SGU Episode 449
|
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 449 |
|---|
| February 15th 2014 |
 |
| (brief caption for the episode icon) |
| Skeptical Rogues |
| S: Steven Novella |
B: Bob Novella |
R: Rebecca Watson |
J: Jay Novella |
E: Evan Bernstein |
| Quote of the Week |
The inclination to sink into the slumber of dogma is so natural to every generation that the most uncompromising critical intellect must without intermission stand upon the watch against it. |
Otto Pfleiderer, 1902 |
| Links |
| Download Podcast |
| Show Notes |
| Forum Discussion |
Introduction
You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality. S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday February 12th 2014, and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella
B: Hey everybody
S: Rebecca Watson
R: Hello everyone
S: Jay Novella
J: Hey guys
S: and Evan Bernstein
E: Ello guvna
S: Happy Darwin Day everyone!
B: Yay!
R: Happy Darwin Day! I’m wearin my little Darwin t-shirt, available at skepticalrobot.com.
B: I’m sitting here all evolved and everything.
E: What exactly is Darwin Day?
R: It’s the day Darwin was born.
S: Otherwise known as his birthday, yeah. Did you guys know, here’s my Darwin Day factoid for the day, a scientist named a new species of beetle after Darwin? The beetle was discovered by Dr. Stylianos Chatzimanolis from the University of Tennessee
B: Wait wait wait, say that again.
S: NO. This is a uh a rove beetle. There are fifty-seven thousand described species, but apparently Darwin collected this specimen when he was on the beetle. And then it sat lost in a drawer at the Natural History Museum in London; and was rediscovered in London in 2008. And then somebody realized hey this was actually collected by Darwin
B: Oh!
S: So it was just described and it was named Darwinilus sedarisi
B: Oh sweet
E: very nice
J: what’s this bug called luv?
B: I would have put that on EBay
E: Imagine if someone would have opened the drawer and said, “Ew there’s a dead bug in here. Let’s dump it out and get rid of it ew!”
R: There are tons of Darwin specimens that are just sitting in drawers underneath the uh London Museum of Natural Science. My friend, Karen James, used to work there and she gave me the behind the scenes tour and it was amazing! There was all of…they have so much incredible stuff. They keep Darwin’s own samples in a basement somewhere. Ya know, not even open to the public.
E: Have you guys seen the show on HBO called Questioning Darwin?
R: Nope
E: HBO’s ran that, I think, starting last week. And I didn’t watch all of it; I watched parts of it. And it had some very parts. Apparently, something I didn’t know about Darwin before, is that during his seminal time in which he was writing the Origin of Species – that he spent twenty years accumulating – all of his notes and everything in doing this… He basically cloistered himself inside of his house and his wife kind of made, ya know brought everything to him. He had his family all around him and the varied species and all the animals and things and plant life and his his green house was immense and everything. But he basically stayed there for twenty years and worked like eighteen hour days like every day for twenty years just in pursuit of this… of of of learning more about the origin of species. And that is dedication
B: How many wives would put up with that crap? Like yeah this is gonna be a revolutionary theory, I need eighteen hours a day for the next two decades.
E: Apparently she was entirely on board
B: Wow
E: and made it possible for him to do the work that was necessary for him to get that book published.
B: Glad she did, but what a hard sale that must have been…
This Day in Skepticism (03:20)
- February 15: Happy Decimal Day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_Day
R: Hey, speaking of…England uh Happy Decimal Day everyone! Uh the day we record this is Darwin Day, but the day this episode comes out is February 15th. And February 15th, 1971 was Decimal Day. Which, personally I think they should celebrate every year; just because it’s a wonderfully dorky sounding holiday. But, in 1971 that was the date when the UK and Ireland switched their currency to using decimals instead of, you know, the ridiculously confusing system that they used to use.
E: Don’t you like having a pocket full of farthings and three pence and…
R: I wrote this down just so I could get it all right. They were two farthings in a hay penny, two hay pennies in a penny (obviously), twelve pence in a shilling, two and a half shillings in a half crown, twenty shillings in a pound, twenty-one shillings in a guinea
B: OH! Twenty-one!
R: And sixty-seven guineas in a pandapiddle(?)
