SGU Episode 51
|
This episode is in the middle of being transcribed by Hearmepurr (talk) as of 2023-01-08, 16:12 GMT. To help avoid duplication, please do not transcribe this episode while this message is displayed. |
|
This episode needs: transcription, time stamps, formatting, links, 'Today I Learned' list, categories, segment redirects. Please help out by contributing! |
How to Contribute |
| SGU Episode 51 |
|---|
| July 12th 2006 |
 |
| (brief caption for the episode icon) |
| Skeptical Rogues |
| S: Steven Novella |
B: Bob Novella |
R: Rebecca Watson |
J: Jay Novella |
E: Evan Bernstein |
| Links |
| Download Podcast |
| Show Notes |
| SGU Forum |
Introduction
Voice-over: 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 12th, 2006, and this is your host, Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. With me this week are Bob Novella...
B: Hello!
S: Evan Bernstein...
E: Hello everyone.
S: Perry DeAngelis...
P: Righto.
S: ...and Jay Novella.
J: Hey gang, what's up guys?
S: Welcome everyone. We had hoped to have Rebecca on the show this week, but she is still gallivanting about Europe and it was too busy to join us. But I hope she's having a good time. She will be back with us next week.
J: She's drunk in an alleyway right now.
S: Perhaps.
E: Which country?
J: It doesn't matter.
S: We'll get the full report next week.
News Items
Space Shuttle Mission (1:01)
S: So as we speak, STS-121, the space shuttle is carrying out its mission. Just thought I'd give that a mention. So he's nice to, by the time you have the space shuttle flying.
B: About time.
J: Yeah, right. How long was it Bob?
S: Over a year, right?
B: Two launches in a year. Something like that is crazy.
P: You know, space programs now what it used to be people.
E: That's for sure.
P: It's unfortunate. Sad.
S: So basically we're at the tail end of the space shuttle legacy and we haven't yet put up a replacement. So it's going to be a lean five or 10 years until we get the next generation online.
P: We've got to put this whole clunker to bed and build a new one.
S: We do. One more major disaster and that will end the space shuttle program, of course. And it may end even before that if they continue to have technical problems.
P: Does anyone know, just as a side note, does anyone know why the heat shield on the space shuttle is a bunch of tiles and not one sheet?
S: At the time. Yeah, I mean, at the time, with the material science that we had, that was the best they could do. The tiles need to be able to expand and contract and by having them all separate tiles that could move past each other. That was the solution, although-
J: Plus Perry, it makes it very not easy, but it makes it possible to replace pieces of the heat shield. They have a guy whose job is specifically to recreate those tiles. Their dimensions are, uses a machine or whatever to recreate those tiles and he handcarves them and all this stuff. It's very complicated, but they've replaced a ton of those tiles-
S: Every mission.
J: -every time. Yeah.
P: Wouldn't it just be easier to have one piece click it on and off? Have a new one ready? Click it on.
S: The next generation will probably have a one solid surface not a tile.
P: It should.
S: It's, it wasn't a 30-year-old technology.
E: It's a 25-year-old technology, 30-year-old, like you said.
P: 30, 30 at least. Put it the bed.
S: NASA has some really cool videos of the, they have to be attached cameras to different parts of the shuttle and you could look at forward and after camera views by going, we'll have the link on our notes page.
E: It's great.
J: Yeah, that is really great.
S: We're going to have fun to look at the-
J: If anybody out there hasn't seen it yet, I highly recommend taking a look at one. I love the one where they, they show it go all the way from the launch pad to orbit. You literally see it, you see Florida drop out into the, no way, you know what I mean?
B: My favorite, my favorite video was the one that showed that little Gremlin of wing. That was awesome.
S: I think that's an example of fusing a memory from something else. That was the Twilight Zone movie, right?
B: Twilight Zone movie, William Shatner?
J: Bob, there's something on the wing.
B: Nice Jay.
