SGUTranscripts - User contributions [en]

SGU Episode 105

2012-08-24T16:04:30Z

Skepticat: SGU 105 transcript - continued in interview section

{{transcribing all
|transcriber = Skepticat
}}

{{Draft_infoBox
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 105
|episodeDate = 25th Jul 2007
|episodeIcon = File:LogoSGU.png
|previous =
|next =
|steve =y
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|perry = y
|guest = y President Jimmy Carter (PJC)

|downloadLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|notesLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|forumLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|qowText = Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Martin_Luther_King,_Jr Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr]
|}}

== 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, July 25th, 2007, and this is your host, Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella...

B: Hey, everybody.

S: ...Rebecca Watson...

R: Hello, world.

S: ...Perry DeAngelis...

P: Hello.

S: ...Jay Novella...

J: Good evening, guys.

S: ...and Evan Bernstein.

E: Hi, everyone.

S: How is everyone this evening?

x: I'm good, Steve.

x: Very good!

x: Awesome.

x: Very, very good.

R: Couldn't be better.

P: We all went on honeymoon with Jay.

x: That's right. 

x: We did.

P: All there in the hotel room. It's a little... 

R: I thought, I thought it would be awkward, but you know...

x: It's kinda cool, right?

(inaudible)

R: It's kinda cozy.

P: No, his, his new bride is very cooperative.

R: Um-hm.

x: She snores.

P: And, I'd like to thank you, Jay.

S: 'S right. Jay was married five days ago. How's married life treating you, Jay?

J: I'm totally excited. I love it. Very, very happy. It's exactly what she told me to say, too, so.

S: Good. You're learning already.

(laughter)

x: Is there any difference now that you're no longer really living in sin?

J: I did feel that the air conditioning worked better. That's kinda strange, but...

(laughter)

x: That's happened before. That's common.

x: You know, as you guys...

S: If you want, if you want to meet Jay's wife, Cheryl, she's gonna be at the August 11th event that we're having in Brooklyn, New York.

R: Is she?

x: Yes, she is.

R: That, that gets me very excited because I met Cheryl at the wedding for the first time, and I found that I actually like her better than Jay.

(laughter)

x: Yeah.

S: Well, we all do.

R: Well, I'm really looking forward to that.

x: That's why they call it the "better half".

R: Yeah.

J: I don't know how to take that, Rebecca. Thanks.

R: Ma...marrying up. (laughter)

J: Oh, I'm defininely punching above my weight with this girl. Absolutely.

(snicker)

R: Jay, you know I love you.

J: Thank you. I love you too.

x: For ten dollars a minute, she'll talk in that English accent for you.

x: Oh, go....
(laughter)

x: She only charged us five.

S: In fact, Cheryl ''does'' do the sexy British voice that introduces our podcast.

J: And in other places, too.

(laughter)

R: We don't wanna hear about that, Jay.

x: I do.

S: Now we have a ''very'' special interview coming up later in the show.

x: Jimmy "Peanut Lovin'" Carter.

(laughter)

S: Yes, this is our, probably our highest profile interview to date - President Jimmy Carter. We interviewed him about his UFO sighting and other th...interesting things. So that's coming up in just a moment. But first, we'll start with some skeptical news.

== News Items ==
=== "Item 1" (Ward Churchill Fired)===

''(00:02:26)'' 
S: First news item is a little bit of follow-up from a previous story that we talked about. Ward Churchill, who is the professor of ethnic studies at Colorado University, was officially fired yesterday, on July, July 24th.

R: Though he claims he's not going anywhere, so I'm not really sure what that did.

(inaudible)

S: Yeah. He, well, he's saying that he's gonna sue the university for violation of his freedom of speech.

R: He's a tenured professor, though, so he gets a full year's pay.

S: Mm-hm

R: I'm wondering what he's complaining about. Just go.

S: Right. Yeah, right.

R: Go work on your wacky 9/11 theories.

x: They found him guilty of academic misconduct, including plagiarism.

R: Yeah, so it's not ''just'' that he has wacky theories about 9/11, which is why we're talking about him right now, in case anyone...

P: Actually, it specifically says he was ''not'' fired for that, Rebecca.

R: Ah.

S: Yeah, in fact, that wasn't considered ''at all''. There, the quick backstory is that a couple years ago, Ward Churchill, in an essay, compared the World Trade Center 9/11 victims to little Eichmanns.

P: That's correct.

S: Who, comparing them to Adolf Eichmann, who was complicit in the Nazi Holocaust.

P: For some reason, some people took exception to that.

S: Yeah, for some unknown reason.

P: Couldn't figure it out.

S: That sparked a controversy and also triggered the University of Colorado to investigate his academic career and what they found, they found that he was guilty of academic misconduct and plagiarism. That led to a review of his tenure, disciplinary review, and that was just concluded and they found that he was guilty of academic misconduct and that was sufficient to fire him, despite the fact that he had tenure. He's saying that it's all about his political opinions, not about the academic misconduct. I don't know if he's denying that, if he's denying the specifics of the accusation. He's just saying this was a witch hunt, basically over his unpopular political views.

R: I think it's less, I don't think it's quite his unpopular political views and more his unpopular conspiracy theories that are crazy and untrue.

S: Right.

R: I mean, at some point, it stops being a political opinion and starts just being nonsense - and that's where he is.

P: My recollection is...

x: I agree.

P ...That when he first came out with the statements, the university backed him a hundred percent.

S: Well, universities will typically defend the, the rights and the freedoms of their professors to, to express their opinions. And, you know, the, the purpose of tenure is to protect academics from outside pressure, you know, from having to comport to the politics of the day, so they could be, you know, free to pursue the truth wherever it leads them. Although, initially, it was actually intended to protect professors from, like, donors and trustee members who would try to use their influence and their money to get rid of people they didn't like or to influence the politics of the university. It was meant to empower the university itself, and in practice, the colleagues, the academic colleagues of professors to, to police themselves. It didn't mean that tenured professors can't be policed. It just meant they were policed from the inside, not from the outside. And then over the last hundred years, the concept of tenure and the rights and privileges of it have evolved, you know, partly through legal precedent, sometimes through tradition. At this point, in order to remove somebody, discipline somebody from, with tenure, fire them, there's a process that's pretty similar to the legal process. You have to have due process, representation, the, you know, the tenured professor has the right to confront the evidence against them, and you, and Colorado, the University of Colorado went through that due process.

P: So it's possible, but laborious.

S: Yeah. So Churchill and his lawyer are accusing them of, of the, Churchill said specifically that the, "the process was a farce. They, the results were predetermined. It was orchestrated. And they were doing it to get rid of me". So, he said they were, quote unquote, "creating the illusion of scholarly review". And he's going to now go on the offensive, going to, he says, quote, "We will be into cour...into court to expose the nature of that fraud". So he's accusing Colo...the University of Colorado of fraud now.

P: Well, I hope the charges, I mean, I hope they stick. I hope his, he remains, his ass remains fired. ''But'', he deserves his day in court.

S: Yeah.

P: I, I have no objection to that.

S: Now he, now he's chall...you know, he's challenging the, the scholarly review, now he's taking it into the courts. You know, it's a civil case, basically.

P: Let him, let him use the courts, I don't care.

S: It, it does bring up the question, you know, with which we touched upon before. You know, what is the role of the university? Do they have the right to police, you know, the content of their professors, their academics, or should they basically just give them the freedom to do what they want?

x: Not to plagiarize though.

S: Well, clearly, not to commit fraud, not to plagiarize. That's, that's, that's out of bounds. But, like, let's take the example of a history professor or a professor who teaches that 9/11 was an inside job, for example. Should the university say, "Well, that's his opinion. You know, we respect him as a scholar and we don't necessarily have to police the details of his opinions, and we're not going to presume that we're right about everything and this is, we, you know, the purpose of universities are to, are to inspire vigorous debate and that includes allowing people to voice very unpopular opinions". I, I, I buy all of that, as far as it goes. Except, I think that the university ''also'' has both a duty and, and the right to establish some sort of academic standards, and some things are below the standard of academics. It's not just that it's unpopular - it's also that, I mean, the, the 9/11, the claims about 9/11 are, are demonstrably wrong, and they employ poor logic, misrepresentation of the facts, etcetera, poor method. And, and, and there are actually standards for disciplining somebody with tenure that include scholarly incompetence, and you could argue that, that's, it's imcompetent to make such a ridiculous argument. Not because it's unpopular, just 'cause the method is so poor. The same exact issue, by the way, crops up all the time. It crops up with the Intelligent Design proponents, who say that they're being academically persecuted and that they should be free to promote Intelligent Design, whereas universities are like "No. That's nonsense. It's not science, it's below the standard, it's imcompetent, and we have the right to police it", which I totally agree with. The same thing comes up with paranormal researchers. Now glo...the global warming skeptics are saying that they're being persecuted academically in the same way, that there are not, their careers are being, you know, are being inhibited because their opinions are going against the prevailing, you know, political opinions. So this is an issue that keeps cropping up over and over again, and, and, you know, and often surrounds issues that we deal with typically as, as skeptics. The core conflict is freedom versus standards.

P: So Steven, how, if, if you were the dean, say, of that particular university, and Ward taught that it was a inside job - 9/11 - what would you do? You'd summon him to your office and say ''what'' to him?

S: I, I, I would follow a procedure, you know, I think universities do have procedures for things like that, but it would ultimately amount to, you know, a review of appropriate academics and experts to establish, just, is this academically legitimate, it, or is it academically incompetent? And if it follo...falls below the standards of the university, then I think that action can be taken. You know, starting with censorship, ending with being fired.

x: Do you guys think the tenure system is broken as well?

P: No, it has its place.

S: It's a double-edged sword.

P: Yeah. I mean, it's, it's, it's, it's very much like why Supreme Court justices are appointed for life.

S: It's exactly that way, yeah.

P: You know, it's that kind of protection. So, it has its place, but, like, like Steve said, you have to what? Police it for abuse.

x: Yeah. Supreme Court justices can be brought up on charges and...

P: They can be impeached.

x: ...Kicked off the Court. You bet they can.

P: They can be impeached.

S: Mm-hmm.

P: Again, it's laborious.

S: It should, it should be a high standard. It should be a high threshold, but it's, there's gotta be some mechanism, otherwise, you know, once somebody gets in, then they could be teaching students nonsense and the university would be implicitly endorsing that if they didn't have a mechanism of dealing ____ 

x: How'd they deal with John Mack?

S: Yale, Harvard, John...so, again for background, John Mack was a Harvard psychiatrist who, who believed that some of his patients were, were ''truly'' being abducted by aliens, and Harvard publicly ''disagreed'' with him, but said he, but respected his tenure and didn't take action against him. He was, he was...

x: Wimps.

S: ...Killed in a car accident, so it eventually, obviously the issue ended.

x: So the aliens finally got him at the end.

S: Yeah, I mean they were clearly embarrassed by the episode, but they hid behind the notion of academic freedom. But yeah, and, and some people have, this also came up with a very similar situation with Courtney Brown, you guys remember this? The Emory professor who believed he was communicating with UFOs, but he did that all in his ''spare'' time. So sometimes you think, this is stuff he's doing outside the context of his academic job, so that's okay. Or they say, it's covered by academic freedom and it's not below the standard of imcompetence. So, we don't like it, but it's okay. And also, they say, he's free to teach that and we're free to criticize him, and that's how we deal with it. We just deal with it in the open through criticism.

P: That's an important note, you know.

S: Yeah.

P: Also, you're dealing with collegians here, you know. It's not like you're indoctrinating five-year-olds. I mean, there's a big difference...between...

S: It absolutely depends upon the level of education. Absolutely.

P: Right.

S: The higher up you go, the more, the more open we should be to cutting edge or, or, you know, differing ideas.

E: Like Holocaust deniers too.

S: That, it's another good example. Well, let's move on to the next news item.

=== "Item 2" (Homeopathic Surgeon)===

(0:12:18) 
S: This one is about a homeopathic doctor in Arizona who is being disciplined for killing this, his  third patient who died on the table for doing li...during liposuction.

P: Who keeps track?

J: This...you couldn't come up with this if you threw it together. It's like, he's a homeopathic doctor doing liposuction. Where did, where do these two crisscross? How does a homeopath...

S: Arizona is, which is probably the center of, you know, ''"woo"'' and spiritual nonsense...

(inaudible)

P: Yeah, they crisscross in the marketing department, Jay.

x: Yeah.

x: Yeah.

S: It has very, sort of permissive laws, and they license homeopaths, and in there, and, in the United States, the, the regulation of health care is state by state. States license all practitioners and determine their scope of practice. In Arizona, homeopaths are licensed by the state and their scope of practice includes minor, quote unquote, "minor surgical procedures".

R: And obviously knowing anything about the human body is not really a part of the licensing procedure.

S: Yeah, obviously know...understanding the science or the scientific method or, oh you know, reality...

P: Med-i-cine.

S: ...Is not a prerequisite.

x: Reality.

S: But apparently, the, the definition of "''minor'' surgical procedure" in Arizona is ambiguous, so he was performing liposuction, you know, basically just "de facto", claiming that it was within the scope of practice of a homeopathic physician. And, and ad...and administering conscious sedation, so, using, you know, ''pharmaceuticals'' which (laugh) is, is kind of ironic for a homeopath. And, you know, a few people died under his care.

x: A few people.

E: Eh, what's a few people?

S: Right.

P: Unbelievable.

x: Steve, I thought that when somebody died under a doctor's care, under this auspice, they got their license taken away from them, whatever licensing they had. I mean, did he...

S: Yeah, well, the state, the state suspended his license. That's correct.

x: And then, was he doing the other two on the sly?

S: Well, no. What he, he, I think two patients died...well, when one patient dies, a patient dies, and that usually doesn't trigger an investigation, but ''two'' patients of his died within a couple of months. That triggered an investigation. They suspended, restricted his practice, said you can no longer do, perform conscious sedation. But he cont...he continued to perform liposuction, just not with the sedation, and then he lost another, another patient ''that'' way.

P: And, you know, liposuction is no joke.

S: No, it isn't.

P: And then it's an invasive...

x: Aw, it's...

P: ...Bru...violent procedure.

J: Yeah, you're asking for a bacterial infection when you do that.

P: I..exactly right, Jay. I saw a documentary and the guy went in there for a woman. She wanted to lose ten pounds. Popped her bowel. She got so infected, she lost both her legs!

S: Yeah. You know, it's no joke. It's serious surgery.

(laughter)

E: She lost more than ten pounds.

P: She lost more than ten pounds.

x: Yeah, reminds me, I saw on TV, I saw this show about the schlock doctors. You know, it's like, literally like an alleyway door and they go in and this doctor was performing pectoral implants on this guy - and he was using a wooden spatula as the operating tool.

R: Ohmygod.

x: Wow.

P: I don't know.

x: Like he's cooking sauce, he's doing surgery, you know...

(laughter)

x: What the hell?

S: Well, now I do think that, you know, the point of this piece is that, you know, homeopathic...''homeopaths'' are not really adequately trained as medical physicians and the ''entire'' basis of homeopathy is pseudoscientific. Of, of course, you know, patients have complications and patients die under the care of MDs as well, but I think having really permissive rules, permissive scopes of practice for people who are operating without adequate training and under a pseudoscientific philosophy of medicine is a grave mistake. I think it does not serve the public well. This is just an anecdote that demonstrates that.

x: There's no Federal oversight or...

S: No, just the, just the...

x: ...Department or influence that they can...

S: No.

x: ...They can help Arizona take steps to correct these...

S: Nope. Drawn  by the states.

x: ...These loose rules?

P: State medical.

S: Run by the state. Yep. The, the...

x: Wow.

S: ...The Federal government regulates through the FDA, you know they regulate drugs and, and devices and things like that, but they don't, do not regulate the, the practice of, of medicine.

=== "Item 3" (UK UFO)===

(0:16:32) 
S: Next news item comes from the UK. This is another UFO sighting. A crowd of a hundred, quote unquote, "stunned stargazers" brought a t...a town center to a standstill when five mysterious UFOs were spotted hovering over the sky. The, the sighting took place over Stratford, which happens to be Shakespeare's birthplace. And this is your typical "points of light in the sky" type of UFO sighting. This is, of course, this was five points of light. Couple funny bits - one is they say that it was in a formation. Well, you know, any...

(inaudible)

S: ...Clustering of lights is going to be in some kind of formation, you know. It makes the, three of them make a triangle. Well, you know, pretty much any three points make a triangle. Yeah. So it's not...it could be random, it's not particularly or necessarily in a formation. You know, those observers who are trying to argue that this was, you know, an alien spacecraft encounter cite the usual things. They were silent...

P: But deadly.

(laughter)

S: So they, they were not making, the lights were not making any noise...and that they, they moved in a, in a bizarre fashion.

P: Ah.

S: The movement.

x: I love how, I love how the, the reporters said, you know, to create the scene of people being all shook up and everything, is like, "Drinkers spilled out of pubs." Well, that makes me really wanna believe them now.

(laughter)

P: Come on. He's...

x: Mm-hmm.

P: ...He's trying to paint with dramatic license. He's using...

x: How 'bout that one line, one line that bugged me the most was, "Skeptics dismissed the UFOs as nothing more than hot-air balloons, fireworks, or even lanterns which had broken loose from a local rugby club." What kind of skeptics...

x: Well.

x: ...Are in that town?

x: Yeah, right?

x: Hot-air balloons? Fireworks? I mean, what's the first thing you think when you, when you see something like that? What's, what's the first thing you, what's the first thing you think?

x: It could be potential beings. 

x: What?

x: Bob, it must be lanterns that broke off from something at the rugby club and floated up there, and they're spinnin' around. It's like, yeah.

(laughter)

S: Well, I mean it could be ultralight aircraft, I mean that's...

x: That, that's my first thought. If it, if it's...

S: ...That's certainly one possibility.

x: ...Something that persists for an extended period of time and they're moving and they could be, you know, they can be very silent and they can be very, very low, very low altitude and still be relatively silent. That's the first thing I think. Nobody...

S: Yeah.

x: ...Nobody's tossing that around?

S: That's an omission, but the, the floating lanterns, although it sounds bizarre, is not an impossible thing. You have those paper lanterns with the little flame in there. They could float, just from the hot air from the flame, and they would be a, a glowing, silent floating object.

x: Yeah, but they, it wouldn't match the pattern that, that they described. It wouldn't...

S: Yeah, I don't know if that fits this particular case...

x: Right.

S: ...But, I mean, that, that kind of phenomenon, some burning, floating...

P: The bizarre movement claim is a, is a favorite one, you know. ''"Impossible for a plane to have moved like that!"''

x: I don't think they were the lanterns, Steve, 'cause...

(inaudible)

P: All the time.

x: ...They were up in the air for over thi...a half an hour, so I don't think...

S: Yeah, I'm not saying that that was the case in this case. I'm just saying that, that's in...so that, that's in, that's, so that's a possible cause that is often neglected. And also, bizarre things are gonna happen, and when they do and produce an unusual and unidentified floating object, or flying object, it, people will have a hard time explaining them because it's not one of the usual things. It's something unusual, or something bizarre - just not an alien spacecraft.

x: Here's the line that floored me. "A few minutes later, a fifth light came into view, travelling towards the others at ''breakneck'' speeds before slowing down and stopping a short distance away."

S: Right.

x: Breakneck speed? Are they kidding? How the heck are they gonna judge ''that''?

x: That's the problem, you know. You have no idea how big these things are and how far away they are, so breakneck speed would only apply if it was big and far away, but who knows? It might have been relatively small and cl...much closer than you think. Then it wouldn't ''be'' breakneck speed.

S: Yeah. That's right. And you could look at the picture, you could see that's lights, it's against the black sky, there's no...nothing for reference. So all statements about movement and speed are really unrel...completely unreliable. But again, that's what people cling to, to argue that these had to be something fantastical or extraterrestrial.

x: This is a typical UFO sighting.

S: Yeah, it was typical.

P: This is another bunch of lights up in the sky. ''BO-RING''!

=== "Item 4" (Asian Parasite Killing Bees)===

(0:20:32) 
S: One last news item. Quick follow-up from our, the disappearing bee piece that we discussed a couple of months ago with Bug Girl, if you recall. There's a new hypothesis out there that seems to have some support. They're saying now that the culprit is a microscopic parasite called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosema_ceranae ''Nosema ceranae''] that basically is a, an infection that could be spreading through the, the honeybee hives, resulting in these "colony collapses", as they call them.

x: So Steve, I, I could start using my cellphone again.