B: You made that last part up
E: Did you make up that last one?
R: I did. I did. It took you guys a minute. So, in 1824 decimalization was proposed based upon the fact that the French did it. So…
B: Wait, I think that’s the first time I have ever heard that word.
R: Decimalization?
B: I like it!
R: It’s a word!
B: I believe it!
R: But yeah, even though it was proposed in 1824, it took almost a century and a half for it to actually happen. Which, you know, should make all of us in the US feel a bit better about our metric system concerns. When it did finally happen, the government broke the pound into a hundred pennies. And they started, actually, in 1968 when they issued 5p and 10p coins. And in 1969 they issued the 50p coins. And then finally, on Decimal Day, they introduced the last three coins which were a half penny, one penny and two pence coins. And yeah, they eventually… they started by marking all prices in stores in stuff with both the old currency and the new currency; and they eventually dropped off the old currency. They also had two full years of educational PSAs and stuff teaching people how to use the new currency system. So that when Decimal Day finally rolled around it was pretty easy, not many complaints about it.
E: Because they realized, hey this actually makes sense.
R: Yeah
B: I don’t have much hope. We’re… There’s only three countries on the planet that aren’t metric, and we’re one of them.
E: Yay…
S: Well we’re semi-metric. I mean we buy two liter bottles of soda at the store…
E: Yeah, we’re hybrid sort of…
B: We’re hybrid. Lame hybrid
E: We are. Look at your speedometer. It’s got both miles per hour and kilometers per hour.
B: How often do you even look at that?
R: Every time I go to Canada
E: For every furlong I drive.
S: Alright, Rebecca I have to point out that we got an e-mail last week by a listener calling themselves Sharon. Who said that they were disgusted and dismayed, that you had turned This Day in Skepticism into this day in feminism…talking about all of your female scientists and everything.
R: Right. And like, pennies are girls so… this one too.
S: Which, yeah I immediately recognize this nonsense. But I did a tally of the last years’ worth of This Day in Skepticism; and it turns out that there were twenty-one males mentioned, seven females, and twenty-eight not mentioning a specific person… Like Decimal Day, they were not about a specific person.
R: Right
S: Right. So you talked about female scientists about 13.5% of the time over the last year.
R: And that is
S: Clearly saying
J: That’s too much
E: Stop shoving it in our faces
R: It’s ridiculous
S: And one third as often as male scientists
R: So yeah, Steve, I really appreciate your response…so much so that I published it on SkepChick. Which inspired another response that I found quite funny. It was actually from, you guys wouldn’t have known this but I recognized the name as somebody who has harassed me in the past on Twitter and Facebook and such and I’ve got him blocked pretty much everywhere. His response was, “If you think about it, men have contributed a lot more to the sciences that women. So really, when you’re talking about This Day in Science, you should talk about men, the preponderates of time. And that proves that I was talking about women way too often.
S: Right
B: Wooooooow
R: Which I just love. This demand that, without evidence, well I believe that man have contributed approximately ninety-nine percent of our scientific knowledge and therefore, you highlighting things people haven’t necessarily heard of that they might find interesting and educational, should also adhere to this ninety-nine percent/ one percent split. It’s
S: a totally made up split. Yeah it’s also saying that we have to perpetuate past inequities.
R: Yeah
S: And also, I pointed out, when I responded to the original e-mail, that part of the purpose – our mission of the SGU – is to promote science…is to create enthusiasm for science. And evidence clearly shows, that women are not as encouraged as much as men to go into the sciences, or to any stem field. And, that when they are encouraged, they go in greater numbers. So, we are getting the message out to the people who need it. That’s part of our mission. It’s just ridiculous
B: I’d argue that we’re not; not at thirteen point five percent.
S: We’re not doing it enough!
R: Yeah
S: I ended it by saying that now that we’re actually running the numbers, we’re actually not doing it enough. Thanks for pointing out the deficiency for us.
B: Hahaha
R: And like, you know even as an aside, I really do…what I try to do when I’m choosing an item, is to pick something people probably haven’t heard of before, something they could learn a bit from. So, today for instance, is also Galileo’s birthday; which is quite notable. I’m pretty sure most people in the audience have heard of Galileo. And it’s also Richard Feynman’s death day. I try to avoid death days, because they’re depressing. And it’s also the anniversary the meteor exploding over Russia last year. You know, these are all things we’ve talked about, you know we’ve gone over them a million times…why not talk about something a little weird and you know…different.
