https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Geneocide&feedformat=atomSGUTranscripts - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T12:42:22ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.13https://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=User:Geneocide&diff=11798User:Geneocide2020-06-01T22:18:14Z<p>Geneocide: </p>
<hr />
<div>Long time listener who was unemployed. Sorta felt obligated to at least try to contribute given my situation. That's how I won the contest. Now I have a job though. :([[File:Contest Winner.jpg|600px|right|Me and my prize]]<br />
<br />
===Useful Links stolen from [[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]]===<br />
*[[Template:SGU episode list]] &ndash; list of full episodes<br />
*[[Template:InfoBox]] &ndash; Full episode infobox; adds [[:Category:Full Episodes]]<br />
*[[Template:Editing required]] &ndash; Message box indicating aspects of page yet to complete<br />
----<br />
*[[Template:Outro1]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 301 onwards<br />
*[[Template:Outro291]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 291-300 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro119]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 119-288 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro61]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 61-118 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro39]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 39-60 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro30]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 30-38 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro18]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 18-29 (inclusive)<br />
----<br />
*[[Episode skeleton]] &ndash; Page with section formatting for use as "template" for full episodes<br />
<br />
===Also===<br />
<nowiki>{{transcribing all <br />
|transcriber = Geneocide<br />
}}</nowiki><br />
<br />
===Primary Contributor===<br />
*[[SGU Episode 6]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 7]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 8]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 9]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 10]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 11]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 12]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 15]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 49]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 127]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 232]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 257]]<br />
<br />
===Total Time===<br />
13 hours 11 minutes and 1 seconds<br />
<br />
===Things I've Learned===<br />
*Steve says "in fact" too much<br />
*Evan says "absolutely" too much</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Favorite_Rogue_Quotes&diff=9629Favorite Rogue Quotes2015-02-04T22:05:10Z<p>Geneocide: Typo</p>
<hr />
<div><!-- NOTES ON EDITING<br />
Please add quotes in episode order.<br />
Example of entry, replace the inputs marked by *-*<br />
<br />
|- - Adds new row <br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = *Perry* - Rogue<br />
|quote = *Astrology is as vacuous as the space it worships.* - Quote<br />
|category = *Pseudoscience* - Primary category (see [[Special:Categories]])<br />
|link = *SGU_Episode_109* - Link to section in episode<br />
|episode = *109* - Text for episode link<br />
}}<br />
<br />
Blank skeleton to copy:<br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = <br />
|quote = <br />
|category = <br />
|link = <br />
|episode = <br />
}}<br />
--><br />
<big>A celebration of the profound and humorous quotes from our friends at the SGU.</big><br />
<br />
Links to episode pages go straight to the relevant podcast section, where available, but not to the quote itself. <br />
<br />
{|class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;"<br />
!Rogue!!class="unsortable"|Quote!!Category!!Episode<br />
<br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Bob<br />
|quote = We'll be hearing a lot about nanotubes. <br />
|category = Technology<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_3<br />
|episode = 3<br />
}}<br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Steve<br />
|quote = Basically, nothing happens [during exorcisms]. Probably, and this is just a guess, probably because there aren't really demons. Demons are not real. <br />
|category = Ghosts & Demons<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_6<br />
|episode = 6<br />
}}<br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Evan, Perry, Steve<br />
|quote = E: So he thinks he's found the evidence. This wall that is off the coast of Cyprus under the water.<br />
P: I'm convinced.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: I'm silenced.<br />
<br />
P: I will be forever silent on this topic.<br />
<br />
E: There's nothing more to say.<br />
|category = Humor<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_9#New_Claims_of_the_Discovery_of_Atlantis_.2824:00.29<br />
|episode = 9<br />
}}<br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Steve<br />
|quote = We need a new enlightenment. A second enlightenment. <br />
|category = Science & Education<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_11#Politics_and_Science_.2849:47.29<br />
|episode = 11<br />
}}<br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Steve<br />
|quote = So we hypothesized "Hey, there's some influence here. Maybe there's an eighth and then a ninth planet, and it should be roughly over there to account for the anomalies that we're seeing," and lo and behold, we found planets where we thought we would. So shouldn't astrologers have anomalous influences that they can't account for that would have led them to the predict the existence of maybe astronomical—at least something outside of the local stellar group? If a thousand years ago, astrologers were saying "Yeah, we got this pretty well figured out, but there's something going on here we can't figure out. Maybe there are objects that are really massive that are a lot farther away than the stars that we can see." Then, that would have been making a prediction that then was proven correct by later observation, something that science is really good at, but astrology never made any such predictions based upon that, because it's not based upon reality.<br />
|category = New Age<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_18#Q10:_Stars.2C_galaxies_and_quasars<br />
|episode = 18<br />
}}<br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Rebecca<br />
|quote = Jay: I have a question, what do you mean by retrovirus?<br />
R: Means a virus from the '70s<br />
|category = Humor<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_67#Science of Fiction<br />
|episode = 67<br />
}}<!-- add link when transcribed--><br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Rebecca, Steve<br />
|quote = R: Baby, you put the dope in dopamine.<br />
S: Something about moanin' for serotonin? <br />
|category = Humor<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_68#Quantum_Love_.2835:47.29<br />
|episode = 68<br />
}}<br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Perry<br />
|quote = Birds planning ahead? Absolutely, I mean, every time they see a monkey, they plan on getting their asses kicked. That's basically accurate.<br />
|category = Nature & Evolution<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_83#Science of Fiction<br />
|episode = 83<br />
}}<!-- add link when transcribed--><br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Perry, Rebecca<br />
|quote = P: Ed and Lorraine Warren. I'll never forget when she looked at us with all the feeling in the world and she said, "What happened to you boys? Was it the science thing?"<br />
''(all laughing)''<br />
<br />
E: "Was it the science?"<br />
<br />
P: She did! Remember that?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Perry... Perry, show me on the doll where science touched you.<br />
|category = Humor<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_85#Modern_Day_Witch_Trial_.2827:30.29<br />
|episode = 85<br />
}}<br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = {{w|Susan Blackmore}}<br />
|quote = Now why do they come to the conclusion that there are psi phenomena when the massive science, the rest of science is against them? Well, it's possible because they found something, some peculiar, little quirk that's misbehaving in there, and one day we'll understand it and they'll be proved right. I think it more likely it is as it's always been in parapsychology, a mixture of bad statistics, bad experimental design, bad logical conclusions, a little bit of cheating, and an awful lot of self-deception.<br />
|category = Paranormal<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_91#Interview_with_Susan_Blackmore_.2825:43.29<br />
|episode = 91<br />
}}<br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Perry<br />
|quote = Astrology is as vacuous as the space it worships. <br />
|category = Pseudoscience<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_109<br />
|episode = ref. in 109<br />
}}<br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Perry<br />
|quote = And remember, chi spelled backwards is crap! <br />
|category = Energy Healing<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_109<br />
|episode = ref. in 109<br />
}} <!-- needs proper episode reference --><br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Perry<br />
|quote = Yeah, I mean, dolphins and monkeys basically could play chess together; those are brilliant animals.<br />
|category = Nature & Evolution<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_109<br />
|episode = ref. in 109<br />
}} <!-- possibly from episode 3 or 42? --><br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Perry<br />
|quote = Any monkey worth his salt would give any bird a beak flip. <br />
|category = Nature & Evolution<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_109<br />
|episode = ref. in 109<br />
}} <!-- needs proper episode reference --><br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Perry<br />
|quote = I think the final thing to say on this intriguing topic is that the Bernoulli effect would certainly have no impact on our monkey-bird battle because the first move of the monkey is going to be to tear those wings right off. And Bernoulli will be right out the window with the wings. Next case. <br />
|category = Nature & Evolution<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_109<br />
|episode = ref. in 109<br />
}} <!-- needs proper episode reference --><br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Perry<br />
|quote = The amount of years that she [Rebecca] will live longer than us because of her diet is directly proportional to the horror of her life. <br />
|category = Humor<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_109<br />
|episode = ref. in 109<br />
}} <!-- needs proper episode reference --><br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Rebecca<br />
|quote = R: You know who pirates' favorite scientist is?<br />
Steve: I can't wait to hear<br />
<br />
R: Daarrrrwin!<br />
|category = Humor<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_165#Creationism_in_the_UK_.2813:00.29<br />
|episode = 165<br />
}}<br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Evan<br />
|quote = Jay: So Obama is a black lizard in the white house?<br />
E: A blizzard. <br />
|category = Humor<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_338#Psychic_Predictions_2011_.286:44.29<br />
|episode = 338<br />
}}<br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Steve<br />
|quote = Mmmm. Dried tiger penis.<br />
|category = Humor<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_362#Questions_and_Emails_.2854:32.29<br />
|episode = 362<br />
}}<br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Jay<br />
|quote = [regarding neon lights] So, Steve, are you saying that the electrons rock down to Electric Avenue, and then they take it higher?<br />
|category = Technology<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_392#This_Day_in_Skepticism_.281:05.29<br />
|episode = 392<br />
}}<br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Rebecca<br />
|quote = I would just like to pause so I can briefly quote Steve for the record: "low-hanging fruit" &ndash; Steve referring to Einstein's theory of relativity. <br />
|category = Physics & Mechanics<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_395#Scientific_Genius_.2821:36.29<br />
|episode = 395<br />
}}<br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Steve<br />
|quote = He [Ken Ham] writes as if scientists and skeptics, we define ourselves by not believing <I>him</I>. We are secularists. Scientists are secularists. And we're doing this to rebel against God; and we're looking for aliens so that we can prove evolution, to finally stick it to those creationists. You know what, Ham? We don't care about you and your creationism. We don't think about it all the time. We love science, and we love exploring the universe, and evolution is true because of all the evidence for evolution. It's not all about sticking it in your eye.<br />
|category = Religion & Faith<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_472#Ken_Ham_Denies_Aliens_.2834:10.29<br />
|episode = 472<br />
}}<br />
|-<br />
{{FRQ entry<br />
|rogue = Steve<br />
|quote = I decided to start a podcast for my midlife crisis. <br />
|category = Humor<br />
|link = SGU_Episode_473#Introduction<br />
|episode = 473<br />
}}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Navigation pages]]</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_144&diff=9338SGU Episode 1442014-09-02T16:28:06Z<p>Geneocide: /* The SGU Drinking Game (23:38) */ formatting quote to look nicer</p>
<hr />
<div>{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeNum = 144<br />
|episodeDate = 23<sup>rd</sup> April 2008<br />
|verified = y<br />
|episodeIcon = File:spacejunk.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = SS: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh Simon Singh]<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2008-04-23.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,10190<br />
|qowText = It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi Mahatma Gandhi]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello, and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday April 23rd 2008 and this is your host, Steven Novella, President of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella,<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson,<br />
<br />
R: (in a cheeky British accent) Ello Guvna!<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella,<br />
<br />
J: (also in a cheeky British accent) Absolutely.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: (in a more refined British accent) Oh, yes, good-day, everybody.<br />
<br />
(Laughter)<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(0:31)</small> ==<br />
S: Evan, what's our special situation for today?<br />
<br />
E: (Singing.) Happy birthday, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck Max Planck]!<br />
<br />
S: Max Planck.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, Max rocks.<br />
<br />
R: Max Planck.<br />
<br />
E: One hundred and fifty years old today.<br />
<br />
B: He is awesome.<br />
<br />
R: Oh my god, that's gotta set some kind of record.<br />
<br />
E: Now, he hasn't been breathing since 1947, but-<br />
<br />
R: That might . . .<br />
<br />
E: -his corpse is 150 years old today.<br />
<br />
R: Oh, happy birthday, Max Planck's corpse.<br />
<br />
E: Well done, Max. I say.<br />
<br />
S: Very influential physicist.<br />
<br />
E: Hel,l yeah.<br />
<br />
R: And I'll just mention we're a little British tonight. I don't know if you guys noticed. I was feeling a little British.<br />
