SGU Episode 88
|
This episode needs: transcription, formatting, links, 'Today I Learned' list, categories, segment redirects. Please help out by contributing! |
How to Contribute |
| SGU Episode 88 |
|---|
| March 28th 2007 |
 |
| (brief caption for the episode icon) |
| Skeptical Rogues |
| S: Steven Novella |
B: Bob Novella |
R: Rebecca Watson |
J: Jay Novella |
E: Evan Bernstein |
P: Perry DeAngelis |
| Guest |
DS: David Seaman, DC |
| Quote of the Week |
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it. |
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951) |
| Links |
| Download Podcast |
| Show Notes |
| Forum Discussion |
Introduction
You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.
News Items
UFO News (2:01)
- Former Arizona governor says he saw Phoenix lights and they were UFO's
www.ufodigest.com/news/0307/governor.html
www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/tech/2007/03/22/tuchman.ufo.phoenix.lights.ktvk
French release UFO database
popsci.typepad.com/popsci/2007/03/theyre_out_ther.html
Houdini to be Exhumed (9:14)
- www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/22/houdini.murder.ap/index.html
Buddha Boy Returns (12:06)
- Wants to be buried alive.
www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=140325&version=1&template_id=44&parent_id=24
Questions and E-mails
PETA (16:04)
After listening to #87, i have two issues:
1. painting all animal right activests with a single brush
2. PETA wants all pets released
as for #1, i am a longtime vegan and animal rights activist, and i completely against the ALF and whatever organization that guy is from who wants to euthanize the bear cub. He speaks only for himself and maybe his organization. i can not find one mention of the name of his group. i am surprised you guys are falling into the same trap as MSM and reporting this as he represents all of the animal activists.
for #2, please site where you got that information from. all i can find was anti-PETA websites that make that claim and nothing to back it up. here is the FAQ i found on petas website, and look and answer #1:
http://www.peta.org/about/faq-comp.asp
it seems like they are more against puppy mills and cruelty to domesticated animals, and not the release of your pet dog or cat into the wild.
how many logical errors and falicies were created in this podcast?
i am writing this because i am a big fan of your show (yes, even Perry *can* be funny sometimes), but i was really dissapointed in the handling of this issue.
thank you,
Adam G.
Philadelphia, PA
GM Food (28:32)
S: The next email comes from Sean Safken from Denver, Colorado, and Sean writes:
Hello,
I have been trying to do research into the big debate over the safety of GM foods. In my research I have failed to find many reliable sources that aren't motivated by political agendas. Are some of them safe? Most of them safe? Are there many that are confirmed dangerous? If you can think or talk about any studies that test food safety with GM crops, I would greatly appreciate it!
S: So G.M. is—
P: What's G.M.?
R/E: Genetically modified.
S: Genetically modified. Thanks, Perry. So, I think that there are people who are against the very concept of genetically modified food, and I don't think that there are any legitimate points on that side—end of the spectrum, to say that we shouldn't be genetically modifying food at all; it's all bad; it's all dangerous. Sometimes it's tied to, you know, mystical notions about what is natural or what is supposed to happen. And somewhat hysterical fears about monstrous crops or whatever. But those are really, you know, unfounded. There are—and actions are—there's already a lot of genetically modified food in the food chain—in the food supply. You know, so you've probably eaten genetically modified food. That means if... scientists tweak one gene to slightly alter one protein in a crop, that's technically genetically modified food. And—
B: Since 1993, people have been eating G.M. foods.
S: Yeah. Absolutely. And if you think about it—
B: In the United States.
S: And actually—and at the most minimalist and benign level, genetic modification, or G.M. foods, is really no different than cultivation that's been happening for thousands of years; you know—
R: Right; we've been doing it; just, it takes a long time and it's not very... it's variable.
S: Yeah. I mean, none of the foods that we eat today evolved in nature. You know, most of the foods—
R: Right; look at the banana...
S: Yeah, right! (laughs)
R: We would never have the banana, which is the atheists' nightmare, if you'll recall from Kirk Cameron's video.[1]
B: (Laughs)
R: Because God designed it, apparently.
E: Artificial selection.
R: But man designed the banana and...
S/B: Corn!
B: How about corn?
S: Wheat.
J: Garlic.
E: So many things.
S: Basically, all cultivated domesticated crops.
B: Twinkies!
S: All domesticated animals; you know, cows and pigs and chickens.
E: Cows.
J: Gummi Bears!
R: I see parallels between the G.M. controversy and herbal remedies, where on the one hand, you've got herbal remedies, which are the supposedly natural and good thing, when in fact, they're just... you know, they're not tested well and they might have some good properties, but we can refine them and we can make them better and we can turn them into medicine, and then that's supposedly what makes them bad in the eyes of the alternative crowd.
S: It's the naturalistic fallacy, basically.
R: And yeah, it's the same thing here, where we're just speeding things up a bit and perfecting what we can do with nature and that, apparently, turns it evil.
S: Yeah.
J: Hey, do we know what, for example, a pig was before we morphed it into a pig.
R: It was a chicken.
S: (Chuckles)
R: Little-known fact.
S: There were pigs that occurred in nature; they were just a little bit different than the pigs that we have.