Asteroid Near Miss (3:42)
- www.pantagraph.com/articles/2006/07/12/news/doc44b3b59852c66238242052.txt
S: So a couple of weeks ago, a very large asteroid zipped past the earth-
B: And grazed our travel.
J: If it hit us, what would have happened? Direct hit, no, no glancing blow.
B: It would have done some very, very serious low and local damage. I mean, it wouldn't cause any extinctions, but it would wipe out a vast track of land. The initial estimates I heard said that it would devastate a continent, but I think they revised that downward. It's the damage would have been pretty dramatic though, but not that devastating.
P: I'm unimpressed by anything less than an extinction level event. I've seen too many movies. I'm jaded.
B: It's kind of, it's unusual. Whenever we have these close calls, it's a little bit of concern there because it really brings home the fact that we could get hit, but it makes me, it makes me really hope that this is the one that's that everyone's going to start taking it seriously and really start mapping this out and dissearching full time and put a lot of people on it. And how many times have we seen one not approaching us, but leaving-
S: On the way out.
B: -the way from us?
J: That's the wrong side to see it. What we need is a full blown plan on dealing with these things. I mean, we should be deflecting them before they get near us.
P: Well, what are we going to do? Let's say you see a five mile asteroid coming towards yours. What are you going to do about it?
B: Perry, we need time. If it's a few months away or a year away, we are toast. There's nothing we could do about it. Now there's, there's lots of options. One very interesting new option I read about was that if we, if we could find this early enough, all we would really have to do is park a big ship and just use the gravitational pull of the ship to slowly change its orbit enough so that it misses us. And that's all it would take.
J: Wow, I never heard of that one. That's cool, Bob.
B: And there's other plans some people think, oh, let's just blow it, let's just blow it out of the sky, so to speak. And that, generally, that wouldn't be a good idea because then it would cause more widespread damage because you'd have lots of little pieces hitting us instead of one big one.
J: I like the one where you attach a rocket engine to it and just put nudge it.
B: That's that's possible too. I think those plans are being seriously considered. But the key is we've got to know as soon as possible when it's 15 years out, 20 years out. So we've got the time.
S: Which means we have to survey all of the near earth asteroids. There are some astronomers who are arguing now like this guy, David Asher from our mod observatory Northern Ireland that our previous estimates of the average time between impacts is actually a lot, is too high that they're going to be that they probably will occur at a higher frequency than our previous estimates because there are more of these unknown near earth asteroids than than we knew before. So the more we survey, the more we realize it's out there that the estimates only get only go up.
J: Well, anyway, they missed us again. So we're good. The aliens didn't win this time.
Psychedelic mushrooms (6:36)
- www.pantagraph.com/articles/2006/07/12/news/doc44b3b59852c66238242052.txt
S: Another news item caught my eye this week. Scientists explore the effects of psychedelic mushrooms.
J: Cool, man.
S: Right. So this is, obviously, known about these for 40 years, but they haven't really been researched very much. Scientists have been investigating a specific chemical called psilocybin, which is a known hallucinogen. And what's interesting, what I think is interesting about this is that what they found is the participants in the study, even after a single dose of this, had a profound spiritual experience and it affected them for weeks in some cases.
E: Wow.
J: So the Steve, the conclusion you would draw from that is that we're hardwired to have those.
S: That's right. Well, we have to be. And there have to be receptors in our brain that produce those experiences.
B: But we've known about that region of the brain for quite some time now. We didn't need to hallucinate it.
S: That's right, this is just one more line of evidence that supports this. But it is actually probably a fruitful line of investigation that just hasn't really occurred.
J: So Steve, what they do, they pull in, they pull in a number of people, probably college students, and you know, just say eat this? And they what?
S: No, the volunteers had an average age of 46. They said had never used hallucinogens and had participated to some degree in religious or spiritual activities like prayer, meditation or discussion groups. They tried psilocybin during one visit to the lab. They also had control subjects who got stimulants like Ritalin.