<br />
E: Quite.<br />
<br />
J: Quite.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
<br />
=== Man Raised from Dead <small>(1:12)</small>===<br />
[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2334132798216105638 Video: Raised from the Dead - Dr. Chauncey Crandall]<br />
<br />
S: We have a lot to get through this episode. We have a interview coming up with Simon Singh later on in the show.<br />
<br />
R: Speaking of a little British.<br />
<br />
S: But first, several news items. First news item: A physician, [http://chaunceycrandall.com/ Dr. Chauncey Crandall], claims– <!-- no wikipedia page --><br />
<br />
J: Chauncey!<br />
<br />
S: –that he has raised a patient from the dead.<br />
<br />
E: Bugger me!<br />
<br />
S: Now, we'll have the link to the video of the news report - it's like a local news report of this guy. First of all, he considers himself to be a Christian physician; which, I don't care, you know, if someone who is a physician, you know, professes their faith, but he prays with every single patient. He actually ''incorporates'' his Christian faith into his practice, which I consider to be unprofessional and inappropriate, because I- you know, he's imposing his faith upon his patients. I think that's crossing a line that physicians should not cross. But he tells this story of a patient who had a- came into the emergency room with cardiac symptoms and had a sudden death, you know, his heart stopped in the emergency room, so they were able to immediately begin CPR - you know, cardiopulmonary resuscitation - and do chest compressions and give him respirations and oxygen, and they worked on him, they say, for about forty-five minutes, and they just were not getting his heart rhythm back. So at about forty-five minutes, they called the code, and this guy, Dr. Crandall, is a cardiologist, he was called in towards the end of this process. The patient was, you know, was dead on the gurney, they had called the code, and Dr. Crandall, the way he tells the story - again, his telling of the story is so full of hyperbole and absolutes, it's not even an approximation of an objective telling of such a story - he says that, the patient, his whole body, his face, arms, and legs, were, quote–unquote, "black with death". What's that supposed to mean? He was decomposing? I mean, that's absurd; that is just absurd.<br />
<br />
B: It is, and they actually used the word ''decomposing'', I think –<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I know.<br />
<br />
B: that he was starting to decompose.<br />
<br />
S: Moments after calling a code? That's just absurd. – that he was, you know, about to walk out of the room, and then he heard God tell him to turn around and to try not to give up on this guy. Right.<br />
<br />
J: He's hearing God in the hospital, like God's speaking to him?<br />
<br />
S: Mm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: Turn around!<br />
<br />
S: That's what he says.<br />
<br />
E: The man has –<br />
<br />
R: That's kind of scary.<br />
<br />
E: Well, here's a question, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: He – he instructed somebody else who was there to shock the guy one more time. They shock him, they get a rhythm back, and the guy survives. The guy goes on to survive. So –<br />
<br />
J: So, basically, what you're saying, Steve, is the doctor didn't finish his job the first time around –<br />
<br />
S: Well, listen –<br />
<br />
J: because –<br />
<br />
S: You know, when to call a code is a judgment call, you know? When do you give up? If you took every patient that was coded for forty-five minutes or an hour and wasn't getting a rhythm back and you, you know, said "Let's just shock 'em one more time", some of them are, you know, that last shock will do it. Maybe not many of them, but it'll happen occasionally. And, you know, who knows how many times this guy has done this, you know? "Just give him one more shock." And then the, this, you know, just an unusual situation where the guy comes back. And, also, we don't know, you know, there's lots of details that you can't really know from second-hand reports. You know, this guy could've had a subtle rhythm or a pulse that they were missing, we don't know. 'Cause there's other conditions that could've been going on that could've been interfering with the code – it's just hard to say.<br />
<br />
R: Maybe it wasn't God. Maybe it was actually Satan, asking him to do it again.<br />
<br />
S: That's right, well, it was some voice.<br />
<br />
R: There're a lot of things we don't know.<br />
<br />
S: We don't know.<br />
<br />
E: We can't have one without the other.<br />
<br />
S: So, the other thing is, it's not like the guy laid his hands on him and he got off the table. They shocked his heart back into beating, you know.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: Sounds like science to me, not a miracle.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, but under God's instruction, though, Steve. That's the key.<br />
<br />
S: According to this guy.<br />
<br />
B: One bit I found very misleading was, there was a quote in the article that said that he, that he did not, this guy did not have a heartbeat for an hour, which is just so misleading, because it's not like his heart wasn't pumping. He might not have had a normal heartbeat, but you're doing CPR, you're doing compressions, your body's being perfused with, and oxygenated with blood.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: So it's completely misleading to say that he didn't have a heartbeat for an hour. 'Cause if you had, if you had no heartbeat for an hour, you know, unless you're ten feet, you know, in the ice, you – you are not coming back. I don't care ''who'' you are.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, he was coded the whole time.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: So, properly performed, you know, CPR, you can get about 25% of your cardiac output. You know, that could deliver enough oxygen to the tissues to keep it going. The guy probably took a hit. I mean, I don't think he's – you're not 100% normal after an episode like that, but you can survive, you know, certainly. That's not –<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: There's nothing miraculous about surviving after a pulmonary code like that.<br />
<br />
B: No.<br />
<br />
J: Where's all the confusion coming from? Like, did the doctor tell a reporter all of this?<br />
<br />
S: I – my sense is that this Dr. Crandall is ''eating'' it up, that he's just playing up this story to the press to promote his personal faith. He's really just exploiting this episode, in my opinion, just to try to present himself as a miracle-worker. It's really extremely distasteful to me as a physician.<br />
<br />
B: Right, but for me the most egregious thing about this was, you know, when you first read the article, "Guy is raised from the dead", you know, you think, oh, big deal, people are brought back from clinical death all the time. But when they – when he starts saying stuff, like he was black with death, and he was decomposing –<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: - it's just so ridiculous. To me, that is ''the'' most whacked part of this article.<br />
<br />
S: That's just BS. That's just total BS.<br />
<br />
B: Complete and utter –<br />
<br />
J: Steve, what happens to a body after it's been – it is dead after an hour? For an hour?<br />
<br />
S: For an hour?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you know, the tissues start to eat themselves up, you know.<br />
<br />
B: Bacteria starts proliferating all over the place. They start eating you up.<br />
<br />
S: But your cells are dead. I mean, your cells [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysis lyse], you know, and each type of tissue has a different amount of time it can go before that will happen. The brain, it's like three minutes, you know, your brain cells start to kill themselves. The pancreas goes fairly quickly. Muscles can last for several hours, though. So it depends on the tissue type, but, you know, the brain - the really important one - can only go for a few minutes-<br />
<br />
J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: -without oxygen before the brain cells commit suicide.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, but what I'm getting at is, his legs aren't gonna turn black –<br />
<br />
S: Maybe they were dusky, you know, I think we might refer to the skin color of somebody who's not getting perfused very well as ''dusky''; just, he said it was like ''pitch black''.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: I mean, everything was so exaggerated, you know, he said "We shocked him and he ''instantly'' had a perfect rhythm!" I mean, come on.<br />
<br />
B: And then there's, there's also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livor_mortis livor mortis], which is the blood settling, which, that itself wouldn't happen immediately, either.<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
B: That would take hours, I believe.<br />
<br />
S: And there's no coming back from that, either. So anything like that, you know, like once the blood completely clots in all of your veins and arteries, there's no coming back from that. So, whatever. He was– the person was never ''actually'' dead, you know?<br />
<br />
B: Right, he's making it sound like he brought somebody back from biological death–<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: -which, in my opinion, biological death, that is it. You're just – there's just no coming back from biological death, 'cause that is ultimate death, and there's no coming back from that.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It was misleading, and the press, you know, presented, "doctors are stunned by this miracle man raised from the dead", it was all extremely misleading.<br />
<br />
=== Politics of Vaccines <small>(8:21)</small>===<br />
[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/some-follow-up-on-vaccines/ Neurologica: Some Follow Up On Vaccines]<br />
<br />
S: Another quick follow-up: Last month, we reported on the fact that John McCain, who was the presumptive Republican nominee for the presidential election for the United States, made a very unscientific statement about autism and vaccines. He said that there is evidence to link autism to vaccines - which is not true, that's not the scientific consensus - and, at the time, we mentioned that, you know, that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the other two candidates, were much more reasonable or scientific in their views. Well, recently, both Clinton and Obama have said also fairly unscientific statements about it - not quite as bad as what John McCain said, but, just in – for fairness and balance, we're gonna report what they said as well. Hillary Clinton said, when she was asked about the situation, "Yes, we don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism, but we should find out."<br />
<br />
E: Ah.<br />
<br />
S: Which is, you know, a bit of pandering, you know. It's not saying that there is evidence for a link, but it's saying that we don't know and we should research it, so it's kind of pandering to this typical –<br />
<br />
J: But she's wrong.<br />
<br />
E: Typical political wishy-washy.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, yeah. And, then, more surprising to me, when Barack Obama was asked about it, also, he said, "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines, this person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it." Very similar kind of statement, and, you know, initially I didn't know what he was talking about when he said "this person included", just in writing; it sounds almost as if he's referring to himself.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But, actually, if you watch the video, he ''points'' to somebody in the audience, so he's actually referring to somebody else, maybe somebody who –<br />
<br />
R: Probably somebody who asked the question.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, so he's not saying that ''he'' is concerned about a connection, but he says, "the science right now is inconclusive". That's not a fair assessment of the science. The science is actually pretty conclusively showing that there is no link between vaccines and autism. But, you know, I think it's just very easy, sort of political maneuvering and pandering, just to say "yes, we're interested in this, we should do more research". That's kind of the easy, wishy-washy thing to say, rather than, maybe, pissing off people for whom this is an important issue.<br />
<br />
B: Pissing off who, though? I mean how many people care about this, you know, really believe this crap? Is it a huge –<br />
<br />
S: Well, let's see, Jenny McCarthy, there's Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.<br />
<br />
R: A lot.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
R: No, there're – there are an ''incredible'' amount of people who buy into this stuff.<br />
<br />
S: All right, there's ten. Let's just say there's ten.<br />
<br />
R: Ten.<br />
<br />
S: There might be more.<br />
<br />
B: You know, this just made me wanna puke. I was so happy, what was it - last week or the week before - it's like, oh, two thirds, these two thirds of the candidates are, you know, somewhat up on what's going on –<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: and now, none of them are in with this topic, and it's just, ah, disgusting.<br />
<br />
S: It's very disappointing. The thing that surprised me about Barack Obama is that I checked his website, and his website gets it right! Under, you know, vaccines, it says, or under autism, that the increasing rate is due to expanded surveillance and diagnosis. That's right! There is no skyrocketing autism rate.<br />
<br />
B: He's not reading his website.<br />
<br />
S: He doesn't even read his own website!<br />
<br />
R: Well, I think it's just a matter of the – what's on his website is less likely to be cut into little bits and then broadcast on the nightly news–<br />
<br />
E: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
R: –and twisted out of proportion, you know. I mean, as much as I want the dream skeptical candidate to come up and say, you know, all of this is BS, it's never gonna happen, because, you know, there are enough people out there, and there are a lot who think, "Oh, well, maybe there is something to that vaccine–autism thing", and, you know, it's very easy. I can definitely see that being taken out of context. If you were to say, "No, it's all crap", you know, people would take that to be condescending or –<br />
<br />
S: But, you know, listen, they are politicians. They know how to say that without saying "that's all crap", right?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: You could say – First of all, they should have better science advisors.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah!<br />
<br />
S: I don't necessarily think that they need to be scientific experts themselves. Obviously, at least Barack has enough of a science advisor that they got the right information on his website. He may, I mean, I don't think he's necessarily aware of every little bit of information that's in his policy statements on the – on his website. He has people that puts that together. But he should've been better-prepped for that, and he should have better science advisors, and, you know, you can say something to the effect that, well, there is a scientific consensus that the rise in autism rates is because of expanding diagnosis, and then, you know, the medical experts, like the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Pediatrics American Academy of Pediatrics] doesn't think that this is an actual increase–<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: –and is convinced that there's no connection between vaccines and autism. But this is probably something for which there will be ongoing research.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, I –<br />