S: Yes. Yeah, the cellphones are not killing off the honeybees.

x: Oh, well, some guy at work told me I can't use cellphones. That's, that's interesting.

x: Now, there's a cure for this, right?

S: There's a treatment, there's a treatment, and it's pretty cheap and effective, so that, that'll be the ultimate test. If they, they treat this parasite and the bees bounce back...I mean, from a single event, you can never be sure, but that would lend some support to this then...

x: Yeah, but Steve...

S: ...The latest hypothesis.

x: ...How'd they get all those bees to go to the doctor? I mean, come on, it's ridiculous.

S: Yeah, it's tough. That's the tough part.

x: Yeah.

(inaudible)

x: Unfortunately, it, it requires three shots a day for every bee...

(laughter)

x: And it depends what state you're in, Bob.

S: So this is an Asian variant and the Asian honeybees are less vulnerable to it, but apparently the European and North American bees are much more susceptible to it.

x: Town is all abuzz about a bee problem.

(laughter)

S: Yeah, you just know that, that the stupid puns are gonna be flying.

x: Flying. I got it.

== Your Questions and E-mails ==
(Electric Car, Brain Evolution)

(0:21:56) 
S: Let's move on to your...

x: Please.

S: ...Questions and e-mails. First e-mail comes from David, who writes: ''"Hi. I'll shorten the kudos for the show. Suffice it to say, it keeps me thinking on my long commute. Like none other. A recent show had a 175-mile-per-gallon car in the "Science or Fiction" segment. I was surprised by the talk on the topic, especially the flippant remark about the electric cars in California in the late Eighties and Nineties. Have none of you seen the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" It seems compelling to me, and batteries were ''not'' the issue. Many people wanted to take over the leases on these vehicles, that could be charged at home and go 125 miles on a charge with the batteries of the day. They ''even'' had charging stations in the last century. In big cities, this would eliminate a lot of smog and many have commutes of way under half that. But something else extinguished them. The inventor of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-metal_hydride_battery nickel-metal hydride batteries] is interviewed and his solar cell roofing tiles seem like a no-brainer. But, please discuss this issue in-depth. Thanks. - David'' 
So this is reference to the documentary movie [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F ''"Who Killed the Electric Car?"'']

x: You know I, I had not seen or, nor heard of ''"Who Killed the Electric Car?"'' It wa...it was interesting, in a 2006 documentary written and directed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Paine Chris Paine] about the rise and fall of the battery electric vehicle, specifically [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 General Motors EV1] in the 1990s - you might have heard of ''that'' one. This, this, well, this battery electric vehicle, the EV1, was offered purely as a leased vehicle in southern California , and much of the film recounts GM's effort to show that there was no demand for the car and how they took back every car for disposal and pretty much, like, crushed every one of them. Now, the impetus for the EV1 was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Air_Resources_Board California Air Resources Board's] ZEV mandate - ZEV is "Zero Emission Vehicle" - and that was back in 1990. The film claims that this board reversed its mandate after suits were filed from auto manufacturers, the oil industry and the Bush administration. The film also interviews celebrities who, who apparently drove the car and engineers and technicians who had a hand in its development. Now the verdict, the verdict of this film, on who killed the electric car, follows: "Consumers: Guilty." Primarily of ambivalence, but ironically, the movie itself shows that they were primarily unaware of the vehicle or they were dismayed that it's, that it was no longer un...unavailable. "Batteries: Not guilty." When the EV1 was released, it was getting 60 to 70 miles per charge, and then, I think, round number two of the release of the cars, I'm not sure how long it took for ''that'' to come out, but that was 110 to ''160'' miles per charge, which isn't too shabby. And what they're saying is that with today's batteries, today's laptop batteries, this car could, could've been getting ''300'' miles per charge, which is impressive, which, I think that's pretty much the ''gold'' standard, isn't it, for an electric car? (inaudible) ...around 300 miles?

S: 300. Well, for any car, yeah, yeah. But, you know, but hang on. That's in a very ''light'' car. Right, which only has a certain niche in the market. Not saying that there's ''no'' market for it, but this is in a small, very light, very aerodynamic car.

x: Yeah, you like...

S: You...and...

x: ...To roll large, Steve, so this wouldn't work for you.

S: And the, the other aspect of batteries is the time it takes to recharge them.

x: Right, which...

S: So... (inaudible)

x: ...Which had a big range for the EV1, right. There was a big range. But let me continue with the verdicts here. "The oil companies: Guilty." They didn't wanna lose business. They bought patents to prevent modern batteries from being used in US electric cars...interesting. "Car companies: Guilty." They used negative marketing, which sabotaged their own production program, and that there was a failure to meet demand. Now the reason offered in the movie was that perhaps, the, these electric cars had much less expensive repairs and that was one of the prime motivators, apparently, for these car companies to not really ''push'' it, because once you bought it, not much more money was gonna be coming in with all these repairs. "The government: Guilty." The federal government joined the automakers' suits against California. See...the couple more...Cal...the California Air Resources Board is pronounced guilty in this, in this film. Its head, Alan Lloyd, apparently caved to pressure and was given directorship of the new fue cell...''fuel cell'' institute, which is clearly a conflict of interest. And then, finally, the hydrogen fuel cell itself is said to be guilty in that it's a distraction from the real and immediate potential of electric vehicles. Now the, the, the research I did on this did mention some criticisms. GM, some communication officer from GM apparently issued a statement on the web at some point, and he mentioned that GM had invested ''big'' in this technology before and after the EV1 came out, but the, the market was limited and they, they had made great progress in fuel cell technology and claims that by 2010, they could have a design that's comparable to a combustion engine in terms of durability and performance. Good luck with that. So that's what I have. It was interesting and it, it really, it really seems like, you know, external agencies totally killed this thing and it could have been, you know, it could have been something pretty interesting if, if it was allowed to, to actually continue.

S: Yeah, I mean I agree. I think, I think it, there was potential there, but I think it still would've been probably a niche market at the time. You know...

x: Right.

S: ...In the 1990s. The thing now, with rising oil prices and just, and more awareness of global warming, etcetera, I think there's more of a, of a demand for these types of vehicles. I, they didn't, I'm interested they did...there was no mention of ''hybrid'' technology, just hydrogen fuel cell technology. And the hybrids seem to me, was like the answer to, you know, why the electric car was unpopular. It basically got you a lot of the benefits of the electric car but had the power and range of a gasoline engine. The other thing...

x: It's a hybrid.

S: ...That wasn't mentioned was the performance of the pure...

x: Right.

S: ...Electric cars is not that great. You know...

x: That's true.

S: ...How they power, under the accelerator. So, my bottom line take on this is that it was primarily a marketing decision, which you could disagree with, the marketing decision of the car companies, but it was ''mainly'' a marketing decision, but a lot of times it's portrayed as if it's a big oil company conspiracy, that they, that it was crushed ''by that'' and not more complex, you know, set of, of circumstances.

x: Yeah, but...

S: (inaudible)

x: ...Didn't you find it interesting that it's claimed in this movie that oil companies actually bought patents to prevent modern batteries from being used in our electric cars? That's, that was interesting.

S: Yeah, I've been reading about the, the battery, the electric, the electric battery issue. It's actually very complex. Here are the two sides of the story. One is that Chevron came into possession of, of a controlling share of a company called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobasys Cobasys] that makes the nickel-metal hydride batteries and that they used their influence to restrict the sale, in the United States, of batteries that were large enough to power electronic vehicles and that they were restricting the sale to those batteries that could be used in ''hybrid'' electric vehicles, so that at least part of the car would be using gasoline. The other side of the story says that there's no direct evidence for that, these are people who are reading between the lines. There's no smoking gun, to say that that's the intention of Chevron, and that Chevon is just diversifying into other energy technologies, just like other oil companies investing in solar or other types of energy. They're hedging their, their energy bets, they're not planning on surviving forever on oil - and that, in fact, it's ''possible'' to sell these batteries. They're, they're, they're not really being restricted. You know, wading through all of this, I honestly couldn't tell which side was more compelling, which, which means to me that there's probably a little truth on both sides. I also think that the, you know, like, in the Nineties, the technology just wasn't quite there, but we are getting there, you know, rapidly now, and that this is gonna, this is coming, you know, better batteries. Now they're even talking about carbon-nano, you know, fiber batteries that are gonna be even better, lighter, so I think this technology's coming, and I don't think any conspiracy of Big Oil is gonna be able to stop it.

x: Yeah, I, I think the technology, from all the things I've read, was somewhat marginal at that point. I mean, when, when it, you know, if it, if it takes you ten hours to recharge your car, that's, that's not gonna do it. And like you said, I haven't, I haven't really read any specs on the performance, but I suspect the performance wasn't that great.

x: The market studies probably showed that there was no, no profits to be made.

x: Yeah, a lot of people will, would disagree with that. I mean, a lot...''so many'' people said to them, when GM said, "Give me my car back. I wanna, I wanna get rid of it," people said, "Hey, I'll pay it off. I'll give you the money for the whole thing." Apparently, lots of people were saying that, and they said, and they just took every car that they could possibly get their hands on, and since it was a lease, they wou...of course, could legally just take the car, I think. There's probably s...

S: Yeah. Right.

x: ...Some clause in there that said they can, they could relieve you of their car at any time.

E: Well, Bob, I mean, but if it, but if it ''was'' a profitable idea, don't you think that, don't you think that the manufacturers would've found a way to get this, to, to get this car up, running, take care of these technical problems, stick with it, especially if there was money to be made. I mean that's, that's kind of how they've operated in history, in the past, they've (inaudible)...

x: Well, I mean, there's no guarantee that money was, would be made from this. There, there's no guarantee with that. And then, with all these external agencies inhibiting the whole enterprise, it just totally collapsed.

S: Evan's point is, and I agree with it, that if there was money to be made off an electric vehicle, they would've found a way. And that these, these hur...none of these hurdles were absolute.

x: Well, you're, you're assuming that, that, that you could absolutely determine if this could be profitable. I, I'm saying, I think that I don't think you can determine that.

S: You're right, and, and historically, the auto industry has made bad decisions about, you know, what, what is marketable, like the Edsel, for example, is always the one that comes up. And, I also think that, you know, GM apparently at one point decided to, to skip the hybrid phase and go right on to f...to hydrogen fuel cell cars - and that was probably a huge mistake as well.

x: Absolutely.

S: So again, as I said, you can disagree with the marketing decision and maybe it was a huge mistake, but I don't think it was this big conspiracy.

P: What's fascinating from our point of view is the endless need for conspiracies.

x: They're fun, Perry.

P: That, that's what I think.

x: That's the thing. They're fun. For some reason, there is an entertainment value to a conspiracy.

P: I gue...I mean, I was writing the other day, and I needed some information on the Flight 800 explosion.

x: Mm-hmm.

P: And I, it was ''so hard'' to find the actual report, you know, from the government. And there, everything I looked up was a different society saying it was a ''missile''!

x: Yeah, I think, I think it's very possible that the oil companies...

P: Possible is not evidence!

x: I know it is...I know that, Perry, I'm not saying that there, I think that there is a lot here, there's a lot here. It's not just, you know, cut-and-dry, that it, it's...

P: No comment.

(laughter)

S: The bottom line is, I don't think that the performance, even today, is that great. Even the hybrid cars don't have great performance right now.

x: They're pretty good cars, Steve. Those hybrids, I mean, you know what the thing that sucks about them is that they're, they're not really cost-effective yet. But they actually work really well, they ''do'' work well.

S: The, the technology had a lot of promise and in, in certain areas, it can be advantageous under certain driving conditions. In New England, where we live, it's actually very disadvantageous because that the colder the weather gets, the less efficient the regenerative breaking technology is, so the less of, of a benefit you get from the hybrid technology. And also, the more highway driving you do, the less of a benefit it is, and in fact, it becomes a detriment because you're dragging around all the heavy batteries and, and unl...unless you're doing a lot of city driving, in, in a warm climate, you're not really getting much benefit from it. So, for many drivers, it really isn't an ad...an advantage.

x: Well, if you wanna get technical, sure, you know.

S: So, but it, I thi...you know again, we, there are some times where there's a, there's bridging technology, there's a time when you, when you go over to a new technology, the advantages are not immediately there, but...

x: Right.

S: ...It puts you on a track where eventually you ''will'' get the advantages. And I think that's where we are with hybrid technology. I think it's interesting to speculate about what's gonna happen. Is the hybrid technology going to mature to the point where that really becomes the mainstay of our fleet for (inaudible)...

x: The dominant. Right. (inaudible) something else.

S: ...For decades? Will the hydrogen fuel cells ''ever'' come online? Will they ever solve the problems? Will...

x: Or will it be something completely unique, like, say, solar, or well, yeah...

x: Right. Nanotechnology.

x: ...Of course.

(laughter)

''(0:34:37)''
S: The, we'll do, we'll do one more e-mail before we go on to our interview. 
This one comes from Christian in central PA, and he writes: ''How do biologists refute the following argument by evolution deniers? ''"The brain has the capacity for storing information far greater than can be filled in many human lifetimes. If the brain is developed by the natural selection of desirable traits, how would this incremental process develop such storage capability far beyond any useful purpose?"'' I have a good idea of how I would refute this, but perhaps your answer would be more thorough and precise. Thanks for setting the record straight.'' 
Well, that's an interesting question and in fact, the co-discoverer of evolution through natural selection, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace Alfred Russel Wallace], thought that that was an insolvable problem, and he believed that, unlike [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin Darwin], he thought that evolution could ''not'' explain the human brain and the, that you had to invoke God and creation in order to explain the human brain. Because of this very reason. That the brain had capabilities that could not be ''specifically'' selected for. However, it's, first of all, it's a bit of a false premise...

x: Hmm. Right.

S: ...The, the brain does ''not'' have a tremendous amount of biologically untapped potential. You know, if you utilize your brain and you, you lead an intellectually active life, you use quite a bit of it, you know. It's not, there's not this vast, you know, reservoir of untapped neurons in the brain.

P: So maybe Jay uses ten percent.

S: Right.

x: It's very peaceful, though, to only use ten percent of your brain, Perry.

S: Yeah, it's kinda similar to the ten percent thing.

x: Loose, loosely, I mean, he's talking really st...storage capacity. How big your hard drive is.

x: Yeah, no, I, I understand, but it, it comes off as (inaudible)

P: And an ultimate storage capacity of 800 quadrillion bits. Who said that?

x: Data.

x: Data.

P: Yeah... (laughter)

x: Steve...

x: Data.

x: ...Steve, I have a question for you.

(laughter)

S: Yeah, go ahead.

x: Let's say that, in the future, people live two, three hundred years, and, you know, just, just to make a, to build a case here, let's say that, you know, nanotechnology doesn't swoop in and do anything miraculous or, and all that.

S: Yeah.

x: Just the way that...

(inaudible)

x: ...A human being is today. What happens when someone's brain ''does'' get filled? Would, would it overwrite? What would the brain do in that circumstance?

S: Well, that's what happens all the time, Jay.

x: Yeah.

S: You're, you're overwriting. You know, you're, you're forming memory pathways on top of memory pathways on top of memory pathways, and memories fade over time.

P: Get mixed together.

S: Yeah, they mix together. It's a very dynamic process. It's not like there are specific addresses where you're putting information and it's getting used up in that way. There's a...you just have a specific number of ''neurons'', you know - about a hundred billion - and they, they could store so much information. And, and, and th...

x: I'm sorry. My brain just wrote over everything you just said. Could you please repeat that?

(laughter)

S: But the, the other, the evolutionary point that I wanted to make here is that we evolve structures for a specific function, and they, because they provide a specific advantage, right. So that a bigger brain gives a certain advantage and that, and therefore gets selected for. That doesn't mean that everything that you could possibly do with this new structure that evolved had to have been specifically selected for. So, we, we, I, I don't think that anyone argues that we evolved in order to be really good at playing the piano, you know. That, that is just an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenon epiphenomenon].

x: Right. Epiphenomenon, yep.

P: (inaudible)

S: Yeah. It's just something that emerges out of, as a consequence of the fact that we just are raw brain power increased, so that we could be smarter and, and function better in our environment, be better adapted to our local environment.

P: What's an epiphenomenon?

x: It's, it's kind of a side phenomenon. It just kinda happened, for no real reason. It's just a, a nice happy coincidence that it happened.

S: Yeah. Just emerges spontaneously out of, out of the process. In the same token, you know, we, we may have a lot of, you know, we do certainly have a, do have some reserve, and that, along with all the other sort of things that we can do - you know, write poetry and, and play the piano and, and whatnot - that did not provide an advantage for our ancestors, you know, in, on the plains of Africa, doesn't mean that, that they were, that they brain was not evolved. So Alfred Russel Wallace was wrong, in that argument. It is not an argument against evolution; it's a misunderstanding of evolution. In fact, that's, a lot of evolution takes place that way, you know. Structures evolve for one reason, and they could be co-opted for lots of other things. We evolved hands with opposable thumbs and dexterity so that we could manipulate tools, but we could then use that to do a lot of other things that we did not specifically evolve hands for, for example.

== Interview with President Jimmy Carter ==

''(0:39:22)''
S: Well, let's move on to our interview.

(Music)

S: Joining us now is the 39th President of the United States, President Jimmy Carter. Mr. President, welcome to the Skeptic's Guide.

PJC: ''It's a pleasure.''

S: So, we were actually putting, this interview was set up by your grandson, Josh Carter, who is a, a fine young man. He wanted us to give you the opportunity to sec...set the record straight regarding your eyewitness encounter with a UFO back in 1969. Can you first just start by telling us about what you saw?

PJC: ''Well, back in those days, I was the district governor of 56 Lions Clubs, and I had to visit each one of those Clubs during my year of service. And I was in a small south Georgia town one night, outside the schoolhouse waiting to eat supper and to talk to them, and all of us - there were 26 men, I believe, if I remember right - all of us saw a very bright light in the western sky and it was bright enough to attract our attention, much brighter than a star. And it got closer and closer and then it seemed to stop in its proximity to us, and then the color of it changed from white to blue to red, and it stayed there for a while. All of us were aghast at, at what we were seeing, couldn't figure it out. And then the light, that's all we could see, not a solid object, the light then slowly disappeared back into the direction from which it came. So, I'm a, a scientist by training...''

S: Mm-hmm.

PJC: ''And, and I have never thought there were extraterrestrial beings on a, on a sh...you know, ship from outer space or anything, but it was an unidentified flying object. It was obviously unidentified, it was flying and it was an object.''

S: Mm-hmm.

PJC: ''And so, that's the limit of my experience with so-called UFOs.''

S: And even in retrospect now, do you have any ideas of, of what you think that was? What do you think you saw?

PJC: ''I don't really know. A very large military base - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Benning Fort Benning Army Base], where they plain...train paratroopers and do various kinds of, of military experiments - are in the general direction from which the light came, and most of us men, most of those were farmers or small businessmen who ordinarily are members of the Lions Club, just surmised that it might be a, some kind of a device that was being tested or something like that. It, we, we never heard anything.''

S: Yeah.

PJC: ''Like a helicopter motor. If we had heard the engine, we would just have surmised it was a helicopter or something, but we never heard anything. It was a silence, there. So I never have been able to assess, even all the years that have passed, exactly what it might have been.''

S: And have you ever heard the speculation, and, and what do you think about the idea that perhaps it was the planet Venus - which, you know, at some times may have a halo around it?

PJC: ''No, it was much...no, no. No, we were, all of us outdoorsmen who were there, we, we know what Venus looks like, we know what Mars looks like, we can distinguish between Saturn and so forth. Some of us even have, have a, like I do, have amateur telescopes, small telescopes. So we were thoroughly familiar with Venus as it changes from a morning to the evening star. It was, it was not Venus.''

S: Okay. You're, you're confident about that.

PJC: ''Oh yes.''

S: Evan, you had a question?

E: Yes, I do. President Carter, in 1973, by request, you filled out an eyewitness report for a UFO group called the International UFO Bureau Incorporated?

PJC: ''Yes.''

E: Can you, can you tell us why you did that, or felt need to do that?

PJC: ''Why I did it. I was, let's see, it's 1973, I was governor then.''

E: Mm-hmm.

PJC: ''Of Georgia. And maybe they requested it or maybe one, one of my innocent sons might have asked that I do it for them. I don't know. I don't remember that.''

S: Right. So it was just that request and you didn't really think much about it at the time.

PJC: ''No, and I don't remember why I did it, but I, I would presume it was one of my descendants...''

S: Mm-hmm.