J: So these weren't hippies they tested it on, right?
P: I'm surprised they didn't give it to any hardcore atheists. I don't know what they would have thought.
S: Yeah, it's interesting. Two thirds, by the way, two thirds called their reaction to asylum asylum in one of the five top most meaningful experiences of their lives.
E: Wow. Well it is all natural. So it must be good for you.
J: Steve, from a medical standpoint, how dangerous is it to do this?
S: Well, some of them did have dysphoric reactions or they became very agitated and you can cause harm to yourself in this state. So of course, the physicians in the news interviews said, do not try this at home. It's not safe.
J: How about neurological damage or psychologic damage?
S: Not clear. I mean, the interesting thing is that some of the effects were so long lasting. Obviously, with any of these drugs, the neurological damage potential is with addiction and permanent changes that occur from that. But the study was looking at just the short-term effects.
P: I can't think of another elicit drug that gives you a trip for weeks.
S: But the implication is interesting that our brains are hardwired for the sensation of this sort of religious connection to the universe and this profound sense of spirituality. You can trigger it with a chemical. That's very interesting.
J: Hell, with me, you could trigger it with a meatball.
Kevin Barrett and 9/11 conspiracies (9:27)
- english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/500325CD-FDBE-4C76-8ABB-0410229523DA.htm
S: Last news item, this is a little 9-11 follow-up in the news in the last couple of weeks. There's been a talk of this professor. University was const professor Kevin Barrett-
J: Oh that jackass.
S: -who was teaching a course and the course contains a week of discussing conspiracy theories surrounding 9-11. Basically, he believes that the United States attacked itself on 9-11 and that there were hiding a big conspiracy. The kind of stuff that we've talked about on this podcast, over the last few episodes or so. Now, this has caused quite a stir. The debate is what should be the response of the University of Wisconsin? Representatives from that state and others are criticizing the University saying that they should fire him, censor him for promoting these ideas. The Provost of the University says, we respect his academic freedom. We don't want political pressure to silence academics and he assures us that basically students in his course will be free to espouse different views.
B: Also I saw this guy interview on Hannity Combs and I had to say I was extremely disappointed in the way Hannity approached this. It was really almost, I don't know, I would say, reprehensible. It was terrible. This guy, Barrett, actually came across as being somewhat ostensibly reasonable and common collected. Hannity just seemed to throw ad hominem's at him. I got some quotes here. He said, the evidence is overwhelming to you because you're a conspiracy nut. Oh, good one. Good one. You got him there where most people think you're a nut. You know what? Meanwhile, this guy is saying, you know what's like, wow, is that the best you can do? This guy threw out a couple facts to support his case. In 10 minutes, I got some good information on the internet from apparently some reliable sources. I mean, it didn't seem like Hannity did not prepare at all. And what really got me was that this guy Barrett threw out some skeptical buzzwords that he's interested in training people how to use critical making skills to look at the evidence in any area and come to their own conclusions. You know, he was surprising. I was just thinking, wow, this guy thinks he's on the side of science and critical thinking.
P: Well, Hannity is not a skeptic by any measure. The guy's a political analysis and he's an advocate.
S: But that's just that's just bad journalism. Forget about whether the guy is a skeptic. And you actually, he basically he brought this guy on the show just to be a freak show just so he could call him a nut job. Didn't really feel like he had to prepare. So he basically for the sensationalistic aspect of it and does a total disservice by essentially creating a venue in which the 9-11 conspiracy theorist is the reasonable one of the two that in the exchange. That's just horrible journalism.
B: That's a worse part of it.
J: Well, the thing is guys, let's face it, the guy is a college professor. He probably didn't come off with an attitude and he didn't come on with his guns blazing. The fact is we disagree with what he is teaching his students and what he was saying on the show. But it doesn't mean that he the guy needed to be smack down hard because he was being arrogant or anything along those lines.
