct 26 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 431]], Oct 19 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 430]], Oct 12 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 429]], Oct 5 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 428]], Sep 28 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 427]], Sep 21 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 426]], Sep 14 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 425]], Sep 7 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 424]], Aug 31 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 423]], Aug 24 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 422]], Aug 17 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 421]], Aug 10 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 420]], Aug 3 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 419]], Jul 27 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 418]], Jul 20 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 417]], Jul 13 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 416]], Jul 6 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 415]], Jun 29 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 414]], Jun 22 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 413]], Jun 15 2013 {{Open}}{{a}}
* [[SGU Episode 412]], Jun 8 2013 {{i}}{{a}}
* [[SGU Episode 411]], Jun 1 2013 {{a}}
* [[SGU Episode 410]], May 25 2013 {{Tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 409]], May 18 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 408]], May 11 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 407]], May 4 2013 {{Open}}{{a}}
* [[SGU Episode 406]], Apr 27 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 405]], Apr 20 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 404]], Apr 13 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 403]], Apr 6 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 402]], Mar 30 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 401]], Mar 23 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 400]], Mar 16 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 399]], Mar 9 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 398]], Mar 2 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 397]], Feb 23 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 396]], Feb 16 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 395]], Feb 9 2013 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 394]], Feb 2 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 393]], Jan 26 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 392]], Jan 19 2013 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 391]], Jan 12 2013 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 390]], Jan 5 2013 {{tick}}

<big>'''2012'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 389]], Dec 29 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 388]], Dec 22 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 387]], Dec 15 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 386]], Dec 8 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 385]], Dec 1 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 384]], Nov 24 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 383]], Nov 17 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 382]], Nov 10 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 381]], Nov 3 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 380]], Oct 27 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 379]], Oct 20 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 378]], Oct 13 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 377]], Oct 6 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 376]], Sep 29 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 375]], Sep 22 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 374]], Sep 15 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 373]], Sep 8 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 372]], Sep 1 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 371]], Aug 25 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 370]], Aug 18 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 369]], Aug 11 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 368]], Aug 4 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 367]], Jul 28 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 366]], Jul 21 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 365]], Jul 14 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 364]], Jul 7 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 363]], Jun 30 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 362]], Jun 23 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 361]], Jun 16 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 360]], Jun 9 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 359]], Jun 2 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 358]], May 26 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 357]], May 19 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 356]], May 12 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 355]], May 5 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 354]], Apr 28 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 353]], Apr 21 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 352]], Apr 14 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 351]], Apr 7 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 350]], Mar 31 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 349]], Mar 24 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 348]], Mar 17 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 347]], Mar 10 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 346]], Mar 3 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 345]], Feb 25 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 341]], Jan 28 2012 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 340]], Jan 21 2012 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 339]], Jan 14 2012 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 338]], Jan 7 2012 {{tick}}
<big>'''2011'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 337]], Dec 31 2011 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 336]], Dec 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 335]], Dec 17 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 334]], Dec 10 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 333]], Dec 3 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 332]], Nov 26 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 331]], Nov 19 2011 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 330]], Nov 11 2011 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 329]], Nov 5 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 328]], Oct 29 2011 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 327]], Oct 22 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 326]], Oct 15 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 325]], Oct 8 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 324]], Oct 1 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 323]], Sep 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 322]], Sep 17 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 321]], Sep 10 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU 24hr]], Sep 23-24 2011
* [[SGU Episode 320]], Aug 29 2011 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 319]], Aug 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 318]], Aug 17 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 317]], Aug 10 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 316]], Aug 3 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 315]], Jul 27 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 314]], Jul 20 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 313]], Jul 13 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 312]], Jul 5 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 311]], Jun 29 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 310]], Jun 22 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 309]], Jun 13 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 308]], Jun 08 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 307]], May 31 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 306]], May 25 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 305]], May 18 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 304]], May 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 303]], May 4 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 302]], Apr 27 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 301]], Apr 20 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 300]], Apr 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 299]], Apr 4 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 298]], Mar 30 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 297]], Mar 24 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 296]], Mar 16 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 295]], Mar 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 294]], Mar 2 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 293]], Feb 23 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 292]], Feb 16 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 291]], Feb 9 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 290]], Jan 31 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 289]], Jan 26 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 288]], Jan 19 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 287]], Jan 12 2011 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 286]], Jan 5 2011 {{Open}}
<big>'''2010'''</big>

