SGU Episode 50 - Revision history

Xanderox: template swap

2023-07-13T14:05:29Z

template swap

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:05, 13 July 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:

	{{Editing required ~~(w/links)~~		{{Editing required
	\|transcription =		\|transcription =
	\|proof-reading = y		\|proof-reading = y

Hearmepurr: 50 done

2023-01-08T16:01:37Z

50 done

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Editing required (w/links)
-|transcription		= n
+|transcription		=
 |proof-reading		= y
 |formatting		= y

Hearmepurr at 16:00, 8 January 2023

2023-01-08T16:00:30Z

@@ Line 872: / Line 872: @@
 == Signoff/Announcements <small>(1:22:51)</small> ==
-<!-- ** if the signoff/announcements don't immediately follow the QoW or if the QoW comments take a few minutes, it would be appropriate to include a timestamp for when this part starts -->
 '''S:''' —and until next week, this is your {{SGU}}. <!-- typically this is the last thing before the Outro -->
@@ Line 879: / Line 896: @@
 -->
 {{Outro39}}
 == Today I Learned ==
 * Fact/Description, possibly with an article reference<ref>[url_for_TIL publication: title]</ref> <!-- add this format to include a referenced article, maintaining spaces: <ref>[URL publication: title]</ref> -->

Hearmepurr at 15:58, 8 January 2023

2023-01-08T15:58:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:58, 8 January 2023
Line 803:		Line 803:
	Answer: The contestant should change her pick to the other door. If she sticks with her first pick her chances of winning is 1/3, if she changes her pick her chances of winning is 2/3.</blockquote>		Answer: The contestant should change her pick to the other door. If she sticks with her first pick her chances of winning is 1/3, if she changes her pick her chances of winning is 2/3.</blockquote>

	~~=== New Puzzle <small>(1~~:~~21:57)</small> ===~~		'''S:''' Alright, now last week, last week when you guys were, what were you doing last week, you were not around, you were skipping the show.

	<blockquote>Name the medical pseudoscience that, although now is thoroughly disproved and rejected by mainstream science, at its inception was on the correct side of a major scientific debate of the time.</blockquote>		'''B:''' Skipping?

	'''~~S:''' Alright, now last week, last week when you guys were...what were you doing last week, you were not around, you were skipping the show.~~

	~~'''J~~:''' Skipping?

	'''E:''' Yeah I was on a ghost podcast.		'''E:''' Yeah I was on a ghost podcast.

	'''J:''' You skipped us!		'''B:''' You skipped us!

	'''S:''' I gave out the following puzzle, I did I was out of town, I gave out the following puzzle, and this is an old one I did not make this up. This is a classic example of how bad people are inherently at statistics and mathematics. So this is the puzzle of the gameshow Let's Make a Deal. Basically you have a contestant who's presented with three doors, behind one of the doors is a fabulous prize. They are asked to pick one, the door they think has the prize behind it, they pick one door. The host, on the show Let's Make a Deal, it was Monty Hall. So there are two doors that the person did not pick, he opens one of those two doors, showing that the prize is not there, and then will ask the contestant "do you want to stick with your original choice, or do you want to change your choice to the second door?" The question ~~i'''S:'''~~ what should the contestant do? Should they stick with their original choice, should they change to the other door, or does it not make any difference, meaning it's 50/50 either way?		'''S:''' I gave out the following puzzle, I did. I was out of town, I gave out the following puzzle, and this is an old one I did not make this up. This is a classic example of how bad people are inherently at statistics and mathematics. So this is the puzzle of the gameshow Let's Make a Deal. Basically you have a contestant who's presented with three doors, behind one of the doors is a fabulous prize. They are asked to pick one, the door they think has the prize behind it, they pick one door. The host, on the show Let's Make a Deal, it was Monty Hall. So there are two doors that the person did not pick, he opens one of those two doors, showing that the prize is not there, and then will ask the contestant "do you want to stick with your original choice, or do you want to change your choice to the second door?" The question is what should the contestant do? Should they stick with their original choice, should they change to the other door, or does it not make any difference, meaning it's 50/50 either way?

	'''J:''' Very interesting.		'''J:''' Very interesting.

	'''S:''' Yeah. It's an interesting problem, and a lot of people, their first instinct is wrong~~...~~		'''S:''' Yeah. It's an interesting problem, and a lot of people, their first instinct is wrong-

	~~P(?)~~: Right.		'''E:''': Right.