B: Jay, he was being a little arrogant. I mean, he said multiple times he studied the fact studied the record for two and a half years and he said, I don't think I know that our government was involved. He said, I know it.
P: Yeah. I asked a mutual friend of ours who's an English professor, whether or not he agrees with this decision and what he wrote back to me as follows it's short. I said, you agree with this decision to let this guy teach at the university and he said, no, there's a difference between critical inquiry and quackery. This guy's a loon and his students won't have the gusto to effectively put his theories to the test. He should have had to pass through a gauntlet of his peers and would unquestionably not have been able to emerge with his craziness intact on the other side of that. I agree with that with that analysis.
B: Perry you know a professor?
P: You bet.
S: I basically agree with that as well. I mean, I think that we have to be very careful in terms of respecting academic freedom and we shouldn't let the politics of the day decide on intellectual discourse in universities which are supposed to be a little bit protected in intellectual environments. However, there is a line beyond which quality control comes into place. This guy is not just advocating this in his private time or as an aside, he's teaching this to students and the university does have a right, I think, to step in and just say, for the quality control of what their students are being taught, this is not appropriate, this is quackery. For the same exact issue came up with John Mc the Harvard psychiatrist who was, who believed that some of his clients, his patients, had been abducted by aliens.
J: Well Steve, I think in this circumstance, circumstances like this, the form for the teachers to do this would be much more in an optional lecture that they want to give on their own time after hours.
P: The vast majority of undergraduate students are not equipped to filter what this guy is going to tell them.
E: But what about the basic fact that this person is 100% wrong in his facts and his evidence of which he has probably none? And just it outright has no place in any level of academia as far as I'm concerned. He should be censored.
S: I agree with it only if it's demonstrable nonsense, which I think in this case it actually is. It is demonstrable nonsense.
E: Yes. Agreed.
S: It can't just be controversial or maybe a little odd. It has to be so far beyond the pale that you could take that kind of action. Otherwise we have the thought police in our universities and I just disagree with that principle.
B: We have to be careful.
J: I would actually, I would prefer to protect the fact that no thought police would enter into universities and teaching. I would rather have a few idiots like this guy slip through than for them to add in a system that comes down hard on the problem.
S: Exactly. But again, he's stepping over the line by teaching this in class, in my opinion.
E: I agree.
B: Let me end this with one good quote that he had. He said, you think it was 19 guys with box cutters led by a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan. That's the craziest conspiracy theory of all of them.
S: The argument from personal incredulity.
P: Yeah.
E: Yeah. Boy, talk about melting it down.
S: Let's go on to a couple of emails.
Questions and E-mails ()
More on Supplement Regulation ()
What nonsense.
I do not disagree with the conclusion that most people do not understand the science (or lack there of) behind herbal supplements, I do not find the argument compelling. And while I am relatively new to your show and generally belive it is thoughtful, logical and expouses an approach to problems we should all support, as soon as an issue involves the shows leaderships profession and their ability to impose control over others, logic flies out the window and protection of personal privilege leaps to the fore.
The argument presented, cut to its essentials is, only us guys 'the experts' can really understand what is going on here and we should be allowed to control what you do, what you can have when you can have it etc.
This argument, which experts in all fields make all the time, while it contains clear elements of truth, is enormously self serving and elitist and dispointly often wrong.
Much as you could supply for most other fileds examples of how regulation is protectionist and leads to outcomes not in the best interest of its consumers, I can provide on request many examples, of how regulation in medicine, assures protection the ecconomic position of the status quo, rather than good outcomes for patients.
As a former Chief Scientist (PhD) of a major corporation and as a General Manager responsible for turning around failling businesses, in each case the key was to force one's self to see the data and hear the arguments clearly. Almost always the failing businesses I took over were in part a result of previous executives overly focused on their own expertise and looking inward at the 'in place experts'. Rather than being to hear from
outside 'the world is not as it appears'.