----
* [[SGU Episode 285]], Dec 29 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 284]], Dec 22 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 283]], Dec 15 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 282]], Dec 8 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 281]], Dec 1 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 280]], Nov 24 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 279]], Nov 15 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 278]], Nov 10 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 277]], Nov 3 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 276]], Oct 27 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 275]], Oct 19 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 274]], Oct 13 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 273]], Oct 6 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 272]], Sep 30 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 271]], Sep 22 2010 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 270]], Sep 15 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 269]], Sep 8 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 268]], Sep 1 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 267]], Aug 25 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 266]], Aug 19 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 265]], Aug 11 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 264]], Aug 4 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 263]], Jul 29 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 262]], Jul 21 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 261]], Jul 10 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 260]], Jun 30 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 259]], Jun 28 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 258]], Jun 16 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 257]], Jun 14 2010 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 256]], Jun 9 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 255]], Jun 2 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 254]], May 26 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 253]], May 19 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 252]], May 12 2010 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 251]], May 5 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 250]], Apr 28 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 249]], Apr 17 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 248]], Apr 13 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 247]], Apr 7 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 246]], Mar 31 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 245]], Mar 25 2010 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 244]], Mar 18 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 243]], Mar 11 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 242]], Mar 3 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 241]], Feb 24 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 240]], Feb 17 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 239]], Feb 10 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 238]], Feb 3 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 237]], Jan 27 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 236]], Jan 20 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 235]], Jan 13 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 234]], Nov 15 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 233]], Jan 6 2010 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 232]], Jan 1 2010 {{mag}}

|valign="top" style=white-space:nowrap|<big>'''2009'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 231]], Dec 21 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 230]], Dec 16 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 229]], Dec 9 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 228]], Dec 2 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 227]], Nov 25 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 226]], Nov 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 225]], Nov 11 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 224]], Nov 4 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 223]], Oct 28 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 222]], Oct 21 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 221]], Oct 14 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 220]], Oct 7 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 219]], Sep 28 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 218]], Sep 23 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 217]], Sep 12 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 216]], Sep 9 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 215]], Sep 1 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 214]], Aug 25 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 213]], Aug 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 212]], Aug 12 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 211]], Aug 4 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 210]], Jul 29 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 209]], Jul 22 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 208]], Jul 11 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 207]], Jul 1 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 206]], Jun 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 205]], Jun 16 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 204]], Jun 11 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 203]], Jun 9 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 202]], Jun 3 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 201]], May 27 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 200]], May 20 2009 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 199]], May 13 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 198]], May 7 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 197]], Apr 30 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 196]], Apr 22 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 195]], Apr 15 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 194]], Apr 8 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 193]], Apr 1 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 192]], Mar 25 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 191]], Mar 18 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 190]], Mar 12 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 189]], Mar 4 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 188]], Feb 26 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 187]], Feb 11 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 186]], Feb 9 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 185]], Feb 4 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 184]], Jan 28 2009 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 183]], Jan 21 2009 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 182]], Jan 15 2009 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 181]], Jan 7 2009 {{Open}}

<big>'''2008'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 180]], Dec 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 179]], Dec 23 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 178]], Dec 16 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 177]], Dec 3 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 176]], Nov 20 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 175]], Nov 10 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 174]], Nov 18 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 173]], Nov 12 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 172]], Nov 5 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 171]], Oct 29 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 170]], Oct 22 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 169]], Oct 11 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 168]], Oct 8 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 167]], Oct 1 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 166]], Sep 24 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 165]], Sep 17 2008 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 164]], Sep 10 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 163]], Sep 3 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 162]], Aug 26 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 161]], Aug 20 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 160]], Aug 13 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 159]], Aug 6 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 158]], Jul 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 157]], Jul 23 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 156]], Jul 16 2008 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 155]], Jul 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 154]], Jul 2 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 153]], Jun 21 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 152]], Jun 11 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 151]], Jun 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 150]], Jun 4 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 149]], May 28 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 148]], May 21 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 147]], May 14 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 146]], May 7 2008 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 145]], Apr 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 144]], Apr 23 2008 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 143]], Apr 16 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 142]], Apr 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 141]], Apr 2 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 140]], Mar 26 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 139]], Mar 19 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 138]], Mar 12 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 137]], Mar 5 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 136]], Feb 27 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 135]], Feb 20 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 134]], Feb 13 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 133]], Feb 6 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 132]], Jan 30 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 131]], Jan 23 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 130]], Jan 16 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 129]], Jan 9 2008 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 128]], Jan, 2 2008 {{Open}}

