SGU Episode 390 - Revision history

Xanderox: co2 template

2023-03-30T22:50:37Z

co2 template

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:50, 30 March 2023
Line 1,332:		Line 1,332:
	B: Interesting, woah.		B: Interesting, woah.

	S: In the hopes that it would decrease the risk of SIDS if anything, because untreated depression is a risk factor that has been identified for sudden infant death syndrome. Now SIDS still remains a little mysterious, you know, it's not like we completely understand exactly what is happening. We've identified lots of factors that increase or decrease the risk and it's thought that, you know, that they essentially they stop breathing. And over the years I've read so many different things like, you know, it's good if they're in the room with the parents because maybe the higher ~~CO2~~ content drives the infant's respiration more. There are some drugs that are associated with an increased risk of SIDS and those are more for breast feeding now, not antenatal. So for breast feeding mothers, anti-depressants are still fine but you want to avoid anything that would be sedating. So Valium-like drugs are not good, lithium was also another one that was identified. So drugs that could pass through to the infant through breast feeding and can cause sedation will increase the risk of SIDS. The bottom line is if you're breast feeding, your OB should know every medication that you're taking, and you need to talk to them about is this something that would get passed through the breast milk to the infant and what risk or effects might it have. So don't just take— breast feeding is actually... you're still linked to the infant, you know, biologically. It's actually more metabolically demanding on the mother than being pregnant, breast feeding, you still need to take that very seriously. Alright, which means, new research finds that for most babies it is better to leave them alone when they cry at night rather than comfort them is science. Now, Rebecca, you're right in that this is a controversy and there's two sides, there's two schools of thought here. There's the... if you comfort them they'll feel reassured and more secure and if you leave them alone to cry they'll feel abandoned then the other side is what Bob articulated which is , kids need to learn, babies need to learn how to sooth themselves, if you run to them every time you hear them cry you're re-enforcing the behaviour, the crying, and they're not going to learn how to sooth themselves and that is essentially what this latest round now in this controversy has shown. Researchers have found that babies need to learn how to sooth themselves back to sleep. This is also based partly on the notion that infants have a sleep cycle just like everyone else, just like adults, and that sleep cycle involves, you know, going into deeper stages of sleep and then coming into lighter sleep, kind of waking up and then drifting off back to sleep again, that's natural. If the child is fussy or is, you know, upset at all when it wakes up it might cry during that stage of its sleep but that's perfectly normal for it to be quote unquote awake, you know, at that time and what the researchers found is that for some babies, again not for everyone but for some, that they were better sleepers later on in life, meaning like eighteen months, you know, two years, if they were allowed to sooth themselves back to sleep and that those babies whose parents picked them up every time they cried, that they had delayed learning of self-soothing and had a worse sleep later on. So, good job guys.		S: In the hopes that it would decrease the risk of SIDS if anything, because untreated depression is a risk factor that has been identified for sudden infant death syndrome. Now SIDS still remains a little mysterious, you know, it's not like we completely understand exactly what is happening. We've identified lots of factors that increase or decrease the risk and it's thought that, you know, that they essentially they stop breathing. And over the years I've read so many different things like, you know, it's good if they're in the room with the parents because maybe the higher {{co2}} content drives the infant's respiration more. There are some drugs that are associated with an increased risk of SIDS and those are more for breast feeding now, not antenatal. So for breast feeding mothers, anti-depressants are still fine but you want to avoid anything that would be sedating. So Valium-like drugs are not good, lithium was also another one that was identified. So drugs that could pass through to the infant through breast feeding and can cause sedation will increase the risk of SIDS. The bottom line is if you're breast feeding, your OB should know every medication that you're taking, and you need to talk to them about is this something that would get passed through the breast milk to the infant and what risk or effects might it have. So don't just take— breast feeding is actually... you're still linked to the infant, you know, biologically. It's actually more metabolically demanding on the mother than being pregnant, breast feeding, you still need to take that very seriously. Alright, which means, new research finds that for most babies it is better to leave them alone when they cry at night rather than comfort them is science. Now, Rebecca, you're right in that this is a controversy and there's two sides, there's two schools of thought here. There's the... if you comfort them they'll feel reassured and more secure and if you leave them alone to cry they'll feel abandoned then the other side is what Bob articulated which is , kids need to learn, babies need to learn how to sooth themselves, if you run to them every time you hear them cry you're re-enforcing the behaviour, the crying, and they're not going to learn how to sooth themselves and that is essentially what this latest round now in this controversy has shown. Researchers have found that babies need to learn how to sooth themselves back to sleep. This is also based partly on the notion that infants have a sleep cycle just like everyone else, just like adults, and that sleep cycle involves, you know, going into deeper stages of sleep and then coming into lighter sleep, kind of waking up and then drifting off back to sleep again, that's natural. If the child is fussy or is, you know, upset at all when it wakes up it might cry during that stage of its sleep but that's perfectly normal for it to be quote unquote awake, you know, at that time and what the researchers found is that for some babies, again not for everyone but for some, that they were better sleepers later on in life, meaning like eighteen months, you know, two years, if they were allowed to sooth themselves back to sleep and that those babies whose parents picked them up every time they cried, that they had delayed learning of self-soothing and had a worse sleep later on. So, good job guys.