<br />
S: You know, that's kind of a soft statement, but that's perfectly compatible with the science. What ''they'' said is not compatible with the science.<br />
<br />
R: Right, and that would've been great, but, I mean, I don't think you can expect him to know that sort of thing, especially when that's really not even an issue for this election. I mean, he's got a lot to think about–<br />
<br />
B: It should be<br />
<br />
R: -and the questions he's most likely to get are gonna be about the war, and about the illegal immigrants, and things like that, national health care.<br />
<br />
S: I hear what you're saying, but I think that what this says is that science doesn't have that much of a priority in the political spectrum.<br />
<br />
J: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Right.<br />
<br />
S: And, again, it was enough to make it onto his website, it had sort of a new cycle a month ago when McCain made his gaffe about this, you know, it sort of inflamed in the blogosphere anyway, on science blogs. And the thing is, what you're saying is that scientific issues are below the radar for these candidates, and I think that's the real – that's the ''big'' problem–<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: –is that they have things that they are concerned about that are ''not'' science.<br />
<br />
B: But didn't these statements strike you as being crafted beforehand, or did they strike you as being off the cuff?<br />
<br />
R: See, I was definitely thinking off the cuff.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know, are you gonna say "skyrocketing autism rate" off the cuff? I mean, you gotta have some knowledge that he's pulling from.<br />
<br />
B: Right, and I'd like – I wanna know – I'd like to be a fly on the wall when, if they were crafted beforehand, I'd like to hear the discussion about that. "Yeah, this is what I'm gonna say for this type – for this question", type of thing.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Who's coming to him and telling him, you know, and how did the decision – how did they arrive at that decision, to say "Yes –"<br />
<br />
J: Bob, the decision is made because they're in line with collecting votes right now. Steve's right - they do everything as neutral as possible, the things that they don't have to take a stand on, they're gonna remain neutral on.<br />
<br />
E: Or things that they're ignorant of.<br />
<br />
S: But they don't always do that, you know. Like, John McCain has taken a scientific position about, you know, ethanol, you know, biofuels, and he – one that's crafted to piss off the most number of people. You know, he has a very unpopular scientific opinion on that issue. So I think that they're probably willing to take those kinds of positions if they were properly informed. What this– in my opinion, what this points to is the need for the Science Debate 2008, you know–<br />
<br />
B: Yep, you got it.<br />
<br />
S: –that we need to raise the profile of scientific issues in American politics because, you know, our political leaders ''do'' have to make scientific decisions and ''do'' have to have, know at least how to have scientific advisors–<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, show some critical thinking skills.<br />
<br />
S: –and how to confront these issues, because they're doing a ''terrible'' job of it now, and it is actually having a tremendous negative effect on policies that have important scientific issues at their core.<br />
<br />
E: Mm-hmm.<br />
<br />
S: All right, so, Science Debate 2008.<br />
<br />
E: Don't hold your breath.<br />
<br />
=== Penis Theft Panic <small>(15:41)</small>===<br />
[http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/23/us-witchcraft-idUSN2319603620080423?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews&rpc=22&sp=true Reuters: Penis theft panic hits city]<br />
<br />
S: One more news item: This one is about the Penis Theft Panic.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, it's not a panic.<br />
<br />
B: P-T-P!<br />
<br />
S: P-T-P, the Penis Theft Panic. Jay, were you gonna talk about this one?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, Jay is probably the best-able to talk about this one.<br />
<br />
E: Jay, were you gonna chortle about this one?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, so, in a nutshell –<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: – the police in Congo have arrested thirteen people suspected of using their power - they're accused of being sorcerers and black magic, users of black magic - and they've, they're being accused of stealing, or shrinking, men's penises.<br />
<br />
S: That's the ''worst'' kind of black magic.<br />
<br />
E: They should be arrested if they're doing that.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: And the thing about this is, is that these types of accusations go on a lot there. This is not like an uncommon thing.<br />
<br />
S: Right. We've reported on similar stories before, but this one is particularly funny.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
E: It took balls to write this story.<br />
<br />
S: To put this in context, you know, in this part of the world, you know, this whole penis-shrinking thing doesn't come out of nowhere. There actually is, occasionally, you know, waves of panic that there is a penis-shrinking disease going on.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my – really?<br />
<br />
S: And this is just one of those memes, or ideas, that's in this culture –<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
S: – that this can happen, that your penis can disappear. And men go to their physicians complaining that, you know, that their penis is disappearing, it's like shriveling up or disappearing inside their body.<br />
<br />
R: Does it happen every winter?<br />
<br />
B: Ha-ha!<br />
<br />
S: When it gets cold, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: It happens when you swim.<br />
<br />
S: One man had, like, his family hold on to his penis, so that, to prevent it from disappearing, and they had to sort of take turns, and somebody had to sit –<br />
<br />
E: Betcha it worked.<br />
<br />
J: That is so sick<br />
<br />
S: Around-the-clock penis-holding–<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, I did that once.<br />
<br />
S: –to prevent it from shrinking, going away. So this is coming out of that cultural background.<br />
<br />
J: (shitty Indian accent) "You must pull on my penis for me to make sure it does not slip inside my body while I sleep. Thank you."<br />
<br />
R: There are just too many jokes, I – I can't even think of which one to go with.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: So with this most recent case, though, there were 14 people detained by the police in the Congo.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the police got involved. That's the scariest thing here. This is the police.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: This time around, though, the way that they did it was, the sorcerers had to touch the victims. They had to touch their genitals and, what was supposedly happening was, the genitals would either shrink or disappear. And what people thought was that these sorcerers were doing this to extort cash out of them later for the cure. So –<br />
<br />
B: Now, how – <br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: Alright, just think –<br />
<br />
R: That's funny, because every time ''I'' touch – no... there's really, there's so many jokes. I can't pick.<br />
<br />
B: I know, you can't, they're swimming-<br />
<br />
J: Can't control it, you bastard<br />
<br />
E: It's all low-hanging fruit.<br />
<br />
R: So to speak<br />
<br />
S: I love this quote: "It's real. Just yesterday, here, there was a man who was a victim. We saw. What was left was tiny."<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: (sympathetically) Awww.<br />
<br />
S: This was 29-year-old Elaine Colala, who sells phone credit near Kinchana Police Station.<br />
<br />
B: All right guys, imagine, imagine –<br />
<br />
S: He saw it. The guy said, "Seriously, I'm really huge. This is, this is not –"<br />
<br />
J: (exaggerated Indian accent) "This man came up to me and he touched my penis. Now my penis is gone."<br />
<br />
R: "Baby, no, it's just that sorcerer, really. I met him on the New Jersey Turnpike, and he –" Aw, I'm sorry.<br />
<br />
B: Now think about how crazy this is. Let's say you're one of the guys who's claiming this. You – you're now telling everybody –<br />
<br />
R: Well, what's better, you telling them that, because of black magic, or having your new girlfriend tell her friends that just for no reason at all?<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
J: How about just not bringing it to the public?<br />
<br />
R: Jay, what I mean is that girls talk, OK? I didn't wanna say anything on the podcast because I know you're sensitive.<br />
<br />
S: No, no they don't. Stop it<br />
<br />
J: Wait, wait, she's actually right, and that's a good point to bring up. So, Steve, did this guy say, did these sorcerers in Latin say things like, they cast their spell and they're like, "shrink du cockis!"?<br />
<br />
R: Did you say "shrink Dukakis"?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, he did.<br />
<br />
S: "Shrink Dukakis"!<br />
<br />
E: He said that.<br />
<br />
S: Like Michael Dukakis?<br />
<br />
B: Remember that guy?<br />
<br />
S: They say some kind of pseudo-Sanskrit spell, is that what you're saying, and then they touch the guy?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. "Killy-killy-killy shrinky-shrinky-shrinky."<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: I hope this is gonna be edited<br />
<br />
R: Oh, geez. This is going from bad to worse.<br />
<br />
S: And then they, Bob's right, though. What they should do is send tons of spam email about how they can enlarge your penis. That seems to work for a lot of other people.<br />
<br />
B: You wanna make, you wanna make money, believe me, do it.<br />
<br />
E: Bob, probably someone's out there probably doing that. You could probably find that.<br />
<br />
J: It's so absurd, you have to just imagine the environment that these people have to live in in order for people to think it's happening, make accusations against other people, and then, the one thing that we didn't bring up yet is some people are lynched because of stuff like this.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, people are lynched.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It does get serious, because, you know, you don't want to be accused of being a sorcerer, shrinking people's penises with black magic.<br />
<br />
E: ''Peni''?<br />
<br />
S: It's all fun and games until somebody gets lynched.<br />
<br />
E: Or someone loses a penis.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, terrible. Terrible. Let's move on.<br />
<br />
E: Quickly.<br />
<br />
== Questions and E-mails ==<br />
=== Oldest Plant <small>(20:46)</small>===<br />
S: We have some – some emails. Let's go on to some emails. Question number one comes from Andrew Walsh from Tasmania, and he writes:<br />
<blockquote>Hi guys, you've probably had lots of emails on your comments about the 10,000 year old spruce clone and how it's the oldest living thing around. If not, can I please bring up to your attention a plant here in Tasmania called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomatia_tasmanica ''Lomatia tasmanica'']. Like that spruce, it's a clone, and it's thought to be 43,000 years old. In your face Sweden! See the section titled 'Ecology and management' in the pdf found at [http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Attachments/SSKA-756W2H/$FILE/Lomatia%20tasmanica.pdf this URL]. Love your show by the way. Cheers.</blockquote><br />
S: Well, thank you, Andrew. Actually, you were the only one to point this out to us. We mentioned the Science or Fiction item last year that the oldest living ''tree'' was found in Sweden, almost 10,000 years old<ref>[[SGU Episode 6#Science or Fiction (6:04)|SGU Episode 6: Science or Fiction]]</ref>. This here is not a tree, but it's a plant, ''lomatia tasmanica'', and I did follow the link, and I also just researched – just did some Google searching on it, and, yeah, you know, it says that it's a plant that clones itself, and you could have a clone continuously surviving for many thousands of years. They say at least 43,600 years, and there are some reports of some plants that are possibly as old as 135,000 –<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
S: – based on radio-carbon dating of fossilized leaf fragments. So that's, but that's – the higher figure is still a little speculative.<br />
<br />
E: Where were those plants located?<br />
<br />
S: In Tasmania. It's a Tasmanian shrub.<br />
<br />
J: They can't verify it?<br />
<br />
S: Well that, it's– that's the estimate based upon radio-carbon dating of fossilized leaf fragments.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, you can't really just check his ID.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: That's still incredible. I mean –<br />
<br />
S: It's incredible, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: – I mean, you know, I asked you this last week, Steve. So, what were humans doing 100,000 years ago?<br />
<br />
S: Well, then you're starting to get to the point of, you know, were they actually even humans at that point? In 100,000 years you have, like, the early, early ''homo sapiens''.<br />
<br />
R: Unless you believe in Atlantis, at which point, you know, that they were building pyramids in Bosnia.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, that's even pr– this is even before Atlantis now. Yeah, this is the Bosnian pyramid era.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: This is when the aliens from the Plaeides were visiting the Earth and uplifting the primitive humans. I'm sorry, I wasn't supposed to talk about that. Just forget I said that.<br />
<br />
B: Haaa!<br />
<br />
J: Why does a shrub get to live 100,000 years and I get maybe eighty if I'm lucky?<br />
<br />
E: A shrubbery!<br />
<br />
S: Well, if you cloned yourself, you could live for longer.<br />
<br />
R: It's quality, not quantity, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, a clone would live longer.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, what about the whole telomere problem?<br />
<br />
J: I want both! I want both of those.<br />
<br />
R: Do you know how boring it is to be a shrub?<br />
<br />
S: True.<br />
<br />
R: Yes, you do. Look who I'm asking.<br />
<br />
E: Nice.<br />
<br />
S: OK –<br />
<br />
R: Aw, I'm sorry.<br />
<br />
S: – let's move on.<br />
<br />
R: I don't think we're doing very good with our barbs tonight. We need to step it up a bit.<br />
<br />
J: No, we're not.<br />
<br />
S: Nah, it's kinda lame tonight.<br />
<br />
=== The SGU Drinking Game <small>(23:38)</small>===<br />
S: All right. The next email comes from Keith Waznonis from L-town, USA, and Keith writes:<br />
<blockquote>Dear SGU, <br /><br />
As you continue to become more popular, I feel you need to tap into a younger demographic. Seeing as I am a huge fan of the show, and a college student, I thought I'd be so kind to help. Using my knowledge from my marketing class, I realized that if the SGU wants to get more college age listeners they need something special. And, as we all know, college-age people love to drink. I thus was kind enough to put together a little SGU drinking game to hopefully help you get a younger demographic. Nothing like a bunch of drunk people gathered around a computer listening to some Skeptics, eh? So, here it is, the SGU Drinking Game.</blockquote><br />
<br />
R: I'm excited.<br />
<br />