R: They're called wild pigs. They're still there.
S: They are. There are wild pigs; boars, et cetera. There are legitimate safety concerns to some genetic modification of some crops. You have to take it on a case-by-case basis; you really can't talk about genetically modified as a group, 'cause some are completely safe and benign and others are very experimental. When you get to the real experimental end of the spectrum, then we're, like, inserting new genes into plants to give them some property; make them more resistant to pesticides, or to pests—
R: To glow in the dark.
S: Yeah, whatever. (chuckles) I mean, you could actually do really funky stuff for research. But to give them properties that they probably—you would not develop on their own. The risk is that because of the way that some plants reproduce, they get pollinated, et cetera; those new genes could actually wind up into wild species. So, theoretically, we could insert a gene that would make a plant—a crop—very hardy and resistant and that gene could wind up in some weed, which could then grow out of control, you know. So we basically—
J: Super-weed.
S: —unleash this thing into the wild. So that's a legitimate—
R: Super-weed. That doesn't sound too bad.
J: Yeah. Of course.
P/R: (Laughs)
S: It's a legitimate concern.
P: Sounds like a profitable crop.
R: Sorry; just inserting my resident hippie comment. Go on.
J: Steve, that would be like bringing a plant that's indigenous to another part of the world—bring it to a—bring it to a different—
R: Yeah, it'd be bunnies in Australia.
S: Yes. We've actually—You're right, Jay; that's like an invasive species that is—because we've—people do that all the time; buy trees from China and they plant them and suddenly they're all over the place. It's the same kind of thing, but this is more of invasive genes than invasive species. So again, this is a perfectly legitimate concern. There's evidence that this can happen and even... more widespread than we originally thought. Originally they said, "as long as we have a buffer around the crop then this won't happen", and there have been... there's evidence to suggest that it actually can happen, even given the current safeguards that are in place. But you know, this is all an evolving scientific discipline and the people who are involved with this are certainly not interested in spreading unwanted genes throughout wild species. I think that there's a lot of research being done that—the safety precautions that are being taken are pretty significant. And I think that we just need to let it progress. Let the scientists do their job; make sure that it's monitored; that we are being—erring on the side of safety so that untoward consequences do not occur. I don't think we should shut down genetically modified crop research. This has the potential benefit from this is huge. So as long as we proceed carefully, I think that it's fine. And again, the end result could be crops that are safer, more healthful, better for us.
J: I mean, you know, within 50 years, we're going to be genetically altering—
S: Ourselves.
J: Our babies; ourselves; I know. It's funny that people... I don't know; I look at it like, "yeah, of course they're doing that"—
S: One controversy at a time.
P: Technology will be fought every step of the way.
S: Some steps more than others, though.
P: Yeah.
Satanic Barcode (35:13)
Hi Guys,
Love the podcast, have been listening for a few months now and I am catching up with all the older episodes too, it help me keep sane at work in my mind numbing boring job, the quality to information is first rate plus the humour between the rouges is ace too!
I have a 'believer' friend at work who has been telling me all sorts of stories about conspiracies and so on, and when I heard you out line the classic red flags and ploys they employ you are describing this chap, amazing!
But one ting has got me wondering, he explained about the brackets on bar-codes and the middle and end brackets are 6 and there are 3 of them, you guessed 666! But I have wondered why this is as a bar code used 1 to 10 and logically the centre weighted number should be 5? However I do suspect there is a reason for this and I just don't know it yet, maybe you could throw some light on this subject?
Did you get the Nikon D80 in the end, as you mentioned you were shopping for one? I've just got into photography and have this model too, not captured any ghosts yet!
Kind Regards Damian 'Shropshire, England'
PS, a big thank you to all involved in the podcast.
Damian Dodd
Interview with David Seaman, DC (38:33)
- Dr. Seaman is a scientific chiropractor and is critical of those in his profession who perpetuate chiropractic pseudoscience
His column: www.chiroweb.com/columnist/seaman/
His bio: www.chiroweb.com/columnist/seaman/bio.html
Science or Fiction (1:01:49)
Question #1: In order to help relieve China's chronic food supply problems, Chinese scientists have discovered how to process panda poop into an edible fiber rich wafer. Question #2: Scientists have discovered a pair of semi-identical twins who share 75% of their DNA. Question #3: Taiwanese officials have shut down a major highway in order to make way for a butterfly migration.
Skeptical Puzzle (1:09:56)
This Week's Puzzle
Take a rose
Place it in lime
The outcome is usually death
I am mired by what Doctor Griffin would say
A dimmer version of a baby's last breath
What am I describing?
Last Week's Puzzle
Between us, if I raise my goblet to you, and open my heart, on the grounds of conjecture, what psuedoscientific act am I performing?
Answer: Tea leaf reading - tesiography
Winner: Cosmic Vagabond
Quote of the Week (1:11:49)
'Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.'-Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
S: The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is produced by the New England Skeptical Society in association with the James Randi Educational Foundation. For more information on this and other episodes, please visit our website at www.theskepticsguide.org. Please send us your questions, suggestions, and other feedback; you can use the "Contact Us" page on our website, or you can send us an email to info@theskepticsguide.org'. 'Theorem' is produced by Kineto and is used with permission.
References
|
|
|