B: That was a year ago? Geez
R: Yeah
J: Ten years ago, Chappelle’s Show Rick James skit appeared.
B: Oh my god, that’s what we should have talked about
J: It’s a celebration bitches!
R: Ten years ago today, I’m Rick James, bitch.
J: It was actually yesterday, but still…ten years ago.
News Items
Organic Molecules on the Moon (10:15)
S: Alright let’s move on to some news items. Jay, you’re gonna tell us about why there might be, but not really, life on the moon.
J: Yeah, let’s not jump to conclusions. I mean when we say life, people tend to think of
S: Or life-like molecules
J: Ya know creatures. Yeah we’re talking about molecules here. So let me give you the background. So back in 2009, the lunar crater observation and sensing satellite was sent to the moon; and part of the mission was to crash a used part of the launch vehicle that was still attached to the ship into the moon to help us understand if the moon is actually made of cheese or if it’s a dessert pasty. But it actually also analyzed a plume of debris that the ship that they crashed into the moon’s surface kicked up by the impact. And what we ended up with, after observing the plume of debris that came up, is that there are organic molecules trapped in the moon’s ice. Organic molecules are, simply put, molecules that contain carbon; but these could be solid, liquid, gas or solid chemical compounds. So the organic compounds are often called the building blocks of life. So how strange is it to find them on the moon, right? Which is just a really big ball of marzipan, after all. Thank you Rebecca. So how did those organic molecules get to the moon? Some believe that they came from comets that crashed into the moon’s surface. So these comets, which have been traveling through space for unknown amount of time either picked them up or whatever. But ya know somehow those organic molecules got on the comets and the comets brought them to the moon’s surface. But recently, the University of Hawaii’s Sarah Crites said that cosmic rays are powerful enough to create a reaction that could actually create organic compounds. Cosmic rays you say, huh? Bob, what’s a cosmic ray? B: Cosmic rays are particles, they’re not rays…it’s a funny misnomer. But they’re particles. Alpha particles and protons that come from outside of our solar system and they’re very energetic and can be nasty.
J: Yeah, high energy particles that are mostly protons; and they come from outside the solar system and they exist pretty much everywhere in the universe. So Sarah and her team believe that up to six percent of the moon’s simpler molecules, found in the polar ice, could be converted into organic compounds over a billion years of being hit by cosmic rays. And to put that time scale into perspective, that is approximately one quarter of the moo’s age. And the funny thing is that cosmic rays also break down complex molecules. So once these organic molecules are finally created, they could be damaged by the same rays.
S: mhmm
J: So the first thing to think about, in my opinion, is if this is happening...if cosmic rays are hitting inorganic molecules and creating organic molecules, then this is happing possibly anywhere that there’s ice or water in the entire universe. That was a little…that puts a different twist on the idea of billions and billions. You know what I mean? Like, wow! That blew my mind.
S: Yeah but ya know, I think it’s pretty well established that organic molecules are pretty common out there in space.
J: Well the thing is, Steve, have we really observed or have any information on things that are outside our solar system?
S: Outside the solar system, not that I know of, no.
J: Right, but that’s the point though.
S: Yeah J: So now if by observing this stuff on the moon we can…I’m not saying we’re certain or anything, it’s still something to think about. That’s a pretty profound thought.
S: Yeah. I mean although there is a general principle of, that we’re not unique. Ya know that whatever we see here is probably typical of the rest of the universe
J: So pretty much all over the universe, like movies are really just eye candy now with not much real content? That’s happening everywhere now?
S: Is that a question?
E: *laughs* a rhetorical one
R: Steve, have you ever given a patient a hug?
B: *laughs
S: Why do you ask?
J: I want to hear the answer to that question.
E: Like an inappropriate hug?
R: Cuz my doctor today gave me a hug, and it was fine at the moment. Then when he left the room, I was like that was weird! Why did he give me a hug?
B: How well do ya know him?
R: Uh this is like my third of fourth visit.