S: So, you know, while listening to the podcast, everyone has to drink if – and here are the conditions under which you have to take a drink: "Rebecca Watson makes a corny joke." Well, that'll never happen.<br />
<br />
R: That's a lot of – Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: "A Logical Fallacy is mentioned."<br />
<br />
E: Hmm.<br />
<br />
S: "Perry DeAngelis is mentioned." You'd have to drink in his honor.<br />
<br />
R: One for the homie.<br />
<br />
S: "A Novella makes a ''Star Trek'' reference." I guess, Evan, it doesn't count if you make one.<br />
<br />
E: That's right, woo-hoo<br />
<br />
(whistles)<br />
<br />
S: "There is a long, boring conversation about birds that nobody has any interest in."<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
R: Word.<br />
<br />
B: Haa-ha!<br />
<br />
E: That's just not nice.<br />
<br />
R: Hey, last time ''I'' drank.<br />
<br />
S: I'm always interested, so that will never, that will never happen.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: "Steve Novella gets technical talking about the brain." Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, that's a good one.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: "James Randi is mentioned."<br />
<br />
E: Who's James Randi?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "Someone says a bad pun." Jay.<br />
<br />
E: Of course.<br />
<br />
S: "Evan does a 'This Day In History'." So that's just to get everybody started.<br />
<br />
E: Get us going.<br />
<br />
R: That's a good one.<br />
<br />
J: That's the warm-up drink.<br />
<br />
S: And, "Drink if the following words are spoken: ''Darwin'', ''evolution'', ''agnostic'', or ''pseudoscience''.<br />
<br />
R: That's pretty good.<br />
<br />
S: "Drink entire time during the quote of the week." Or, "If you guess Science or Fiction correctly, you get to pick someone else in the room to drink."<br />
<br />
J: That's, that's good. <br />
<br />
S: "And, for the truly daring, drink the entire time Bob Novella reasons through Science or Fiction."<br />
<br />
B: Oh, nice! Nice.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: That's a death wish.<br />
<br />
R: People, please don't actually try this at home, 'cause that would probably kill someone.<br />
<br />
S: That's alcohol poisoning, yeah. So, except for that last one, that's – that sounds like a pretty fun game.<br />
<br />
J: Thanks, Keith, that was a good email.<br />
<br />
R: I think we need to add some, though. There's like, I think you need to drink every time Bob says "billions of dollars".<br />
<br />
S: Mm-hmm.<br />
<br />
E: Crap.<br />
<br />
S: Or, or any time –<br />
<br />
B: Trillions.<br />
<br />
S: – anyone mentions nanotechnology.<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
R: Or any time we choose a news item just so we can make dick jokes.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
R: Drink!<br />
<br />
B: Or, how about, how about we play this game, how about we play the game while we're recording? Boy, by the end of that show....<br />
<br />
R: Why don't we – why don't we do it next week?<br />
<br />
B: That would be funny.<br />
<br />
J: Steve –<br />
<br />
E: Because we'll be sick after five minutes?<br />
<br />
S: That sounds like a dangerous feedback loop, though, since ''we're'' the criteria for when ''we'' should drink.<br />
<br />
B: Right!<br />
<br />
J: That's true.<br />
<br />
R: That's, that's true. Kind of like the secret word and Jay yelling out "spandex".<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right, right.<br />
<br />
B: Agnostic!<br />
<br />
E: Everyone should –<br />
<br />
J: Spandex!<br />
<br />
B: Buggery!<br />
<br />
S: All right. We'll think about what, what, how we can have more fun and games with this, but thanks, thanks, Keith. That was funny.<br />
<br />
=== Space Junk <small>(26:31)</small>===<br />
S: The next email comes from Mark Atweh (?) from Leeds, England. I always think –<br />
<br />
E: (British accent) I say.<br />
<br />
S: I always think of Stafford when I heard "Leeds".<br />
<br />
R: (British accent) Oh! Pip, pip, cheerio!<br />
<br />
S: You guys play rainmaker?<br />
<br />
E: Choose a British accent, won't you, Steven? Right.<br />
<br />
E: I don't give a fig!<br />
<br />
S: He says, <br />
<blockquote>Why, hello. I'm a big fan of the show. You have all educated me more than my school ever did, and you managed to turn me, someone who used to antagonize his science teachers, into the class science geek. Anyhow, about a week ago, I read an article in some trashy newspaper about how we are littering space with satellites and whatnot, and it's becoming a big problem. Here's a link to another article on the matter, entitled "Space Junk Threatens World". The alarmist title on that article raises red flags. Is space junk a genuine concern? Thanks for the always-entertaining and educational podcast. Mark.</blockquote><br />
S:Well, thanks for the kind words, Mark, and I think Bob has our report on space junk.<br />
<br />
B: Yes. Thanks, Mark. You are correct that the title of the article seems alarmist, and the fact that it raised some red flags is a good knee-jerk skeptical reaction. But, in this case, though, I have to agree that the title – I have to agree with the title, and I wish the authors made their argument even more effectively than they did. Their argument, in a nutshell, goes like this: The amount of space junk orbiting the Earth has reached a critical level. A report from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Space_Safety IAASS] - The International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety, which I never even heard about before - is calling for tough international laws to avert a potential tragedy. According to NASA, thousands of pieces of space junk now orbit the Earth, weighing more than 5,500 tons, and low Earth orbit debris poses risks to manned spacecraft. Now, for example, in 1991, a space shuttle had to carry out an emergency seven-second burn of its engines to avoid being stuck – or struck by a piece of a Russian satellite. I wasn't aware of that. The debris, this debris also poses a risk to Earth itself, according to the article linked to in the email. In 2006, pieces of a Russian spy satellite burnt up in the atmosphere, passing close to an airbus carrying 270 passengers. And, finally, in the article that he referenced, and most ineffectively, the article states that more than 200 dead satellites now litter this vital part of the– of space, and within ten years that number could increase five-fold, warns the report. The resulting chaos could lead to serious damage or loss of a spacecraft. So that's pretty much the argument in the article in a nutshell. But it's much worse than this, even that, and I do wish they did a better job describing the situation. From what I can tell, the states of the various orbits around the Earth are much worse than alluded to in the article. There are now 10,000 separate objects, four centimeters or bigger, being tracked by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Space_Command U.S. Space Command].<ref name="junk">DISCOVER magazine: [http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/map-space-junk Map:Space Junk]</ref> Wouldn't you love to say, "I work for the U.S. Space Command"? This includes stuff like spent rocket stages, dead satellites, explosion fragments, paint flakes, hand tools, and a camera. According to a New York Times article, scientists generally agree that we have now surpassed critical mass in terms of space debris.<ref>New York Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/science/space/06orbi.html Orbiting Junk, Once a Nuisance, Is Now a Threat]</ref> I did not get the memo on that one. This refers to what's called "critical spatial density", in which a chain reaction becomes ''inevitable''.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I don't know if I buy the whole chain reaction thing.<br />
<br />
B: Well, all right, let me continue. It's just a few more paragraphs here. A chain reaction, or cascade, starts when a relatively large object in orbit is hit, breaking into smaller debris, which then hits others, and so on, creating a massive debris cloud. The term [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome "Kessler syndrome"] has also been used for a doomsday cascade scenario. In this worst-case scenario, a cascade destroys everything in orbit completely, completely isolating us on the planet for a potentially, it could be for centuries. In fact, now that we've passed critical mass, according to experts, a cascade can start today, or next year, or next decade. According to Nicholas Johnson, Chief Scientist for the Orbital Debris at NASA, it's inevitable. A significant piece of debris will run into an old rocket body, and that will create more debris. It's a bad situation. And, according to Kessler, Kessler himself, he thinks that it's really not a doomsday scenario. He thinks that what it would do is that it would create a situation where it will cost us much, much more money to send anything into orbit, because, think about it, you'd have to beef up the shields, and every pound is another, you know, whatever, $10,000 for every pound put in orbit. Until you deal with this situation, which would be very difficult, or you wait, you know, wait a few centuries until everything kinda –<br />
<br />
J: We would never do that. What would- what could we do? What kind of sweeper could we use?<br />
<br />
B: There are options. There are certain things we could do. One is called a terminator tether, which actually, these – the satellite lowers a magnetic tether towards Earth, and that will make it de-orbit quicker. Well, wait. If you're talking about a full cascade, if a cascade has happened and we're in that situation, then, right now, studies have been done that there's no near-term idea that anyone's come up with that's both technically feasible and cost-effective. You know, maybe you would use lasers to blast some of them, you would use some sort of machines that could somehow safely get into orbit and start, I don't know, dealing with some of this debris.<br />
<br />
S: Scavenging it up.<br />
<br />
B: Someone suggested using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel aerogels], which, aerogel is this protein matrix that is the lightest material ever invented. It's essentially solid smoke. It's good at absorbing debris and impacts, and you could actually have these huge chunks of aerogel that could, you know, soak up some of these– this debris, and then it would, and then you could somehow de-orbit it and get it out of there. So there's ideas, but nothing – there's no so-called silver bullet for this if a cascade happens. So, Steve, you expressed some skepticism with an actual cascade ''event''?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I mean, I think that, yeah, there's a lot of junk up there, and it's a menace, you know, to the orbits that we typically use, and I do think now is probably a good time to start thinking about technologies that will keep those orbits more clear. But the whole doomsday cascade thing, I don't think, is that plausible.<br />
<br />
B: Why?<br />
<br />
S: Well, to put things in perspective, some estimates say that it would take, like, 100 years for such a cascade event to occur, you know? And this will give us time to, to take measures to do something about it.<br />
<br />
B: The point of the critical mass is that it is now inevitable, now that we've passed this critical threshold. It could happen tomorrow, or it could happen in 10 or 20 years, but it's going to happen.<br />
<br />
J: Unless we clean it up.<br />
<br />
B: Right, unless we clean it up.<br />
<br />
S: Well, hopefully we won't find out.<br />
<br />
B: Sure.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully we'll figure out some way to scoop up some of the space junk. But thanks for that report, Bob.<br />
<br />
=== Brain Gym <small>(33:12)</small>===<br />
S: The last email comes from Phil Gullet, who writes, "Hi Jay, how've you been?" Jay, you know this guy?<br />
<br />
J: Phil was– is a very, very talented artist that helped us last fall. We were trying to work on some logo ideas –<br />
<br />
S: Ah, right. Phil writes:<br />
<blockquote>Last night I was watching News Night on the BBC and I saw their story on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_Gym Brain Gym]. Man, it is such a load of garbage, it made me literally angry with rage." (pensively) "Angry with rage" ... </blockquote><br />
<br />
R: "Literally".<br />
<br />
S: Maybe "raging with anger"? <br />
<blockquote>I don't remember you discussing this on SGU, so how about raking these clowns over the coals? They call their particular brand of fraud "educational kinesiology", or "EduK", and it basically assumes that you can stimulate the brain by rubbing on various parts of your body, turning your head while humming, or tapping your shoulder. So, exploiting every parent's desire to give their child a leg up, Brain Gym's people, who are based in California - shocking - sell books and educational materials to them. Schooled in Britain – schools in Britain do this during school hours. If you can find footage of schoolchildren doing these exercises, your fury will blow the world in half, so don't even look for it. Meh, screw the world! Here's a link ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5rH7kDcFpc&feature=related Newsnight video]). Steven has to have heard of this, let him shower the Earth with his derision. Phil.</blockquote><br />
<br />
B: Nice!<br />
<br />
R: The funny thing is that they're based in California, but I've heard about Brain Gym primarily through [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Goldacre Ben Goldacre] in the UK –<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
R: – who has been railing about them for, like, the past five years or so.<ref>Bad Science: [http://www.badscience.net/2008/02/banging-your-head-repeatedly-against-the-brick-wall-of-teachers-stupidity-helps-to-co-ordinate-your-left-and-right-cerebral-hemispheres/ Banging your head repeatedly against the brick wall of teachers’ stupidity helps increase blood flow to your frontal lobes]</ref><br />
<br />
S: Yeah, Ben Goldacre's been a huge critic of this because they have infiltrated the educational system in the UK pretty well. Not nearly as much in the United States. So this is based upon an idea that cropped up in the 1960s and kind of reached its peak in the 1970s, the notion that you can change the way the brain is hardwired by doing physical activity - even passive activity in some manifestations, although in this case it's more active, physical stuff that you do - and that you can actually re-pattern, or change the way the brain is hardwired. In the United States, this was primarily promoted by Doman and Delacato, who use this in what they call "psychomotor patterning", which they claimed could cure people of cognitive disabilities or mental retardation, whatever the cause. They could, you know, make a child who had cognitive impairment, to make them normal, even excel, just by doing these passive exercises. It was ''totally'' ridiculous. And, in the 1970s there were a number of studies that were done on it, and they were negative. It didn't work. So it was tossed on the trash can of science. But Doman and Delacato already had too much invested in this. So they made their institutes and started, you know, making millions of dollars teaching this complete nonsense to desperate parents. This is a kind of an offshoot of that, and this was promoted by the Dennisons, like a husband and a wife team, and they made – they came up with the very same concept, that you could sort of re-pattern the brain and make it function better by just doing physical activities. Also in the '70s, when they came out with this idea, this educational kinesiology, it was also completely discredited. It was studied. You know, I went back and looked at what was published. It was a few studies that were published. There was a couple that were, you know, like pilot studies that were very small, that were positive, and then there was a series of better studies that were completely negative, and there's been a fairly thorough evaluation or review of the research, and it's negative. This concept is false; it doesn't work; Brain Gym doesn't work; educational kinesiology is fake; and, again, it was discarded. But these people, the Dennisons, they're invested in it! This is their livelihood, so they're not gonna give up just because it doesn't work. So they've been now selling their pseudoscience around the world for the last 30 years. They do – if you go to their [http://www.braingym.org/index website], they make all kind of ludicrous claims. They do have a large PDF of their research, but their research is largely in-house studies - so it's their own people - and it's published in the ''Brain Gym Journal''. Ooh, that's a really objective peer-reviewed journal they published it in.<br />