	'''S:''' ~~... Often~~ people, their initial instinct is "well, there's two doors, so it's 50/50 still it doesn't matter", but actually the contestant should their pick to the other door. If they stick with their original pick, even though one of the two doors has been revealed, it's still only a 1/3 chance that their original pick is correct. If they change to the other door, the chances go up to 2 out of 3.		'''S:''' -often people, their initial instinct is well, there's two doors, so it's 50/50 still it doesn't matter, but actually the contestant should their pick to the other door. If they stick with their original pick, even though one of the two doors has been revealed, it's still only a 1/3 chance that their original pick is correct. If they change to the other door, the chances go up to 2 out of 3.

	'''J:''' They double their odds.		'''B:''' They double their odds.

	'''S:''' They double their odds. There's a lot of different ways you can think about this to try and understand why that is true. I think the simple way, for me the simple way is that no matter what door they pick there'll be two doors left, and at least one of those doors will not have the prize behind it. So no matter what door the contestant picks, Monty Hall can still open a door that does not have a prize under it. That's actually does not change the odds in any way.		'''S:''' They double their odds. There's a lot of different ways you can think about this to try and understand why that is true. I think the simple way, for me the simple way is that no matter what door they pick there'll be two doors left, and at least one of those doors will not have the prize behind it. So no matter what door the contestant picks, Monty Hall can still open a door that does not have a prize under it. That's actually does not change the odds in any way.

	'''J:''' It's a little bit of misdirection, it kind of, you know.		'''B:''' It's a little bit of misdirection, it kind of, you know.

	'''S:''' Yeah. So it's still those, you see those, the probability that the original pick was correct is still 1/3, the probability that the prize is behind one of those two doors is still 2/3, and in a way you can think that Monty Hall just collapses the 2/3 probability into one door, so~~...~~		'''S:''' Yeah. So it's still those, you see those, the probability that the original pick was correct is still 1/3, the probability that the prize is behind one of those two doors is still 2/3, and in a way you can think that Monty Hall just collapses the 2/3 probability into one door, so-

	'''J:''' Right.		'''E:''' Right.

	'''S:''' ~~...~~ that door has a 2/3 probability of having the prize.		'''S:''' -that door has a 2/3 probability of having the prize.

	'''E:''' I remember us having a hard time convincing an auditorium full of~~...~~		'''E:''' I remember us having a hard time convincing an auditorium full of-

	'''S:''' Yes.		'''S:''' Yes.

	'''E:''' ~~...~~ full of teachers.		'''E:''' -full of teachers.

	'''J:''' I was having a hard time doing that, it's not intuitive...		'''B:''' I was having a hard time doing that, it's not intuitive.

	'''S:''' It's not intuitive.		'''S:''' It's not intuitive.

	'''P:''' The problem with is, your brain just says "there's two doors left, it's 50/50."		'''J:''' The problem with is, your brain just says "there's two doors left, it's 50/50."

	'''J:''' Right.		'''S:''' Right.

	'''S:''' Right.		'''E:''' Right.

	'''P:''' ~~'Cause~~ you're discounting the first door.		'''J:''' Because you're discounting the first door.

	'''S:''' Yeah. It's just that our brains are really not hard wired to really be good at statistics and math in this way.		'''S:''' Yeah. It's just that our brains are really not hard wired to really be good at statistics and math in this way.
Line 863:		Line 859:
	'''E:''' And that stuck with me.		'''E:''' And that stuck with me.

	'''B:''' Here's another way to look at that. This is a decent way to do it. Essentially what Monty Hall is doing here is giving you this option "would you rather pick door one, or doors two and three?"~~...~~		'''B:''' Here's another way to look at that. This is a decent way to do it. Essentially what Monty Hall is doing here is giving you this option "would you rather pick door one, or doors two and three?"

	'''J:''' Right.		'''J:''' Right.

	'''B:''' ~~...~~ "~~what~~ would you rather do?" Now obviously, anyone would say "oh I'll take two and three!" That's essentially, that's essentially what he's doing for you right there.		'''B:''' "What would you rather do?" Now obviously, anyone would say "oh I'll take two and three!" That's essentially, that's essentially what he's doing for you right there.

	~~'''S~~:~~''' Let's quickly give the puzzle for next week and then we'll give you the answer on next week's show. This is another historical question~~: Name the medical pseudoscience that, although is now thoroughly disproved and rejected by mainstream science, at its inception was on the correct side of a major scientific debate of its time. Now I have a very specific answer in mind, if any of you think you know the answer to this, send it in, you can email me with the answer. I'd be interested in knowing if I get any responses that are true, that meet all the criteria that I laid out, but that's different than the answer that I have in mind. So, it's possible there's more than one correct answer to this, but I have a very specific answer in mind. Again, a medical pseudoscience that is total bunk, but at the time was on the correct side of a major scientific debate.		=== New Puzzle <small>(1:21:57)</small> ===