PJC: ''...If not grandson. I didn't have the grandsons (inaudible), but I have, I had three sons who were teenagers.''

S: And, what, part of the reason why we were interested in this interview is because, ''because'' of all of these events. You, you occupy now a place in UFO folklore. And, and...

PJC: (laughter)

S: ...One of the aspects of this...

PJC: ''Listen. It's not a place that I, it's not a place that I have sought.''

S: Right. Right.

x: Right. Of course.

PJC: (inaudible)

S: It's thrust upon you, like many things. And this, part of, part of the, the folklore now is that prior to becoming President, you promised to get to the bottom of the government's involvement with UFOs and aliens and spacecraft. So, this is another thing where I think there, there's still a tremendous number of rumors about this, there's a lot of conspiracy theories about there. When you were President, did you pursue the government's knowledge of UFOs, and if so, how far did you get with that? ''(Transcription paused at 0:44:51)''

{{Outro61}} 

{{Navigation}}

SGU Episode 105

2012-08-18T23:11:33Z

Skepticat: SGU 105 transcript - continued & finished e-mail section; started interview section

{{transcribing all
|transcriber = Skepticat
}}

{{Draft_infoBox
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 105
|episodeDate = 25th Jul 2007
|episodeIcon = File:LogoSGU.png
|previous =
|next =
|steve =y
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|perry = y
|guest = y President Jimmy Carter (PJC)

|downloadLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|notesLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|forumLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|qowText = Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Martin_Luther_King,_Jr Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr]
|}}

== 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, July 25th, 2007, and this is your host, Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella...

B: Hey, everybody.

S: ...Rebecca Watson...

R: Hello, world.

S: ...Perry DeAngelis...

P: Hello.

S: ...Jay Novella...

J: Good evening, guys.

S: ...and Evan Bernstein.

E: Hi, everyone.

S: How is everyone this evening?

x: I'm good, Steve.

x: Very good!

x: Awesome.

x: Very, very good.

R: Couldn't be better.

P: We all went on honeymoon with Jay.

x: That's right. 

x: We did.

P: All there in the hotel room. It's a little... 

R: I thought, I thought it would be awkward, but you know...

x: It's kinda cool, right?

(inaudible)

R: It's kinda cozy.

P: No, his, his new bride is very cooperative.

R: Um-hm.

x: She snores.

P: And, I'd like to thank you, Jay.

S: 'S right. Jay was married five days ago. How's married life treating you, Jay?

J: I'm totally excited. I love it. Very, very happy. It's exactly what she told me to say, too, so.

S: Good. You're learning already.

(laughter)

x: Is there any difference now that you're no longer really living in sin?

J: I did feel that the air conditioning worked better. That's kinda strange, but...

(laughter)

x: That's happened before. That's common.

x: You know, as you guys...

S: If you want, if you want to meet Jay's wife, Cheryl, she's gonna be at the August 11th event that we're having in Brooklyn, New York.

R: Is she?

x: Yes, she is.

R: That, that gets me very excited because I met Cheryl at the wedding for the first time, and I found that I actually like her better than Jay.

(laughter)

x: Yeah.

S: Well, we all do.

R: Well, I'm really looking forward to that.

x: That's why they call it the "better half".

R: Yeah.

J: I don't know how to take that, Rebecca. Thanks.

R: Ma...marrying up. (laughter)

J: Oh, I'm defininely punching above my weight with this girl. Absolutely.

(snicker)

R: Jay, you know I love you.

J: Thank you. I love you too.

x: For ten dollars a minute, she'll talk in that English accent for you.

x: Oh, go....
(laughter)

x: She only charged us five.

S: In fact, Cheryl ''does'' do the sexy British voice that introduces our podcast.

J: And in other places, too.

(laughter)

R: We don't wanna hear about that, Jay.

x: I do.

S: Now we have a ''very'' special interview coming up later in the show.

x: Jimmy "Peanut Lovin'" Carter.

(laughter)

S: Yes, this is our, probably our highest profile interview to date - President Jimmy Carter. We interviewed him about his UFO sighting and other th...interesting things. So that's coming up in just a moment. But first, we'll start with some skeptical news.

== News Items ==
=== "Item 1" (Ward Churchill Fired)===

''(00:02:26)'' 
S: First news item is a little bit of follow-up from a previous story that we talked about. Ward Churchill, who is the professor of ethnic studies at Colorado University, was officially fired yesterday, on July, July 24th.

R: Though he claims he's not going anywhere, so I'm not really sure what that did.

(inaudible)

S: Yeah. He, well, he's saying that he's gonna sue the university for violation of his freedom of speech.

R: He's a tenured professor, though, so he gets a full year's pay.

S: Mm-hm

R: I'm wondering what he's complaining about. Just go.

S: Right. Yeah, right.

R: Go work on your wacky 9/11 theories.

x: They found him guilty of academic misconduct, including plagiarism.

R: Yeah, so it's not ''just'' that he has wacky theories about 9/11, which is why we're talking about him right now, in case anyone...

P: Actually, it specifically says he was ''not'' fired for that, Rebecca.

R: Ah.

S: Yeah, in fact, that wasn't considered ''at all''. There, the quick backstory is that a couple years ago, Ward Churchill, in an essay, compared the World Trade Center 9/11 victims to little Eichmanns.

P: That's correct.

S: Who, comparing them to Adolf Eichmann, who was complicit in the Nazi Holocaust.

P: For some reason, some people took exception to that.

S: Yeah, for some unknown reason.

P: Couldn't figure it out.

S: That sparked a controversy and also triggered the University of Colorado to investigate his academic career and what they found, they found that he was guilty of academic misconduct and plagiarism. That led to a review of his tenure, disciplinary review, and that was just concluded and they found that he was guilty of academic misconduct and that was sufficient to fire him, despite the fact that he had tenure. He's saying that it's all about his political opinions, not about the academic misconduct. I don't know if he's denying that, if he's denying the specifics of the accusation. He's just saying this was a witch hunt, basically over his unpopular political views.

R: I think it's less, I don't think it's quite his unpopular political views and more his unpopular conspiracy theories that are crazy and untrue.

S: Right.

R: I mean, at some point, it stops being a political opinion and starts just being nonsense - and that's where he is.

P: My recollection is...

x: I agree.

P ...That when he first came out with the statements, the university backed him a hundred percent.

S: Well, universities will typically defend the, the rights and the freedoms of their professors to, to express their opinions. And, you know, the, the purpose of tenure is to protect academics from outside pressure, you know, from having to comport to the politics of the day, so they could be, you know, free to pursue the truth wherever it leads them. Although, initially, it was actually intended to protect professors from, like, donors and trustee members who would try to use their influence and their money to get rid of people they didn't like or to influence the politics of the university. It was meant to empower the university itself, and in practice, the colleagues, the academic colleagues of professors to, to police themselves. It didn't mean that tenured professors can't be policed. It just meant they were policed from the inside, not from the outside. And then over the last hundred years, the concept of tenure and the rights and privileges of it have evolved, you know, partly through legal precedent, sometimes through tradition. At this point, in order to remove somebody, discipline somebody from, with tenure, fire them, there's a process that's pretty similar to the legal process. You have to have due process, representation, the, you know, the tenured professor has the right to confront the evidence against them, and you, and Colorado, the University of Colorado went through that due process.

P: So it's possible, but laborious.

S: Yeah. So Churchill and his lawyer are accusing them of, of the, Churchill said specifically that the, "the process was a farce. They, the results were predetermined. It was orchestrated. And they were doing it to get rid of me". So, he said they were, quote unquote, "creating the illusion of scholarly review". And he's going to now go on the offensive, going to, he says, quote, "We will be into cour...into court to expose the nature of that fraud". So he's accusing Colo...the University of Colorado of fraud now.

P: Well, I hope the charges, I mean, I hope they stick. I hope his, he remains, his ass remains fired. ''But'', he deserves his day in court.

S: Yeah.

P: I, I have no objection to that.

S: Now he, now he's chall...you know, he's challenging the, the scholarly review, now he's taking it into the courts. You know, it's a civil case, basically.

P: Let him, let him use the courts, I don't care.

S: It, it does bring up the question, you know, with which we touched upon before. You know, what is the role of the university? Do they have the right to police, you know, the content of their professors, their academics, or should they basically just give them the freedom to do what they want?

x: Not to plagiarize though.

S: Well, clearly, not to commit fraud, not to plagiarize. That's, that's, that's out of bounds. But, like, let's take the example of a history professor or a professor who teaches that 9/11 was an inside job, for example. Should the university say, "Well, that's his opinion. You know, we respect him as a scholar and we don't necessarily have to police the details of his opinions, and we're not going to presume that we're right about everything and this is, we, you know, the purpose of universities are to, are to inspire vigorous debate and that includes allowing people to voice very unpopular opinions". I, I, I buy all of that, as far as it goes. Except, I think that the university ''also'' has both a duty and, and the right to establish some sort of academic standards, and some things are below the standard of academics. It's not just that it's unpopular - it's also that, I mean, the, the 9/11, the claims about 9/11 are, are demonstrably wrong, and they employ poor logic, misrepresentation of the facts, etcetera, poor method. And, and, and there are actually standards for disciplining somebody with tenure that include scholarly incompetence, and you could argue that, that's, it's imcompetent to make such a ridiculous argument. Not because it's unpopular, just 'cause the method is so poor. The same exact issue, by the way, crops up all the time. It crops up with the Intelligent Design proponents, who say that they're being academically persecuted and that they should be free to promote Intelligent Design, whereas universities are like "No. That's nonsense. It's not science, it's below the standard, it's imcompetent, and we have the right to police it", which I totally agree with. The same thing comes up with paranormal researchers. Now glo...the global warming skeptics are saying that they're being persecuted academically in the same way, that there are not, their careers are being, you know, are being inhibited because their opinions are going against the prevailing, you know, political opinions. So this is an issue that keeps cropping up over and over again, and, and, you know, and often surrounds issues that we deal with typically as, as skeptics. The core conflict is freedom versus standards.

P: So Steven, how, if, if you were the dean, say, of that particular university, and Ward taught that it was a inside job - 9/11 - what would you do? You'd summon him to your office and say ''what'' to him?

S: I, I, I would follow a procedure, you know, I think universities do have procedures for things like that, but it would ultimately amount to, you know, a review of appropriate academics and experts to establish, just, is this academically legitimate, it, or is it academically incompetent? And if it follo...falls below the standards of the university, then I think that action can be taken. You know, starting with censorship, ending with being fired.

x: Do you guys think the tenure system is broken as well?

P: No, it has its place.

S: It's a double-edged sword.

P: Yeah. I mean, it's, it's, it's, it's very much like why Supreme Court justices are appointed for life.

S: It's exactly that way, yeah.

P: You know, it's that kind of protection. So, it has its place, but, like, like Steve said, you have to what? Police it for abuse.

x: Yeah. Supreme Court justices can be brought up on charges and...

P: They can be impeached.

x: ...Kicked off the Court. You bet they can.

P: They can be impeached.

S: Mm-hmm.

P: Again, it's laborious.

S: It should, it should be a high standard. It should be a high threshold, but it's, there's gotta be some mechanism, otherwise, you know, once somebody gets in, then they could be teaching students nonsense and the university would be implicitly endorsing that if they didn't have a mechanism of dealing ____ 

x: How'd they deal with John Mack?

S: Yale, Harvard, John...so, again for background, John Mack was a Harvard psychiatrist who, who believed that some of his patients were, were ''truly'' being abducted by aliens, and Harvard publicly ''disagreed'' with him, but said he, but respected his tenure and didn't take action against him. He was, he was...

x: Wimps.

S: ...Killed in a car accident, so it eventually, obviously the issue ended.

x: So the aliens finally got him at the end.

S: Yeah, I mean they were clearly embarrassed by the episode, but they hid behind the notion of academic freedom. But yeah, and, and some people have, this also came up with a very similar situation with Courtney Brown, you guys remember this? The Emory professor who believed he was communicating with UFOs, but he did that all in his ''spare'' time. So sometimes you think, this is stuff he's doing outside the context of his academic job, so that's okay. Or they say, it's covered by academic freedom and it's not below the standard of imcompetence. So, we don't like it, but it's okay. And also, they say, he's free to teach that and we're free to criticize him, and that's how we deal with it. We just deal with it in the open through criticism.

P: That's an important note, you know.

S: Yeah.

P: Also, you're dealing with collegians here, you know. It's not like you're indoctrinating five-year-olds. I mean, there's a big difference...between...

S: It absolutely depends upon the level of education. Absolutely.

P: Right.

S: The higher up you go, the more, the more open we should be to cutting edge or, or, you know, differing ideas.

E: Like Holocaust deniers too.

S: That, it's another good example. Well, let's move on to the next news item.

=== "Item 2" (Homeopathic Surgeon)===

(0:12:18) 
S: This one is about a homeopathic doctor in Arizona who is being disciplined for killing this, his  third patient who died on the table for doing li...during liposuction.

P: Who keeps track?

J: This...you couldn't come up with this if you threw it together. It's like, he's a homeopathic doctor doing liposuction. Where did, where do these two crisscross? How does a homeopath...

S: Arizona is, which is probably the center of, you know, ''"woo"'' and spiritual nonsense...

(inaudible)

P: Yeah, they crisscross in the marketing department, Jay.

x: Yeah.

x: Yeah.

S: It has very, sort of permissive laws, and they license homeopaths, and in there, and, in the United States, the, the regulation of health care is state by state. States license all practitioners and determine their scope of practice. In Arizona, homeopaths are licensed by the state and their scope of practice includes minor, quote unquote, "minor surgical procedures".

R: And obviously knowing anything about the human body is not really a part of the licensing procedure.

S: Yeah, obviously know...understanding the science or the scientific method or, oh you know, reality...

P: Med-i-cine.

S: ...Is not a prerequisite.

x: Reality.

S: But apparently, the, the definition of "''minor'' surgical procedure" in Arizona is ambiguous, so he was performing liposuction, you know, basically just "de facto", claiming that it was within the scope of practice of a homeopathic physician. And, and ad...and administering conscious sedation, so, using, you know, ''pharmaceuticals'' which (laugh) is, is kind of ironic for a homeopath. And, you know, a few people died under his care.

x: A few people.

E: Eh, what's a few people?

S: Right.

P: Unbelievable.

x: Steve, I thought that when somebody died under a doctor's care, under this auspice, they got their license taken away from them, whatever licensing they had. I mean, did he...

S: Yeah, well, the state, the state suspended his license. That's correct.

x: And then, was he doing the other two on the sly?

S: Well, no. What he, he, I think two patients died...well, when one patient dies, a patient dies, and that usually doesn't trigger an investigation, but ''two'' patients of his died within a couple of months. That triggered an investigation. They suspended, restricted his practice, said you can no longer do, perform conscious sedation. But he cont...he continued to perform liposuction, just not with the sedation, and then he lost another, another patient ''that'' way.

P: And, you know, liposuction is no joke.

S: No, it isn't.

P: And then it's an invasive...

x: Aw, it's...

P: ...Bru...violent procedure.

J: Yeah, you're asking for a bacterial infection when you do that.

P: I..exactly right, Jay. I saw a documentary and the guy went in there for a woman. She wanted to lose ten pounds. Popped her bowel. She got so infected, she lost both her legs!

S: Yeah. You know, it's no joke. It's serious surgery.

(laughter)

E: She lost more than ten pounds.

P: She lost more than ten pounds.

x: Yeah, reminds me, I saw on TV, I saw this show about the schlock doctors. You know, it's like, literally like an alleyway door and they go in and this doctor was performing pectoral implants on this guy - and he was using a wooden spatula as the operating tool.

R: Ohmygod.

x: Wow.

P: I don't know.

x: Like he's cooking sauce, he's doing surgery, you know...

(laughter)

x: What the hell?

S: Well, now I do think that, you know, the point of this piece is that, you know, homeopathic...''homeopaths'' are not really adequately trained as medical physicians and the ''entire'' basis of homeopathy is pseudoscientific. Of, of course, you know, patients have complications and patients die under the care of MDs as well, but I think having really permissive rules, permissive scopes of practice for people who are operating without adequate training and under a pseudoscientific philosophy of medicine is a grave mistake. I think it does not serve the public well. This is just an anecdote that demonstrates that.

x: There's no Federal oversight or...

S: No, just the, just the...

x: ...Department or influence that they can...

S: No.

x: ...They can help Arizona take steps to correct these...

S: Nope. Drawn  by the states.

x: ...These loose rules?

P: State medical.

S: Run by the state. Yep. The, the...

x: Wow.

S: ...The Federal government regulates through the FDA, you know they regulate drugs and, and devices and things like that, but they don't, do not regulate the, the practice of, of medicine.

=== "Item 3" (UK UFO)===

(0:16:32) 
S: Next news item comes from the UK. This is another UFO sighting. A crowd of a hundred, quote unquote, "stunned stargazers" brought a t...a town center to a standstill when five mysterious UFOs were spotted hovering over the sky. The, the sighting took place over Stratford, which happens to be Shakespeare's birthplace. And this is your typical "points of light in the sky" type of UFO sighting. This is, of course, this was five points of light. Couple funny bits - one is they say that it was in a formation. Well, you know, any...

(inaudible)

S: ...Clustering of lights is going to be in some kind of formation, you know. It makes the, three of them make a triangle. Well, you know, pretty much any three points make a triangle. Yeah. So it's not...it could be random, it's not particularly or necessarily in a formation. You know, those observers who are trying to argue that this was, you know, an alien spacecraft encounter cite the usual things. They were silent...

P: But deadly.

(laughter)

S: So they, they were not making, the lights were not making any noise...and that they, they moved in a, in a bizarre fashion.

P: Ah.

S: The movement.

x: I love how, I love how the, the reporters said, you know, to create the scene of people being all shook up and everything, is like, "Drinkers spilled out of pubs." Well, that makes me really wanna believe them now.

(laughter)

P: Come on. He's...

x: Mm-hmm.

P: ...He's trying to paint with dramatic license. He's using...

x: How 'bout that one line, one line that bugged me the most was, "Skeptics dismissed the UFOs as nothing more than hot-air balloons, fireworks, or even lanterns which had broken loose from a local rugby club." What kind of skeptics...

x: Well.

x: ...Are in that town?

x: Yeah, right?

x: Hot-air balloons? Fireworks? I mean, what's the first thing you think when you, when you see something like that? What's, what's the first thing you, what's the first thing you think?

x: It could be potential beings. 

x: What?

x: Bob, it must be lanterns that broke off from something at the rugby club and floated up there, and they're spinnin' around. It's like, yeah.

(laughter)

S: Well, I mean it could be ultralight aircraft, I mean that's...

x: That, that's my first thought. If it, if it's...

S: ...That's certainly one possibility.

x: ...Something that persists for an extended period of time and they're moving and they could be, you know, they can be very silent and they can be very, very low, very low altitude and still be relatively silent. That's the first thing I think. Nobody...

S: Yeah.

x: ...Nobody's tossing that around?

S: That's an omission, but the, the floating lanterns, although it sounds bizarre, is not an impossible thing. You have those paper lanterns with the little flame in there. They could float, just from the hot air from the flame, and they would be a, a glowing, silent floating object.

x: Yeah, but they, it wouldn't match the pattern that, that they described. It wouldn't...

S: Yeah, I don't know if that fits this particular case...

x: Right.

S: ...But, I mean, that, that kind of phenomenon, some burning, floating...

P: The bizarre movement claim is a, is a favorite one, you know. ''"Impossible for a plane to have moved like that!"''

x: I don't think they were the lanterns, Steve, 'cause...

(inaudible)

P: All the time.

x: ...They were up in the air for over thi...a half an hour, so I don't think...

S: Yeah, I'm not saying that that was the case in this case. I'm just saying that, that's in...so that, that's in, that's, so that's a possible cause that is often neglected. And also, bizarre things are gonna happen, and when they do and produce an unusual and unidentified floating object, or flying object, it, people will have a hard time explaining them because it's not one of the usual things. It's something unusual, or something bizarre - just not an alien spacecraft.

x: Here's the line that floored me. "A few minutes later, a fifth light came into view, travelling towards the others at ''breakneck'' speeds before slowing down and stopping a short distance away."

S: Right.

x: Breakneck speed? Are they kidding? How the heck are they gonna judge ''that''?

x: That's the problem, you know. You have no idea how big these things are and how far away they are, so breakneck speed would only apply if it was big and far away, but who knows? It might have been relatively small and cl...much closer than you think. Then it wouldn't ''be'' breakneck speed.