<br />
E: The Brain Gym Journal? Oh my god.<br />
<br />
S: And you can get this study if you send them 25 bucks or 35 bucks–<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
S: –and they'll send you their research on showing that their own stuff works.<br />
<br />
R: That's a steal! Real research costs a lot more than that.<br />
<br />
E: This is crazy<br />
<br />
S: It's all pseudoscience. There's ''nothing'' in the actual peer-reviewed published research to support this. And, then, you gotta watch the video. The video is absolutely ludicrous. These kids are doing things like tapping their shoulders and rolling their eyes around, and that's supposed to make their brain function better. And they really get into some hard-core pseudoscience. Like, if you drink water before a test you'll do better 'cause the water gets absorbed directly into your brain–<br />
<br />
R: What?<br />
<br />
S: –which is 90% water, and, therefore, it'll function better. Oh, you gotta –<br />
<br />
E: You really only use 10% of your brain.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, it's on that level of just blatant pseudoscience. Then they interview these poor kids, right, who are being taught, you know, real science by a science teacher, and then also they're teaching this utter nonsense, and the kids are parroting back the nonsense that they're being told about the Brain Gym as if it's real.<br />
<br />
R: What's great is to see –<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, yeah, I know what you're talking about there. The interviewer, the news – the journalist actually did a really good job at journalism –<br />
<br />
B: I don't believe it.<br />
<br />
S: – and asked this guy, this promoter, some –<br />
<br />
R: Oh, Pax– [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Paxman Paxman], right?<br />
<br />
S: – yeah –<br />
<br />
R: Sorry.<br />
<br />
S: – some tough questions, and he collapsed!<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, and it's funny, 'cause, relative to American journalists, Paxman does a really fantastic job. And to us it's like, wow, he really busted on this guy, you know, really called him out. And, in any event, Paul Dennison, the Brain Gym guy, was at a loss for words which was fun to see.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah-<br />
<br />
S: He's only been doing this for 30 years, and he couldn't think of anything intelligent to say in defense of himself. He really sounded like a complete idiot. Which is appropriate. Well, let's go on to our interview.<br />
<br />
== Interview with Simon Singh <small>(39:08)</small>==<br />
S: Joining us now is [http://simonsingh.net/ Simon Singh]. Simon, welcome to The Skeptics' Guide.<br />
<br />
SS: Nice to talk to you.<br />
<br />
S: Dr. Singh is an author, journalist, TV producer, and we are discussing with him this evening his latest book, which is just coming out, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trick_or_Treatment ''Trick or Treatment: Alternative Medicine on Trial'']. So, Simon, why did you write this book?<br />
<br />
SS: Well, it's a big departure for me, because my background's in particle physics, and I've written about cryptography and pure mathematics and cosmology, so to move to medicine was a big decision. And it happened when, about two years ago, I was in London, and I walked past a shop dealing in homeopathic remedies, and, out of just curiosity, I thought, I wonder what's going to happen if I go in here and ask for advice on malaria prevention. It's the kind of thing I do – for some odd reason. And I went in, and I was shocked that the homeopath was quite willing to try and give me some kind of medication to protect me from malaria if I went overseas. This is extraordinary because homeopaths, in case people don't realize, say that you take something, typically like cures like, so you might take some swampy material, some essence of mosquito or something, then you dilute it over and over and over and over again, to such an extent that the final remedy has ''nothing'' of the original ingredient left. It's been dissolved out. And, so, essentially the homeopaths were willing to give me ''nothing'' to protect me against malaria. And this then led to a more kind of rigorous study whereby I asked a young student to visit ten homeopaths. She said she was going to go to West Africa - we picked West Africa because that's where you have the deadliest strains of malaria, you can be dead within three days - and of the ten homeopaths, every single one of them was willing to give her something to use ''instead'' of conventional medicine. So, yeah, it was so shocking that the BBC then did a follow-up study. They sent in undercover TV cameras. It became a big story in the UK. And that's what really got me aware of some of the shocking things going on in that alternative realm, and how it was important to just make people aware of that.<br />
<br />
S: You know, homeopathy is a good entry for a physicist into this topic because you don't actually need to know medicine to know that homeopathy can't work. You actually – all you really do need to know is just some chemistry and physics.<br />
<br />
S: Yes! I mean, it's an interesting thing. It clearly should not work. It makes no scientific sense whatsoever. If anybody could prove a homeopathic remedy, they'd get a Nobel Prize in Physics, Biology – oh, I'm sorry, Medicine – and Chemistry. So, it makes no sense. But, on the other hand, you have to test it. You have to really put it through a clinical trial, because science is full of bizarre and amazing things that shouldn't really be true, but, sometimes, the universe is weirder than– not only weirder than we imagine but weirder than we ''can'' imagine - I can't remember who first said that.<ref>J. B. S. Haldane: "I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." in ''Possible Worlds and Other Papers'' (1927), p. 286 ([http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane wikiquote])</ref> But, even if homeopathy shouldn't work, we still have to test it. And then the double-whammy is that when you conduct the clinical trials, it still doesn't work, which comes as no great surprise. The surprise, I should stress, is that there's a multi-billion-dollar industry based on this fallacy.<br />
<br />
S: Mm-hmm.<br />
<br />
R: And, Simon, you brought in a co-writer to help you out, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edzard_Ernst Professor Edzard Ernst]. Can you tell us a little bit about him?<br />
<br />
SS: Yes, absolutely. Edzard is the world's first professor of complementary medicine. He has an interesting background. On the one hand, he has a very rigorous, scientific or medical research background in Austria and Germany and the UK and America. And, secondly, a while ago he was a practicing homeopath. In Germany, that's not unusual. He was a practicing chiropractor. But for the last 15 years, he's had a research group here in the UK, since he's become a professor of complimentary and alternative medicine, and he has spent the last fifteen years examining every single piece of research that's been published on pretty much every single alternative therapy. And, so, what we say in the book depends entirely on his analysis, and the analysis of others, of research. I was talking to a BBC radio station earlier on today, and, you know, I was being accused of arrogance and so on, and I was saying, "Look, these aren't my views. These are the views of research conducted on literally tens of thousands of people, studies conducted by dozens and dozens of researchers around the world."<br />
<br />
S: And what did you conclude? You said already that homeopathy doesn't work. And what about some of the other major so-called "alternative modalities" you looked at?<br />
<br />
SS: Here – yes, what really – I mean, the term "alternative medicine", "integrative medicine", "complimentary medicine" is sort of meaningless. What you have to do is break it down into these different modalities and ask the question, "Does acupuncture work?" "Does chiropractic work?" "Does herbal medicine work?" And, even then, you have to break it down again and again. So, for example, if we just take herbal medicine, we looked at something like evening primrose oil, which in Europe is used as a kind of cure-all for all sorts of things. Bottom line: It just doesn't work. On the other hand, if we look at St. John's wort, which is used for treating mild and moderate depression, there is good scientific evidence that it is effective. So, where an alternative remedy or natural remedy or herbal remedy is effective, we're quite happy to state that categorically. What we want is individuals and parents to know about what's out there, and then to use what works, avoid what doesn't work, and ''absolutely'' avoid what's dangerous. And even in the case of St. John's wort, where we're saying there is evidence to back it up, our warning is that you need to do this under the guidance of your general practitioner, under an expert doctor, because St. John's wort is a chemical. You're taking a chemical. It's a natural herbal product, but it's chemistry at the end of the day. And it will interact with your body. One of the things it does is, it accelerates the function of your liver, which in turn will break down other drugs that you might be taking, such as contraceptives, immunosuppressants, and so on. So, by taking St. John's wort, you could be affecting yourself in many other ways, which is why you need to do this under the guidance of somebody who really knows what they're doing.<br />
<br />
S: Right. It's a drug, and in fact it's multiple drugs sort of mixed together, and not really purified or even quantified very well.<br />
<br />
SS: That's really what the pharmaceutical industry or modern pharmaceutical science has done. It's largely built itself upon these herbal remedies. I think aspirin comes from the willow bark. The willow bark was taken for centuries as a treatment for headaches, pains, and so on. The problem is, you don't know what dosage you're getting; there are other toxins in willow bark. What science has done is it's worked out the effective chemical, it's removed the toxins, it's worked out the dosages, it's worked out what's safe, it's synthesized it so that you don't have to cut down the trees, and then you have a treatment which, you know what it's capable of, what its side effects are, what the dosages are, and everything else. So, so much of modern medicine is built on that herbal tradition, but we mustn't just carry on using herbs which we don't know necessarily work.<br />
<br />
S: Mm-hmm. Yep, I agree. So, let's go over some of the other major components of the book, or major chapters in the book, for example acupuncture. What was your bottom line understanding acupuncture, after looking at all the research?<br />
<br />
SS: Well, acupuncture's one of the first ones we looked at, and, in addition to sort of giving the scientific research, we also look into the background of it and how it's developed. And, interestingly, in the 20th century, Chairman Mao really didn't think much of Chinese traditional medicine, and certainly didn't have it as his own first line of treatment. But he promoted it very heavily across China because it allowed him to provide health care to a huge nation, an impoverished nation. It came to the West, though, in about the 1970s, the early 1970s, when Nixon first went to China. And, just before he went to China, I think in 1971, Kissinger went, and he took a small group of journalists with him. And one of them was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Reston James Reston], a New York Times journalist, and he got– I think he had appendicitis. So he had some surgery to remove his appendix, and afterward he had quite severe post-operative pain. And to treat this pain, he was given acupuncture. And he was utterly shocked. He'd never seen this before, he never experienced it before, but for ''him'' it really seemed to work. The pain subsided, he got back to America, he wrote about them, a huge article, and that's what really kick-started the boom in interest in acupuncture in the West. Here was a Western patient, a hard-nosed, hard-bit journalist, who'd experienced the pain-killing effects of acupuncture firsthand. When we look at that case, we think, well, what could be going on? Well, maybe, on the one hand, acupuncture really works. On the other hand, maybe it was a psychological effect. Maybe the pain subsided coincidentally when he had the acupuncture. Maybe it's just placebo, you know, the power of the mind. We don't know. So you have to test it. Now, when you test something like homeopathy, it's pretty easy to test it, because what you have – what you do is take a thousand people, five hundred of them you give homeopathy, five hundred of them you give a sugar pill. The patients don't know whether they're getting that sugar pill or homeopathy, so they all get the same placebo effect. The question is, does homeopathy perform better? And the bottom line is that it doesn't. When you analyze acupuncture, what can you use as your placebo control? How can you give people something that looks like acupuncture but isn't really acupuncture? And this was a problem for a few years, as people were trying to think of ways to test acupuncture. But over the last few decades, we've developed three different techniques of what are called "sham" acupuncture. One is, you insert the needles in the wrong place. According to acupuncture philosophy, you have to put the needles in very specific sites, where the meridians are that carry the chi. If you do it in the wrong place, it shouldn't work. The second thing you can do is, you can needle the patient, but just put the needle just below the skin, so that it doesn't puncture the meridians, so it really shouldn't work according to acupuncture philosophy. The third thing you can do is to use a kind of a "stage dagger" needle. So you put the needle into the skin, but the needle actually retracts into the handle of the acupuncture instrument, like a stage dagger. So the needle there doesn't even puncture the skin. But, in all three cases, a patient would think that they are undergoing genuine acupuncture. So the patient would undergo a genuine placebo response. Now, when you conduct acupuncture in this way, the trials - real acupuncture versus "sham" acupuncture - the bottom line is that there's no difference. There's some tentative evidence, and it is very much borderline, that acupuncture is effective for some types of pain and nausea. But the benefits – the better the studies are, the more those benefits seem to decline, which makes you think that the benefits that we're seeing may well be down to just errors in the experiments or errors in the clinical trials, bu,t as I say, we can't rule that out at the moment. More research is being done to kind of check that. But, in general, it seems to be ineffective, which, again, is not surprising because we don't find these meridians, we don't seem to find any evidence of a chi, and there's no obvious way why acupuncture should have such a powerful effect.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I'd just like to add, that there was a study that just came out last week, which obviously wouldn't've made it into your book, where they compared sham acupuncture to sham acupuncture plus a purposely-supportive practitioner, somebody who went out of their way to be comforting and supportive to the patient, and that actually had a huge placebo effect to it. So, it actually showed that there was a placebo effect to sham acupuncture, and that the placebo effect was much bigger if the acupuncturist was supportive, was just emotionally supportive of the patient. Which, I think, just puts another perspective on all of the acupuncture research. Just being a little supportive gets you more of an effect than anything they're claiming from acupuncture in the first place.<br />