	~~'''J:''' Steve I have a couple of announcements real quick. On~~ the ~~bulletin board~~, ~~if you go into the general discussion area, we have a link on there which~~ is very close to the top or second from the top now called Skeptics Guide Contest, where we're asking our listeners to give us ideas for things we can use on marketing material, like T-shirts, hats, mugs, and ~~we're basically looking for witty skeptical sayings or anything that you've heard~~, ~~or something you've come up with that you think is funny or witty.~~		<blockquote>Name the medical pseudoscience that, although now is thoroughly disproved and rejected by mainstream science, at its inception was on the correct side of a major scientific debate of the time.</blockquote>

	~~'''S:''' Yeah what would you like to have~~ on a ~~cap a mug or a T-shirt? Let us know and we'll do it. Well that is all~~ the time ~~that we have guys, thanks for joining me.~~

	~~'''B:''' Great episode.~~

	~~'''J:''' Thanks Steve.~~

	~~'''P:''' Thank ye-yeah.~~

	~~'''E:''' Very good, very good.~~

	~~'''S:''' Always a pleasure, always a pleasure, had a good time.~~

	~~'''P:''' And back to guide you through the universe next week~~.

	'''S:''' ~~Yep~~, ~~thank~~ you.		'''S:''' Let's quickly give the puzzle for next week and then we'll give you the answer on next week's show. This is another historical question: Name the medical pseudoscience that, although is now thoroughly disproved and rejected by mainstream science, at its inception was on the correct side of a major scientific debate of its time. Now I have a very specific answer in mind, if any of you think you know the answer to this, send it in, you can email me with the answer. I'd be interested in knowing if I get any responses that are true, that meet all the criteria that I laid out, but that's different than the answer that I have in mind. So, it's possible there's more than one correct answer to this, but I have a very specific answer in mind. Again, a medical pseudoscience that is total bunk, but at the time was on the correct side of a major scientific debate.

	== Signoff/Announcements <small>(1:22:51)</small> ==		== Signoff/Announcements <small>(1:22:51)</small> ==

Hearmepurr: changed order

2023-01-08T15:51:40Z

changed order

Show changes

Hearmepurr: changed order, some typos

2023-01-08T15:31:29Z

changed order, some typos

Show changes

Hearmepurr: questions/corrections tweaked

2023-01-08T11:03:33Z

questions/corrections tweaked

Show changes

Hearmepurr at 10:34, 8 January 2023

2023-01-08T10:34:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:34, 8 January 2023
Line 109:		Line 109:

	=== Secondhand smoke warning <small>(1:50)</small> ===		=== Secondhand smoke warning <small>(1:50)</small> ===
			*[https://web.archive.org/web/20071226110708/http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/ Surgeon General, Richard Carmona, warns against secondhand smoke]<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20071226110708/http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/ Office of the Surgeon General: The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smok'''E:''' A Report of the Surgeon General]</ref>

