SGU Episode 3

This episode is in the middle of being transcribed by Cornelioid (talk) as of {{{date}}}. To help avoid duplication, please do not transcribe this episode while this message is displayed.

SGU Episode 3
7th June 2005
(brief caption for the episode icon)
SGU 2                      SGU 4
Skeptical Rogues
S: Steven Novella
B: Bob Novella
P: Perry DeAngelis
Links
Download Podcast
SGU Podcast archive
SGU Forum

Introduction

S: Hello and welcome to The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe. Today is June 7th, 2005. This is your host, Steven Novella, President of the New England Skeptical Society. With me this week are Perry DeAngelis –

P: Hello, everybody.

S: – and Bob Novella.

B: Good-evening.

S: We have a special guest this week, Massimo Pigliucci, who i will introduce in a moment. But, first, some follow-up from our discussion last week.

News Items

Smithsonian ID Fiasco Follow-Up ()

The Washington Post: Smithsonian Distances Itself From Controversial Film

S: Last week we talked about what is now being known as the Smithsonian Institution ID Fiasco. For those of you who listened, the Smithsonian Institution agreed to co-sponsor a film, which was being promoted by the Discovery Institute, which is an Intelligent Design–Creationism proponent; the film was called –

P: Shocking lack of judgment.

S: Shocking. Shocking lack –

P: Shocking.

S: of judgment and, we agreed, was extremely naïve.

B: And, see, they're more than just proponents. I mean, they are the major arm –

S: Yes.

B: – of the movement.

S: That's correct. They exist to promote Intelligent Design Creationism. The film was 'The Privileged Planet: The Search for Design in the Universe', or 'Purpose in the Universe'. As in response to the Smithsonian Institution's plan there was a backlash of criticism from the scientific and skeptical communities –

P: Shocked.

S: – which has happened in many cases, as we have discussed in the past, when school boards or institutions fall prey to either Creationism or Intelligent Design or– are being used for this purpose, the blogosphere jumps on it, the cyberspace scientific and skeptical community can react almost instantaneously. Mr. Randall Kremer, who was the public affairs agent for the Smithsonian Institute, was flooded with emails. They were essentially embarrassed out of co-sponsoring the film, which is, you know, a minor victory for skeptical activism.

B: I mean, they should have been embarrassed.

S: They should've been embarrassed. Here i'm going to read to you the email that i personally sent to Mr. Kremer –

B: – which i think just put it over the edge.

S: Yes.

B: That was the straw that made them cave.

S: Clearly it was instrumental –

B: No doubt.

S: – in this victory.

P: No doubt.

S: – which is probably representative of the kind of scientific backlash they received. So here's the email:

Mr. Kremer, As a scientist and educator i was very dismayed to hear that the prestigious Smithsonian Institution was co-sponsoring the screening of a film promoting the pseudoscience of intelligent design, 'The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe'. I strongly urge you to reconsider this. The Discovery Institute is a pseudoscientific organization dedicated to promoting religious belief as science. Intelligent Design is a thinly-veiled religious belief system designed deliberately to remove any overt religious references from what is otherwise classic Creationism. Its purpose is to infiltrate institutions like SI in order to convince the public that it has scientific credentials. Do not be so naïve, as unfortunately others before you have, in thinking that screening this film at SI will not be used by the Discovery Institute and other promoters of ID as scientific authoritative endorsement of ID. In fact, they are already doing so. You have stated that SI policy is such that events of a religious or partisan political nature are not permitted. I would add to that list egregious pseudoscience. Even if you accept the propaganda that ID is not a religious belief, you must acknowledge the consensus opinion of the scientific community that it is simply not science. Do not let SI be exploited to promote an anti-scientific agenda.

P: Hear, hear.

S: And, again, feedback like that, you know, within days forced, embarrassed the Smithsonian Institutiton –

P: He must've got thousands of those.

S: Must've gotten thousands. I hope so. I mean, we and the New England Skeptical Society did our part in spreading the word and encouraging people to write similar emails.

P: And the JREF, with their financial offer –

S: Yeah, well, Randi only $20,000 to SI to not show the film. They did not accept his offer, and in fact they declined to accept the $16,000 from the Discovery Institute. They're getting no money.

B: Well, i –

S: They're showing the film anyway.

B: Steve, i don't think they actually declined to accept it. I think they gave it back.

S: Yes, fine.

P: My understanding was that they returned it.