<br />
SS: And the placebo effect is ''incredibly'' powerful. We do a few examples of conventional treatments which people thought were effective but which turned out to be purely down to the placebo effect. There was an operation done in the '50s whereby an artery from the heart would be blocked, and the idea of blocking that artery was to flush more blood through another artery to sort of unblock the second artery, to unclog it, you kind of flush it with a higher pressure by tying up the first artery.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, I think that you're talking about mammillary artery ligation.<br />
<br />
SS: That's it exactly.<br />
<br />
S: That's actually – the mammillary artery is ''near'' the heart, but it doesn't go to the heart –<br />
<br />
SS: That's right.<br />
<br />
S: – so it would shunt more blood to the heart. It ''kinda'' made sense, but go ahead with the rest of your story.<br />
<br />
SS: Yeah, patients swore by it. Patients said, you know, I feel fitter, stronger, and– they really seemed to benefit from it. But then a study was done whereby patients had a small incision made, rather a large incision made to look like they'd had the surgery, but nothing was actually done. The incision was then sewn up. Those patients, again, swore that they benefitted hugely. In fact, they'd had nothing done at all. There's a huge placebo effect in alternative medicine. And what are the arguments that people are coming up with when we discuss these issues? If homeopathy just gives you placebo, or acupuncture just gives you a placebo response, and the placebo response is real and powerful, what's wrong with that? Why shouldn't we just embrace that? Professor Ernst and myself, I think, have several reasons for finding that still unacceptable. The first thing is that you're still – you're lying to the patients, actually. Homeopaths, if they look at research, know that homeopathy doesn't work, so by promoting it they are lying. And in fact the bigger the lies, the bigger the placebo effect. I mean, if I say that this homeopathy pill – this homeopathic pill has just been imported from China, and it's sprinkled with gold dust, and it's the last one left in the shop, it'll have a bigger placebo effect. But, for the last few decades, we've tried to have an open, honest relationship between patients and doctors. So, again, Professor Edzard Ernst and myself would find that unacceptable. Secondly, once you start allowing people to talk to, or to rely on homeopaths and so on for their health care, you start having problems like people turning to homeopaths to protect themselves against malaria. And no kind of placebo effect is going to protect you against malaria. There are several reasons, but one more is that to get the placebo effect, you don't need a placebo, because you get a placebo effect with real medicine. So, if you have a pain, and then take a conventional painkiller, because that will have a conventional effect, plus the placebo as well. So why would you give somebody just a placebo when you can have real medicine plus the placebo as a free bonus?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, absolutely. And, just to emphasize, like, as you said, there's no placebo effect for protecting you from malarial infection. There is for subjective symptoms, but the more concrete or physiological the effect you're looking at - survival, you know, do you survive cancer or not, for example - there really doesn't seem to be much of a placebo effect. And, this is something that I've actually written about quite a bit myself, I wouldn't be willing, myself, to say that the placebo effect is quote-unquote real and powerful. I think it's actually largely illusory, except when you're talking about things like just pain and general comfort level and outlook. So, I think that that's an important point to make. People, if they turn to placebos, whether they're homeopathy, acupuncture, whatever, for, like, real physiological or especially potentially lethal illnesses, they're not going to do anything.<br />
<br />
SS: An example somebody gave me the other day was that, how many homeopaths use homeopathic remedies as a contraceptive? Clearly they don't, because, as you say, there's a concrete outcome there, a placebo's not going to help you.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. And the other point that your example brings up - the mammillary artery ligation - when that study was done, physicians stopped doing that procedure. They said, "Oh, this is all placebo. It doesn't work." They stopped doing it. And yet, after all the studies with homeopathy and acupuncture that basically showed there's nothing more than placebo, it's still a huge industry. Why is that?<br />
<br />
SS: Yeah, I think this is a really important aspect of conventional medicine, just to come back to your first point. In the book we tell the story of [http://www.cochrane.org/about-us/awards-scholarships-funding-initiatives/annual-prizes-and-awards/bill-silverman-prize Bill Silverman], who did a huge amount of work and research on babies and infants, and he developed a technique which he thought would help premature babies, and it seemed to work on the first few babies that he tried it on. He didn't stop there. He then conducted a rigorous trial. He said, "Look, this seems to work, but that's not good enough for me. I really want to test it properly." And, when he tested it properly, it didn't really work. In fact, if anything, it possibly was harming the babies. So that was stopped immediately. And that's one of the things you have to do in science, is question your own theories, and your own prejudices, and your own therapies. And the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_Collaboration Cochrane Collaboration], the idea of the Cochrane Collaboration is to look at all the research that's published on a particular therapy, on a particular solution, and see whether or not that therapy works. Now, the Cochrane Collaboration have just instituted a prize called the Silverman Prize, the Bill Silverman Prize, which is given to whoever can criticize the Cochrane Collaboration in the most constructive way. So, conventional science wants to be kind of pushed and prodded, tested and poked. It wants to be questioned and challenged. And it encourages it - in the case of the Cochrane Collaboration, by offering a prize. And when it learns that it's made a mistake, it changes, and it adapts, and it moves forward, whereas the alternative medicine community seem to be very reluctant to accepting negative results and challenging their own beliefs.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, they don't seem to ask that question, does it really, ''really'' work, and really try find that out. They, rather, seem to say, "I'm absolutely convinced it works." This is what they say to me! I'm sure you have heard this, too now, now that you've, you know, dipped into this pool. "I ''know'' it works. I've ''seen'' it work. I'm absolutely convinced it works." So, then they just look for the evidence that supports what they already know to be true.<br />
<br />
SS: Absolutely. And I'm not a fan of– obviously I'm not a fan of big pharmaceutical companies, you know. They come up with some valuable and important medical breakthroughs that help us all, but I'm not a spokesman for that industry. But, you know, how would we feel if the big pharmaceuticals tried to sell us products by saying, "Well we just know it works. You just feel that it works." –<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
SS: The big pharmaceutical companies starting selling us placebos and lying to us in this way? So we've got to keep strict regulations on those drug companies and make sure that they're as legal and decent and honest as they can possibly be. And we have to apply these same rules to the alternative medical community. And, as an outsider to this, when I first began, it shocked me how unregulated all of this is, and, with the arrival of the Internet, it's clearly got even worse.<br />
<br />
R: Right, and even more than just on a case-by-case basis, it seems like you are preparing people to think critically about other things that might not have been touched on in the book. For instance, in your first chapter, you start off by explaining the scientific method. I think that's a fantastic thing to do for that kind of audience. I feel like it's the sort of thing that I might be able to give to anybody and not worry about offending them, but really help and encourage them to think for themselves.<br />
<br />
SS: Yeah, I'm glad that worked so well. I think – I mean, there are two stories that sort of leap out from that first chapter for me. One is the invention of the clinical trial, which goes back about 200 years now, just over 200 years. And the first clinical trial was in the treatment of scurvy. We know know that's due to vitamin C deficiency. And, we think about these naval battles, in which sailors were blown apart by cannons and so on. Many, many more sailors were killed by scurvy, orders of magnitude more sailors were killed by this problem of scurvy. A Scottish naval physician called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lind James Lind] conducted the first clinical trial. And what he did was, he took 12 scurvy-ridden sailors, he put them in pairs, and to one pair he gave vinegar, another pair got seawater, another pair got diluted sulphuric acid, another pair got cider, and another pair got lemon juice. He controlled it very well. They all had the same diet, they all lived in the same conditions, they all had the same level of scurvy, and they all pretty much deteriorated further - except for those receiving lemon juice. And also, actually, the ones receiving cider improved very slightly. And the reason is that lemon juice is full of vitamin C and cider also had a little bit of vitamin C. And Lind didn't know what vitamin C was, he had no idea why this worked, but he knew that it was a cure. And there we have a clear way of demonstrating how a medicine can be effective by conducting a clinical trial. And, then, the other example in that first chapter that I'm fond of is the story of Florence Nightingale, the British military nurse who served in the Crimean War. Her ideas about hygiene and cleanliness and hospitals- Again, we think about soldiers being blown apart on battlefields and so on. The real killer at that time was the disease and the infection that was existing in the hospitals. So she radically overhauled health care at the time. Now, the politicians and the male doctors really didn't like her approach. They didn't like her ideas and they thought she was wasting her time. But she was able to win her arguments by presenting them in a scientific way - by presenting charts, tables, data, and so on. And so, one of the things I like about science is that, even if you're an underdog, even if you're a woman in Victorian England, even if nobody takes you seriously, by using science you can still win the argument. And, similarly, if somebody comes up with some weird alternative therapy, if they've made a great discovery, they can win their argument by using science. Science is the fairest and most egalitarian way of deciding what's true and what's not.<br />
<br />
S: Well, Simon, thank you very much for taking the time to speak with us. ''Trick or Treatment'', so that's going to be on the bookshelves when?<br />
<br />
SS: In the UK, it's published this week, and in North America it's going to be published in mid-August, and I hope to be over in the States in mid-August, and going over to Canada, and criss-crossing the continent giving lectures and talking about the book. It's been a couple of years since I've been to the States - last time, I think, was probably when I was talking about cosmology and the Big Bang - so it'll be nice to come back and have a new subject to get excited about.<br />
<br />
R: Make sure you make it to New England so we can all get together.<br />
<br />
SS: Great, great. I'm looking forward to it.<br />
<br />
S: All right, thanks again.<br />
<br />
SS: Thanks a lot. Cheerio! Bye.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:04:40)</small>==<br />
(jingle: It's time for Science or Fiction.)<br />
<br />
S: Each week, I come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine and one fictitious, and I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. And you, of course, can play along. Is everyone ready for this week's items?<br />
<br />
R: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Fantastic.<br />
<br />
S: Again, no theme this week, just three random items. Item number one: Biologists have rediscovered a lizard, which was transplanted to an island thirty-six years ago, then left undisturbed. What they found had undergone so much evolutionary change that, while still a lizard, warrants a new family designation of its own. Item number two: A new study shows that sign language interpreters have among the highest risk for carpel-tunnel syndrome and other ergonomic injuries, even higher than factory assembly line workers. And item number three, the Hong Kong flu: A new study shows that most influenza virus outbreaks do originate in Hong Kong and other parts of Asia, and then spread around the globe.<br />
<br />
J: Hong Kong fluey<br />
<br />
S: Bob, go first.<br />
<br />
B: Ugh. All right. A lizard transplanted 36 years ago, and becomes – it's in a new family.<br />
<br />
S: Mm-hmm.<br />
<br />
B: That's just so obviously baloney. I mean, how could that possibly be? And, two and three? Sign language causing more carpel-tunnel syndrome. I could definitely see that, I mean. And the Hong Kong flu, most influenza outbreaks in that area- yeah, I could see that, too. A new family in 36 years… Wow. That's just too obvious.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, man, people are getting wasted right now.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: Higher than factory assembly line workers.<br />
<br />
R: It's true.<br />
<br />
B: Sign language ''interpreters''? Wait a second. That's – that doesn't mean they're signing all day, that's just, like, when they're working.<br />
<br />
J: (accent) Signing 'n' shit. <br />
<br />
B: See, that doesn't sound right to me. The carpel-tunnel one doesn't sound right because… assembly line workers, that's the – how more repetitive can you be than being on a factory assembly line? But, where, if you're an interpreter, I mean, it's not as– it can't be as repetitive as an assembly line worker. Ooh, so, all right. I'm gonna go–<br />
<br />
J: Holy shit, Bob!<br />
<br />
B: Calm down! I'm gonna go – all right, one is too obvious –<br />
<br />
R: I don't think we're in record-setting territory yet, but it's gotta be close.<br />
<br />
B: No. All right, I'm gonna go with… the sign language is fiction, but against my better judgment.<br />
<br />
S: OK. Jay.<br />
<br />