	R: Meuhh.		R: Meuhh.

Xanderox: removed duplicate template call

2020-08-01T21:58:55Z

removed duplicate template call

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:58, 1 August 2020
Line 1,413:		Line 1,413:
	\|Skeptical Puzzle = y		\|Skeptical Puzzle = y
	\|Neuroscience & Psychology = y		\|Neuroscience & Psychology = y
	~~\|Science & Medicine = y~~
	\|Science & Education = y		\|Science & Education = y
	\|SGU = y		\|SGU = y
	\|Technology = y		\|Technology = y
	}}		}}

Xanderox: /* News Items */ adding subsection for 2013 to help with redirect page

2020-06-09T21:04:02Z

News Items: adding subsection for 2013 to help with redirect page

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:04, 9 June 2020
Line 131:		Line 131:
	== News Items ==		== News Items ==
	=== Psychic Predictions for 2012 <small>(3:51)</small>===		=== Psychic Predictions for 2012 <small>(3:51)</small>===
	* The Rogues review predictions for last year and make some new ones for 2013

	S: Well, as Jay way saying, as Jay predicted, this is our psychic predictions review episode. The first episode of every year we look back and see how did the psychics fare in predicting events of 2012.		S: Well, as Jay way saying, as Jay predicted, this is our psychic predictions review episode. The first episode of every year we look back and see how did the psychics fare in predicting events of 2012.
Line 768:		Line 767:

	E: That's why you were hard on me and my predictions, 'cause you wanted ''your'' prediction to come true.		E: That's why you were hard on me and my predictions, 'cause you wanted ''your'' prediction to come true.

			=== Rogues' Predictions for 2013 <small>()</small>===

	S: All right, well. Who wants to go first in their predictions for 2013?		S: All right, well. Who wants to go first in their predictions for 2013?

Xanderox: updating outro1 to 301

2020-04-27T01:52:16Z

updating outro1 to 301

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:52, 27 April 2020
Line 1,397:		Line 1,397:
	S: Happy new year. Looking forward to a great 2013 and until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.		S: Happy new year. Looking forward to a great 2013 and until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.

	{{~~Outro1~~}}		{{Outro301}}

	== References ==		== References ==

Teleuteskitty: added category, updated status

2014-07-05T12:07:29Z

added category, updated status

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:07, 5 July 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Editing required		{{Editing required
	\|Today I Learned list = y		\|Today I Learned list = y
	~~\|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles -->~~
	\|}}		\|}}
	{{InfoBox		{{InfoBox
Line 1,409:		Line 1,408:
	\|Logic & Philosophy = y		\|Logic & Philosophy = y
	\|Astronomy & Space Science = y		\|Astronomy & Space Science = y
			\|ESP = y
	\|Science & Medicine = y		\|Science & Medicine = y
	\|Skeptical Puzzle = y		\|Skeptical Puzzle = y
	\|Neuroscience & Psychology = y		\|Neuroscience & Psychology = y
	\|Science & Medicine = y		\|Science & Medicine = y
			\|Science & Education = y
	\|SGU = y		\|SGU = y
	\|Technology = y		\|Technology = y
	}}		}}

Teleuteskitty: proofed, added categories

2014-07-05T11:46:20Z

proofed, added categories

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:46, 5 July 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~{{Proof reading all~~
	~~\|date = 2014-05-18~~
	~~\|proofer = Teleuteskitty~~
	}}
	{{Editing required		{{Editing required
	~~\|proof-reading = y~~
	\|Today I Learned list = y		\|Today I Learned list = y
	~~\|categories = y~~
	\|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles -->		\|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles -->
	\|}}		\|}}
Line 1,358:		Line 1,352:
	S: So Jay, do you have a quote for us this week?		S: So Jay, do you have a quote for us this week?