S: Yeah. That's right. And you could look at the picture, you could see that's lights, it's against the black sky, there's no...nothing for reference. So all statements about movement and speed are really unrel...completely unreliable. But again, that's what people cling to, to argue that these had to be something fantastical or extraterrestrial.

x: This is a typical UFO sighting.

S: Yeah, it was typical.

P: This is another bunch of lights up in the sky. ''BO-RING''!

=== "Item 4" (Asian Parasite Killing Bees)===

(0:20:32) 
S: One last news item. Quick follow-up from our, the disappearing bee piece that we discussed a couple of months ago with Bug Girl, if you recall. There's a new hypothesis out there that seems to have some support. They're saying now that the culprit is a microscopic parasite called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosema_ceranae ''Nosema ceranae''] that basically is a, an infection that could be spreading through the, the honeybee hives, resulting in these "colony collapses", as they call them.

x: So Steve, I, I could start using my cellphone again.

S: Yes. Yeah, the cellphones are not killing off the honeybees.

x: Oh, well, some guy at work told me I can't use cellphones. That's, that's interesting.

x: Now, there's a cure for this, right?

S: There's a treatment, there's a treatment, and it's pretty cheap and effective, so that, that'll be the ultimate test. If they, they treat this parasite and the bees bounce back...I mean, from a single event, you can never be sure, but that would lend some support to this then...

x: Yeah, but Steve...

S: ...The latest hypothesis.

x: ...How'd they get all those bees to go to the doctor? I mean, come on, it's ridiculous.

S: Yeah, it's tough. That's the tough part.

x: Yeah.

(inaudible)

x: Unfortunately, it, it requires three shots a day for every bee...

(laughter)

x: And it depends what state you're in, Bob.

S: So this is an Asian variant and the Asian honeybees are less vulnerable to it, but apparently the European and North American bees are much more susceptible to it.

x: Town is all abuzz about a bee problem.

(laughter)

S: Yeah, you just know that, that the stupid puns are gonna be flying.

x: Flying. I got it.

== Your Questions and E-mails ==
(Electric Car, Brain Evolution)

(0:21:56) 
S: Let's move on to your...

x: Please.

S: ...Questions and e-mails. First e-mail comes from David, who writes: ''"Hi. I'll shorten the kudos for the show. Suffice it to say, it keeps me thinking on my long commute. Like none other. A recent show had a 175-mile-per-gallon car in the "Science or Fiction" segment. I was surprised by the talk on the topic, especially the flippant remark about the electric cars in California in the late Eighties and Nineties. Have none of you seen the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" It seems compelling to me, and batteries were ''not'' the issue. Many people wanted to take over the leases on these vehicles, that could be charged at home and go 125 miles on a charge with the batteries of the day. They ''even'' had charging stations in the last century. In big cities, this would eliminate a lot of smog and many have commutes of way under half that. But something else extinguished them. The inventor of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-metal_hydride_battery nickel-metal hydride batteries] is interviewed and his solar cell roofing tiles seem like a no-brainer. But, please discuss this issue in-depth. Thanks. - David'' 
So this is reference to the documentary movie [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F ''"Who Killed the Electric Car?"'']

x: You know I, I had not seen or, nor heard of ''"Who Killed the Electric Car?"'' It wa...it was interesting, in a 2006 documentary written and directed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Paine Chris Paine] about the rise and fall of the battery electric vehicle, specifically [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 General Motors EV1] in the 1990s - you might have heard of ''that'' one. This, this, well, this battery electric vehicle, the EV1, was offered purely as a leased vehicle in southern California , and much of the film recounts GM's effort to show that there was no demand for the car and how they took back every car for disposal and pretty much, like, crushed every one of them. Now, the impetus for the EV1 was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Air_Resources_Board California Air Resources Board's] ZEV mandate - ZEV is "Zero Emission Vehicle" - and that was back in 1990. The film claims that this board reversed its mandate after suits were filed from auto manufacturers, the oil industry and the Bush administration. The film also interviews celebrities who, who apparently drove the car and engineers and technicians who had a hand in its development. Now the verdict, the verdict of this film, on who killed the electric car, follows: "Consumers: Guilty." Primarily of ambivalence, but ironically, the movie itself shows that they were primarily unaware of the vehicle or they were dismayed that it's, that it was no longer un...unavailable. "Batteries: Not guilty." When the EV1 was released, it was getting 60 to 70 miles per charge, and then, I think, round number two of the release of the cars, I'm not sure how long it took for ''that'' to come out, but that was 110 to ''160'' miles per charge, which isn't too shabby. And what they're saying is that with today's batteries, today's laptop batteries, this car could, could've been getting ''300'' miles per charge, which is impressive, which, I think that's pretty much the ''gold'' standard, isn't it, for an electric car? (inaudible) ...around 300 miles?

S: 300. Well, for any car, yeah, yeah. But, you know, but hang on. That's in a very ''light'' car. Right, which only has a certain niche in the market. Not saying that there's ''no'' market for it, but this is in a small, very light, very aerodynamic car.

x: Yeah, you like...

S: You...and...

x: ...To roll large, Steve, so this wouldn't work for you.

S: And the, the other aspect of batteries is the time it takes to recharge them.

x: Right, which...

S: So... (inaudible)

x: ...Which had a big range for the EV1, right. There was a big range. But let me continue with the verdicts here. "The oil companies: Guilty." They didn't wanna lose business. They bought patents to prevent modern batteries from being used in US electric cars...interesting. "Car companies: Guilty." They used negative marketing, which sabotaged their own production program, and that there was a failure to meet demand. Now the reason offered in the movie was that perhaps, the, these electric cars had much less expensive repairs and that was one of the prime motivators, apparently, for these car companies to not really ''push'' it, because once you bought it, not much more money was gonna be coming in with all these repairs. "The government: Guilty." The federal government joined the automakers' suits against California. See...the couple more...Cal...the California Air Resources Board is pronounced guilty in this, in this film. Its head, Alan Lloyd, apparently caved to pressure and was given directorship of the new fue cell...''fuel cell'' institute, which is clearly a conflict of interest. And then, finally, the hydrogen fuel cell itself is said to be guilty in that it's a distraction from the real and immediate potential of electric vehicles. Now the, the, the research I did on this did mention some criticisms. GM, some communication officer from GM apparently issued a statement on the web at some point, and he mentioned that GM had invested ''big'' in this technology before and after the EV1 came out, but the, the market was limited and they, they had made great progress in fuel cell technology and claims that by 2010, they could have a design that's comparable to a combustion engine in terms of durability and performance. Good luck with that. So that's what I have. It was interesting and it, it really, it really seems like, you know, external agencies totally killed this thing and it could have been, you know, it could have been something pretty interesting if, if it was allowed to, to actually continue.

S: Yeah, I mean I agree. I think, I think it, there was potential there, but I think it still would've been probably a niche market at the time. You know...

x: Right.

S: ...In the 1990s. The thing now, with rising oil prices and just, and more awareness of global warming, etcetera, I think there's more of a, of a demand for these types of vehicles. I, they didn't, I'm interested they did...there was no mention of ''hybrid'' technology, just hydrogen fuel cell technology. And the hybrids seem to me, was like the answer to, you know, why the electric car was unpopular. It basically got you a lot of the benefits of the electric car but had the power and range of a gasoline engine. The other thing...

x: It's a hybrid.

S: ...That wasn't mentioned was the performance of the pure...

x: Right.

S: ...Electric cars is not that great. You know...

x: That's true.

S: ...How they power, under the accelerator. So, my bottom line take on this is that it was primarily a marketing decision, which you could disagree with, the marketing decision of the car companies, but it was ''mainly'' a marketing decision, but a lot of times it's portrayed as if it's a big oil company conspiracy, that they, that it was crushed ''by that'' and not more complex, you know, set of, of circumstances.

x: Yeah, but...

S: (inaudible)

x: ...Didn't you find it interesting that it's claimed in this movie that oil companies actually bought patents to prevent modern batteries from being used in our electric cars? That's, that was interesting.

S: Yeah, I've been reading about the, the battery, the electric, the electric battery issue. It's actually very complex. Here are the two sides of the story. One is that Chevron came into possession of, of a controlling share of a company called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobasys Cobasys] that makes the nickel-metal hydride batteries and that they used their influence to restrict the sale, in the United States, of batteries that were large enough to power electronic vehicles and that they were restricting the sale to those batteries that could be used in ''hybrid'' electric vehicles, so that at least part of the car would be using gasoline. The other side of the story says that there's no direct evidence for that, these are people who are reading between the lines. There's no smoking gun, to say that that's the intention of Chevron, and that Chevon is just diversifying into other energy technologies, just like other oil companies investing in solar or other types of energy. They're hedging their, their energy bets, they're not planning on surviving forever on oil - and that, in fact, it's ''possible'' to sell these batteries. They're, they're, they're not really being restricted. You know, wading through all of this, I honestly couldn't tell which side was more compelling, which, which means to me that there's probably a little truth on both sides. I also think that the, you know, like, in the Nineties, the technology just wasn't quite there, but we are getting there, you know, rapidly now, and that this is gonna, this is coming, you know, better batteries. Now they're even talking about carbon-nano, you know, fiber batteries that are gonna be even better, lighter, so I think this technology's coming, and I don't think any conspiracy of Big Oil is gonna be able to stop it.

x: Yeah, I, I think the technology, from all the things I've read, was somewhat marginal at that point. I mean, when, when it, you know, if it, if it takes you ten hours to recharge your car, that's, that's not gonna do it. And like you said, I haven't, I haven't really read any specs on the performance, but I suspect the performance wasn't that great.

x: The market studies probably showed that there was no, no profits to be made.

x: Yeah, a lot of people will, would disagree with that. I mean, a lot...''so many'' people said to them, when GM said, "Give me my car back. I wanna, I wanna get rid of it," people said, "Hey, I'll pay it off. I'll give you the money for the whole thing." Apparently, lots of people were saying that, and they said, and they just took every car that they could possibly get their hands on, and since it was a lease, they wou...of course, could legally just take the car, I think. There's probably s...

S: Yeah. Right.

x: ...Some clause in there that said they can, they could relieve you of their car at any time.

E: Well, Bob, I mean, but if it, but if it ''was'' a profitable idea, don't you think that, don't you think that the manufacturers would've found a way to get this, to, to get this car up, running, take care of these technical problems, stick with it, especially if there was money to be made. I mean that's, that's kind of how they've operated in history, in the past, they've (inaudible)...

x: Well, I mean, there's no guarantee that money was, would be made from this. There, there's no guarantee with that. And then, with all these external agencies inhibiting the whole enterprise, it just totally collapsed.

S: Evan's point is, and I agree with it, that if there was money to be made off an electric vehicle, they would've found a way. And that these, these hur...none of these hurdles were absolute.

x: Well, you're, you're assuming that, that, that you could absolutely determine if this could be profitable. I, I'm saying, I think that I don't think you can determine that.

S: You're right, and, and historically, the auto industry has made bad decisions about, you know, what, what is marketable, like the Edsel, for example, is always the one that comes up. And, I also think that, you know, GM apparently at one point decided to, to skip the hybrid phase and go right on to f...to hydrogen fuel cell cars - and that was probably a huge mistake as well.

x: Absolutely.

S: So again, as I said, you can disagree with the marketing decision and maybe it was a huge mistake, but I don't think it was this big conspiracy.

P: What's fascinating from our point of view is the endless need for conspiracies.

x: They're fun, Perry.

P: That, that's what I think.

x: That's the thing. They're fun. For some reason, there is an entertainment value to a conspiracy.

P: I gue...I mean, I was writing the other day, and I needed some information on the Flight 800 explosion.

x: Mm-hmm.

P: And I, it was ''so hard'' to find the actual report, you know, from the government. And there, everything I looked up was a different society saying it was a ''missile''!

x: Yeah, I think, I think it's very possible that the oil companies...

P: Possible is not evidence!

x: I know it is...I know that, Perry, I'm not saying that there, I think that there is a lot here, there's a lot here. It's not just, you know, cut-and-dry, that it, it's...

P: No comment.

(laughter)

S: The bottom line is, I don't think that the performance, even today, is that great. Even the hybrid cars don't have great performance right now.

x: They're pretty good cars, Steve. Those hybrids, I mean, you know what the thing that sucks about them is that they're, they're not really cost-effective yet. But they actually work really well, they ''do'' work well.

S: The, the technology had a lot of promise and in, in certain areas, it can be advantageous under certain driving conditions. In New England, where we live, it's actually very disadvantageous because that the colder the weather gets, the less efficient the regenerative breaking technology is, so the less of, of a benefit you get from the hybrid technology. And also, the more highway driving you do, the less of a benefit it is, and in fact, it becomes a detriment because you're dragging around all the heavy batteries and, and unl...unless you're doing a lot of city driving, in, in a warm climate, you're not really getting much benefit from it. So, for many drivers, it really isn't an ad...an advantage.

x: Well, if you wanna get technical, sure, you know.

S: So, but it, I thi...you know again, we, there are some times where there's a, there's bridging technology, there's a time when you, when you go over to a new technology, the advantages are not immediately there, but...

x: Right.

S: ...It puts you on a track where eventually you ''will'' get the advantages. And I think that's where we are with hybrid technology. I think it's interesting to speculate about what's gonna happen. Is the hybrid technology going to mature to the point where that really becomes the mainstay of our fleet for (inaudible)...

x: The dominant. Right. (inaudible) something else.

S: ...For decades? Will the hydrogen fuel cells ''ever'' come online? Will they ever solve the problems? Will...

x: Or will it be something completely unique, like, say, solar, or well, yeah...

x: Right. Nanotechnology.

x: ...Of course.

(laughter)

''(0:34:37)''
S: The, we'll do, we'll do one more e-mail before we go on to our interview. 
This one comes from Christian in central PA, and he writes: ''How do biologists refute the following argument by evolution deniers? ''"The brain has the capacity for storing information far greater than can be filled in many human lifetimes. If the brain is developed by the natural selection of desirable traits, how would this incremental process develop such storage capability far beyond any useful purpose?"'' I have a good idea of how I would refute this, but perhaps your answer would be more thorough and precise. Thanks for setting the record straight.'' 
Well, that's an interesting question and in fact, the co-discoverer of evolution through natural selection, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace Alfred Russel Wallace], thought that that was an insolvable problem, and he believed that, unlike [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin Darwin], he thought that evolution could ''not'' explain the human brain and the, that you had to invoke God and creation in order to explain the human brain. Because of this very reason. That the brain had capabilities that could not be ''specifically'' selected for. However, it's, first of all, it's a bit of a false premise...

x: Hmm. Right.

S: ...The, the brain does ''not'' have a tremendous amount of biologically untapped potential. You know, if you utilize your brain and you, you lead an intellectually active life, you use quite a bit of it, you know. It's not, there's not this vast, you know, reservoir of untapped neurons in the brain.

P: So maybe Jay uses ten percent.

S: Right.

x: It's very peaceful, though, to only use ten percent of your brain, Perry.

S: Yeah, it's kinda similar to the ten percent thing.

x: Loose, loosely, I mean, he's talking really st...storage capacity. How big your hard drive is.

x: Yeah, no, I, I understand, but it, it comes off as (inaudible)

P: And an ultimate storage capacity of 800 quadrillion bits. Who said that?

x: Data.

x: Data.

P: Yeah... (laughter)

x: Steve...

x: Data.

x: ...Steve, I have a question for you.

(laughter)

S: Yeah, go ahead.

x: Let's say that, in the future, people live two, three hundred years, and, you know, just, just to make a, to build a case here, let's say that, you know, nanotechnology doesn't swoop in and do anything miraculous or, and all that.

S: Yeah.

x: Just the way that...

(inaudible)

x: ...A human being is today. What happens when someone's brain ''does'' get filled? Would, would it overwrite? What would the brain do in that circumstance?

S: Well, that's what happens all the time, Jay.

x: Yeah.

S: You're, you're overwriting. You know, you're, you're forming memory pathways on top of memory pathways on top of memory pathways, and memories fade over time.

P: Get mixed together.

S: Yeah, they mix together. It's a very dynamic process. It's not like there are specific addresses where you're putting information and it's getting used up in that way. There's a...you just have a specific number of ''neurons'', you know - about a hundred billion - and they, they could store so much information. And, and, and th...

x: I'm sorry. My brain just wrote over everything you just said. Could you please repeat that?

(laughter)

S: But the, the other, the evolutionary point that I wanted to make here is that we evolve structures for a specific function, and they, because they provide a specific advantage, right. So that a bigger brain gives a certain advantage and that, and therefore gets selected for. That doesn't mean that everything that you could possibly do with this new structure that evolved had to have been specifically selected for. So, we, we, I, I don't think that anyone argues that we evolved in order to be really good at playing the piano, you know. That, that is just an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenon epiphenomenon].

x: Right. Epiphenomenon, yep.

P: (inaudible)

S: Yeah. It's just something that emerges out of, as a consequence of the fact that we just are raw brain power increased, so that we could be smarter and, and function better in our environment, be better adapted to our local environment.

P: What's an epiphenomenon?

x: It's, it's kind of a side phenomenon. It just kinda happened, for no real reason. It's just a, a nice happy coincidence that it happened.

S: Yeah. Just emerges spontaneously out of, out of the process. In the same token, you know, we, we may have a lot of, you know, we do certainly have a, do have some reserve, and that, along with all the other sort of things that we can do - you know, write poetry and, and play the piano and, and whatnot - that did not provide an advantage for our ancestors, you know, in, on the plains of Africa, doesn't mean that, that they were, that they brain was not evolved. So Alfred Russel Wallace was wrong, in that argument. It is not an argument against evolution; it's a misunderstanding of evolution. In fact, that's, a lot of evolution takes place that way, you know. Structures evolve for one reason, and they could be co-opted for lots of other things. We evolved hands with opposable thumbs and dexterity so that we could manipulate tools, but we could then use that to do a lot of other things that we did not specifically evolve hands for, for example.

== Interview with President Jimmy Carter ==

''(0:39:22)''
S: Well, let's move on to our interview.

(Music)

S: Joining us now is the 39th President of the United States, President Jimmy Carter. Mr. President, welcome to the Skeptic's Guide.

PJC: ''It's a pleasure.''

S: So, we were actually putting, this interview was set up by your grandson, Josh Carter, who is a, a fine young man. He wanted us to give you the opportunity to sec...set the record straight regarding your eyewitness encounter with a UFO back in 1969. Can you first just start by telling us about what you saw? ''(Transcription paused at 0:40:03)''

{{Outro61}} 

{{Navigation}}

SGU Episode 105

2012-08-13T22:40:23Z

Skepticat: SGU 105 transcript - continued in e-mail section re: electric cars

SGU Episode 105

2012-08-05T02:47:10Z

Skepticat: /* Your Questions and E-mails */ Fixed link to Wikipedia article

SGU Episode 105

2012-08-05T02:38:46Z

Skepticat: /* "Item 4" (Asian Parasite Killing Bees) */ fixed link to Wikipedia article

SGU Episode 105

2012-08-05T02:31:23Z

Skepticat: SGU transcript - entered rest of news items, start of questions and e-mails section

SGU Episode 105

2012-08-01T06:18:00Z

Skepticat: Added more of news item 1, SGU ep. 105

SGU Episode 105

2012-08-01T01:44:17Z

Skepticat: Added to news item 1 in Ep. 105

SGU Episode 105

2012-08-01T01:22:20Z

Skepticat: Began transcription of SGU episode 105

Main Page

2012-08-01T01:10:59Z

Skepticat: /* 2007 */ Added link to SGU ep. 105

__NOTOC__
==Welcome to the SGU Transcripts==

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

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

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

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

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

=== 2011 ===

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

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

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

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

=== 2007 ===
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28, 2007 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007
* [[SGU Episode 105]], Jul 25, 2007 {{i}}
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24, 2007 {{i}}

=== 2006 ===

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

=== 2005 ===

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

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

=== 2012 ===

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

=== 2009 ===

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

=== 2008 ===

* [[5X5 Episode 45]], Nov 11 2008, Chi and other forms of vitalism
* [[5X5 Episode 13]], Mar 30 2008, Man convicted of molestation claims he was raped by Bigfoot
* [[5X5 Episode 6]], Feb 11 2008, Dr. Harris's Pain Relief Snake Oil Infomercial
* [[5X5 Episode 5]], Feb 3 2008, Pope Benedict XVI takes on science
* [[5X5 Episode 4]], Jan 28 2008, Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology.
* [[5X5 Episode 3]], Jan 21 2008, Multilevel Marketing and Pyramid Schemes
* [[5X5 Episode 2]], Jan 13 2008, Ghost Photographs
* [[5X5 Episode 1]], Jan 06 2008, The National Health Service of the UK plans to regulate alternative medicine

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

5X5 Episode 5

2012-07-31T00:52:38Z

Skepticat: Corrected link to next episode

{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 5
|Contents = Pope Benedict XVI takes on science
|episodeDate = 3rd February 2008
|verified = y
|previous = 4
|next = 6
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 =
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-02-03.mp3
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=5
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,8268.msg178697.html#msg178697
|}}

== Pope Benedict XVI takes on science ==

{{5x5intro}}

S: Welcome to Skeptic's Guide 5x5, five minutes with five skeptics. Topic for this evening: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI Pope Benedict XVI] has come out with a statement saying that some science shatters human dignity. He is taking aim specifically at stem-cell research, at artificial insemination, and also at cloning. He's quoted as saying, "When human beings in the weakest and most defenseless state of their existence are selected, abandoned, killed or used as pure biological material, how can one deny that they are being treated not as someone, but as some''thing''."([http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/31/us-pope-science-idUSL3189220620080131 Reuters article])

R: It's true, you know. Every sperm is sacred.

(laughter)

S: Right.

J: But Steve, is he actually, does he really believe that, like, babies are, are being hurt in the process of collecting embryonic stem cells?

S: Well, I don't know what he believes; he was not quoted as saying anything very specific about that. I think ''he'', what he says is such practices "question the very concept of the dignity of man".

R: Like child molestation.

(laughter)

R: Just, just throwing that out there.

B: Somebody had to.

S: Well, clearly, you know, he's drawing a line in the sand, you know, trying to say, you know, "Science - don't go beyond here". Although, I think it's, you know, it's perfectly legitimate to consider the moral implications of scientific research. That there's clearly a basis for these opinions which are not objectively moralistic, They're based in, you know, his particular religious b-

E: There's something else he said. He warned against the ''seductive powers'' of science, saying it was important that science did not become the sole criteria for goodness. Where did he pull ''that'' from?

S: Yeah, that's kind of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man straw man].

R: Well, I like to think I had something to do with that. The seductive power of science. I've been trying. I send him some pin-up photos, you know.

E: I told you not to do that, Rebecca.

R: Well...

J: I have another question. Why is it that every time you see a picture of the Pope, he's doing the "Up yours", you know, hand gesture. What's all that about?

E: He's Italian. Oh wait, he's German.

R: He's saying that to science - "Up yours, science!"

(laughter)

R: "I have ignorance on ''my'' side. Ha, ''ha''!"

E: Yeah, you know, unfortunately Benedict has not been what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II John Paul II] was, you know, to science. And from what I remember, is that John Paul II said it was okay to believe in things like, you know, evolution; it was ''not'' contradictory to Christian doctrine and so forth. But I know since Benedict took over that he has in fact gone ''back'' on that statement.

S: Yeah, it's been a step backward. You know, the Catholic Church has always had an interesting relationship with science, or at least recently. I think they've, you know, the more scholarly influences within the Church have tried to have a, a more practical or convivial relationship ''with'' science. I think at some level, you know, some within the Church recognize that, ''long-term'', you know, fighting against science, or being anti-science, is ''probably'' not a good idea. And they did say things like "Yeah, we, we accepted the findings of science. Absolutely. You know, science shows that this is what happened and this is what happened. You know, life on earth evolved. The universe is 12 billion years old. That's fine." But they still are trying to carve out, you know, like, "don't go be...beyond here, there be dragons, right, so just don't go beyond these lines that we're gonna set out because we need to reserve ''some'' territory for ourselves and for our faith". The evangelical Christians seem to be in line with Pope Benedict on these issues, on being pro-life.

B: Right.

S: So that's something that even though, you know, fundamentalist Christians ''hate'' Catholics pretty much, some even go as far as to think that the Pope is the Devil. I mean...

B: Wow.

S: ...They really, they could be significantly at odds. But this is definitely common ground for them, the whole pro-life stance. I think it's just unfortunate that Benedict chose to frame this as science, you know, as being somewhat against science, or that science can be immoral. I think you can take a specific moral stance on the kind of things we should or should not be doing without taking, making it seem antagonistic toward science itself.

B: There might be some permanent formats to what he has to say. U.S. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Levada Cardinal William Levada], which is Benedict's successor as the head of the doctrinal department, said that they're mulling the possibility of potentially preparing a new Vatican document on bio-ethical issues. So I'll be curious to see what, what's in ''that''. Plus, I wonder if subsequent popes, could they potentially redact official Vatican documents?

S: I don't know.

E: We need a pope-ologist to tell us.

S: Well, we'll have to wait and see if that develops further, but I think that we haven't heard the end of questionable or anti-scientific statements from Pope Benedict.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|Religion & Faith = y
}}

Main Page

2012-07-31T00:51:23Z

Skepticat: /* 2008 */ Removed mark from Ep. 6

__NOTOC__
==Welcome to the SGU Transcripts==

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

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

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

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

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

=== 2011 ===

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

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

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

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

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

=== 2006 ===

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

=== 2005 ===

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

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

=== 2012 ===

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

=== 2009 ===

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

=== 2008 ===

* [[5X5 Episode 45]], Nov 11 2008, Chi and other forms of vitalism
* [[5X5 Episode 13]], Mar 30 2008, Man convicted of molestation claims he was raped by Bigfoot
* [[5X5 Episode 6]], Feb 11 2008, Dr. Harris's Pain Relief Snake Oil Infomercial
* [[5X5 Episode 5]], Feb 3 2008, Pope Benedict XVI takes on science
* [[5X5 Episode 4]], Jan 28 2008, Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology.
* [[5X5 Episode 3]], Jan 21 2008, Multilevel Marketing and Pyramid Schemes
* [[5X5 Episode 2]], Jan 13 2008, Ghost Photographs
* [[5X5 Episode 1]], Jan 06 2008, The National Health Service of the UK plans to regulate alternative medicine

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

SGUTranscripts:Community portal

2012-07-30T04:21:45Z

Skepticat: Asked for proofreading of Ep. 6

Hi guys like others I've often thought about this as a project but put off by the amount of time that it would have taken one person, the main reason I thought about doing this was to be able to search the transcripts when needed, example: if someone asked me a question on Homoeopathy I would be able to use my smartphone to give an answer based on what the SGU have talked about in the past, as I generally take what the guys say as fact.

Do you think that what I'm taking about would be possible using this WIKI project??

Looking forward to starting and completing my first SGU Transcript :-)

--[[User:Manontop|Manontop]] 09:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

:Hi Manontop.
:
:Sure, I think that would be one of the most important uses of these transcripts. My ideas for having transcripts of the SGU episodes are to facilitate linking, searching and accessibility:
:
:* Linking. We have headings throughout the podcasts so that it's possible to link directly to a specific segment, for example [[SGU_Episode_352#Aristolochia_Nephropathy|Aristolochia Nephropathy]] (internal wiki link) or [http://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_352#Aristolochia_Nephropathy Aristolochia Nephropathy] (external link).
:* Searching. Currently there are (at least) two ways to search. Either using Google or the built-in search box in the top right. If you want to use Google to search only this site, you can do so by using the "site:" term in your query. E.g. your Google query would be [https://www.google.com/search?q=site:sgutranscripts.org+titanic+disaster "site:sgutranscripts.org titanic disaster"]. Google is the king of them all, so I have installed proper semantic web (SEO) support. When a transcript is completed I go through and insert tags to important concepts that are covered in the podcast. This helps Google (and other search engines) know what is important about that page. You can see these by opening a transcript and viewing the source of the page. Then look for the <meta name="keywords" content="..."> tag. There are two components to this, tags that are site-wide such as "skeptics, sceptics, scepticism" etc. followed by tags that are local to a particular page such as "titanic, tragedy, ss, californian, space, junk" etc. Of course, Google also uses the page content when indexing.
:* Accessibility. Quite simple really; people who can't listen to the podcast for any reason (deafness etc.) can now read the transcripts instead.
:
:Great to have you on board! :)
:
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 11:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys,

I'm guessing this is the best place to put project discussions, let me know if there's another way - I'm new to Wiki editing.

Regarding time stamps for the sections, I've entered them into the headings of [[SGU_Episode_348]] using tags. This shows them smaller in the actual headings, but the same size in the contents list.
What do you guys think?

I've also been thinking of ways to make these transcript pages as useful as poss without causing ourselves too much extra work. One way might be to include a kind of bullet-point list of facts from the episode, as they often have throw-away comments that are interesting. E.g. in ep.348, they talk about nut allergies, and that cashew nuts contain the same allergy-inducing resin as poison-ivy. We could lift these from the main text as we go and build a list at the end. It wouldn't make much difference if someone's reading the whole transcript, but it might make a nice feature for flicking through them.
Just a thought, I figured it would be better said earlier than later. What do you think?
 Cheers,

--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 04:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

:I like the idea of compiling a fact list at the end of the transcription for each episode. It's just up to the individual transcriber I suppose. Regarding the tags, I definitely think it would help to have the timestamps in these transcriptions, and having it in the section title makes it visible in the table of contents. The other option is to use the wikibox on your user page, which I think is very nice, containing the image, quote, times and links in one place. It just depends on whether or not other people like it too.
:--[[User:Jay One|Jay One]] 20:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks, I have no experience making wikibox templates, so if someone else knows more about these, mb they'd like to build one? (although I'm happy to try) we should probably come to some agreement about whether we want them and what they should contain.
::--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 20:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding a template, I've put up what I was working from for full episodes at [[Episode_templateTK]] for now, but this isn't a proper wiki template - I'm not entirely sure how to use those. I don't presume to ''dictate'' the format, this is just what I had already. Feedback welcomed.
 --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 00:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone explored the idea of hiring a professional transcriptionist to do the work? This could be much faster, but there would be a cost involved. Perhaps a donation fund could be set up for SGU listeners to pay for it. Another podcast that goes this route is the "Security Now" podcast from Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte.
 -- [[User:128.200.139.53|128.200.139.53]] ([[User talk:128.200.139.53|talk]]) 17:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:I'm a professional trascriber and I would love to contribute towards this project. VLC is good but not optimized for transcription purpose. I would suggest NCH's ExpressScribe software and it's free. Also if you are spending a lot of time on this project, I would recommend investing on a foot pedal. It shouldn't cost you more than $25. With these two things, I am sure you can double your productivity.
:--[[User:Eupraxsophic|Eupraxsophic]] ([[User talk:Eupraxsophic|talk]]) 02:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to help, but I ''cannot'' tell Jay and Bob's voices apart. Am I useless?
 --[[User:Jenpohl|Jenpohl]] 20:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:I often find this difficult, and it's quite likely I've already made mistakes based on this, but mb you'll get better as you're listening closely. I find Bob more nasal. Another good indicator is whether they're referencing nanotechnology or porn. :)
:--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 21:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:That may be a problem, but all it took for me to tell their voices apart was a little time.
:--[[User:Jay One|Jay One]] 21:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

:Just a thought: if you want to put up a <ins>transcription page including</ins> timestamps in comments (using "< !--" and "-->" without spaces in them) for the points you're unsure about, you could flag the pages up here for me (or whoever) to see if we can help out. <ins>This way we can easily search for problem points.</ins>
:--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 06:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC) [edited:16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)]

:You're definitely not useless! The most important thing is to get a first pass of the transcription done, corrections are then much quicker/easier. How about you put a question mark after the letter if you can't work out who's speaking? So like:
:
:B?: Stuff that Bob or Jay said
:
:Then someone else can go fix them later, should be pretty quick to do.
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've inserted a rough draft of a fact list at the bottom of [[SGU_Episode_348]]. What do you guys think? It was easy to put together, but I didn't know what to call it.
 --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 05:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:I originally thought it was a bad idea until I went and looked at your example. Now I think it's ''awesome'', I love it! :) Currently you've called it "Today I Learned..." which I think is good, but can anyone think of a title that's better? Like maybe "Interesting ideas from the podcast" except not that as it sounds terrible. ;)
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

::Yay! Thanks. For the name, the only thing I thought, was I wanted to be careful not to assert them as hard facts. Also, we should mb point out that they are not part of the transcript, but taken from it after. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the wikibox draft to its own page ([[Draft_wikiBox]]) so you can all go play with it and comment if you like.
 --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 20:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

:I've set up a template for the rough draft of the wikibox and updated [[Draft_wikiBox]], so it's clearer and easier to add info on each page --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 23:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added a template for the episode outro voiceover, including the links. This covers episodes 301 to present. You can reference it using <code><nowiki>{{Outro1}}</nowiki></code>.
 --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 04:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm trying to put together a basic [[User:Teleuteskitty/FAQ draft|help page]], and collecting together the 'Skeptical quote of the week' entries onto a [[User:Teleuteskitty/QotW collection|single page]]. Could you let me know what you think, please? Thanks
 --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 12:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, and thanks for starting this project! I don't have a lot of time to devote to doing whole transcripts, but I'd like to start categorizing the wiki pages, like "SGU Transcripts", "Live Episodes", etc. I think it would also be helpful to have next/previous episode links on each page, either at the bottom or in the infobox. Any opinions? --[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 15:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

:Hi Av8rmike, thanks for your interest, any help is always appreciated, big or small. We were thinking of using the categories from the [http://theness.com/roguesgallery/ Rogues gallery], plus others more specific to the podcast, e.g. guests. I think adding a category for live episodes is a great idea. We're also considering using redirect pages for categorizing podcast sections separately.
:I agree, previous/next buttons would be good (in fact I was just playing with some graphics for them). However, I'm not sure how to get a wiki template to recognise the episode number and add/subtract automatically, do you have any ideas about that? Otherwise we can just input them manually. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 16:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

::I took a stab at adding some categories to [[SGU_Episode_354]] to give an idea of how that would work. I don't know offhand how to do the auto-numbering in wiki templates, but from looking at the help pages for templates, you can do almost anything with them. I could probably do some experimenting and see how far I get.
::[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 18:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, I've noticed we've used 2 different time-stamp formats. When it gets past the hour mark, I use the h:mm:ss format, but some pages use mm:ss, e.g. 78:12. As the time-stamps form the links for sections, I figure this is pretty important. My argument for using h:mm:ss is that, in my experience, that's what the majority of audio software and mp3 players use, plus I think it's more natural for us to think of time this way. What do you guys think? --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 17:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
:Kitty, the only reason I was using mm:ss was because that's what was already in use on the existing pages. =P I agree that h:mm:ss makes more intuitive sense and is used in more places, so I'm all in favor of switching over. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 13:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks for responding. Rwh86's away this week, so I'm gonna be cheeky, assume he's cool with it and change them over. We can always change them back if anyone comes up with a good argument for the mm:ss format. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys...First time transcriber here! I was inspired by Tim Farley's presentation at TAM 2012 to see where I could help out - and figured I could at least try this. I just transcribed and posted [[5X5_Episode_4]], but I'm not familiar enough with the Rogues to distinguish voice identities. The only voice IDs I'm somewhat sure of are Steve's and Rebecca's (the others I guessed at). If anyone can help with voice IDs in Ep. 4, that would be great. (Maybe I'll get better at the voices in the future -grin-) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 03:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Skepticat, and (as Av8rmike said) welcome to the team! I proof-read [[5X5 Episode 4]] and added the speakers. The page is great, took me no time to add them. In future, if there's a lot of lines you can't attribute, don't worry about adding times to each, just the first in a cluster. Hopefully that will save you a bit of time too :) I often find Bob and Jay hard to distinguish, but I think Bob's just a little more nasal, and it sounds like Jay might use a desktop mic instead of one close by his mouth. I don't know if that's any help. Thanks for your help, I'm very jealous you got to go to Tam, if you have any feedback for the site, do let us know. --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks for the proof-read! Care to take a whack at [[5X5 Episode 5]], which I just posted? I don't think I'm going to have much luck with voice IDs (other than S & R) unless someone specifically says who's who, so I'll leave that to much more experienced folks, such as yourself, for now. Heck, I ended up riding down in the same elevator with the SGU crew at TAM (I think it was the first morning?) and I didn't fully realize who they were until later. As I was a "first TAMMER", that happened to me a few times with other skeptic notables there. :) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 04:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

:::Done! And just for the record, I definitely don't get the voices right ''all'' the time. That's just one of the reasons to have subsequent contributors as proof-readers :) --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 12:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

::Skepticat: Some things that may help you get more familiar with the voices:
::* Listen to an episode and follow along with the transcript (assuming it's been verified), paying attention to who's speaking when.
::* Transcribe some of the earlier episodes. Perry is easy to distinguish, and Jay (and sometimes Bob) aren't in all the early ones because of software limitations. -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 14:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, there's a few things I could do with getting some feedback on:
# Using [[User:Teleuteskitty/Draft_main_layout|this page]] for the main page. (Av8rmike, I know you're pro)
# Adding explanatory footnotes with the [[Template:Link needed]] (I explain this in more detail on the [[Template_talk:Link_needed|talk page]])
# [[Help:How to Contribute]] page. Does this make sense to everyone?
Could you please leave any feedback (positive/constructively critical/short/long) on the talk pages for these? --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 12:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The [[5X5 Episode 6]] transcript has just gone up and is begging for a proof-read and voice check. Any takers? :) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 04:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

5X5 Episode 6

2012-07-30T04:13:16Z

Skepticat: Entered transcription of Ep. 6

{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 6
|Contents = Dr. Harris's Pain Relief Snake Oil Infomercial
|episodeDate = 11th February 2008
|verified =
|previous = 5
|next = 13
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 =
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-02-11.mp3
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=2&pid=6
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/board,1.0.html
|}}

== Dr. Harris's Pain Relief Snake Oil Infomercial ==

{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5X5, five minutes with five skeptics. Today's topic is Dr. Dennis Harris. Evan, you wrote about this today on your blog after hearing his ''infomercial'' in your car.

E: I did. I heard his infomercial this weekend. A 30-minute radio infomercial about his all-natural pain relief system called the ETA...E-T-A ...Relief System. He described it as a combination of a supplement and a gel that's designed to relieve a person's everyday aches and pains, including those associated with, amongst other things, fibromyalgia. He is a very slick and good speaker. He sells the product very well. But that was about all that was convincing about Dr. Harris and his product, although he made no specific claims of his product. He also never told you exactly what was ''in'' this product. Didn't explain the ingredients involved in it. All you had to do was call the 800 number and call up for your 30-day free supply to get you started. So, right, you know, right away, I smelled the, the BS.

R: So he didn't say what was in it or what it did?

E: No. He made no specific claims ''of'' it and he never said what was in it.

S: If it weren't for the 800 number and his website, this guy could be a snake-oil salesman from a hundred years ago selling out of the back of a wagon attached to a carnival.

(laughter)

S: Now for some background, I...if you look this guy up, the first thing that comes up is the fact that he was the target of a Federal Trade Commission complaint. They basically, you know, dissed this guy for committing fraud, for making claims that were not supported with the evidence. And they, they essentially censored him. He had to promise not to make any more claims. This is for his original, his original snake oil, which was his snore, snoring, you know, product. His anti-snoring product. So the FTC shut him down for that. So he just, you know, moseyed on over to pain. Now he's been a pain doctor his whole life...apparently...if, if you read his website.


x: So listen to this. On his website. This is great. "Dr. Harris has devoted 35 years as a physician to the non-surgical diagnosis and treatment of ''all'' conditions of pain.

(laughter)

S: Well, wait, there ''are'' pain specialists. I don't see that he has any credentials as one. I looked him up in PubMed. He has ''zero'' publications, as far as I could see, in ''any'' of the topics that he claims to be an expert.

R: And also: "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA, and these products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease." Always read the fine print.


x: What is that font - ''2''??

(laughter)

x: Barely.

S: That's the standard disclaimer required by the FDA.


x: But Steve, they call it the "pain solution"!

S: With a money-back guarantee.


x: ''"If you're not completely satisfied..."''

E: Yeah, how many other legitimate medical products have money-back guarantees tied to them?

S: Yeah.

E: Not many.


x: No way.

(laughter)

x: Yeah, but how many people take advantage of money-back...guarantees? Not many.

S: Yeah, very few. That's why...

x: Even if it is a sham.

S: ...That's why they, they use them.

E: There are just so many red flags with the, with, with this fellow. I mean, you know, making no, making no specific claims, not telling you what ingredients there are in his slurry of vitamins and, and herbs. The fact that he relies on anecdotal evidence and testimonials instead of actual studies and research. You know, the fact that you have to call this 800 number to, you know, to pay for something, to get more, to even try to get more information on the product. I mean, just, all the classic signs of - like you said, Steve - a snake-oil saysman...''salesman''.

S: Right. Yeah, plus all the self-promotion, all the self-promotion. "Dr. Harris wrote the book on pain" claims his website. ''What'' book on pain? What's he talking about? He wrote his own little book selling his own products. You know, these guys, no, no academic, no scientific credentials whatsoever.

B: Isn't that the name of his book? "The Book on Pain"?

(laughter)

R: No, it's "The Pain Solution". Get it right, Bob.

S: "The Pain Solution", 'cause you have "Dr. Harris's Pain Relief System".

R: And also buried in a paragraph, he does say what is in ''some'' of the stuff, like green-lipped mussel extract?


x: Uh...

x: Green-lipped?

R: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_green-lipped_mussel| New Zealand green-lipped mussel]. Yeah. What the hell is that? What does that do?


x: I have no idea.

R: "The same mussel has been clinically shown to be more potent in relieving..."

S: He throws out all these percentages, but these percentages are not based on any scientific studies. They're just done on his own patients. His own experience with his own patients. So he's just fabricating these, you know, fabricating data as needed just to, to sell his products.

R: So how does he get away with this? On, on a radio, like a national, this is a national radio station? A local radio station? How does he get away with it?

S: He gets away with it by ''not making claims'', by exactly what Evan noticed. He's ''implying'' claims. You, you inf...you're meant to ''infer'' claims. Now you call it the "Pain Relief System". "I'm not saying it tr...actually treats ''pain'' or any condition. It's just my 'Pain Relief System' that many people have benefitted from", and blah, blah, blah. He obviously has learned from his experience with the FTC how to ''evade'' the system, by, by making these pseudo-claims and not, not letting himself be pinned down to any specifics.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

Main Page

2012-07-30T01:39:38Z

Skepticat: /* 2008 */ Added link for 5X5 Ep. 6 entry

__NOTOC__
==Welcome to the SGU Transcripts==

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

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

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

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

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

=== 2011 ===

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

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

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

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

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

=== 2006 ===

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

=== 2005 ===

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

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

=== 2012 ===

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

=== 2009 ===

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

=== 2008 ===

* [[5X5 Episode 45]], Nov 11 2008, Chi and other forms of vitalism
* [[5X5 Episode 13]], Mar 30 2008, Man convicted of molestation claims he was raped by Bigfoot
* [[5X5 Episode 6]], Feb 11 2008, Dr. Harris's Pain Relief Snake Oil Infomercial {{i}}
* [[5X5 Episode 5]], Feb 3 2008, Pope Benedict XVI takes on science
* [[5X5 Episode 4]], Jan 28 2008, Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology.
* [[5X5 Episode 3]], Jan 21 2008, Multilevel Marketing and Pyramid Schemes
* [[5X5 Episode 2]], Jan 13 2008, Ghost Photographs
* [[5X5 Episode 1]], Jan 06 2008, The National Health Service of the UK plans to regulate alternative medicine

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

User talk:Teleuteskitty/Draft main layout

2012-07-30T01:25:56Z

Skepticat: Adding reply

So, as promised, here are some of my ideas for the layout page: I'd be curious to see what it looks like as a non-inverted pyramid, i.e. the "Browse Categories" block moved to the second row. That would leave the two Transcripts blocks on the top row and might look a little more natural. I also think the wording in the "Browse Categories" block could be improved a little, to make it match the style in the bottom two blocks: 
'''Browse Categories''' – Each episode covers a variety of topics, e.g. Interviews, Guest Rogues. You can browse episodes and segments by category from this page. 
-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 12:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
----
I like using this as the main page. Now that we have the links to the SGU and 5x5 episodes in the sidebar, it doesn't make sense to keep two separate lists of episodes on the main page. And, it doesn't look like anyone else has any better ideas. =/ -- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 13:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
----
I like the look of this, and the icons are amusing! I'd still like to see some version of the current main page for those of us who are doing transcriptions. Right now, I can pop onto the current main page and see immediately which episodes are done, which are in progress, and which need transcribing - and it's easy to add a new episode link in wiki format. A clearer path to this page from a new main page would be good too. Just a thought! (BTW, what program was used to create the category icons?) :) -- [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 16:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks for the feedback. My brother did the icons for us in Photoshop. He's a professional games artist, but he did these for tea and chocolate :)
:For the episode lists, was thinking we'd move to using the pages linked in the side bar, as they'll be constant links throughout the site. Although we ''could'' use templates that feed on to those pages ''and'' the bottom of the main page. That way we only update the templates, but can have the lists as stand-alone pages as well as lower down on the main page. Only thing with this is that the sortable table on [[5X5 Episodes]] is very different to the style of the full episode list, and what we have on the main page now. Am I right in thinking that's the issue you're referring to? --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 17:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
::Not sure. I'm not suggesting keeping the current main page layout on the new main page. The new main page links are fine and the sortable table looks good for users coming to the site just to look for and read transcripts. I think what I'm suggesting is that you turn the current main page layout into a kind of 'Transcribers only' list page (linked to, perhaps, through the 'How to Contribute' page?). Transcribers could go to that secondary page and immediately see what episodes do and don't need to be done, and quickly and easily add new ones. As only completed episodes are found on the sortable page, and there is no 'edit' function available, I'm assuming that adding new episodes to ''that'' page is a site administrator function. I figure you can't really sort episodes that don't exist or aren't complete, can you? Hope this makes sense. 
::BTW - Tea...Earl Grey...hot. And chocolate? Always. WD, bro. :) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 01:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Teleuteskitty/Draft main layout

2012-07-28T16:16:15Z

Skepticat: Added comment

Main Page

2012-07-28T04:24:37Z

Skepticat: /* 2008 */ Removed mark from Ep. 5

__NOTOC__
==Welcome to the SGU Transcripts==

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

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

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

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

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

=== 2011 ===

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

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

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

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

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

=== 2006 ===

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

=== 2005 ===

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

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

=== 2012 ===

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

=== 2009 ===

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

=== 2008 ===

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

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

SGUTranscripts:Community portal

2012-07-28T04:23:10Z

Skepticat: Reply and request for another transcript check

5X5 Episode 5

2012-07-28T04:09:35Z

Skepticat: /* Pope Benedict XVI takes on science */ capitalized a word

{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 5
|Contents = Pope Benedict XVI takes on science
|episodeDate = 3th February 2008
|verified =
|previous = 4
|next = 13
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 =
|downloadLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcast.aspx?mid=2
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcast.aspx?mid=2
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/board,1.0.html
|}}

== Pope Benedict XVI takes on science ==

{{5x5intro}}

S: Welcome to Skeptic's Guide 5x5, five minutes with five skeptics. Topic for this evening: Pope Benedict XVI has come out with a statement saying that some science shatters human dignity. He is taking aim specifically at stem-cell research, at artificial insemination, and also at cloning. He's quoted as saying, "When human beings in the weakest and most defenseless state of their existence are selected, abandoned, killed or used as pure biological material, how can one deny that they are being treated not as someone, but as some''thing''."

R: It's true, you know. Every sperm is sacred.

(laughter)

S: Right.


x: But Steve, is he actually, does he really believe that, like, babies are, are being hurt in the process of collecting embryonic stem cells?

S: Well, I don't know what he believes; he was not quoted as saying anything very specific about that. I think ''he'', what he says is such practices question the very concept of the dignity of man.

R: Like child molestation.

(laughter)

R: Just, just throwing that out there.


x: Somebody had to.

S: Well, clearly, you know, he's drawing a line in the sand, you know, trying to say, you know, "Science - don't go beyond here". Although, I think it's, you know, it's perfectly legitimate to consider the moral implications of scientific research. That there's clearly a basis for the, for these opinions which are not objectively moralistic, They're based in, you know, his particular religious...


x: There's something else he said. He warned against the seductive ''powers'' of science, saying it was important that science did not become the sole criteria for goodness. Where did he pull ''that'' from?


x: Yeah.

S: Yeah, that's kind of a straw man.

R: Well, I like to think I had something to do with that. The seductive power of science. I've been trying. I, I send him some pin-up photos, you know.


x: I told you not to do that, Rebecca.

R: Well...


x: I have another question. Why is it that every time you see a picture of the Pope, he's doing the "Up yours", you know, hand gesture. What's all that about?

x: He's Italian. Oh wait, he's German.

R: He's saying that to science - "Up yours, science!"

(laughter)

R: "I have ignorance on ''my'' side. Ha, ''ha''!"


x: Yeah, you know, unfortunately Benedict has not been what John Paul II was, you know, to science. And from what I remember, is that John Paul II said it was okay to believe in things like, you know, evolution; it was ''not'' contradictory to Christian doctrine and so forth. But I know since Benedict took over that he has in fact gone ''back'' on that statement.

S: Yeah, it's been a step backward. You know, the Catholic Church has always had an interesting relationship with science, or at least recently. I think they've, you know, the more scholarly influences within the Church have tried to have a, a more practical or, or convivial relationship ''with'' science. I think at some level, you know, some within the Church recognize that, ''long-term'', you know, fighting against science, or being anti-science, is ''probably'' not a good idea. And they did say, they said, "Yeah, we, we accepted the findings of science. Absolutely. You know, science shows that this is what happened and this is what happened. You know, life on earth evolved. The universe is 12 billion years old. That's fine." But they still are trying to carve out, you know, like, "don't go be...beyond here, there be dragons, right, so just don't go beyond these lines that we're gonna set out because we need to reserve ''some'', some territory for ourselves and for our faith". The evangelical Christians seem to be in line with Pope Benedict on, on these issues, on being pro-life.


x: Right.

S: So that's something that even though, you know, fundamentalist Christians ''hate'' Catholics pretty much, some even go as far as to think that the Pope is the Devil. I mean...


x: Wow.

S: ...They really, they could be significantly at odds. But this is definitely common ground for them, the whole, the whole pro-life stance. I think it's just unfortunate that, that Benedict chose to frame this as science, you know, as being somewhat against science, or that science can be immoral. I think you can take a specific moral stance on the kind of things we should or should not be doing without taking, making it seem antagonistic toward science itself.


x: There might be some permanent formats to what he, he has to say. U.S. Cardinal William Levada, which is Benedict's successor as the head of the doctrinal department, said that they're mulling the possibility of potentially preparing a new Vatican document on bio-ethical issues. So I'll be curious to see what, what's in ''that''. Plus, I wonder if, if subsequent popes, could they potentially redact official Vatican documents?

x: I don't know.

x: We need a pope-ologist to tell us.

S: Well, we'll have to wait and see if that develops further, but I think that we haven't heard the end of questionable or anti-scientific statements from Pope Benedict.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

5X5 Episode 4

2012-07-28T04:07:20Z

Skepticat: Updated URL for the forum link

{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 4
|Contents = Do celebrity deaths come in threes?
|episodeDate = 28th January 2008
|verified = y
|previous = 3
|next = 5
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 =
|downloadLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcast.aspx?mid=2
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcast.aspx?mid=2
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/board,1.0.html
|}}

== Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology. ==

{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5, five minutes with five skeptics. Today is Monday, January 28th, 2008. On January 15th, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Renfro Brad Barron Renfro] was found dead in his apartment. On January 22nd, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath_Ledger Heathcliff Andrew Ledger] was found dead in ''his'' apartment. And on January 26th, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Brando Christian Brando] died of pneumonia in the hospital. Some say that deaths. or specifically ''celebrity'' deaths, come in threes. And this bit of superstition, while mostly whimsical, is fairly widespread. I'm sure you guys have heard this before.

E: Too many times.

B: Oh who hasn't.

J: His real first name was Heathcliff?

S: Yes.

(laughter)

J: Ohmygod!

B: Yes. Yeah, I was pretty shocked at that as well

E: Like Wuthering Heights?

S: Heath Ledger.

R: Yeah. I mean the idea is that the next person who dies then we're going to wait until we get two more and then lump those together and that'll be three celebrity deaths. It's kind of one of those things that, that won't fail to come true.

B: Right. because so much of it is, it's so vague that it, it's easy for this rule to be fulfilled. First off, define a celebrity. Like Brando, Brando's kid who died. That seems to be pushing it a bit. Also, how long is the window open for the three deaths? This, this makes it very open-ended, like lots of skeptical predictions - because it's so open-ended, there's many ways that it could be fulfilled. Now what about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_Pleshette Suzanne Pleshette], who also died, and how 'bout [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Melvin Sam the Butcher] from "The Brady Bunch"?

R: You're saying that death comes in fives?

B: I mean, how...

(multiple voices)

S: Suzanne Pleshette died on January 17th, which was in the middle of that sequence, so-

B: Right.

S: -does that mean that celebrity deaths come in four?

E: Yes.

J: Or two groups of three.

E: Three, four, ten.

S: Or, or that does the sequence end with, with Ledger and then Christian Brando began another set of three? So right, and what Bob is referring to is the use of open-ended criteria. So if you have criteria that are not specific and quantifiable and limited, you call that open-ended criteria. This is a very, very common intellectual error or mistake that people make, even researchers often make this mistake, and it allows for the recording of a positive outcome or a "hit" in many situations. And what people don't realize, because we have an inherently poor grasp on statistics, is that by opening up the criteria even a little bit, you allow for this multiplication of possible hits to the point where it can't fail, as Rebecca said. You just wait for that third celebrity to die, and th...and then you've fulfilled your criteria. It can't possibly fail.

J: And of course this is all based on numerology.

S: Sort of. Yeah. It is just a numbers-for-numbers-sake, seeking patterns which people are very, very good at. So much so that we see patterns even when they don't really exist.

B: One thing I like to do is I like to think of the ramifications of, of some of these beliefs. So you've got this rule. Well now, what are the ramifications? That would mean that they're either a god or this force, this force that is kinda lurking around waiting to make sure that this pattern holds. So he, this force is kinda deciding "Alright, we've got two. Now we've gotta get a third celebrity. Is this person a celebrity? Is he enough of a celebrity? Yeah. He is. I'll, I'll make sure he dies." So, I mean, wouldn't that be a necessary component for this to, if it was really true?

S: Well, let's call this force the "Angel of Death".

E: Well, you know, Jay, you mentioned numerology, and you know, if you just do a Goo...Google search, just put in "numerology", the first website you come upon, here's what you get. "Numerology is the study of numbers and the occult manner in which they reflect certain aptitudes and character tendencies as an integral part of the cosmic plan. Each letter has a numeric value that provides a related cosmic vibration." So there, I think that cleared it all up.

R: Ah, that all makes sense now

S: That's pretty much as close as you get to pure magical thinking. It's just infusing magic into this pattern recognition tendency that we have, whether it's numbers or anything else.

J: You know, the thing that's odd about it is you...you'll hear people say "You know deaths come in threes" but they also say "Good things come in threes". So, you know, the fate goes both ways, if, you know, the luck or the bad luck can go in either direction.

E: The important thing is so long as you ''believe in this'', then, I mean, that's good, bad, indifferent, as long as you believe in the power of numbers, then you're onto something - according to the numerologists.

S: Here's another historical celebrity death triad. Within a 24 hour period, the Grim Reaper took [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Weaver Dennis Weaver], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Knotts Don Knotts] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_McGavin Darren McGavin].

R: I'm sorry. Who?

S: All three died within a 24...Darren, come on, Darren McGavin.

E: Don Knotts?

R: Uh, who's the first guy? These are not celebrities. I'm sorry. Don Knotts, yes.

B: Ohmygod.

E: Dennis Weaver?

S: Dennis Weaver.

J: Yeah, he made all those clothes.

E: From the movie "Duel".

J: You don't remember him?

B: Darren McGavin, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolchak:_The_Night_Stalker Kolchak]

S: Kolchak, right, the Night Stalker, come on.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|Myths & Misconceptions = y
|Paranormal = y
}}

5X5 Episode 5

2012-07-28T04:04:10Z

Skepticat: Updated URL for the forum link

{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 5
|Contents = Pope Benedict XVI takes on science
|episodeDate = 3th February 2008
|verified =
|previous = 4
|next = 13
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 =
|downloadLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcast.aspx?mid=2
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcast.aspx?mid=2
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/board,1.0.html
|}}

== Pope Benedict XVI takes on science ==

{{5x5intro}}

S: Welcome to Skeptic's Guide 5x5, five minutes with five skeptics. Topic for this evening: Pope Benedict XVI has come out with a statement saying that some science shatters human dignity. He is taking aim specifically at stem-cell research, at artificial insemination, and also at cloning. He's quoted as saying, "When human beings in the weakest and most defenseless state of their existence are selected, abandoned, killed or used as pure biological material, how can one deny that they are being treated not as someone, but as some''thing''."

R: It's true, you know. Every sperm is sacred.

(laughter)

S: Right.


x: But Steve, is he actually, does he really believe that, like, babies are, are being hurt in the process of collecting embryonic stem cells?

S: Well, I don't know what he believes; he was not quoted as saying anything very specific about that. I think ''he'', what he says is such practices question the very concept of the dignity of man.

R: Like child molestation.

(laughter)

R: Just, just throwing that out there.


x: Somebody had to.

S: Well, clearly, you know, he's drawing a line in the sand, you know, trying to say, you know, "Science - don't go beyond here". Although, I think it's, you know, it's perfectly legitimate to consider the moral implications of scientific research. That there's clearly a basis for the, for these opinions which are not objectively moralistic, They're based in, you know, his particular religious...


x: There's something else he said. He warned against the seductive ''powers'' of science, saying it was important that science did not become the sole criteria for goodness. Where did he pull ''that'' from?


x: Yeah.

S: Yeah, that's kind of a straw man.

R: Well, I like to think I had something to do with that. The seductive power of science. I've been trying. I, I send him some pin-up photos, you know.


x: I told you not to do that, Rebecca.

R: Well...


x: I have another question. Why is it that every time you see a picture of the Pope, he's doing the "Up yours", you know, hand gesture. What's all that about?

x: He's Italian. Oh wait, he's German.

R: He's saying that to science - "Up yours, science!"

(laughter)

R: "I have ignorance on ''my'' side. Ha, ''ha''!"


x: Yeah, you know, unfortunately Benedict has not been what John Paul II was, you know, to science. And from what I remember, is that John Paul II said it was okay to believe in things like, you know, evolution; it was ''not'' contradictory to Christian doctrine and so forth. But I know since Benedict took over that he has in fact gone ''back'' on that statement.

S: Yeah, it's been a step backward. You know, the Catholic Church has always had an interesting relationship with science, or at least recently. I think they've, you know, the more scholarly influences within the Church have tried to have a, a more practical or, or convivial relationship ''with'' science. I think at some level, you know, some within the Church recognize that, ''long-term'', you know, fighting against science, or being anti-science, is ''probably'' not a good idea. And they did say, they said, "Yeah, we, we accepted the findings of science. Absolutely. You know, science shows that this is what happened and this is what happened. You know, life on earth evolved. The universe is 12 billion years old. That's fine." But they still are trying to carve out, you know, like, "don't go be...beyond here, there be dragons, right, so just don't go beyond these lines that we're gonna set out because we need to reserve ''some'', some territory for ourselves and for our faith". The evangelical Christians seem to be in line with Pope Benedict on, on these issues, on being pro-life.


x: Right.

S: So that's something that even though, you know, fundamentalist Christians ''hate'' Catholics pretty much, some even go as far as to think that the Pope is the Devil. I mean...


x: Wow.

S: ...they really, they could be significantly at odds. But this is definitely common ground for them, the whole, the whole pro-life stance. I think it's just unfortunate that, that Benedict chose to frame this as science, you know, as being somewhat against science, or that science can be immoral. I think you can take a specific moral stance on the kind of things we should or should not be doing without taking, making it seem antagonistic toward science itself.


x: There might be some permanent formats to what he, he has to say. U.S. Cardinal William Levada, which is Benedict's successor as the head of the doctrinal department, said that they're mulling the possibility of potentially preparing a new Vatican document on bio-ethical issues. So I'll be curious to see what, what's in ''that''. Plus, I wonder if, if subsequent popes, could they potentially redact official Vatican documents?

x: I don't know.

x: We need a pope-ologist to tell us.