J: I'm gonna go with the lizard, which was transplanted 36 years ago. How many generations could ''possibly'' go by in thirty-six years, in order for it to create a new family?<br />
<br />
B: Four-point-one.<br />
<br />
J: None.<br />
<br />
S: Millions.<br />
<br />
J: That's the fake.<br />
<br />
R: Millions?<br />
<br />
J: Fake!<br />
<br />
S: OK. Evan.<br />
<br />
E: OK, so, I'm – the lizard one is ''clearly'' the curveball that Steve is throwing at us. It's remarkable, and I think it's correct. I think it'll turn out to be science. So, I'll go with my gut reaction, which was the interpreters. That one is fiction. That's what I first thought, and that's what I'm sticking with.<br />
<br />
S: OK. Rebecca.<br />
<br />
R: All right. Not to be a Bob about this, but this really does concern me, because I –<br />
<br />
B: Boring!<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: Sorry, sorry.<br />
<br />
R: I originally thought, well, yeah, the lizard thing is totally true. But I think that– here's what's throwing me, OK, is that I'm not a biologist and – a new ''family'' designation?<br />
<br />
B: I know, I know.<br />
<br />
R: Is – you know, I know that– I'm the last one to go, right?<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
R: So, I know that there was a lizard that was put on an island - I know all this - but whether or not it evolved –<br />
<br />
E: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleestack#Sleestak Sleestak].<br />
<br />
R: – into something that warranted a new ''family'' designation? Like, I know it evolved, I know there are big changes.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, shit.<br />
<br />
R: But I'm gonna say that– this is probably gonna– See, remember what I said about how ignorance –<br />
<br />
E: Drink.<br />
<br />
R: – is always the way to go?<br />
<br />
B: (laughs) Yes!<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, I'm starting to believe that.<br />
<br />
R: This is the problem. This is going to happen to me again. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. I'm gonna say that –<br />
<br />
B: Rebecca, follow your drinking –<br />
<br />
R: Do I have to drink if I get it wrong? 'Cause that would be all right, is all. I'm gonna say that the lizard thing is fiction, that it did not warrant a whole new ''family'' designation.<br />
<br />
J: Thank you.<br />
<br />
B: Finally.<br />
<br />
S: OK. So you all agree that the Hong Kong flu –<br />
<br />
J: Hong Kong flu!<br />
<br />
S: – actually comes from Hong Kong, and that is science. That one is science.<br />
<br />
J: Excellent.<br />
<br />
S: So, yeah, it's one of those things that, almost a clich&eacute;, that, you know, we talk about, the Asian flu, the Hong Kong flu, that things come from Asia. A new study shows that, in fact, this is the case - that the large, densely-populated cities in Asia, such as Hong Kong, actually are a breeding ground for new strains of flu viruses, and that this is where they come from every year. And then they do spread around the globe, especially now that people are actually, like, air-traveling around the globe, things get spread around much more quickly. So, we are split. We got Jay and Rebecca for the lizard and Bob and Evan for the language interpreters. Let's do the language interpreters one first.<br />
<br />
J: My lizards.<br />
<br />
S: New study, "Sign language interpreters at high risk for ergonomic injuries".<br />
<br />
B: Ouch.<br />
<br />
S: That one is science.<br />
<br />
R: Whoo-hoo.<br />
<br />
S: And this is a little–<br />
<br />
R: Go knowledge! Yes!<br />
<br />
S: –surprising, this is a little surprising.<br />
<br />
R: Sorry (laughs)<br />
<br />
S: The impact of repetitive stress in industrial and office settings has been well-documented, but this is now the first time that this has been documented the risk from being a sign language interpreter, and it was surprising. They said it was amongst the highest, even higher than assembly line work in a factory. And, Bob, you're right, that – you know, the assembly line work is like the– is the classic scenario where you get this repetitive motion injury. That's previously considered to be among the highest risks for getting that, you know. And, again, for a quick background: Carpel-tunnel syndrome is produced by compression of the median nerve in the carpel tunnel, 'cause it's a completely closed-off space, so there's no room for it to expand. It could be caused by direct pressure, it could be caused by positioning, by tendonitis or arthritis or swelling in the wrist, and by repetitive motion. You know, people get it from using keyboards, mechanics will very commonly get it, chefs who have to, like, chop vegetables with a knife. So those kind of activities are known to be – to cause it. Although people can get it from the way they sleep, sometimes women get it when they're pregnant just because they're retaining fluid and their tissues are swollen. But signers, just from doing sign language all day, I guess, in and of itself is a repetitive stress and can cause a lot of these ergonomic injuries. So that one is science. Which means that "biologists have discovered a lizard, which was transplanted onto an island 36 years ago then left undisturbed, that they found had undergone so much evolutionary change that, while still a lizard, warrants a new family designation of its own" is fiction.<br />
<br />
R: You serious bugger.<br />
<br />
S: But it is mostly science. The new family was the ''new'' bit and, Bob, your initial reaction was exactly correct. You know, a new family is a ''lot'' of evolutionary change. So this is actually a really cool story. This is published in the National Geographic News,<ref name="lizard">National Geographic news: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island]</ref> where I read it, and I think actually PZ Myers blogged about it.<ref>Pharyngula: [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/23/still-just-a-lizard/ Still just a lizard]</ref><br />
<br />
R: He did.<br />
<br />
B: Aw, shit.<br />
<br />
S: It's actually a really nice story for evolution. So, 36 years ago, this species of lizard was transplanted to another island to see what would happen. This actually was done deliberately. And then –<br />
<br />
R: A war broke out.<br />
<br />
S: The war broke out, and, you know, people were not allowed to travel to the island for a while. And, you know, 36 years go by. But, recently, tourism and scientists have been allowed to go back to the island. These were taken from one island and transplanted to another island in the South Adriatic Sea. So, these were two islands nearby, so the environment was very similar. What they found, after 36 years, was that this lizard evolved into a slightly different niche and underwent quite a bit of evolutionary change. So, the stock species primarily survived eating dragonflies, and was adapted to eating dragonflies. But they ate leaves a little bit, like three percent of their diet was leaves. On the new island, there was already another species of lizard there that was eating all the insects, so they – that niche was filled. So this– the transplanted lizard started to rely more and more heavily on eating leaves, and evolved various adaptations to it: a wider head, stronger, you know, chewing muscles, and, the most surprising thing is, it actually evolved a cecal valve - a valve in the gut - that would enable the leaves to remain in the gut for a longer period of time and allow the bacteria to ferment it and to break it down more. And this all happened over 36 years. That's a ''lot'' more evolutionary change than that they were expecting. They still have to do genetic analysis and really examine exactly how – the genetic basis for these changes, to see, you know, were there– could they identify certain new mutations, et cetera. But, really incredible. It's not even clear that this lizard requires a new species designation - if it actually would represent a new species - it could, you know, still be able to interbreed with the parent species. It may in fact– this may just be a shift in characteristics that were already present in the species, not necessarily new mutations. That's one thing they have to really figure out, was this actually new mutations that have taken place. Probably at most it would be a new species under the same genus. Even a new genus would be a big deal. A new family is just – that's just out of the question. That's way more than would happen over this period of time. So, Bob, you did it again.<br />
<br />
B: I did it again, yep.<br />
<br />
S: You talked yourself out of the right answer. I almost had Rebecca–<br />
<br />
R: I know.<br />
<br />
S: –'cause this is one of those ones where if you read the story, a lot of the details were correct, but that was that one bit that made it untrue, that you had to key in on.<br />
<br />
R: Thanks, eighth-grade biology! Thumbs-up.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: So, good job, Jay and Rebecca.<br />
<br />
R: Thank you.<br />
<br />
J: Cool!<br />
<br />
R: High-five, Jay!<br />
<br />
(high-five sound then laughter)<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:15:30)</small>==<br />
S: Jay, do you have a quote for us?<br />
<br />
J: I have a quote. It was from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi Mahatma Gandhi], and his real name was Mohandas Gandhi.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, Mahatma's a title, right, not a name?<br />
<br />
R: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Right.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, but, you know, people think his – that's his first name. And, real quick, he was a major political and spiritual leader of India. And Gandhi said, (shitty Indian accent):<blockquote>"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." </blockquote><br />
J: Mahatma Gandhi!<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Well, namaste.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Namaste. <br />
<br />
== Announcements <small>(1:16:07)</small> ==<br />
Well, I do have one quick announcement this week. The real trailer - not the little teaser thing that was up last week - the real trailer to [http://www.skeptologists.com/ "The Skeptologists"] is up. It's on the [http://www.skeptology.com/ Skeptology website] and you can also see it on Facebook, so take a look. This one's over a minute long, gives you more of an idea of the kind of the quality of the filming and the production that's going into it. So, take a look at it. And we've been getting a very good response on the emails, but we still need a lot more. So, in order to, again, convince, you know, some TV executive that this show would have a built-in audience, what we really need is just a lot of emails - just one line saying "I really would like to see this show on TV", just something to that effect. And you should send it to Skeptologists at newrule.com. Again, we'll have that email address on the website. So please just take a moment to send an email, so that we can improve our chances of making the show an actual reality. You guys were really great in supporting Rebecca for her NPR show and we all really appreciated that, so, hopefully, we can make the same thing happen again with the Skeptologists.<br />
<br />
R: Sure, let's keep the love going, people!<br />
<br />
S: By the way, Rebecca, what's the update on the whole NPR thing?<br />
<br />
R: Ah, I got an update about a month ago. They said, "Hey, wait longer." So –<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: "Be patient."<br />
<br />
R: Yeah, so, maybe in May I might have –<br />
<br />
J: "Send more Chuck Berry." Steve, I have a few announcements.<br />
<br />
S: All right. Go ahead.<br />
<br />
J: One, I'd like to thank everyone who came on the message board and who responded to the request for web programmers. And, like I said last week, we could really use graphic designers and flash programmers. You know, we need some components made and we definitely want to redo the graphics on the site, so we're asking people to join us on the forum and join in on helping out. Another thing, I definitely want to continue to ask for people to vote for us on Digg. We – our numbers are rising and it's, you know, it's really good. It helps promote the show, and it's a real quick and easy thing that you can do to help us out. Or leave feedback on iTunes, we really appreciate that. We all definitely read it and appreciate all the feedback that people have left. And, also, you know, TAM's coming up, always there's seats available. I think anyone that hasn't gone to TAM really needs to consider going to this one. This is gonna be a very special TAM with a lot of great stuff going on.<br />
<br />
R: I booked the party suite.<br />
<br />
S: Excellent.<br />
<br />
R: It's on, Saturday night.<br />
<br />
J: That's incredible.<br />
<br />
R: Big party. There's a jacuzzi.<br />
<br />
J: Yes, so sign up. It's not too late. There's seats open, and –<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, the details that we have so far is that we're gonna have a dinner Friday night, where all of us will be there to have dinner and chat and meet our fans. It was a lot of fun last year, we're gonna do it again this year. We'll give you the details once Rebecca has booked a specific location. And we are going to be film– we are going to be recording some live segments for "The Skeptics' Guide" while we're there. We're gonna have "Breakfast with the SGU", I believe it's eight to nine, Friday and Saturday morning, and we may also have some other, you know, new material or surprises in store for you. So it'll be – we're going to be very active for the whole event. It's gonna be a lot of fun and we'd definitely like to see a lot of our listeners there. So, thanks for joining me again, everyone.<br />
<br />
E: Thank you.<br />
<br />
R: Thank you, Steve.<br />
<br />
B: Good episode!<br />
<br />
J: Thank you, Steve.<br />
<br />
S: Had a good time. And, until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.<br />
<br />
{{Outro119}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Today I Learned... ==<br />
* Properly performed CPR can give around 25% cardiac output<br />
<br />
* Once the heart stops beating, the brain cells start to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysis lyse] after 3 minutes. However, muscles can last several hours<br />
<br />
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livor_mortis Livor mortis] is the settling of the blood within the body after death<br />
<br />
* At the time of broadcast, 10,000 separate objects, four centimeters or bigger, were being tracked by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Space_Command U.S. Space Command]<ref name="junk"/><br />
<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel Aerogel] is the lightest material invented to date<br />
<br />
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edzard_Ernst Professor Edzard Ernst] was the world's first professor of complementary medicine<br />
<br />
* Sham accupuncture can include:<br />
** Inserting the needle in the 'wrong' place, avoiding the meridians that allegedly carry the chi<br />
** Inserting needles in the correct places, but not deep enough to puncture the meridians<br />
** Use a fake needle that retracts into the handle so that the skin is not pierced<br />
<br />
* The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_Collaboration Cochrane Collaboration] award the annual [http://www.cochrane.org/about-us/awards-scholarships-funding-initiatives/annual-prizes-and-awards/bill-silverman-prize Bill Silverman Prize], given to whoever can criticize the Cochrane Collaboration in the most constructive way<br />
<br />
* The first clinical trial was in the treatment of scurvy by Scottish naval physician [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lind James Lind]<br />
<br />
* Sign language interpreters are among the highest at risk for carpel-tunnel syndrome and other ergonomic injuries, even higher than factory assembly line workers<br />