	J: I have a quote that was sent in by a listener named Jim O'Rourke and this is a quote from one of my absolute ~~favourite~~ science popularists.		J: I have a quote that was sent in by a listener named Jim O'Rourke and this is a quote from one of my absolute favorite science popularists.

	<blockquote>Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend things which are there.</blockquote>		<blockquote>Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend things which are there.</blockquote>
Line 1,368:		Line 1,362:
	E: Arthur Clarke?		E: Arthur Clarke?

	J: Nope. Richard Feynman.		J: Nope. {{w\|Richard Feynman}}.

	B: Ah.		B: Ah.
Line 1,384:		Line 1,378:
	== Announcements ==		== Announcements ==
	=== The Yellow Cab of the Universe <small>(1:16:34)</small> ===		=== The Yellow Cab of the Universe <small>(1:16:34)</small> ===
	* http://www.yellowcabuniverse.com/		* [http://www.yellowcabuniverse.com/ yellowcabuniverse.com]

	J: A listener of our show emailed us and said that we had inspired him in part to create something that I looked into and I thought was one of the best things that I had found in 2012 as far as a learning tool, an entertainment tool. The listeners name is Eduardo Galvani and we started chit-chatting, he wrote a book for the iPad, it's called ''The Yellow Cab of the Universe'' whcih you could see how we may have inspired him. I loved it, I downloaded it, he gave me, he invited me to download his book, I did, it ended up, it's one of the best books I have ever downloaded on my iPad, it's amazingly interactive and it goes into a very simple yet very eloquent explanation of the universe and of the cosmos, it's just fantasic, this book is something that you could do with your kids I think as an after Christmas present, you know you want to buy something that you could do with your children that would really capture their attention, the book just keeps going on and on, the content is fantastic. He's, with his daughter, he's asking his daughter about her school, and she said "I don't like science, it's too boring," and it really bothered him, it shocked him, and he started to think "what's wrong? It's not the science, the science is incredible, it's the way it's being taught," and he realised very soon after that that he had to create an interactive book ~~that~~ it all kind of gelled in his head, and he did. I don't recommend things often, I have absolutely zero stake in this other than I really am interested in having people spend time with their children and educate their kids on science, this is it, guys. This is one of those things that I think could really influence a young kid's mind to understand, not only understand the universe, understand science and have an interest in ~~that~~ something that's important for the future. So you can go to his website, [http://www.yellowcabuniverse.com/ yellowcabuniverse.com], and that'll tell you everything that you need to know, you could also look it up in the iTunes store. Do it, enjoy it, and if you really liked it, send me an email and let me know what you think and tell me what your child's reaction to it ~~was~~, I'd be curious to know what they got out of it.		J: A listener of our show emailed us and said that we had inspired him in part to create something that I looked into and I thought was one of the best things that I had found in 2012 as far as a learning tool, an entertainment tool. The listeners name is Eduardo Galvani and we started chit-chatting, he wrote a book for the iPad, it's called ''The Yellow Cab of the Universe'' whcih you could see how we may have inspired him. I loved it, I downloaded it, he gave me, he invited me to download his book, I did, it ended up— it's one of the best books I have ever downloaded on my iPad, it's amazingly interactive and it goes into a very simple yet very eloquent explanation of the universe and of the cosmos, it's just fantasic, this book is something that you could do with your kids I think as an after Christmas present, you know you want to buy something that you could do with your children that would really capture their attention, the book just keeps going on and on, the content is fantastic. He's, with his daughter, he's asking his daughter about her school, and she said "I don't like science, it's too boring," and it really bothered him, it shocked him, and he started to think "what's wrong? It's not the science, the science is incredible, it's the way that it's being taught," and he realised very soon after that that he had to create an interactive book, it all kind of gelled in his head, and he did. I don't recommend things often, I have absolutely zero stake in this other than I really am interested in having people spend time with their children and educate their kids on science, this is it, guys. This is one of those things that I think could really influence a young kid's mind to understand, not only understand the universe, understand science and have an interest in something that's important for the future. So you can go to his website, [http://www.yellowcabuniverse.com/ yellowcabuniverse.com], and that'll tell you everything that you need to know, you could also look it up in the iTunes store. Do it, enjoy it, and if you really liked it, send me an email and let me know what you think and tell me what your child's reaction was to it, I'd be curious to know what they got out of it.