While it is one of the most difficult things to do, I strongly suggest that one apply the same degree of skeptism to your own expertise and that of your profession and colegues you do to the rest of the world.
Thank you fo
Peak Oil ()
Dear Guys (and Rebecca)
Great show! The perfect mix of hard facts, debunking and humour. Long may you podcast.
I realise that the following topic may be outside the scope of The Sceptics Guide.. but Im seriously worried and you guys may be able to give me a straight answer that I can trust. Should I believe this statement?
Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This is not the wacky proclamation of a doomsday cult, apocalypse bible prophecy sect, or conspiracy theory society. Rather, it is the scientific conclusion of the best paid, most widely-respected geologists, physicists, and investment bankers in the world. These are rational, professional, conservative individuals who are absolutely terrified by a phenomenon known as global
'Peak Oil.'
This comes from a web site called http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
I also just finished reading The Long Emergency by James Howard Kunstler.
You can read a synopsis of his book here
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7203633/the_long_emergency/
Whatdoyathink? Should I move to New Zealand? Are you coming too?
All the best
Mark Kelly
UK
Interview with Neal Adams ()
- www.nealadams.com/nmu.html
Neal Adams is a famous comic book artist who is known for his illustrations Batman and the X-men; who believes he has revolutionized modern science, if only he can get those stubborn scientists to listen to him. We explore Neal's ideas of a growing earth.
Science or Fiction ()
Question #1: Recently published study indicates that educational toys are more effective than preschool in promoting later academic achievement in young children. Question #2: Scientists have discovered that some wooly mammoths were actually blonde. Question #3: Paleontologists down under have recently discovered fossil evidence of a carnivorous long-fanged kangeroo.
Skeptical Puzzle ()
Last Week's puzzle:
Name the medical pseudoscience that, although now thoroughly disproved and rejected by mainstream science, at its inception was on the correct side of a major scientific debate of the time.
Answer: Phrenology
Alternate answer: Homeopathy
New Puzzle:
When is a boomerang a type of dinnerware?
Neal Adams Follow-Up ()
Neal Adams and Steven Novella discussionOngoing discussion between Neal Adams and Steven Novella<br
Neal Adams writes:
STEVEN
There were no questions raised in your afterward that I would not be delighted to respond to ....If I was given the chance..
If you wanted to stick to the Geology , or the physics or Paleoentology , or engineering , that would be fine .
This whole thing usually comes as a surprise to most folks and You will recall that I tried to warn you that a short time like your podcast could hardly be enough time to cover all this . In the end you fellows made a ' cartoon'of it without realizing it because we . for logical reasons hopped from area to area. Too quickly to keep up with it all, Because this theory, as I said, lays over science like a new matrix, and each area first must be understood , then seen to link and be supported by all others . This is not common in todays approach to science, mores the pity.
The cartoon resulted! ......'This fellow is saying all science is wrong. He's nuts.'
Of course that is not what is happening at all.
Showing how an Earth could grow led inexorably to all the rest though one may not think so , on first blush.
I start with a simple premise , Instead of the continents being joined on one side of the Earth, which made no sense from the get-go.......UM.......why? You see.........?
1. the planets on one side would create a shift in the center of Earth's gravity , Pangea-ward of 4 kilometers .......which would sink the center of Pangea and raise the middle of the Pacific Above sea level.
2. The upper contintal plates match all around the world.
3. Teracarnasaurus lived only between 89 and 93 million years ago. This large dinosaur Has been found in France and Southern Africa . Impossible , because at that time Pangea had been broken in half and the top island was at the North Pole and the bottom half was at the South Pole ....Between the two a gigantic sea , that we call the Tethys Sea, 2000 miles wide , A long commute for the Teracarnasaurus. In fact , Impos
S: The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is produced by the New England Skeptical Society. For information on this and other podcasts, 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
Cite error: <ref> tag defined in <references> has no name attribute.
|
|
|