	'''S:''' First is, now we've spoken on this show in the past about the science behind second hand smoke. And, in the last, I think it was last week the current Surgeon General, Richard Carmona came out with a big warning against second hand smoke. We will have the link to that actual report as well as some articles about it on our notes page. And it's interesting because there's been, the debate is how solid is the evidence for the health risks of second hand smoke? There is the anti-smoking campaign, and in the last twenty years there has been a significant shift in public opinion against basically allowing smoking in public buildings and restaurants, etc. A lot of this is being driven by the evidence that's been accumulating over the last twenty years about the health risks of second hand smoke, specifically heart disease and cancer are the big two that people actually talk about the most. Although actually the evidence is best for the pulmonary, the lung effects of second hand smoke, such as exacerbating asthma, especially in children. But there's still those who are skeptical of this body of evidence. I think we had brought this up in the context before that Penn and Teller had done a show on second hand smoke, where they said it's basically bullshit, on their show by that name. Although, I don't think they got it quite right. It's certainly true that the evidence is a little over-simplified for the purposes of communicating a clean and unambiguous message for the public. It may be the statistics are presented in a way to make the magnitude of the problem seem as big as possible, even though it may not be the most accurate way to present those statistics. I was kind of a soft sceptic on it saying yeah, the evidences is pretty weak, but it's enough to base policy on the fact that there is some risk. But since then, in the last five or so years, the evidence is consistently moving in the direction of more and more evidence for the health risks of second hand smoke. When there's a real phenomenon, typically what we see in research over time is better and better studies get done as the criticisms of earlier studies are fixed, and new designs are done. The size and the magnitude of the effect will tend to grow, if it's a real effect. If it's not a real effect then the size will tend to shrink, eventually down to zero. I think the trend over time, I think, is for this evidence to be, in fact, more robust.		'''S:''' First is, now we've spoken on this show in the past about the science behind second hand smoke. And, in the last, I think it was last week the current Surgeon General, Richard Carmona came out with a big warning against second hand smoke. We will have the link to that actual report as well as some articles about it on our notes page. And it's interesting because there's been, the debate is how solid is the evidence for the health risks of second hand smoke? There is the anti-smoking campaign, and in the last twenty years there has been a significant shift in public opinion against basically allowing smoking in public buildings and restaurants, etc. A lot of this is being driven by the evidence that's been accumulating over the last twenty years about the health risks of second hand smoke, specifically heart disease and cancer are the big two that people actually talk about the most. Although actually the evidence is best for the pulmonary, the lung effects of second hand smoke, such as exacerbating asthma, especially in children. But there's still those who are skeptical of this body of evidence. I think we had brought this up in the context before that Penn and Teller had done a show on second hand smoke, where they said it's basically bullshit, on their show by that name. Although, I don't think they got it quite right. It's certainly true that the evidence is a little over-simplified for the purposes of communicating a clean and unambiguous message for the public. It may be the statistics are presented in a way to make the magnitude of the problem seem as big as possible, even though it may not be the most accurate way to present those statistics. I was kind of a soft sceptic on it saying yeah, the evidences is pretty weak, but it's enough to base policy on the fact that there is some risk. But since then, in the last five or so years, the evidence is consistently moving in the direction of more and more evidence for the health risks of second hand smoke. When there's a real phenomenon, typically what we see in research over time is better and better studies get done as the criticisms of earlier studies are fixed, and new designs are done. The size and the magnitude of the effect will tend to grow, if it's a real effect. If it's not a real effect then the size will tend to shrink, eventually down to zero. I think the trend over time, I think, is for this evidence to be, in fact, more robust.
Line 179:		Line 180:

	'''J:''' I think most people today, they have a pretty good idea that it causes cancer, it's bad, and anyone that chooses to still do it today is making a personal decision to be disgusting as far as I'm concerned, but.		'''J:''' I think most people today, they have a pretty good idea that it causes cancer, it's bad, and anyone that chooses to still do it today is making a personal decision to be disgusting as far as I'm concerned, but.

	*[https://web.archive.org/web/20071226110708/http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/ Surgeon General, Richard Carmona, warns against secondhand smoke]<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20071226110708/http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/ Office of the Surgeon General: The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smok'''E:''' A Report of the Surgeon General]</ref>
	* Another article on secondhand smok'''E:''' [http://www.webmd.com/content/article/64/72529.htm Secondhand Smoke Study Raises Ire]<ref>[http://www.webmd.com/content/article/64/72529.htm WebMD: Secondhand Smoke Study Raises Ire]</ref>

	== Questions and E-mails <small>(11:05)</small>==		== Questions and E-mails <small>(11:05)</small>==

Hearmepurr: 1st news item completed

2023-01-08T10:32:48Z

1st news item completed

Show changes

Hearmepurr: introduction completed

2023-01-08T09:56:10Z

introduction completed

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:56, 8 January 2023
Line 66:		Line 66:
	''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.''

	'''S:''' Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, July ~~5th~~ 2006. This is your host, Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are..~~.Bob Novella~~.		'''S:''' Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, July 5<sup>th</sup> 2006. This is your host, Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella...

	'''B:''' Good evening everyone.		'''B:''' Good evening everyone.

	'''S:''' ~~...~~ Even Bernstein ...		'''S:''' Even Bernstein...

	'''E:''' Hello to my friends on planet Earth.		'''E:''' Hello to my friends on planet Earth.

	'''S:''' ~~...~~ Perry DeAngelis ...		'''S:''' Perry DeAngelis...

	'''P:''' Good evening.		'''P:''' Good evening.

	'''S:''' ... and Jay Novella ...		'''S:''' ...and Jay Novella.

	'''J:''' Hey guys, good to be here.		'''J:''' Hey guys, good to be here.
Line 102:		Line 102:
	'''E:''' (laughs) At least, and thank you all of the listeners who have helped make this podcast very successful today.		'''E:''' (laughs) At least, and thank you all of the listeners who have helped make this podcast very successful today.

	'''J:''' ~~Aboslutely~~.		'''J:''' Absolutely.

			'''S:''' We have a couple of news items this week and I'll mention the we actually have coming up shortly we have an interview with Gerald Posner, the author of Case Closed and other excellent investigative journalists books. I guarantee you it'll be an excellent interview so stay tuned for that. But first we'll do a couple of news items, couple of e-mails.

	== News Items ==		== News Items ==