	S: All right, thanks Jay. And thanks for joining me all this week.		S: All right, thanks Jay. And thanks for joining me all this week.
Line 1,410:		Line 1,404:

	{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages -->		{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages -->

			{{Page categories
			\|Interview = y
			\|Logic & Philosophy = y
			\|Astronomy & Space Science = y
			\|Science & Medicine = y
			\|Skeptical Puzzle = y
			\|Neuroscience & Psychology = y
			\|Science & Medicine = y
			\|SGU = y
			\|Technology = y
			}}

Teleuteskitty: proof-read to 1:16

2014-06-29T16:40:14Z

proof-read to 1:16

Show changes

Teleuteskitty: proofread to 1:01

2014-06-29T14:29:33Z

proofread to 1:01

Show changes

Teleuteskitty: proofread to 47:25

2014-05-25T19:58:01Z

proofread to 47:25

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:58, 25 May 2014
Line 1,035:		Line 1,035:
	M: Thank you, it's a pleasure as usual.		M: Thank you, it's a pleasure as usual.

	S: And Massimo is the chair of the Department of Philosophy at CUNY-Lehman College, the editor in chief of the journal Philosophy & Theory in Biology. He's the host of a podcast called Rationally Speaking and also one of the authors on the blog by the same name. The author of several books, including the book that we will be discussing this evening: [http://www.~~amazon.com/Answers-Aristotle~~-Science-Philosophy-Meaningful/dp/0465021387/ref=la_B001IU0D3K_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1343828923&sr=1-6 Answers for Aristotle]. But his greatest claim to skeptical and scientific fame, was that he was the first ever guest on The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.		S: And Massimo is the chair of the Department of Philosophy at CUNY-Lehman College, the editor in chief of the journal ''[http://www.philosophyandtheoryinbiology.org/ Philosophy & Theory in Biology]''. He's the host of a podcast called ''[http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/ Rationally Speaking]'' and also one of the authors on the [http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/ blog by the same name]. The author of several books, including the book that we will be discussing this evening: ''[http://www.amazristotle-Science-Philosophy-Meaningful/dp/0465021387/ref=la_B001IU0D3K_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1343828923&sr=1-6on.com/Answers-A Answers for Aristotle]''. But his greatest claim to skeptical and scientific fame, was that he was the first ever guest on The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.

	''(laughter)''		''(laughter)''
Line 1,051:		Line 1,051:
	M: ''(laughter)''		M: ''(laughter)''

	S: And that, that's essentially what your recent book, ~~Answer~~ for Aristotle, is about. So, tell us about it.		S: And that, that's essentially what your recent book, ''Answers for Aristotle'', is about. So, tell us about it.

	M: Yeah, in some sense. It is aimed at the general public, so it's not a technical book. But it is about the relationship between philosophy and science which I think that is something that certainly members of the skeptic movement should be aware of, or a little more sort of cognisant of. But the basic idea of the book is really that this is essentially a self-help book for people who don't believe in self-help books. The basic approach is that, look, when we're dealing with the big questions in life, you know: morality, or relationships, or you know, general views of the world and whatever, where do we get our best hints, our best information about that? I don't think we get them from religion. Common sense is helpful, but up to a certain point. So, it seems to me that the best combination of answers, or at least approaches to those kinds of questions, come from the two most effective traditions of thought in the Western -- possibly the world -- history, which are of course science, as far as factual questions are concerned and philosophy, as far as how to reflect on the implications of those factual answers we get from science. So that's what the book is about, it's how to combine science and philosophy in what I sort of jokingly call Sci-Phi -- actually, people pronounce it Sci-Fi, but it should be Sci-~~Phi~~, because the second part is P-H-I for philosophy.		M: Yeah, in some sense. It is aimed at the general public, so it's not a technical book. But it is about the relationship between philosophy and science which I think that is something that certainly members of the skeptic movement should be aware of, or a little more sort of cognisant of. But the basic idea of the book is really that this is essentially a self-help book for people who don't believe in self-help books. The basic approach is that, look, when we're dealing with the big questions in life, you know: morality, or relationships, or you know, general views of the world and whatever, where do we get our best hints, our best information about that? I don't think we get them from religion. Common sense is helpful, but up to a certain point. So, it seems to me that the best combination of answers, or at least approaches to those kinds of questions, come from the two most effective traditions of thought in the Western - and possibly the world - history, which are of course science, as far as factual questions are concerned and philosophy, as far as how to reflect on the implications of those factual answers we get from science. So that's what the book is about, it's how to combine science and philosophy in what I sort of jokingly call Sci-Phi - actually, people pronounce it Sci-Fi, but it should be Sci-"Fee", because the second part is P-H-I for philosophy.