S: They returned the 16,000 and they removed their co-sponsorship of the film, so – The film is still being screened, you know, at a private function in the Smithsonian Institute, but it's not being sponsored, they're not accepting any funds from them, and clearly the imprimatur, the validation, of a prestigious scientific institution like the Smithsonian Institute has been removed from this film and from the Discovery Institute.

P: So it's 90% good.

S: And i think that they'll be more wary the next time. The real victory here is that this will not happen again. Hopefully.

P: What were they thinking?

S: What were they thinking?

P: Yeah. It's crazy. Crazy.

S: Just incredible.

Science or Fiction (5:09)

S: We are going to also introduce a new segment this week, a segment called "Science or Fiction". In this segment, i am going to challenge my panel of skeptics. I have three news items—scientific breakthroughs, scientific news items—from the past week. I'm going to read you a brief summary of each of those items. The trick is that one of these items is not real. One of these items is fiction. The other two are genuine scientific breakthroughs, one is fiction. The challenge for you two this week is to try to decide which one is the fake one.

P: Mere child's play.

S: You have to bring all of your skeptical tools to bear to see if you can sniff out the fake. You can make your comments about each one as i present them, but wait until i've stated all three before you make your guess as to which one is fake. Are you ready?

B: Mm-hmm.

P: Sure.

S: Let's play.

B: Go for it.

S: Item number one: Dolphins have been observed not only using tools, but also teaching tool use to their children. This is the first example of cultural tool use in a non-primate species. That's item number one. Item number two: Astronomers have discovered an Earth-like planet orbiting a nearby star, 50 light years from Earth. This is the first Earth-sized planet discovered around another star, and astronomers say there are indications that the planet has an atmosphere. This is the best candidate so far for extraterrestrial life.

P: How far?

S: It's about 50 light years from our system.

P: All right.

S: Item number three: French scientists have discovered a way to keep water from freezing at hundreds of degrees below zero—near absolute zero. Those are your three items.

B: Wow. I've got problems with all of them.

S: I know. That's why they were chosen.

B: OK, the dolphins. You said one thing at the end, though, that piqued my interest there. You said that it's the first non-primate species to use tools?

S: Well, cultural tool use—in other words, they're – it's not something that's just innate. They're actually teaching this to their children.

B: OK. 'Cause when you said that, i thought of – 'cause i know there are birds that'll actually use tools to –

S: There are. And there're some birds that have some problem-solving skills.

B: Right.

S: But this is – they're actually –

B: It's cultural. There's actually a cultural thing.

S: They were observed teaching the tool use, yes.

B: OK, now i – of course, since they don't have any hands or opposable thumbs, i assume they're not using their flippers. It would have to be their mouth. So maybe somehow they're using their mouth to manipulate an object they find on the sea floor. I don't think that's –

P: As for me, i'm gonna say that the first one is the truth. I recently, within the last week, saw a special on the Discovery Channel, you know, it showed dolphins being very sophisticated, particularly something that they showed that really struck me was how two males would team up for a long time and keep a female hostage between the two of them. They'd swim around with her, never let her get very far from them –

B: I've heard of that.

P: – for months –

B: Months?

P: – months, they would keep her, so that she would only mate with them.

S: They're smart critters. They're vey smart critters.

P: She'd try to get away, they'd attack her and really keep her corralled.

B: Now –

P: Anyway, it sounds accurate to me.

B: The second one has got to be false. I mean, we simply are not at the –

P: Yeah, it's too far.

B: No, not actually.

P: To see an atmosphere?

B: Fifty light years is not too far. It's the actual size that can't be right. Earth-sized planets we simply don't have the technology yet to ascertain the – to determine or to find planets that are Earth-sized. Typically, the only things we find are bigger than actually Jupiter.

P: Yeah.

B: So we're talking thousands and thousands of times bigger than the Earth.

P: He went beyond that, too, Bob. He said that they had evidence that there was an atmosphere on it.

B: Well, that's possible. I mean, you could –

P: Not that size.

B: Well, using something –

S: All it requires is spectroscopic analysis –

B: Right.

S: – of the light coming from the atmosphere.

B: Spectroscopy would tell you if there were certain elements in the atmosphere. That's not what concerns me. It's the size, and that's just too small. We haven't – we're not close to detecting Earth-sized –

P: That one sounds false to me.

B: We will get there, though. We'll get there, but we're not there yet. It doesn't matter what technique they're using. They could be using the gravitational disturbance of the parent star caused by the planet. Still, Earth-sized planets are still too small to create a nudge that's detectable yet.

S: Interesting.

P: Now, the last one, about the water, i mean –

B: Let me make one more comment about the second one. The other technique