<big>'''2007'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 127]], Dec 26 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 126]], Dec 19 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 125]], Dec 12 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 124]], Dec 5 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 122]], Nov 20 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 121]], Nov 14 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 120]], Nov 7 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 119]], Oct 30 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 118]], Oct 24 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 117]], Oct 17 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 116]], Oct 10 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 115]], Oct 3 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 114]], Sep 27 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 113]], Sep 19 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 112]], Sep 12 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 111]], Sep 5 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 110]], Aug 28 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 108]], Aug 11 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 107]], Aug 8 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 106]], Aug 1 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 105]], Jul 25 2007 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 104]], Jul 18 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 103]], Jul 11 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 102]], Jul 3 2007 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 101]], June 20 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 100]], June 19 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 99]], June 13 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 98]], June 6 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 97]], May 30 2007 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 96]], May 23 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 95]], May 16 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 94]], May 9 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 93]], May 3 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 92]], Apr 25 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 91]], Apr 18 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 90]], Apr 10 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 89]], Apr 4 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 88]], Mar 28 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 87]], Mar 21 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 86]], Mar 14 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 85]], Mar 7 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 84]], Feb 28 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 83]], Feb 21 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 82]], Feb 15 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 81]], Feb 7 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 80]], Jan 31 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 78]], Jan 15 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 77]], Jan 10 2007 {{open}}
* [[SGU Episode 76]], Jan 3 2007 {{open}}

<big>'''2006'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 75]], Dec 27 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 74]], Dec 20 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 73]], Dec 13 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 73]], Dec 13 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 72]], Dec 6 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 71]], Nov 29 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 70]], Nov 21 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 69]], Nov 15 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 68]], Nov 8 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 67]], Nov 1 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 66]], Oct 25 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 65]], Oct 18 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 64]], Oct 11 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 63]], Oct 4 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 62]], Sep 27 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 61]], Sep 20 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 60]], Sep 13 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 59]], Sep 5 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 58]], Aug 30 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 57]], Aug 23 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 56]], Aug 15 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 55]], Aug 9 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 54]], Aug 2 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 53]], Jul 26 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 52]], Jul 19 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 51]], Jul 12 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 50]], Jul 5 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 49]], Jun 28 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 48]], Jun 21 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 47]], Jun 14 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 46]], Jun 7 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 45]], May 31 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 44]], May 24 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 43]], May 17 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 42]], May 10 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 41]], May 3 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 40]], Apr 26 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 39]], Apr 19 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 38]], Apr 12 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 37]], Apr 6 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 36]], Mar 29 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 35]], Mar 22 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 34]], Mar 15 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 33]], Mar 9 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 32]], Mar 1 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 31]], Feb 22 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 30]], Feb 15 2006 {{Open}}
* [[SGU Episode 29]], Feb 8 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 28]], Feb 1 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 27]], Jan 25 2006 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 26]], Jan 17 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 25]], Jan 11 2006 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 24]], Jan 6 2006 {{mag}}

<big>'''2005'''</big>
----
* [[SGU Episode 23]], Dec 21 2005 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 22]], Dec 14 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 21]], Dec 7 2005 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 20]], Nov 23 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 19]], Nov 16 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 18]], Nov 2 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 17]], Oct 26 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 16]], Oct 12 2005 {{mag}}
* [[SGU Episode 15]], Oct 6 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 14]], Sep 28 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 13]], Sep 14 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 12]], Sep 7 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 11]], Aug 31 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 10]], Aug 23 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 9]], Aug 10 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 8]], Aug 2 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 7]], Jul 20 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 6]], Jul 7 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 5]], Jun 29 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 4]], Jun 15 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 3]], Jun 7 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 2]], Jun 1 2005 {{tick}}
* [[SGU Episode 1]], May 4 2005 {{tick}}
|}

<noinclude>
[[Category: List templates]]
</noinclude>

SGU Episode 200

2014-12-19T22:59:21Z

Mantis!: