SGU Episode 152 - Revision history

Xanderox: /* Special Report: Crystal Skulls (39:42) */ dropping subtitle for consistency and less-wordy section titles

2022-08-15T19:47:45Z

Special Report: Crystal Skulls (39:42): dropping subtitle for consistency and less-wordy section titles

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:47, 15 August 2022
Line 44:		Line 44:
	=== Albinos in Africa <small>(37:41)</small>===		=== Albinos in Africa <small>(37:41)</small>===

	== Special Report~~: Crystal Skulls~~ <small>(39:42)</small>==		== Special Report <small>(39:42)</small>==
			* Crystal Skulls

	== Questions and Emails ==		== Questions and Emails ==

Xanderox: /* Name that Logical Fallacy (58:58) */ fixed broken link

2021-09-06T22:37:43Z

Name that Logical Fallacy (58:58): fixed broken link

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:37, 6 September 2021
Line 86:		Line 86:
	E: Yeah.		E: Yeah.

	S: He blogs on [http://theness.com/roguesgallery/ The Rogues Gallery], –		S: He blogs on [https://web.archive.org/web/20171121215018/http://theness.com/roguesgallery/ The Rogues Gallery], –

	E: Yep.		E: Yep.

Av8rmike: Remove notes link, use episode number, clean up info box

2013-08-21T03:07:47Z

Remove notes link, use episode number, clean up info box

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:07, 21 August 2013
Line 9:		Line 9:
	\|}}		\|}}
	{{InfoBox		{{InfoBox
	\|~~episodeTitle~~ = ~~SGU Episode~~ 152		\|episodeNum = 152
	\|episodeDate = 11<sup>th</sup> June 2008		\|episodeDate = 11<sup>th</sup> June 2008
	\|episodeIcon = File:crystalskull.jpg		\|episodeIcon = File:crystalskull.jpg
	\|rebecca = y ~~<!-- leave blank if absent -->~~		\|rebecca = y
	\|bob = y ~~<!-- leave blank if absent -->~~		\|bob = y
	\|jay = y ~~<!-- leave blank if absent -->~~		\|jay = y
	\|evan = y ~~<!-- leave blank if absent -->~~		\|evan = y
	~~\|guest1 =~~
	\|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2008-06-11.mp3		\|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2008-06-11.mp3
	\|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=152		\|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=152

Cornelioid: /* Name that Logical Fallacy (58:58) */ corrections, removed template

2013-01-06T16:46:55Z

Name that Logical Fallacy (58:58): corrections, removed template

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:46, 6 January 2013
Line 57:		Line 57:
	S: We have no interview this week, so I want to do a quick Name That Logical Fallacy. This one actually comes from Mike Lacelle, who wrote to me recently.		S: We have no interview this week, so I want to do a quick Name That Logical Fallacy. This one actually comes from Mike Lacelle, who wrote to me recently.

	<blockquote>Steve, I have a question. If i'm talking to someone about Jenny McCarthy being the celebrity poster child for the antivaccination movement and ~~happened~~ to mention that she was once a Playboy Playmate of the Year, would that be an example of poisoning the well? What if I mention that she used to, among other things, eat her boogers on MTV? Is there a difference between the two (logically, not physically)? Hell, now that I think about it, is poisoning the well even considered a logical fallacy? Mike.</blockquote>		<blockquote>Steve, I have a question. If I'm talking to someone about Jenny McCarthy being the celebrity poster child for the antivaccination movement and happen to mention that she was once a Playboy Playmate of the Year, would that be an example of poisoning the well? What if I mention that she used to, among other things, eat her boogers on MTV? Is there a difference between the two (logically, not physically)? Hell, now that I think about it, is poisoning the well even considered a logical fallacy? Mike.</blockquote>

	S: Well, I actually blogged about this last week, too. This is a good one.		S: Well, I actually blogged about this last week, too. This is a good one.

	B:		B: It's an ''ad hominem''.

	S: Yeah, this comes up a lot. You know, poisoning the well is a logical fallacy, and, as Bob just said, it is actually a form of an ''ad hominem''. It's slightly different. It has the same form of an ''ad hominem'' logical fallacy in that it attempts to say, "This person is wrong—their argument is wrong—because they have some negative attribute or some negative association or affiliation." A ''ad hominem'' logical fallacy is more direct. "This guy's wrong because he's close-minded." Right? That's the one that skeptics are actually typically the target of.		S: Yeah, this comes up a lot. You know, poisoning the well is a logical fallacy, and, as Bob just said, it is actually a form of an ''ad hominem''. It's slightly different. It has the same form of an ''ad hominem'' logical fallacy in that it attempts to say, "This person is wrong—their argument is wrong—because they have some negative attribute, or some negative association or affiliation." A ''ad hominem'' logical fallacy is more direct. "This guy's wrong because he's close-minded." Right? That's the one that skeptics are actually typically the target of.

	B: Right.		B: Right.

