SGU Episode 745

This transcript is not finished. Please help us finish it! Add a Transcribing template to the top of this transcript before you start so that we don't duplicate your efforts.

One section of this transcript is in the middle of being transcribed by spoonlegs (talk) as of 2021-25-04. To help avoid duplication, please do not transcribe that section while this message is displayed.

Template:Editing required (w/links) You can use this outline to help structure the transcription. Click "Edit" above to begin.

SGU Episode 745
October 19th 2019
(brief caption for the episode icon)
SGU 744                      SGU 746
Skeptical Rogues
S: Steven Novella
Quote of the Week
Every time you remember something, your mind changes it just a little, until your best and your worst memories [become] your biggest illusions.
Josephus Miller, from The Expanse
Links
Download Podcast
Show Notes
Forum Discussion

Introduction

Voiceover: You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.

What’s the Word? ()

• Leucism

_consider_using_block_quotes_for_emails_read_aloud_in_this_segment_

News Items

S:

B:

C:

J:

E:

(laughs) (laughter) (applause) [inaudible]

New NASA Space Suits ()

• First female spacewalk is set, again. NASA says it sent the correct size spacesuit this time

Recycling Nuclear Fuel ()

• Recycling Nuclear Fuel

Galactic Eruption ()

• Something in The Centre of Our Galaxy Colossally Erupted 3.5 Million Years Ago

Search for Earhart’s Plane Abandoned ()

• The Man Who Found the Titanic Just Ended His Search for Amelia Earhart's Lost Plane

Who's That Noisy? ()

• Answer to last week’s Noisy: _brief_description_perhaps_with_link_

New Noisy ()

[_short_vague_description_of_Noisy]

Questions/Emails/Corrections/Follow-ups ()

_consider_using_block_quotes_for_emails_read_aloud_in_this_segment_ with_reduced_spacing_for_long_chunks –

S: All right guys, let's get back to the show. So, we're going to do one email; though it's actually more than one email, we're going to do one email topic. We had a lot of feedback on the recent discussion we had about the health effects of eating meat. Uh, a lot of people wrote in to express similar points, and so rather than reading through any specific emails, just going to address the points that were raised. I think the biggest feedback that we had was people complaining about the fact that we didn't talk about the environmental effects of eating meat.

C: But that's not what the study was.

S: But that wasn't what the study is about, right, so that was. . . that was deliberate, we were focusing on the study. And in fact, the study authors wrote in the study, 'We are explicitly not considering either ethical considerations, you know, of animal welfare, or environmental considerations. We are 100% considering only the health effects of eating meat.' Um, and that's the literature they reviewed. I mentioned that when I...in my Science Based Medicine article on it. I don't think I mentioned it specifically in the show. But, the study was about the health effects; that's all we were talking about. And, we just - - listen, this is all...the show's long enough as it is. We can't talk about every aspect of every topic that comes up, and sometimes we specifically have to keep focused. But also, we've talked about the environmental effects of eating meat on -- in previous shows. I do consider the show . . .each topic in each episode is a thing unto itself, the show is also cumulative. We're expecting that people are going to be listening to, you know, more than just that one segment in isolation. We've talked many times about the fact that eating meat is definitely a huge burden on the environment, and it uses up a lot of water, it uses up a lot of land for producing food for animals, uh and . . .Although I don't think it's as simple an issue as I think some of the emailers suggested. (Um, and) One of the studies that we reviewed not too long ago made the point that, yeah, we...and especially in industrialized nations, we're eating about twice as much meat as we were eating 50 years ago. It's -- by pretty much any account it's too much in terms of environmental sustainability. But they didn't say that we necessarily have to 100% eliminate all meat. Um, in fact, we're better off using each parcel of land for whatever purpose it's optimized for, and - - which could be doing nothing with it, you know, leaving it fallow. It could be growing a certain specific kind of crop. It could be grazing. So I do think that we should reduce our meat consumption on average, for environmental concerns, but that just wasn't the topic that we were talking about last week. Some people, you know . . . again, this is now sort of a bigger observation about . . . if you're going to send us email . . . you know, and again, we love all the feedback that we get. We are definitely open to any corrections, any criticism, any observations...you know...we want to hear your feedback...uh, we...I read it all, I incorporate it all into shaping the show. But, I'm going to give you some advice on what not to do. Right? It's not helpful when your email is focusing on your perception of our biases. This is just not good critical thinking or skeptical communication. Uh...if you're saying "You guys are clearly biased"...you know..."This is your blind spot," that "You're true believers," that's...you're not making any legitimate points there. That you do...you're playing a version of the Fallacy fallacy. You know? Um, it's just not effective...believe me, we've been doing this for decades. I used to do a lot more of that 20 years ago when I was a newbie skeptic, and then over the years I realized that's com...that's like the most ineffective way of communicating...is just to tell other people that they're biased, or that they have blind spots or whatever. Even if you think it's true, it just doesn't get you anywhere.

C: Also, if there's a lot of, like, anger in the tone of the email, it makes it much harder, I think. Don't you think? To like, to get through, and not think that it's like a passionate plea instead of a, kind of, a conversation. . .

S: I mean, one person, I mean, was telling me, that I need to consider my cognitive dissonance, when...

E: Yes, Steve! It's not like you wrote a book about it.

S: But, the thing that's ironic was that the cognitive dissonance in their email was blaring! But...which I didn't say, but that's just..that's my opinion of their email. But the point is, it's like, that doesn't progress the conversation at all. And then I even wrote back and said all right, listen. Do you have any specific criticism of the...my actual analysis of this study? And their response to that was, 'Well, essentially no, I'm not an expert. I didn't read the study. I have no idea what the quality of your analysis was.' It's like, well, that's right, that's all you have to say at that point, right? 'Cause the whole point was that...and nobody, not a single email, not a single email with all the feedback that we got, actually was able to point out any legitimate criticism of the methodology in this study or my assessment of it, my characterization of what the study was concluded. I was completely fair, in my opinion, and nobody was able to point out otherwise.

C: Well, it sounds like it's less about the study, and some people are more upset about what was ch...what did you choose to cover, not so much like, how well did you cover it, but why ...

S: No, but they did... You're right. That was really what got them upset, but they made the point that (you-know-like) "you weren't skeptical in your evaluation of that study."...Really?

C: Oh, that's a bummer. Yeah.

S: Tell me how I wasn't skeptical! Give me detailed technical feedback and I will incorporate that, and if there's a correction, we'll make it. But there...it was just a broad brush-stroke dismissal! You know that's . . .

C: Well, you know, and it is... It's also super difficult when we're talking about big issues, right...

S: Yeah.

C: ...like, meat eating is massive. It has massive environmental side of it, it has an ethical side of it, it has a functional side of it, an economic side of it. And so, as much as we try really hard to contextualize everything in the greater milieu, there are just going to be times when, like, it would take 40 minutes just to give the prep...

S: Yeah, we have to focus.

C: Yeah, before we can talk about the study!

S: Like, in this show, we talked about the nuclear energy thing. Of course we didn't do a thorough treatment of that very complicated topic. So there are probably things you think are important that we didn't talk about. You know, yes...

C: Yeah... I wish we could, but...

S: ...that's right, it's an hour and a half show. It's not a 10 hour show.

C: And you'd be bored, listening to that, I think!

E: Well...

B: Yes, we would!

J: Can I give you my perspective a little bit on this? You know, keeping in mind, we're all human beings, and we all are very passionate about certain things. We have buttons, right? I've got a lot of them.

C: That's true, yeah.

J: And that's what...I was seeing a lot of people, like, responding, from what my interpretation was, that their buttons were being pushed, like there was something about our reporting on it that really was upsetting them. And I bet you, Steve, that it really wasn't, like, the way that we did it or the way that you delivered the information so much as the thing that gets under their skin wasn't being addressed in the level of intensity that they want.

S: I get it. It's kind of like...I think it's two things. It's like, you're not talking about what I want you to be talking about.

E: Right. Right, right.

S: And the other thing is that...and I think this is something that people have to look inward. It's when you're passionate about a topic, you want all of the points to be on your side. Right? So let's say you are passionately against meat, because of its environmental impact, or because of animal welfare. You want to also it be bad for your health. You know?

E: Mmm-hmm.

C: Yeah. 'Cause that'd be easier...

S: And the idea that, like, you have this nuanced position where it's like, 'all right, maybe it's not bad for your health, but it's still bad for the environment'...some people just really hate doing that. And...as a knee jerk. And we have to always back up and say, 'Every point doesn't have to be in one direction. In the direction that I am most passionate about.' Right? There could be...it could be mixed. It could be more nuanced. So just ... Right? I think that's going on as well.

C: Yeah...

S: All right. But here...one...a few emailers did bring up an important point that came out after we talked about it. So this is something that we didn't talk about, because it didn't come out yet. There are two...two points were raised about failure to disclose potential conflicts of interest on the part of one of the authors.

C & E: Okay.

S: But here's the thing. First of all, technically they followed the rules. They were supposed to disclose any potential conflicts of interest from the last 3 years. And the things that people are pointing about were from prior to 3 years ago.

C: Gotcha.

S: Although, here's the one which you could argue falls a little bit into the grey zonehey received the money for a study more than 3 years ago. But the study itself didn't end up getting published to just within the 3 year, you know, range.

E: Mm-hmm.

C: Yeah, 'cause it takes a really long time.

S: Yeah, but, whatever, they figured, well I got that money 4 years ago, so I didn't report it. But of course you could always argue that you should have erred on the side of disclosure. Fine, okay.

C: Absolutely.

S: But that's such a minor point. But the other thing is, these...this was not money from the meat industry. They weren't disclosing money from, like, the sugar industry, you know, on a previous study that they did. So, it was just from the food industry; it wasn't really...

C: Oh, gotcha.

S:But then, the second one, the second one was from the meat industry, but again it was outside the window, but also, it was like two steps removed. It was that this group was...now not on this study, but on a different project, are collaborating with a university group who received like a... 2% of their income comes from the meat industry. 'Cause they're in agriculture! You know, and so the thing is...

C: which is really common. This is super similar to a lot, I mean...

E: That's tenuous. Yeah, it's weak. S: I know. It's tenuous

C: ...not some of the things, but some of the other things that, you know we've talked about on the show with regards to people like Kevin Folta. Anybody who studies GM, um you know, who does GM research is likely to be funded by companies that are interested in GM technology because they work for Ag schools.

S: Exactly. Now the headlines were all, you know, 'Author of that Controversial Meat Study Did Not Disclose Food Industry Conflicts of Interest'. Right? That was it. If you just read the headline, you think, well, there you go, the guy is, you know, is a shill. But first of all that was one of like 14 authors that we're talking about, and the second thing is these were tenuous connections that were technically outside the window, and...

C: But I do wish he would have disclosed...

S: Of course! Yeah, but yeah, but the thing is, nothing would have made them happy, in my opinion. This is ...

C: But that's probably true.

S: This is using...turning conflict of interest disclosure into a witch hunt, in my opinion. And when you're basically looking for any tenuous connection, and then saying that that disqualifies this study. When it wasn't like this...This study was not funded by the meat industry. There was no direct conflict of interest. This was...They were not acting as shills. They really had to go pretty far afield, to try to draw some tenuous connection. Again, it was like two steps removed. And the thing is, if you're a researcher, in any field, you have two-step-removed connections to some potential conflict of interest.

C: Oh, of course you are!

S: 100%. And I'm sensitive to this, because this happens to us. When I say "us", I mean us at Science-Based Medicine, where people will say, 'Your colleague, at your university, received funding from this company, and therefore...' I mean it's like this ridiculous chain of connections, it's like that's...yeah, congratulations, I'm in academia. Right. But now having said that, though, you absolutely should disclose funding and connections and potential conflicts of interest so people could make up their own minds, absolutely.

C: Exactly.

S: The thing is, if you...

C: But that's...most papers have those. Or a lot of them do.

S: Yeah, that's right. That's fine. That's right. But you have to put them in context. And the thing is, they were just hunting for any tenuous connection so that they could dismiss the study, in my opinion.

C: Gotcha.

S: They... And these connections are not really conflicts of interest. They don't really call into question the objectivity of the authors on this review, in my opinion.

C: That's a bummer.

S: Uh, but they were kind of used flippantly to just dismiss it. And other people were saying, 'Oh, this goes against decades of research.' No, it doesn't. As I explained. They are summarizing those exact decades of research - - the same research. They're just putting a different interpretation on it. And they were pretty transparent, about how that they were interpreting it, as I discussed. I'm not going to go over it all again, as I discussed a couple weeks ago. But anyway, so just think carefully about those things, (you know), especially if you feel passionate or emotionally about a topic, just think very carefully about where you're coming from. Give us feedback, but do try to, just--this is good skeptical training anyway--try to focus on facts and logic, rather than you speculating about the motivations of the person you disagree with, 'cause that doesn't get you anywhere.

Science or Fiction ()

Answer	Item
Fiction	Artificial pancreas
Science	Neural circuit
Science	Stormquakes

Host	Result
Steve

Rogue	Guess

Voiceover: It's time for Science or Fiction.

Item #1: Biologists have successfully grown an artificial pancreas from stem cells and demonstrated function in a rat model.
Item #2: Scientists have found a neural circuit that makes food taste better with increased hunger.
Item #3: Researchers find that strong storms can generate “stormquakes” similar to earthquakes of magnitude > 3.5 M_(L?).

Skeptical Quote of the Week ()

Every time you remember something, your mind changes it just a little, until your best and your worst memories [become] your biggest illusions.
– Josephus Miller, from The Expanse (TV series), Season 1, Episode 6, "Rock Bottom"

Signoff/Announcements ()

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

S: Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is produced by SGU Productions, dedicated to promoting science and critical thinking. For more information, visit us at theskepticsguide.org. Send your questions to info@theskepticsguide.org. And, if you would like to support the show and all the work that we do, go to patreon.com/SkepticsGuide and consider becoming a patron and becoming part of the SGU community. Our listeners and supporters are what make SGU possible.

[top]                        

Today I Learned

• Fact/Description, possibly with an article reference
• Fact/Description
• Fact/Description

References

Vocabulary