S: Well, we'll have to wait and see if that develops further, but I think that we haven't heard the end of questionable or anti-scientific statements from Pope Benedict.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

5X5 Episode 5

2012-07-28T00:54:34Z

Skepticat: /* Pope Benedict XVI takes on science */ corrected for italics

{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 5
|Contents = Pope Benedict XVI takes on science
|episodeDate = 3th February 2008
|verified =
|previous = 4
|next = 13
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 =
|downloadLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcast.aspx?mid=2
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcast.aspx?mid=2
|forumLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|}}

== Pope Benedict XVI takes on science ==

{{5x5intro}}

S: Welcome to Skeptic's Guide 5x5, five minutes with five skeptics. Topic for this evening: Pope Benedict XVI has come out with a statement saying that some science shatters human dignity. He is taking aim specifically at stem-cell research, at artificial insemination, and also at cloning. He's quoted as saying, "When human beings in the weakest and most defenseless state of their existence are selected, abandoned, killed or used as pure biological material, how can one deny that they are being treated not as someone, but as some''thing''."

R: It's true, you know. Every sperm is sacred.

(laughter)

S: Right.


x: But Steve, is he actually, does he really believe that, like, babies are, are being hurt in the process of collecting embryonic stem cells?

S: Well, I don't know what he believes; he was not quoted as saying anything very specific about that. I think ''he'', what he says is such practices question the very concept of the dignity of man.

R: Like child molestation.

(laughter)

R: Just, just throwing that out there.


x: Somebody had to.

S: Well, clearly, you know, he's drawing a line in the sand, you know, trying to say, you know, "Science - don't go beyond here". Although, I think it's, you know, it's perfectly legitimate to consider the moral implications of scientific research. That there's clearly a basis for the, for these opinions which are not objectively moralistic, They're based in, you know, his particular religious...


x: There's something else he said. He warned against the seductive ''powers'' of science, saying it was important that science did not become the sole criteria for goodness. Where did he pull ''that'' from?


x: Yeah.

S: Yeah, that's kind of a straw man.

R: Well, I like to think I had something to do with that. The seductive power of science. I've been trying. I, I send him some pin-up photos, you know.


x: I told you not to do that, Rebecca.

R: Well...


x: I have another question. Why is it that every time you see a picture of the Pope, he's doing the "Up yours", you know, hand gesture. What's all that about?

x: He's Italian. Oh wait, he's German.

R: He's saying that to science - "Up yours, science!"

(laughter)

R: "I have ignorance on ''my'' side. Ha, ''ha''!"


x: Yeah, you know, unfortunately Benedict has not been what John Paul II was, you know, to science. And from what I remember, is that John Paul II said it was okay to believe in things like, you know, evolution; it was ''not'' contradictory to Christian doctrine and so forth. But I know since Benedict took over that he has in fact gone ''back'' on that statement.

S: Yeah, it's been a step backward. You know, the Catholic Church has always had an interesting relationship with science, or at least recently. I think they've, you know, the more scholarly influences within the Church have tried to have a, a more practical or, or convivial relationship ''with'' science. I think at some level, you know, some within the Church recognize that, ''long-term'', you know, fighting against science, or being anti-science, is ''probably'' not a good idea. And they did say, they said, "Yeah, we, we accepted the findings of science. Absolutely. You know, science shows that this is what happened and this is what happened. You know, life on earth evolved. The universe is 12 billion years old. That's fine." But they still are trying to carve out, you know, like, "don't go be...beyond here, there be dragons, right, so just don't go beyond these lines that we're gonna set out because we need to reserve ''some'', some territory for ourselves and for our faith". The evangelical Christians seem to be in line with Pope Benedict on, on these issues, on being pro-life.


x: Right.

S: So that's something that even though, you know, fundamentalist Christians ''hate'' Catholics pretty much, some even go as far as to think that the Pope is the Devil. I mean...


x: Wow.

S: ...they really, they could be significantly at odds. But this is definitely common ground for them, the whole, the whole pro-life stance. I think it's just unfortunate that, that Benedict chose to frame this as science, you know, as being somewhat against science, or that science can be immoral. I think you can take a specific moral stance on the kind of things we should or should not be doing without taking, making it seem antagonistic toward science itself.


x: There might be some permanent formats to what he, he has to say. U.S. Cardinal William Levada, which is Benedict's successor as the head of the doctrinal department, said that they're mulling the possibility of potentially preparing a new Vatican document on bio-ethical issues. So I'll be curious to see what, what's in ''that''. Plus, I wonder if, if subsequent popes, could they potentially redact official Vatican documents?

x: I don't know.

x: We need a pope-ologist to tell us.

S: Well, we'll have to wait and see if that develops further, but I think that we haven't heard the end of questionable or anti-scientific statements from Pope Benedict.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

5X5 Episode 4

2012-07-28T00:49:28Z

Skepticat: Changed link to next episode in info-box

{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 4
|Contents = Do celebrity deaths come in threes?
|episodeDate = 28th January 2008
|verified = y
|previous = 3
|next = 5
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 =
|downloadLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcast.aspx?mid=2
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcast.aspx?mid=2
|forumLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|}}

== Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology. ==

{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5, five minutes with five skeptics. Today is Monday, January 28th, 2008. On January 15th, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Renfro Brad Barron Renfro] was found dead in his apartment. On January 22nd, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath_Ledger Heathcliff Andrew Ledger] was found dead in ''his'' apartment. And on January 26th, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Brando Christian Brando] died of pneumonia in the hospital. Some say that deaths. or specifically ''celebrity'' deaths, come in threes. And this bit of superstition, while mostly whimsical, is fairly widespread. I'm sure you guys have heard this before.

E: Too many times.

B: Oh who hasn't.

J: His real first name was Heathcliff?

S: Yes.

(laughter)

J: Ohmygod!

B: Yes. Yeah, I was pretty shocked at that as well

E: Like Wuthering Heights?

S: Heath Ledger.

R: Yeah. I mean the idea is that the next person who dies then we're going to wait until we get two more and then lump those together and that'll be three celebrity deaths. It's kind of one of those things that, that won't fail to come true.

B: Right. because so much of it is, it's so vague that it, it's easy for this rule to be fulfilled. First off, define a celebrity. Like Brando, Brando's kid who died. That seems to be pushing it a bit. Also, how long is the window open for the three deaths? This, this makes it very open-ended, like lots of skeptical predictions - because it's so open-ended, there's many ways that it could be fulfilled. Now what about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_Pleshette Suzanne Pleshette], who also died, and how 'bout [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Melvin Sam the Butcher] from "The Brady Bunch"?

R: You're saying that death comes in fives?

B: I mean, how...

(multiple voices)

S: Suzanne Pleshette died on January 17th, which was in the middle of that sequence, so-

B: Right.

S: -does that mean that celebrity deaths come in four?

E: Yes.

J: Or two groups of three.

E: Three, four, ten.

S: Or, or that does the sequence end with, with Ledger and then Christian Brando began another set of three? So right, and what Bob is referring to is the use of open-ended criteria. So if you have criteria that are not specific and quantifiable and limited, you call that open-ended criteria. This is a very, very common intellectual error or mistake that people make, even researchers often make this mistake, and it allows for the recording of a positive outcome or a "hit" in many situations. And what people don't realize, because we have an inherently poor grasp on statistics, is that by opening up the criteria even a little bit, you allow for this multiplication of possible hits to the point where it can't fail, as Rebecca said. You just wait for that third celebrity to die, and th...and then you've fulfilled your criteria. It can't possibly fail.

J: And of course this is all based on numerology.

S: Sort of. Yeah. It is just a numbers-for-numbers-sake, seeking patterns which people are very, very good at. So much so that we see patterns even when they don't really exist.

B: One thing I like to do is I like to think of the ramifications of, of some of these beliefs. So you've got this rule. Well now, what are the ramifications? That would mean that they're either a god or this force, this force that is kinda lurking around waiting to make sure that this pattern holds. So he, this force is kinda deciding "Alright, we've got two. Now we've gotta get a third celebrity. Is this person a celebrity? Is he enough of a celebrity? Yeah. He is. I'll, I'll make sure he dies." So, I mean, wouldn't that be a necessary component for this to, if it was really true?

S: Well, let's call this force the "Angel of Death".

E: Well, you know, Jay, you mentioned numerology, and you know, if you just do a Goo...Google search, just put in "numerology", the first website you come upon, here's what you get. "Numerology is the study of numbers and the occult manner in which they reflect certain aptitudes and character tendencies as an integral part of the cosmic plan. Each letter has a numeric value that provides a related cosmic vibration." So there, I think that cleared it all up.

R: Ah, that all makes sense now

S: That's pretty much as close as you get to pure magical thinking. It's just infusing magic into this pattern recognition tendency that we have, whether it's numbers or anything else.

J: You know, the thing that's odd about it is you...you'll hear people say "You know deaths come in threes" but they also say "Good things come in threes". So, you know, the fate goes both ways, if, you know, the luck or the bad luck can go in either direction.

E: The important thing is so long as you ''believe in this'', then, I mean, that's good, bad, indifferent, as long as you believe in the power of numbers, then you're onto something - according to the numerologists.

S: Here's another historical celebrity death triad. Within a 24 hour period, the Grim Reaper took [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Weaver Dennis Weaver], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Knotts Don Knotts] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_McGavin Darren McGavin].

R: I'm sorry. Who?

S: All three died within a 24...Darren, come on, Darren McGavin.

E: Don Knotts?

R: Uh, who's the first guy? These are not celebrities. I'm sorry. Don Knotts, yes.

B: Ohmygod.

E: Dennis Weaver?

S: Dennis Weaver.

J: Yeah, he made all those clothes.

E: From the movie "Duel".

J: You don't remember him?

B: Darren McGavin, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolchak:_The_Night_Stalker Kolchak]

S: Kolchak, right, the Night Stalker, come on.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|Myths & Misconceptions = y
|Paranormal = y
}}

5X5 Episode 4

2012-07-28T00:48:41Z

Skepticat: Corrected/fine tuned a couple of links in info-box

{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 4
|Contents = Do celebrity deaths come in threes?
|episodeDate = 28th January 2008
|verified = y
|previous = 3
|next = 13
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 =
|downloadLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcast.aspx?mid=2
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcast.aspx?mid=2
|forumLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|}}

== Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology. ==

{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5, five minutes with five skeptics. Today is Monday, January 28th, 2008. On January 15th, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Renfro Brad Barron Renfro] was found dead in his apartment. On January 22nd, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath_Ledger Heathcliff Andrew Ledger] was found dead in ''his'' apartment. And on January 26th, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Brando Christian Brando] died of pneumonia in the hospital. Some say that deaths. or specifically ''celebrity'' deaths, come in threes. And this bit of superstition, while mostly whimsical, is fairly widespread. I'm sure you guys have heard this before.

E: Too many times.

B: Oh who hasn't.

J: His real first name was Heathcliff?

S: Yes.

(laughter)

J: Ohmygod!

B: Yes. Yeah, I was pretty shocked at that as well

E: Like Wuthering Heights?

S: Heath Ledger.

R: Yeah. I mean the idea is that the next person who dies then we're going to wait until we get two more and then lump those together and that'll be three celebrity deaths. It's kind of one of those things that, that won't fail to come true.

B: Right. because so much of it is, it's so vague that it, it's easy for this rule to be fulfilled. First off, define a celebrity. Like Brando, Brando's kid who died. That seems to be pushing it a bit. Also, how long is the window open for the three deaths? This, this makes it very open-ended, like lots of skeptical predictions - because it's so open-ended, there's many ways that it could be fulfilled. Now what about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_Pleshette Suzanne Pleshette], who also died, and how 'bout [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Melvin Sam the Butcher] from "The Brady Bunch"?

R: You're saying that death comes in fives?

B: I mean, how...

(multiple voices)

S: Suzanne Pleshette died on January 17th, which was in the middle of that sequence, so-

B: Right.

S: -does that mean that celebrity deaths come in four?

E: Yes.

J: Or two groups of three.

E: Three, four, ten.

S: Or, or that does the sequence end with, with Ledger and then Christian Brando began another set of three? So right, and what Bob is referring to is the use of open-ended criteria. So if you have criteria that are not specific and quantifiable and limited, you call that open-ended criteria. This is a very, very common intellectual error or mistake that people make, even researchers often make this mistake, and it allows for the recording of a positive outcome or a "hit" in many situations. And what people don't realize, because we have an inherently poor grasp on statistics, is that by opening up the criteria even a little bit, you allow for this multiplication of possible hits to the point where it can't fail, as Rebecca said. You just wait for that third celebrity to die, and th...and then you've fulfilled your criteria. It can't possibly fail.

J: And of course this is all based on numerology.

S: Sort of. Yeah. It is just a numbers-for-numbers-sake, seeking patterns which people are very, very good at. So much so that we see patterns even when they don't really exist.

B: One thing I like to do is I like to think of the ramifications of, of some of these beliefs. So you've got this rule. Well now, what are the ramifications? That would mean that they're either a god or this force, this force that is kinda lurking around waiting to make sure that this pattern holds. So he, this force is kinda deciding "Alright, we've got two. Now we've gotta get a third celebrity. Is this person a celebrity? Is he enough of a celebrity? Yeah. He is. I'll, I'll make sure he dies." So, I mean, wouldn't that be a necessary component for this to, if it was really true?

S: Well, let's call this force the "Angel of Death".

E: Well, you know, Jay, you mentioned numerology, and you know, if you just do a Goo...Google search, just put in "numerology", the first website you come upon, here's what you get. "Numerology is the study of numbers and the occult manner in which they reflect certain aptitudes and character tendencies as an integral part of the cosmic plan. Each letter has a numeric value that provides a related cosmic vibration." So there, I think that cleared it all up.

R: Ah, that all makes sense now

S: That's pretty much as close as you get to pure magical thinking. It's just infusing magic into this pattern recognition tendency that we have, whether it's numbers or anything else.

J: You know, the thing that's odd about it is you...you'll hear people say "You know deaths come in threes" but they also say "Good things come in threes". So, you know, the fate goes both ways, if, you know, the luck or the bad luck can go in either direction.

E: The important thing is so long as you ''believe in this'', then, I mean, that's good, bad, indifferent, as long as you believe in the power of numbers, then you're onto something - according to the numerologists.

S: Here's another historical celebrity death triad. Within a 24 hour period, the Grim Reaper took [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Weaver Dennis Weaver], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Knotts Don Knotts] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_McGavin Darren McGavin].

R: I'm sorry. Who?

S: All three died within a 24...Darren, come on, Darren McGavin.

E: Don Knotts?

R: Uh, who's the first guy? These are not celebrities. I'm sorry. Don Knotts, yes.

B: Ohmygod.

E: Dennis Weaver?

S: Dennis Weaver.

J: Yeah, he made all those clothes.

E: From the movie "Duel".

J: You don't remember him?

B: Darren McGavin, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolchak:_The_Night_Stalker Kolchak]

S: Kolchak, right, the Night Stalker, come on.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

{{5X5 categories
|Myths & Misconceptions = y
|Paranormal = y
}}

5X5 Episode 5

2012-07-28T00:45:49Z

Skepticat: Entered transcription of Ep. 5

{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 5
|Contents = Pope Benedict XVI takes on science
|episodeDate = 3th February 2008
|verified =
|previous = 4
|next = 13
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 =
|downloadLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcast.aspx?mid=2
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcast.aspx?mid=2
|forumLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|}}

== Pope Benedict XVI takes on science ==

{{5x5intro}}

S: Welcome to Skeptic's Guide 5x5, five minutes with five skeptics. Topic for this evening: Pope Benedict XVI has come out with a statement saying that some science shatters human dignity. He is taking aim specifically at stem-cell research, at artificial insemination, and also at cloning. He's quoted as saying, "When human beings in the weakest and most defenseless state of their existence are selected, abandoned, killed or used as pure biological material, how can one deny that they are being treated not as someone, but as some 'thing'."

R: It's true, you know. Every sperm is sacred.

(laughter)

S: Right.


x: But Steve, is he actually, does he really believe that, like, babies are, are being hurt in the process of collecting embryonic stem cells?

S: Well, I don't know what he believes; he was not quoted as saying anything very specific about that. I think 'HE', what he says is such practices question the very concept of the dignity of man.

R: Like child molestation.

(laughter)

R: Just, just throwing that out there.


x: Somebody had to.

S: Well, clearly, you know, he's drawing a line in the sand, you know, trying to say, you know, "Science - don't go beyond here". Although, I think it's, you know, it's perfectly legitimate to consider the moral implications of scientific research. That there's clearly a basis for the, for these opinions which are not objectively moralistic, They're based in, you know, his particular religious...


x: There's something else he said. He warned against the seductive 'powers' of science, saying it was important that science did not become the sole criteria for goodness. Where did he pull 'that' from?


x: Yeah.

S: Yeah, that's kind of a straw man.

R: Well, I like to think I had something to do with that. The seductive power of science. I've been trying. I, I send him some pin-up photos, you know.


x: I told you not to do that, Rebecca.

R: Well...


x: I have another question. Why is it that every time you see a picture of the Pope, he's doing the "Up yours", you know, hand gesture. What's all that about?

x: He's Italian. Oh wait, he's German.

R: He's saying that to science - "Up yours, science!"

(laughter)

R: "I have ignorance on 'my' side. Ha, 'ha'!"


x: Yeah, you know, unfortunately Benedict has not been what John Paul II was, you know, to science. And from what I remember, is that John Paul II said it was okay to believe in things like, you know, evolution; it was 'not' contradictory to Christian doctrine and so forth. But I know since Benedict took over that he has in fact gone 'back' on that statement.

S: Yeah, it's been a step backward. You know, the Catholic Church has always had an interesting relationship with science, or at least recently. I think they've, you know, the more scholarly influences within the Church have tried to have a, a more practical or, or convivial relationship 'with' science. I think at some level, you know, some within the Church recognize that, 'long-term', you know, fighting against science, or being anti-science, is 'probably' not a good idea. And they did say, they said, "Yeah, we, we accepted the findings of science. Absolutely. You know, science shows that this is what happened and this is what happened. You know, life on earth evolved. The universe is 12 billion years old. That's fine." But they still are trying to carve out, you know, like, "don't go be...beyond here, there be dragons, right, so just don't go beyond these lines that we're gonna set out because we need to reserve 'some', some territory for ourselves and for our faith". The evangelical Christians seem to be in line with Pope Benedict on, on these issues, on being pro-life.


x: Right.

S: So that's something that even though, you know, fundamentalist Christians 'hate' Catholics pretty much, some even go as far as to think that the Pope is the Devil. I mean...


x: Wow.

S: ...they really, they could be significantly at odds. But this is definitely common ground for them, the whole, the whole pro-life stance. I think it's just unfortunate that, that Benedict chose to frame this as science, you know, as being somewhat against science, or that science can be immoral. I think you can take a specific moral stance on the kind of things we should or should not be doing without taking, making it seem antagonistic toward science itself.


x: There might be some permanent formats to what he, he has to say. U.S. Cardinal William Levada, which is Benedict's successor as the head of the doctrinal department, said that they're mulling the possibility of potentially preparing a new Vatican document on bio-ethical issues. So I'll be curious to see what, what's in 'that'. Plus, I wonder if, if subsequent popes, could they potentially redact official Vatican documents?

x: I don't know.

x: We need a pope-ologist to tell us.

S: Well, we'll have to wait and see if that develops further, but I think that we haven't heard the end of questionable or anti-scientific statements from Pope Benedict.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

Main Page

2012-07-28T00:19:21Z

Skepticat: /* 2008 */ Added link for 5X5 Ep. 5 entry

__NOTOC__
==Welcome to the SGU Transcripts==

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

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

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

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

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

=== 2011 ===

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

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

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

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

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

=== 2006 ===

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

=== 2005 ===

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

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

=== 2012 ===

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

=== 2009 ===

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

=== 2008 ===

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

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

Main Page

2012-07-27T04:03:29Z

Skepticat: /* 2008 */ Removed mark from Ep. 4

__NOTOC__
==Welcome to the SGU Transcripts==

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

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

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

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

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

=== 2011 ===

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

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

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

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

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

=== 2006 ===

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

=== 2005 ===

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

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

=== 2012 ===

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

=== 2009 ===

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

=== 2008 ===

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

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

User:Skepticat

2012-07-27T04:00:30Z

Skepticat: Created my user page

Greetings!

I am new to the world of the SGU podcasts and transcripts.

Though I've considered myself a skeptical person for many years, it hasn't been until this year that I've made a start at being more active as a skeptic. (Thank you, Freethought Radio!)