	S: Or, it's also like saying, "This guy's wrong because he's crazy." Or, "This guy's wrong because he's a liar and you can't trust him." Those are ''ad hominem'' arguments, and they're a logical fallacy because somebody could be a liar, or close-minded, or whatever, and still be right. It doesn't mean – it doesn't say anything about the argument itself. Poisoning the well is more indirect. You're not necessarily saying something directly negative about that person, but you're trying to bias your audience, or whoever you're talking to, against the argument by giving it some kind of negative attribute or association. One of the most common examples of this is trying to pin anything that you're arguing against on Adolf Hitler. If you recall the movie "Expelled", that's basically what they were trying to do to evolution. You know, "Hitler believed in evolution, so you can't trust anyone – those evolutionists", which is, you know, it's a logical fallacy because it~~'s actually~~ nothing about the scientific evidence for or against evolution as a theory. We also run into this a lot because, certainly, on the show, we do bring up attributes of people that hold unskeptical viewpoints, and that's not necessarily a logical fallacy. It's not a logical fallacy just simply to call someone a name. It's also not a logical fallacy to say, "This person is"—you know, whatever—"this person is nuts, and here's why", and then describe all the ways in which their arguments are wrong and their thinking goes awry. That's OK, too. It's a logical fallacy only when it takes the form, "This person's wrong because of the personal attribute that they have." So, thanks, Mike, for that question.		S: Or, it's also like saying, "This guy's wrong because he's crazy." Or, "This guy's wrong because he's a liar and you can't trust him." Those are ''ad hominem'' arguments, and they're a logical fallacy because somebody could be a liar, or close-minded, or whatever, and still be right. It doesn't mean – it doesn't say anything about the argument itself. Poisoning the well is more indirect. You're not necessarily saying something directly negative about that person, but you're trying to bias your audience, or whoever you're talking to, against the argument by giving it some kind of negative attribute or association. One of the most common examples of this is trying to pin anything that you're arguing against on Adolf Hitler. If you recall the movie "Expelled", that's basically what they were trying to do to evolution. You know, "Hitler believed in evolution, you know, so you can't trust anyone – those evolutionists", which is, you know, it's a logical fallacy because it says absolutely nothing about the scientific evidence for or against evolution as a theory. We also run into this a lot because, certainly, on the show, we do bring up attributes of people that hold unskeptical viewpoints, and that's not necessarily a logical fallacy. It's not a logical fallacy just simply to call someone a name. It's also not a logical fallacy to say, "This person is"—you know, whatever—"this person is nuts, and here's why", and then describe all the ways in which their arguments are wrong and their thinking goes awry. That's OK, too. It's a logical fallacy only when it takes the form, "This person's wrong because of the personal attribute that they have." So, thanks, Mike, for that question.

	J: Wait, wait, wait, Steve.		J: Wait, wait, wait, Steve.
Line 75:		Line 75:
	J: Is that our Mike?		J: Is that our Mike?

	E: Yes. ~~It's~~ Mike Lacelle.		E: Yes. Mike Lacelle.

	S: Yeah.		S: Yeah.
Line 81:		Line 81:
	J: That's our boy.		J: That's our boy.

	S: Yeah, i said Mike. Mike Lacelle. The guy who runs SGUfans.net. He blogs on ~~the~~ Rogues Gallery.		E: Yeah.

			S: Yeah, I said Mike. Mike Lacelle. The guy who runs SGUfans.net.

			E: Yeah.

			S: He blogs on [http://theness.com/roguesgallery/ The Rogues Gallery], –

	E: Yep.		E: Yep.

	S: He's an occasional stand-in for 5x5, and he's gonna be with us at TAM.		S: – he's an occasional stand-in for 5x5, and he's gonna be with us at TAM.

	E: Sure. Good question. Get back to work, Mike.		E: Yep. Sure. Good question. Get back to work, Mike.

	(laughter)		(laughter)
Line 96:		Line 102:

	S: All right. Science or Fiction, here we go.		S: All right. Science or Fiction, here we go.

	~~{{transcribing~~
	~~\|transcriber = Cornelioid~~
	}}

	== Science or Fiction <small>(1:02:21)</small> ==		== Science or Fiction <small>(1:02:21)</small> ==

Cornelioid: /* Name that Logical Fallacy () */ full segment draft

2013-01-06T16:32:48Z

Name that Logical Fallacy (): full segment draft

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 == Name that Logical Fallacy <small>(58:58)</small> ==
 Mike Lacelle asks if "poisoning the well" is a logical fallacy?
 {{transcribing

Rwh86: added times

2013-01-06T16:24:14Z

added times

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:24, 6 January 2013
Line 2:		Line 2:
	\|transcription = y		\|transcription = y
	<!-- \|proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present -->		<!-- \|proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present -->
	~~\|time-stamps = y~~
	\|formatting = y		\|formatting = y
	\|links = y		\|links = y
Line 24:		Line 23:
	\|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan Carl Sagan]		\|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan Carl Sagan]
	\|}}		\|}}


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

	== This Day in Skepticism <small>()</small> ==		== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:32)</small> ==

	== News Items ==		== News Items ==
	=== Nuclear Baby <small>()</small>===		=== Nuclear Baby <small>(1:19)</small>===
	The House of Yahweh predicts the Nuclear Baby will come on June 12th, 2008 although previous predictiions on Sept. 12th, 2006 and June 12th, 2007 appear to have not come true.		The House of Yahweh predicts the Nuclear Baby will come on June 12th, 2008 although previous predictiions on Sept. 12th, 2006 and June 12th, 2007 appear to have not come true.