	S: Sci-Phi?		S: Sci-Phi?
Line 1,063:		Line 1,063:
	E: Right.		E: Right.

	S: Right. Well, then why didn't the Sci-Fi Channel change it's name to ~~Sci-Phi~~?		S: Right. Well, then why didn't the Sci-Fi Channel change it's name to Syfy?

	M: Yeah, that's a good question!		M: Yeah, that's a good question!
Line 1,075:		Line 1,075:
	S: So, science gives us the facts, as it were, and philosophy tells us how to think about those facts. Is that a fair summary?		S: So, science gives us the facts, as it were, and philosophy tells us how to think about those facts. Is that a fair summary?

	M: Well, yeah, it's, of course as you know that's a little simple version of the whole thing. In reality there is no sharp distinction between science and philosophy. There are many areas of overlap, the most obvious one perhaps is philosophy of science, or, and in fact also epistemology. I mean, there are areas of philosophy that are directly relevant to science and there also areas of science that are definitely relevant to philosophy, I mean, one cannot do these days any serious philosophy of mind, for instance, unless one is well read in, you know, neurobiology and current science. So, there's quite a bit more overlap than the simple distinction between science and philosophy. But it is true that, you know, historically speaking and strictly in modern, in the modern ~~(GARBLED)~~, the true disciplines have evolved unto quite different directions and yes, broadly speaking, science deals with the best factual information we can get about the world, and philosophy deals with reflecting~~, you know,~~ methods of reflecting about what that, that information tells us.		M: Well, yeah, it's, of course as you know that's a little, simple version of the whole thing. In reality there is no sharp distinction between science and philosophy. There are many areas of overlap, the most obvious one perhaps is philosophy of science, or, and in fact also {{w\|epistemology}}. I mean, there are areas of philosophy that are directly relevant to science, and there are also areas of science that are definitely relevant to philosophy. I mean, one cannot do these days any serious philosophy of mind, for instance, unless one is well read in, you know, neurobiology and current science. So, there's quite a bit more overlap than the simple distinction between science and philosophy. But it is true that, you know, historically speaking and strictly in modern, in the modern academy, the true disciplines have evolved unto quite different directions and yes, broadly speaking, science deals with the best factual information we can get about the world, and philosophy deals with reflecting methods of reflecting about what that, that information tells us.

	S: Yeah, so they're complementary intellectual disciplines-		S: Yeah, so they're complementary intellectual disciplines—

	M: Right.		M: Right.

	S: -if you will. And, I think what's, I know you've made this point a lot, and I know in your blog as well, and also in our prior discussions that, scientists who think they can answer all questions, with just science, have to first realise, that when doing science they are also practicing philosophy, cause there has to be a philosophical underpinning of science itself.		S: —if you will. And, I think what's, I know you've made this point a lot, and I know in your blog as well, and also in our prior discussions that, scientists who think they can answer all questions, with just science, have to first realise, that when doing science they are also practicing philosophy, cause there has to be a philosophical underpinning of science itself.

	M: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, one of the best summaries of that position was actually due to Dan Dennett. As you know, several years ago he wrote Darwin's Dangerous Idea, which is one of the most influential books, in, in sort of many peoples understanding of evolution and implication of Darwinism and so on and so forth. But in that book, as much as that book is, of course, very much science friendly, and does take on-board, you know, evolutionary biology in particular, Dennett points out that there is no such a thing as philosophy-free science, there is only science that takes on-board the philosophy without examining it. No, now, the question is now that scientist shouldn't necessary do philosophy, in fact I would discourage scientists from doing philosophy. Just in the same way in which I would discourage philosophers from doing science. Those are sufficiently separate activities, as I said, that requires different skills, and also, by the way, they have developed huge technical literature of their own so it's really difficult to do both in a reasonable way. But, what I do suggest is that both scientists, as academics, and sort of general public at large, would be better of by respecting each others territory and what comes out of the other field, and also being a little bit acquainted with what comes out of the other field.		M: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, one of the best summaries of that position was actually due to {{w\|Daniel Dennett\|Dan Dennett}}. As you know, several years ago he wrote ''{{w\|Darwin's Dangerous Idea}}'', which is one of the most influential books, in, in sort of many peoples understanding of evolution and implication of Darwinism and so on and so forth. But in that book, as much as that book is, of course, very much science friendly, and does take on-board, you know, evolutionary biology in particular, Dennett points out that there is no such a thing as philosophy-free science, there is only science that takes on-board the philosophy without examining it. No, now, the question is now that scientist shouldn't necessary do philosophy, in fact I would discourage scientists from doing philosophy. Just in the same way in which I would discourage philosophers from doing science. Those are sufficiently separate activities, as I said, that requires different skills, and also, by the way, they have developed huge technical literature of their own so it's really difficult to do both in a reasonable way. But, what I do suggest is that both scientists, as academics, and sort of general public at large, would be better of by respecting each others territory and what comes out of the other field, and also being a little bit acquainted with what comes out of the other field.

	S: Yeah, so just as, like in the skeptical movement in just, in general, we promote the idea that people should have a basic scientific literacy, not that they should be able to practice science as a layperson, but just be scientifically literate. By the same token, people should be philosophically literate as well, not to be able to engage at cutting-edge philosophical technical discussions, but to have some idea when philosophy is in play at least.		S: Yeah, so just as, like in the skeptical movement in just, in general, we promote the idea that people should have a basic scientific literacy, not that they should be able to practice science as a layperson, but just be scientifically literate. By the same token, people should be philosophically literate as well, not to be able to engage at cutting-edge philosophical technical discussions, but to have some idea when philosophy is in play at least.

Teleuteskitty: Proof-read up to 42:33

2014-05-18T20:14:52Z

Proof-read up to 42:33

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:14, 18 May 2014
Line 989:		Line 989:
	S: All right, well thanks Bob.		S: All right, well thanks Bob.

	== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:07)</small>==		== Who's That Noisy? & Logical Puzzle <small>(38:07)</small>==
	* Answer to last week: Glass Harp playing Fur Elise		* Answer to last week: Glass Harp playing Fur Elise

Line 996:		Line 996:
	E: Well good, that's good because we need to reveal the answer to what was the last Who's That Noisy for 2012. I will play it for you now for memory's sake. Here we go.		E: Well good, that's good because we need to reveal the answer to what was the last Who's That Noisy for 2012. I will play it for you now for memory's sake. Here we go.

	(Glass Harp playing Fur Elise)		''(Glass Harp playing Fur Elise)''

	E: Lovely Ludwig Van.		E: Lovely Ludwig Van.
Line 1,002:		Line 1,002:
	S: Fur Elise, it's one of the pieces I had to play when I was taking piano lessons.		S: Fur Elise, it's one of the pieces I had to play when I was taking piano lessons.

	E: Did you enjoy it.		E: Did you enjoy it?

	S: It's a pretty piece.		S: Yes, It's a pretty piece.

	E: It is a pretty pieces. Well what kind of instrument was that, that was the question. And we had a lot of people ~~gguess~~ that that was the ~~[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_harmonica glass~~ harmonica] or the glass armonica also known as a bowl organ which is actually incorrect, although that instrument would create the same or similar-sounding notes but that was not it. What we were hearing was actually the ~~[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_harp glass~~ harp], which is a musical instrument made of upright wine glasses and it's played by running moistened or chalked fingers around the rim of the glass and each glass is tuned to a different pitch and thereby you're able to play all of the notes. That particular piece was performed by [http://www.roberttiso.com/ Robert Tiso] and you can [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47TGXJoVhQ8 see him on youtube playing this] and very talented in his own right. Yes, several people did get it correct, the first one to guess correctly, our friend from the message boards, Magnus M.		E: It is a pretty pieces. Well what kind of instrument was that, that was the question. And we had a lot of people guess that that was the {{w\|Glass harmonica}} or the glass armonica also known as a bowl organ which is actually incorrect, although that instrument would create the same or similar-sounding notes but that was not it. What we were hearing was actually the {{w\|Glass harp}}, which is a musical instrument made of upright wine glasses and it's played by running moistened or chalked fingers around the rim of the glass and each glass is tuned to a different pitch and thereby you're able to play all of the notes. That particular piece was performed by [http://www.roberttiso.com/ Robert Tiso] and you can [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47TGXJoVhQ8 see him on youtube playing this], and very talented in his own right. Yes, several people did get it correct, the first one to guess correctly, our friend from the message boards, Magnus M.

	S: Mmmhmm.		S: Mmmhmm.
Line 1,014:		Line 1,014:
	S: Magnus!		S: Magnus!

	E: And congratulations for being first. OK, so 2013, we're going to change things up a little bit for the Who's That Noisy and the puzzle segment. For this year, we're going run a little contest for all the listeners, and here's how it's going to work. Each week when I play the Who's That Noisy or give the Logic Puzzle, everyone who answers correctly, their name will be put into a hat for that week. And that week I will draw a name from the hat at random and the person's name whom I draw will go into a final drawing which will occur at the last episode of the year and the winner of the final drawing will be invited to come onto the SGU to play a round of Science or Fiction with us. If you're going to submit a guess, we're going to require your guess by the time we record our next show which is typically early to mid-week the following week, it varies from week to week but there is a little ~~insentive~~ there to get your guess in early and get your name eligible to be drawn for the final drawing. Since this is a new idea we are tinkering with, we're going to do this on the honour system. If we sense that there is any abuse by the participants of this we will have to make some modifications along the way, so we're trusting everyone to play fairly, play by the rules, if you know the answer go ahead and tell us, but you don't go sharing it with you know, 100,000 of your closest friends so that there's 100,000 names to draw from each week, that'll make my job a lot harder. So let's give this a try, folks and let's see what we can do.		E: And congratulations for being first. OK, so 2013, we're going to change things up a little bit for the Who's That Noisy and the puzzle segment. For this year, we're going run a little contest for all the listeners, and here's how it's going to work. Each week when I play the Who's That Noisy or give the Logic Puzzle, everyone who answers correctly, their name will be put into a hat for that week. And that week I will draw a name from the hat at random and the person's name whom I draw will go into a final drawing which will occur at the last episode of the year and the winner of the final drawing will be invited to come onto the SGU to play a round of Science or Fiction with us.

			If you're going to submit a guess, we're going to require your guess by the time we record our next show which is typically early to mid-week the following week, it varies from week to week but there is a little incentive there to get your guess in early and get your name eligible to be drawn for the final drawing. Since this is a new idea we are tinkering with, we're going to do this on the honour system. If we sense that there is any abuse by the participants of this we will have to make some modifications along the way, so we're trusting everyone to play fairly, play by the rules, if you know the answer go ahead and tell us, but you don't go sharing it with you know, 100,000 of your closest friends so that there's 100,000 names to draw from each week, that'll make my job a lot harder. So let's give this a try, folks and let's see what we can do.

	S: All right, we'll see how it goes.		S: All right, we'll see how it goes.

	E: We're going to start this year with a puzzle, a logic puzzle. And this logic puzzle was submitted by listener Alvaro Ibanes, thank you Alvaro for submitting this, this is a very good one. A jeweller has nine pearls which all look and feel exactly alike. However, he knows that one of them weighs more than the other eight. He has access to a classic scale, you know the one with two arms often seen in Lady Justice's hand? What is the minimum number of measurements required to know with absolute certainty which pearl is the one that weighs more? All right? Give us your guess?		E: We're going to start this year with a puzzle, a logic puzzle. And this logic puzzle was submitted by listener Alvaro Ibanes, thank you Alvaro for submitting this, this is a very good one. <blockquote>A jeweller has nine pearls which all look and feel exactly alike. However, he knows that one of them weighs more than the other eight. He has access to a classic scale, you know the one with two arms often seen in Lady Justice's hand? What is the minimum number of measurements required to know with absolute certainty which pearl is the one that weighs more? </blockquote>

			E: All right? Give us your guess?

	S: It's a fun one.		S: It's a fun one.