I was inspired by Tim Farley's presentation at TAM 2012 (though I got a lot of ideas from ''all'' of the TAM speakers) to see how I could contribute online. Transcribing seemed like a good way to start - so, here I am! [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 04:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

SGUTranscripts:Community portal

2012-07-27T03:47:34Z

Skepticat: Seeking help with voice IDs for Ep. 4

5X5 Episode 4

2012-07-27T03:26:06Z

Skepticat: /* Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology. */ Formatting, spell-check, infobox check, insert comments for help identifying Rogues

{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 4
|Contents = Do celebrity deaths come in threes?
|episodeDate = 28th January 2008
|verified =
|previous = 3
|next = 113
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 =
|downloadLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|notesLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|forumLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|}}

== Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology. ==

{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5, five minutes with five skeptics. Today is Monday, January 28th, 2008. On January 15th, Brad Barron Renfro was found dead in his apartment. On January 22nd, Heathcliff Andrew Ledger was found dead in ''his'' apartment. And on January 26th, Christian Brando died of pneumonia in the hospital. Some say that deaths. or specifically ''celebrity'' deaths, come in threes. And this bit of superstition, while mostly whimsical, is, is fairly widespread. I'm sure you guys have heard this before.


x: Too many times.


x: Oh who hasn't.


x: His real first name was Heathcliff?

S: Yes.


x: Ohmigod.

S: Yes. Yeah, I was pretty shocked at, at that.

(multiple voices)

S: Heath Ledger.

R: Yeah. I mean the idea is that the next person who dies then we're going to wait until we get two more and then lump those together and that'll be three celebrity deaths. It's kind of one of those things that, that won't fail to come true.

B: Right. Be...because so much of it is, it's so vague that it, it's easy for this rule to be fulfilled. First off, define a celebrity. Bra...Like Brando, Brando's kid who died. That seems to be pushing it a bit. Also, how long is the window open for the three deaths? This, this makes it very open-ended, like lots of skeptical predictions - because it's so open-ended, there's many ways that it could be fulfilled. Now what about Suzanne Pleshette, who also died, and how 'bout Sam the Butcher from "The Brady Bunch"?

R: You're saying that death comes in fives.

B: I mean, how...

(multiple voices)


x: Is this...

S: Suzanne Pleshette died on January 17th, which was in the middle of that sequence, so...


x: Right.

S: ...Does that mean that celebrity deaths come in four?


x: Yes.


x: Or two groups of three.


x: Three, four, ten.

S: Or, or that does the sequence end with, with Ledger and then Christian Brando began another set of three? So right, and what Bob is referring to is the use of open-ended criteria. So if you have criteria that are not specific and quantifiable and limited, you call that open-ended criteria. This is a very, very common intellectual error or mistake that people make, even researchers often make this mistake, and it allows for the recording of a positive outcome or a hit in many situations. And what people don't realize, because we have an inherently poor grasp on statistics, is that by opening up the criteria even a little bit, you allow for this multiplication of possible hits to the point where it can't fail, as, as Rebecca said. You just wait for that third celebrity to die, and th...and there you've fulfilled your criteria. It can't possibly fail.


x: And of course this is all based on numerology.

S: Sort of. Yeah. It is just a numbers-for-numbers-sake, seeking patterns which people are very, very good at. So much so that we see patterns even when they don't really exist.


x: One thing I like to do is I like to think of the ramifications of, of some of these beliefs. So you've got this rule. Well now, what are the ramifications? That would mean that they're either a god or this force, this force that is kinda lurking around waiting to make sure that this pattern holds. So he, this force is kinda deciding "Alright, we've got two. Now we've gotta get a third celebrity. Is this person a celebrity? Is he enough of a celebrity? Yeah. He is. I'll, I'll make sure he dies." So, I mean, wouldn't that be a necessary component for this to, if it was really true?


x: Well, let's call this force the "Angel of Death".


x: Well, you know, Jay, you mentioned numerology, and you know, if you just do a Goo...Google search, just put in "numerology", the first website you come upon, here's what you get. "Numerology is the study of numbers and the occult manner in which they reflect certain aptitudes and character tendencies as an integral part of the cosmic plan. Each letter has a numeric value that provides a related cosmic vibration." So there, I think that cleared it all up.

(multiple voices)

S: That's pretty much as close as you get to pure magical thinking. It's just infusing magic into this pattern recognition tendency that we have, whether it's numbers or, or anything else.


x: You know, the thing that's odd about it is you...you'll hear people say "You know deaths come in threes" but they also say "Good things come in threes". So, you know, the fate goes both ways, if, you know, the luck or the bad luck can go in either direction.


x: The important thing is so long as you believe in this, then, I mean, that's good, bad, indifferent, as long as you believe in the power of numbers, then you're onto something - according to the numerologists.

S: Here's another historical celebrity death triad. Within twenty-four hour period, the Grim Reaper took Dennis Weaver, Don Knotts and Darren McGavin.

R: I'm sorry. Who?

S: All three died within a twenty-four...Darren, come on, Darren McGavin.


x: Don Knotts.

R: Uh, who's the first guy? These are not celebrities. I'm sorry. Don Knotts, yes.


x: Ohmigod.


x: Dennis Weaver?


x: Dennis Weaver.


x: Yeah, he made all those clothes.


x: The movie "Duel".


x: ...Remember him?


x: Darren McGavin, Kolchak


x: Kolchak, right, the Night Stalker, come on.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

5X5 Episode 4

2012-07-27T03:23:11Z

Skepticat: /* Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology. */ Formatting, spell-check, infobox check, insert comments for help identifying Rogues

{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 4
|Contents = Do celebrity deaths come in threes?
|episodeDate = 28th January 2008
|verified =
|previous = 3
|next = 113
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 =
|downloadLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|notesLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|forumLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|}}

{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 4
|Contents = Do celebrity deaths come in threes?
|episodeDate = 28th January 2008
|verified = n
|previous = 3
|next = 113
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 = n
|downloadLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|notesLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|forumLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|}}

== Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology. ==

{{5x5intro}}

S: This is the SGU 5x5, five minutes with five skeptics. Today is Monday, January 28th, 2008. On January 15th, Brad Barron Renfro was found dead in his apartment. On January 22nd, Heathcliff Andrew Ledger was found dead in ''his'' apartment. And on January 26th, Christian Brando died of pneumonia in the hospital. Some say that deaths. or specifically ''celebrity'' deaths, come in threes. And this bit of superstition, while mostly whimsical, is, is fairly widespread. I'm sure you guys have heard this before.


x: Too many times.


x: Oh who hasn't.


x: His real first name was Heathcliff?

S: Yes.


x: Ohmigod.

S: Yes. Yeah, I was pretty shocked at, at that.

(multiple voices)

S: Heath Ledger.

R: Yeah. I mean the idea is that the next person who dies then we're going to wait until we get two more and then lump those together and that'll be three celebrity deaths. It's kind of one of those things that, that won't fail to come true.

B: Right. Be...because so much of it is, it's so vague that it, it's easy for this rule to be fulfilled. First off, define a celebrity. Bra...Like Brando, Brando's kid who died. That seems to be pushing it a bit. Also, how long is the window open for the three deaths? This, this makes it very open-ended, like lots of skeptical predictions - because it's so open-ended, there's many ways that it could be fulfilled. Now what about Suzanne Pleshette, who also died, and how 'bout Sam the Butcher from "The Brady Bunch"?

R: You're saying that death comes in fives.

B: I mean, how...

(multiple voices)


x: Is this...

S: Suzanne Pleshette died on January 17th, which was in the middle of that sequence, so...


x: Right.

S: ...Does that mean that celebrity deaths come in four?


x: Yes.


x: Or two groups of three.


x: Three, four, ten.

S: Or, or that does the sequence end with, with Ledger and then Christian Brando began another set of three? So right, and what Bob is referring to is the use of open-ended criteria. So if you have criteria that are not specific and quantifiable and limited, you call that open-ended criteria. This is a very, very common intellectual error or mistake that people make, even researchers often make this mistake, and it allows for the recording of a positive outcome or a hit in many situations. And what people don't realize, because we have an inherently poor grasp on statistics, is that by opening up the criteria even a little bit, you allow for this multiplication of possible hits to the point where it can't fail, as, as Rebecca said. You just wait for that third celebrity to die, and th...and there you've fulfilled your criteria. It can't possibly fail.


x: And of course this is all based on numerology.

S: Sort of. Yeah. It is just a numbers-for-numbers-sake, seeking patterns which people are very, very good at. So much so that we see patterns even when they don't really exist.


x: One thing I like to do is I like to think of the ramifications of, of some of these beliefs. So you've got this rule. Well now, what are the ramifications? That would mean that they're either a god or this force, this force that is kinda lurking around waiting to make sure that this pattern holds. So he, this force is kinda deciding "Alright, we've got two. Now we've gotta get a third celebrity. Is this person a celebrity? Is he enough of a celebrity? Yeah. He is. I'll, I'll make sure he dies." So, I mean, wouldn't that be a necessary component for this to, if it was really true?


x: Well, let's call this force the "Angel of Death".


x: Well, you know, Jay, you mentioned numerology, and you know, if you just do a Goo...Google search, just put in "numerology", the first website you come upon, here's what you get. "Numerology is the study of numbers and the occult manner in which they reflect certain aptitudes and character tendencies as an integral part of the cosmic plan. Each letter has a numeric value that provides a related cosmic vibration." So there, I think that cleared it all up.

(multiple voices)

S: That's pretty much as close as you get to pure magical thinking. It's just infusing magic into this pattern recognition tendency that we have, whether it's numbers or, or anything else.


x: You know, the thing that's odd about it is you...you'll hear people say "You know deaths come in threes" but they also say "Good things come in threes". So, you know, the fate goes both ways, if, you know, the luck or the bad luck can go in either direction.


x: The important thing is so long as you believe in this, then, I mean, that's good, bad, indifferent, as long as you believe in the power of numbers, then you're onto something - according to the numerologists.

S: Here's another historical celebrity death triad. Within twenty-four hour period, the Grim Reaper took Dennis Weaver, Don Knotts and Darren McGavin.

R: I'm sorry. Who?

S: All three died within a twenty-four...Darren, come on, Darren McGavin.


x: Don Knotts.

R: Uh, who's the first guy? These are not celebrities. I'm sorry. Don Knotts, yes.


x: Ohmigod.


x: Dennis Weaver?


x: Dennis Weaver.


x: Yeah, he made all those clothes.


x: The movie "Duel".


x: ...Remember him?


x: Darren McGavin, Kolchak


x: Kolchak, right, the Night Stalker, come on.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

5X5 Episode 4

2012-07-27T02:32:22Z

Skepticat: /* Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology. */ Added infobox format

{{5X5 infobox
|episodeID = 5X5 Episode 4
|Contents = Do celebrity deaths come in threes?
|episodeDate = 28th January 2008
|verified =
|previous = 3
|next = 113
|rebecca = y
|bob = y
|jay = y
|evan = y
|guest1 =
|downloadLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|notesLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|forumLink = http://www.sgutranscripts.org
|}}

== Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology. ==

{{5x5intro}}

S- This is the SGU 5x5, five minutes with five skeptics. Today is Monday, January 28, 2008. On January 15, Brad Barron Renfro was found dead in his apartment. On January 22, Heathcliff Andrew Ledger was found dead in HIS apartment. And on January 26, Christian Brando died of pneumonia in the hospital. Some say that deaths. or specifically CELEBRITY deaths, come in threes. And this (uh) bit of superstition, while mostly whimsical, is (uh) is fairly widespread. I'm sure you guys have heard this before.

- Too many times.
- Oh who hasn't.
- His real first name was Heathcliff?

S - Yes.

- Ohmigod.

S - Yes. Yeah, I was pretty shocked at, at that.

- (multiple voices)

S - Heath Ledger.

R - Yeah. I mean the idea is that the next person who dies then we're going to wait until we get two more and then lump those together and that'll be three celebrity deaths. It's kind of one of those things that, that won't fail to come true.

B - Right. Be...because so much of it is, it's so vague that it, it's easy for this rule to be fulfilled. First off, define a celebrity. Bra...Like Brando, Brando's kid who died. That seems to be pushing it a bit. Also, how long is the window open for the three deaths? This, this makes it very open-ended, like lots of skeptical predictions - because it's so open-ended, there's many ways that it could be fulfilled. Now what about Suzanne Pleshette, who also died, and how 'bout Sam the Butcher from "The Brady Bunch"?

R - You're saying that death comes in fives.

B - I mean, how...

- (multiple)

- Is this...

S - Suzanne Pleshette died on January 17, which was in the middle of that sequence, so...

- Right.

S - ...Does that mean that celebrity deaths come in four?

- Yes.

- Or two groups of three.

- Three, four, ten.

S - Or, or that does the sequence end with, with Ledger and then Christian Brando began another set of three? So right, and what Bob is referring to is the use of open-ended criteria. So if you have criteria that are not specific and quantifiable and limited, you call that open-ended criteria. This is a very, very common intellectual error or mistake that people make, even researchers often make this mistake, and it allows for the recording of a positive outcome or a hit in many situations. And what people don't realize, because we have an inherently poor grasp on statistics, is that by opening up the criteria even a little bit, you allow for this multiplication of possible hits to the point where it can't fail, as, as Rebecca said. You just wait for that third celebrity to die, and th...and there you've fulfilled your criteria. It can't possibly fail.

- And of course this is all based on numerology.

S - Sort of. Yeah. It is just a numbers-for-numbers-sake, seeking patterns (uh) which people are very, very good at. So much so that we see patterns even when they don't really exist.

- One thing I like to do is I like to think of the ramifications of, (uh) of some of these beliefs. So you've got this rule. Well now, what are the ramifications? That would mean that they're either a god or this force, this force that is kinda lurking around waiting to make sure that this pattern holds. So he, this force is kinda deciding "Alright, we've got two. Now we've gotta get a third celebrity. Is this person a celebrity? Is he enough of a celebrity? Yeah. He is. I'll, I'll make sure he dies." So, I mean, wouldn't that be a necessary component for this to, if it was really true?

- Well, let's call this force the "Angel of Death".

- Well, you know, Jay, you mentioned numerology, and you know, if you just do a Goo...Google search, just put in "numerology", the first website you come upon, here's what you get. "Numerology is the study of numbers and the occult manner in which they reflect certain aptitudes and character tendencies as an integral part of the cosmic plan. Each letter has a numeric value that provides a related cosmic vibration." So there, I think that cleared it all up.

- (multiple)

S - That's pretty much as close as you get to pure magical thinking. It's just infusing magic into this pattern recognition tendency that we have, whether it's numbers or, or anything else.

- You know, the thing that's odd about it is you...you'll hear people say "You know deaths come in threes" but they also say "Good things come in threes". So, you know, the fate goes both ways, if, you know, the luck or the bad luck can go in either direction.

- The important thing is so long as you believe in this, then, I mean, that's good, bad, indifferent, as long as you believe in the power of numbers, then you're onto something - according to the numerologists.

S - Here's another historical celebrity death triad. Within twenty-four hour period, the Grim Reaper took Dennis Weaver, Don Knotts and Darren McGavin.

R - I'm sorry. Who?

S - All three died within a twenty-four...Darren, come on, Darren McGavin.

- Don Knotts.

R - Uh, who's the first guy? These are not celebrities. I'm sorry. Don Knotts, yes.

- Ohmigod.
- Dennis Weaver?
- Dennis Weaver.
- Yeah, he made all those clothes.
- The movie "Duel".
- ...Remember him?

- Darren McGavin, Kolchak

- Kolchak, right, the Night Stalker, come on.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

5X5 Episode 4

2012-07-27T02:26:44Z

Skepticat: Entered first transcript of 5x5 ep. 4

== Do celebrity deaths come in threes? The rogues take on numerology. ==

{{5x5intro}}

S- This is the SGU 5x5, five minutes with five skeptics. Today is Monday, January 28, 2008. On January 15, Brad Barron Renfro was found dead in his apartment. On January 22, Heathcliff Andrew Ledger was found dead in HIS apartment. And on January 26, Christian Brando died of pneumonia in the hospital. Some say that deaths. or specifically CELEBRITY deaths, come in threes. And this (uh) bit of superstition, while mostly whimsical, is (uh) is fairly widespread. I'm sure you guys have heard this before.

- Too many times.
- Oh who hasn't.
- His real first name was Heathcliff?

S - Yes.

- Ohmigod.

S - Yes. Yeah, I was pretty shocked at, at that.

- (multiple voices)

S - Heath Ledger.

R - Yeah. I mean the idea is that the next person who dies then we're going to wait until we get two more and then lump those together and that'll be three celebrity deaths. It's kind of one of those things that, that won't fail to come true.

B - Right. Be...because so much of it is, it's so vague that it, it's easy for this rule to be fulfilled. First off, define a celebrity. Bra...Like Brando, Brando's kid who died. That seems to be pushing it a bit. Also, how long is the window open for the three deaths? This, this makes it very open-ended, like lots of skeptical predictions - because it's so open-ended, there's many ways that it could be fulfilled. Now what about Suzanne Pleshette, who also died, and how 'bout Sam the Butcher from "The Brady Bunch"?

R - You're saying that death comes in fives.

B - I mean, how...

- (multiple)

- Is this...

S - Suzanne Pleshette died on January 17, which was in the middle of that sequence, so...

- Right.

S - ...Does that mean that celebrity deaths come in four?

- Yes.

- Or two groups of three.

- Three, four, ten.

S - Or, or that does the sequence end with, with Ledger and then Christian Brando began another set of three? So right, and what Bob is referring to is the use of open-ended criteria. So if you have criteria that are not specific and quantifiable and limited, you call that open-ended criteria. This is a very, very common intellectual error or mistake that people make, even researchers often make this mistake, and it allows for the recording of a positive outcome or a hit in many situations. And what people don't realize, because we have an inherently poor grasp on statistics, is that by opening up the criteria even a little bit, you allow for this multiplication of possible hits to the point where it can't fail, as, as Rebecca said. You just wait for that third celebrity to die, and th...and there you've fulfilled your criteria. It can't possibly fail.

- And of course this is all based on numerology.

S - Sort of. Yeah. It is just a numbers-for-numbers-sake, seeking patterns (uh) which people are very, very good at. So much so that we see patterns even when they don't really exist.

- One thing I like to do is I like to think of the ramifications of, (uh) of some of these beliefs. So you've got this rule. Well now, what are the ramifications? That would mean that they're either a god or this force, this force that is kinda lurking around waiting to make sure that this pattern holds. So he, this force is kinda deciding "Alright, we've got two. Now we've gotta get a third celebrity. Is this person a celebrity? Is he enough of a celebrity? Yeah. He is. I'll, I'll make sure he dies." So, I mean, wouldn't that be a necessary component for this to, if it was really true?

- Well, let's call this force the "Angel of Death".

- Well, you know, Jay, you mentioned numerology, and you know, if you just do a Goo...Google search, just put in "numerology", the first website you come upon, here's what you get. "Numerology is the study of numbers and the occult manner in which they reflect certain aptitudes and character tendencies as an integral part of the cosmic plan. Each letter has a numeric value that provides a related cosmic vibration." So there, I think that cleared it all up.

- (multiple)

S - That's pretty much as close as you get to pure magical thinking. It's just infusing magic into this pattern recognition tendency that we have, whether it's numbers or, or anything else.

- You know, the thing that's odd about it is you...you'll hear people say "You know deaths come in threes" but they also say "Good things come in threes". So, you know, the fate goes both ways, if, you know, the luck or the bad luck can go in either direction.

- The important thing is so long as you believe in this, then, I mean, that's good, bad, indifferent, as long as you believe in the power of numbers, then you're onto something - according to the numerologists.

S - Here's another historical celebrity death triad. Within twenty-four hour period, the Grim Reaper took Dennis Weaver, Don Knotts and Darren McGavin.

R - I'm sorry. Who?

S - All three died within a twenty-four...Darren, come on, Darren McGavin.

- Don Knotts.

R - Uh, who's the first guy? These are not celebrities. I'm sorry. Don Knotts, yes.

- Ohmigod.
- Dennis Weaver?
- Dennis Weaver.
- Yeah, he made all those clothes.
- The movie "Duel".
- ...Remember him?

- Darren McGavin, Kolchak

- Kolchak, right, the Night Stalker, come on.

{{5x5outro}}

{{5X5 Navigation}}

Main Page

2012-07-27T02:16:24Z

Skepticat: /* 2008 */ Created a transcription page for 5x5 episode 4

__NOTOC__
==Welcome to the SGU Transcripts==

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

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

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

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

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

=== 2011 ===

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

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

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

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

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

=== 2006 ===

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

=== 2005 ===

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

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

=== 2012 ===

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

=== 2009 ===

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

=== 2008 ===

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

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