	=== Bacteria Evolve <small>(~~)</small>===~~		=== Bacteria Evolve <small>(4:39)</small>===

	~~=== The 100MPG Car <small>()</small>===~~

	~~=== Unicorn Deer <small>(~~)</small>===

	=== ~~Fishing Monkeys~~ <small>()</small>===		=== The 100MPG Car <small>(14:07)</small>===

	=== ~~Plutoids~~ <small>()</small>===		=== Unicorn Deer <small>(27:33)</small>===

	=== ~~Albinos in Africa~~ <small>()</small>===		=== Fishing Monkeys <small>(32:04)</small>===

			=== Plutoids <small>(34:36)</small>===

	== ~~Special Report: Crystal Skulls~~ <small>()</small>==		=== Albinos in Africa <small>(37:41)</small>===

			== Special Report: Crystal Skulls <small>(39:42)</small>==

	== Questions and Emails ~~<small>()</small>~~ ==		== Questions and Emails ==
	=== Coincidence <small>()</small>===		=== Coincidence <small>(48:41)</small>===

	=== Green Nanoparticles <small>()</small>===		=== Green Nanoparticles <small>(54:16)</small>===

	== Name that Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==		== Name that Logical Fallacy <small>(58:58)</small> ==
	Mike Lacelle asks if "poisoning the well" is a logical fallacy?		Mike Lacelle asks if "poisoning the well" is a logical fallacy?

Line 63:		Line 59:
	}}		}}

	== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==		== Science or Fiction <small>(1:02:21)</small> ==

	== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>()</small> ==		== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:13:14)</small> ==
	<blockquote>Skeptical scrutiny is the means in both Science and Religion by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.</blockquote>		<blockquote>Skeptical scrutiny is the means in both Science and Religion by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.</blockquote>
	Dr. Carl Sagan		Dr. Carl Sagan

	== Announcements <small>()</small> ==		== Announcements ==
			=== TAM <small>(1:13:38)</small> ===

	{{Outro119}}		{{Outro119}}

Cornelioid: /* Name that Logical Fallacy () */ wrong template

2013-01-06T16:15:06Z

Name that Logical Fallacy (): wrong template

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:15, 6 January 2013
Line 59:		Line 59:
	Mike Lacelle asks if "poisoning the well" is a logical fallacy?		Mike Lacelle asks if "poisoning the well" is a logical fallacy?

	{{transcribing ~~all~~		{{transcribing
	\|transcriber = Cornelioid		\|transcriber = Cornelioid
	}}		}}

Cornelioid: /* Name that Logical Fallacy () */ transcribing template

2013-01-06T16:14:32Z

Name that Logical Fallacy (): transcribing template

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:14, 6 January 2013
Line 57:		Line 57:

	== Name that Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==		== Name that Logical Fallacy <small>()</small> ==
	Mike Lacelle asks if "poisoning the well" is a logical fallacy?		Mike Lacelle asks if "poisoning the well" is a logical fallacy?

			{{transcribing all
			\|transcriber = Cornelioid
			}}

	== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==		== Science or Fiction <small>()</small> ==

Teleuteskitty: show notes merged with skeleton

2012-12-31T21:58:10Z

show notes merged with skeleton

New page

{{Editing required
|transcription = y

|time-stamps = y
|formatting = y
|links = y
|Today I Learned list = y
|categories = y
|segment redirects = y 
|}}
{{InfoBox
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 152
|episodeDate = 11th June 2008
|episodeIcon = File:crystalskull.jpg
|rebecca = y 
|bob = y 
|jay = y 
|evan = y 
|guest1 =
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2008-06-11.mp3
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=152
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,11507.0.html
|qowText = Skeptical scrutiny is the means in both Science and Religion by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan Carl Sagan]
|}}

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

== This Day in Skepticism () ==

== News Items ==
=== Nuclear Baby ()===
The House of Yahweh predicts the Nuclear Baby will come on June 12th, 2008 although previous predictiions on Sept. 12th, 2006 and June 12th, 2007 appear to have not come true.

=== Bacteria Evolve ()===

=== The 100MPG Car ()===

=== Unicorn Deer ()===

=== Fishing Monkeys ()===

=== Plutoids ()===

=== Albinos in Africa ()===

== Special Report: Crystal Skulls ()==

== Questions and Emails () ==
=== Coincidence ()===

=== Green Nanoparticles ()===

== Name that Logical Fallacy () ==
Mike Lacelle asks if "poisoning the well" is a logical fallacy?

== Science or Fiction () ==

== Skeptical Quote of the Week () ==
<blockquote>Skeptical scrutiny is the means in both Science and Religion by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.</blockquote>
Dr. Carl Sagan

== Announcements () ==

{{Outro119}}

== References ==
<references/>

{{Navigation}}