J: Rebecca, maybe he surmised that you’re gonna die and he felt bad.
R: Yeah that’s, he wasn’t giving me bad news or anything. It was just like a physical, and then
B: And then he got physical
E: Very physical
J: Have you ever hugged a patient?
S: I have never initiated a hug; but if patients initiate a hug with me I allow it.
R: And it’s always like when you’ve just told them something horrible right?
S: No no! I just…ya know I just have some like older female patients that are very huggy
R: Oook
S: and feel
E: cultural
S: they feel comfortable doing that.
R: He’s an older man who looks like Richard Dreyfuss and sounds like Richard Dreyfuss.
S: Interesting. Doctors have different personalities with their patients. But there are lines that we try to be cognizant of.
R: Yeah
Astrology Belief (15:14)
S: Um Alright, Evan, you’re gonna tell us about public opinion regarding an oldie, but a goodie…astrology.
E: Oh boy, oh boy. Yeah Chris Mooney, author, long-time friend of the SGU and the New England Skeptical Society; he wrote an article at motherjones.com the other day. A very revealing piece in which he showcases the latest analysis of how well Americans understand science. Or, rather, how terribly Americans misunderstand science. Chris reports that, according to a new survey by the national science foundation, nearly half of all Americans say astrology – which is the study of celestial bodies’ reported influence on human behavior, worldly events and other human centered notions – astrology is either very scientific or sort of scientific. Nearly half of Americans.
S: Mhmm
R: Wow
E: And this was part of a larger comprehensive analysis contained within the 2014 science and engineering indicator study; which has revealed that American attitudes about science are moving in the wrong direction. Skepticism of astrology had hit an all-time high in 2004, when sixty-six percent of Americans believed that astrology was total nonsense. But since then, each year fewer and fewer respondents have dismissed connections between star alignment and personality as bunk.
S: So basically you’re saying right when the SGU started, it was all downhill from there.
E: I hate to have to say that, but that’s correlation and causation, by the way folks.
S: Yeah
E: We can actually not ascribe anything really meaningful to that. But you’re right, Steve, that is an interesting little tidbit. But here’s how it went, they first took this poll in 1979. And at the point fifty percent of Americans were skeptical of astrology as a science, fifty percent were skeptical. And then the skepticism, it crept up it rose and kept rising until 2004 sixty-six percent had skepticism of astrology. But since then, 2012 were the latest numbers, and it’s dropped down to fifty-five percent skepticism, which is the lowest number since 1983. And young people are especially inclined to offer astrology scientific legitimacy. A majority of Americans aged 18 to 24 considering the practice at least sort of scientific. And the 25 to 34 age group was not far behind them. This is extremely disconcerting
S: Mhmm
E: Um remember when Carl Sagan famously wrote in his book, The Demon Haunted World, he wrote that if pseudoscience is embraced it might be argued in exact proportion as real science is misunderstood. I don’t think there’s ever been a more succinct way of putting it. And what he’s basically saying is the understanding of science is in decline; as result, the embrace of pseudoscience is on the rise.
S: Yeah actually the data shows that there’s not a linear relationship, there’s more of a curve there that actually…People who know a little bit of, as you know more and more science you get more interested in pseudoscience and the paranormal. And it’s only as you start to get to the higher levels of science education that it starts to drop off. Isn’t that interesting?
E: That is very interesting.
S: So I think it makes people more curious and open minded and they start to think about interesting things. But you got to get to a pretty high level of science understanding, or you need critical thinking skills. And that, I think it hasn’t really been tracked separately with that same data. But before you can start to deconstruct and understand why the pseudoscience is more pseudoscientific. But there is separate data, just looking at the ability to think critically; and that definitely correlates with rejection of pseudoscience.
E: Right. Very unfortunate. Um
S: Yeah
E: What can we do? What aren’t we doing?
S: Let’s start a podcast.
E: Yeah, let’s do that. What can our society…and we’re talking about Americans. And they did do some research with other places in the world. And surprisingly a place like China, they’re acceptance of astrology as science is low, very low. Only about ten percent in China compared to the numbers over here. Again it’s called the 2014 Science and Engineering Indicator Study. A lot of good information and data collected there from lots of different sources; not only the National Science Foundation but others. And they kind of put it all together there for you in one nice package. So we’ll recommend that folks go there and check it out for themselves.
S: Yeah so we still got a lot of work to do.
E: A lot.
New Burgess Shale Find ()
Boeing Anti-Gravity ()
Photo Lineups ()
Quickie with Bob - Fusion Beats Unity ()
Who's That Noisy ()
- Answer to last week: Alan Shephard
Questions and Emails
Question #1: Net Neutrality ()
Follow up discussion on net neutrality
Question #2: Placebo Medicine ()
This is a question perhaps specifically focused at Steve, but I would be interested in hearing everyone else's opinions as well. I am a fourth year medical student about to graduate and enter an internal medicine primary care program with the goal of becoming a future primary care doctor. As such, I will be many patients' first and/or only contact with the health system. I know that I will encounter a lot of pseudoscience in this role, and I already have seen my fair share during my clinical rotations thus far. I am unsure of how to stay true to my skeptical nature while still supporting my patients therapeutically. For example, I recently had a patient with failed back surgery syndrome – essentially, lower back pain status post surgery, now with worse pain dependent on opioids to treat. It's a bad situation – the pain is keeping him out of work, opioids are causing problems of their own (and are ineffectual and inappropriate for chronic pain), and he has exhausted the limits of our medical knowledge – he is on NSAIDs, has done physical therapy, has has had all the imaging and even the surgery without relief. So he comes in and tells me he recently started acupuncture and 'it's working wonders'. I have seen this similar story frequently – patients with fibromyalgia or arthritis, or itching, finding relief from acupuncture, or herbal medications, or homeopathy. Frankly, these particular cases have minimal 'harm' – even though alt med can have harm on a large scale when patients avoid conventional medical treatment or engage in dangerous practices, in these particular cases the patients have tried everything medicine has to offer and are still following up with their physicians. While I feel strongly that it is unethical to prescribe a placebo and would not thus go out of my way to recommend non-proven alternative medicine, if a patient takes a placebo on their own and finds relief, it would only be harmful to their health (both mental and physical) and the therapeutic doctor-patient relationship to disabuse them of the notion that the alt med is helping them. A few things could happen if I did: they stop the therapy and are in worse pain taking meds with more side effects, or they don't stop the therapy but stop seeing me because they don't trust my opinion anymore since the therapy has worked and I don't believe it. So when a patient comes to me, being helped by alternative medicine, and asks what I think, I nod and smile and say 'some patients do report relief from that'. Is that wrong? Should I be more firm to my skeptical roots? What if they ask for my opinion before starting the alternative medicine? It may legitimately be helpful through a placebo effect (which would only be minimized by my telling them the truth), they would be taking it under physician supervision, and honestly, there are a lot of medications that we DO prescribe with actual serious side effects that, on balance, are likely only minimally superior to placebo (SSRIs being a good example). These patients are taking alt med for pain or depression or other more subjective complaints, not for cancer or heart disease or something that could kill them without proper therapy. As you can see, I'm ethically conflicted, sorry for the rather rambling question. I could really use your advice!PS – all the usual: love the show, been listening for years, huge fan :)JaimePhiladelphia
Science or Fiction ()
Item #1: Scientists report the results of the first mapping of a genome of a Clovis skeleton, finding that 80% of present-day Native American populations are direct descendants. Item #2: A new study finds that crocodiles are able to climb trees, some even vertically. Item #3: Australian astronomers have discovered the oldest known star, which they date to 14.5 billion years old, 800 million years older than the age of universe.
Skeptical Quote of the Week ()
“The inclination to sink into the slumber of dogma is so natural to every generation that the most uncompromising critical intellect must without intermission stand upon the watch against it.” - Otto Pfleiderer, 1902
S: The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is produced by SGU Productions, dedicated to promoting science and critical thinking. For more information on this and other episodes, please visit our website at theskepticsguide.org, where you will find the show notes as well as links to our blogs, videos, online forum, and other content. You can send us feedback or questions to info@theskepticsguide.org. Also, please consider supporting the SGU by visiting the store page on our website, where you will find merchandise, premium content, and subscription information. Our listeners are what make SGU possible.
References
|
|
|