<br />
* Most influenza virus outbreaks originate in Hong Kong and other parts of Asia, and then spread around the globe<br />
<br />
*A lizard, transplanted to an island and left undisturbed for 36 years, has been found to have adapted to a new diet more dependent on vegetation. This includes a wider head, stronger chewing muscles, and a valve in the gut that enables the leaves to remain in the gut for a longer period of time to be broken down<ref name="lizard"/> <br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}<br />
<br />
{{Page categories<br />
|Interview = y<br />
|Alternative Medicine = y<br />
|Homeopathy = y<br />
|Energy Healing = y<br />
|Astronomy & Space Science = y<br />
|Humor = y<br />
|Myths & Misconceptions = y<br />
|Nature & Evolution = y<br />
|Politics = y<br />
|Pseudoscience = y<br />
|Religion & Faith = y<br />
|Science & Education = y<br />
|Science & the Media = y<br />
|Science & Medicine = y<br />
|SGU = y<br />
|Technology = y<br />
}}</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:D_Inwood&diff=9245User talk:D Inwood2014-08-21T22:08:50Z<p>Geneocide: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Welcome to ''SGUTranscripts''!'''<br />
We hope you will contribute much and well.<br />
You will probably want to read the [[https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Help:Contents|help pages]].<br />
Again, welcome and have fun! [[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 02:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hey man. Just wanted to thank you for your work. Especially your work keeping some of my earlier transcriptions relevant with updated links and categories and the like. :) --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 22:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGUTranscripts:Community_portal&diff=9120SGUTranscripts:Community portal2014-08-15T19:15:54Z<p>Geneocide: </p>
<hr />
<div>Welcome to the community portal, this is the place to make suggestions and ask questions. <br />
<br />
Add new topics at the top, and add comments to current topics in chronological order.<br />
<br />
== Speech recognition software ==<br />
Could we use the YouTube API and auto captions to get a rough draft? <br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 23:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I'd love to see the results. From what I've read the accuracy is low enough as to not be useful but it'd certainly be interesting to see.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 08:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Ooh, it looks like there are some interesting things going on with Google speech recognition. There's a [https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/demos/speech.html demo app] that lets you talk for as long as you like. The first thing I'm going to have to do is to work out how to get chunks of the SGU podcast into it. I'm sure there's a way to couple the audio out and audio in on my linux machine, and if not, a simple cable from the headphone to the mic jack aught to do the trick.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 09:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
: So, after doing two episodes this way, what's your assessment of the process? I looked at [[SGU Episode 402|episode 402]], and it looks like it'll be almost as much work to decipher that wall o' text as it would have been to just type it in from scratch. Is it easy to set up, technically?<br />-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 13:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: I'll have to go through and do the proof reading process before I know. Technically speaking, it's super easy. All I have is my headphones right next to the mic on my laptop, then I go to that google page, click the button and press play in vlc. So I imagine that it woudl be possible to get better results by either using a dedicated cable from the headphone jack into the mic jack, or by using some kind of software solution to pipe the sound into this web app. As far as I can see the quality varies. When one rogue is speaking clearly it does really well. When they talk over each other it's basically useless. Also, foreign accents completely confuse it.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 15:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
::: I tried it, but for whatever reason, the Google speech test page just didn't work for me; It kept asking for permission to use the microphone but wouldn't start recording. It doesn't matter; there's still stuff like categorization and formatting that has to be done manually anyway.<br>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 14:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
There's also a [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/transcribe-transcribe-aud/ogokenmicnjdfhmhocanoemnddmpcjjm chrome extension for transcription] that allows you to speed up, slow down, pause etc the audio all from the same window as your text editor.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 08:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Sci or Fi stats ==<br />
Hello everyone. I have an idea that is not completely relevant to SGU Transcripts, but I thought this would be the best place to ask this question. For a while now I have been wanting to have a little more fun with the results of Science or Fiction, beyond the simple annual tabulation of scores. Most importantly, I would like to measure the GWB Effect! Specifically, I would like to begin tabulating data on each Science or Fiction, and making it available to anyone who wants to perform an analysis on it. Things we could measure are: result for each player (right/wrong), order of answers given, number of "science" options, existence of theme, etc. There are other things as well. I think it would be a fun project for SGU fans who are also stats geeks. Anyone else interested?<br>--[[User:Manyou07|Manyou07]] ([[User talk:Manyou07|talk]]) 08:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Sounds great! I know that [[User:Teleuteskitty]] has done some stuff. Would it be possible to do something cool with google docs? It'd be nice to do some graphs too.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 14:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Thanks! I opened a thread at the SGU Forums for further discussion: http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,44888.0.html[http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,44888.0.html]<br>--[[User:Manyou07|Manyou07]] ([[User talk:Manyou07|talk]]) 06:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Word count ==<br />
Hey. I've seen the [[Special:Statistics|Statistics]] page, but I've also noticed that when I search, it tells me the word count of pages. Is it possible to get some sort of Total word/character count? I personally would like to see.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 01:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: There's also [[Special:ContributionScores]] but I think it has a tendency to massively overvalue small changes over larger ones, so people who do a lot of small corrections get higher scores than those who have transcribed a lot of text which is obviously not what we want. I haven't been able to find an extension that gives a total word count, but a while back I did do it manually by dumping all of the pages to text using some bodgy scripts on my linux box, then doing a word count on those text pages. It was on 2012-11-28 and we had transcribed 910,050 words, 5,128,984 characters, and we had completed 57 of 384 (15%) full SGU episodes and 78 of 113 (69%) 5x5 episodes. I'll do a refresh of these stats when I get a chance, but it's quite laborious.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 10:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Just casting my eye down the episode lists, I get 65 SGU (17%) and 83 5x5 (73%) episodes complete right now.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 10:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: OK, I just did another run: 1,055,851 words, 5,937,159 characters.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 12:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I've been working on some programs to generate some statistics for both the transcripts and the editing histories. However, I am not sure about the best way to share the results. For example, as of Oct 8, 2013, there are 170 episodes transcribed in whole or part containing 9,846,222 characters of text in 1,615,743 words. I can also generate word counts (the 10 most common words are: the, that, and, to, of, a, I, you, it, is), word lengths (the longest word is "electroencephalograms"), Rogue counts, guest lists, and more, if anyone is interested.<br />
: For transcribing and editing, Av8rmike has the most edits (829), but Rwh86 has added the most characters (2,396,629). I can generate copious quantities of HTML tables with the results, but would need some help setting up and linking to some sort of custom statistics page. Let me know if there is any interest in posting this kind of information. Thanks.<br>--[[User:Jim Gibson|Jim Gibson]] ([[User talk:Jim Gibson|talk]]) 19:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Dead episode links ==<br />
Quoted from [[Talk:SGU_Episode_127]] for general discussion:<br />
<blockquote>If we just put in dead links to episodes that don't exist, wouldn't that create a list of the most referenced yet to be made episode pages? Wouldn't that possibly be good?<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 02:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
</blockquote><br />
:True, it would add them to [[Special:WantedPages]], although the numbers there are bumped up by having consecutive episodes transcribed with automatic navigation links etc. . I like the idea of noting the most needed episodes, but I personally think it's best to avoid dead links in text where possible, even though these would automatically update when the page becomes available. I proposed a slightly different way on [[Template talk:Link needed]] a while back - we could use that method to add a reference with the dead link, bumping them up the 'Wanted' list, whilst keeping an eye on [[:Category:Needs internal links]]. Which isn't perfect. Alternatively, we could:<br />
#create the referenced pages and add a 'priority pages'category<br />
#make a page listing all episodes to be transcribed, marking which are referenced<br />
:What do you think?<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 02:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
::I'm a big fan of whatever is easiest. Am I right in thinking that this would be the broken (red) link approach? <br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I think so, yep. And just for the record, if that's what you guys think is best, I'm more than happy to go back through pages switching 'link needed' templates to dead links &ndash; I'm more motivated to take a uniform approach than to get any of my over-complicated ideas in place :)<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 22:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'll offer my reasoning on the "Link needed" template, since I'm the one that created it. My idea for it was just as a "placeholder" for when I was transcribing/proof-reading and one of the rogues makes reference to something from a previous episode, but I ''didn't'' know which episode it is, indicating for someone to find it at a subsequent date. If you know what episode is being referenced and there isn't a page created already, I'd say by all means go ahead and put in the dead link to save another person the trouble of figuring out which episode it should be.<br>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 04:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Ah, I see! That makes sense. Looks like that's the probably the consensus, so I'll start switching them over<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 07:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Steve Novella Show ==<br />
'''Call for volunteers''': I've posted a framework for [[SGU_Episode_49|episode 49]] and did the first segments, then marked it as "open" to try to attract some more help. This one is The Steve Novella Show, as in the one he did all by himself, including Science or Fiction and Name That Logical Fallacy. It should be very easy to do, especially for someone who has trouble telling different voices apart. Sorry I can't offer any T-shirts. =)<br />
: What exactly needs doing on this episode? I don't want to listen to everything if I don't have to.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
::Oops, I just now noticed I never signed my comment. D= You don't have to transcribe the entire thing if you don't want to; you can do just a segment here or there.<br>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 22:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
:::Well, maybe it's more trouble than it's worth but if you know that there's nothing missing up until some point, what that point is would be nice. It's a little unclear just looking at the transcript so far... at least to me.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 00:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
::::It's been transcribed up to the [[SGU_Episode_49#Agnosticism_.289:03.29|Agnosticism]] e-mail. The rest has just been copied over from the show notes page. I haven't even formatted the text to break it into paragraphs, which may be what made it unclear to you.<br/>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 16:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Mike Lacelle ==<br />
Hey everyone. Was thinking we should maybe try to do something in honor of Mike Lacelle. The only thing I came up with was marking episodes in which he appears as priority and getting them transcribed as soon as we can. If someone found the episodes and marked them I know I personally would work on them before other episodes. Any other ideas?<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 07:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
: That sounds good to me. How about I put a highlight on the front page to replace the t-shirt competition, seeing as that's been won now ;) <br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 17:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
:As far as I can tell, he was mostly on around the year-in-review episodes, so I went through them:<br />
:* 2011 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-31.mp3 337 - Dec 31 2011] - Mike is on this.<br />
:* 2010 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-12-29.mp3 285 - Dec 29 2010] - Mike is on this.<br />
:* 2009 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-01-01.mp3 232 - Jan 1 2010] - Mike is on this.<br />
:* 2008 in review: 180 - Dec 30 2008 - Mike is NOT on this.<br />
:* 2007 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-12-26.mp3 127 - Dec 26 2007] - Mike is on this.<br />
:* 2006 in review: 75 - Dec 27 2006 - Mike is NOT on this.<br />
<br />
::Hiya, I've started listing the episodes Mike was on here: [[Mike Lacelle - In memoriam]]. I don't think that's all of them though. I've also created pages for some of the episodes, I agree it would be good to prioritise these.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 19:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== New starters' questions ==<br />
Hey, guys! I'm new here (heard about the project on the recent episode) and today added two sections in episode 349: [[SGU Episode 349#Nuclear Clock (34:53)|Nuclear Clock]] and [[SGU Episode 349#NDE and Lucid Dreaming (40:44)|NDE and Lucid Dreaming]]. Let me know how they look! It's my first time transcribing anything on this scale, and I think I'm getting the hang of it, but I have to admit that I'm a bit of a perfectionist and I feel strange not having ''more'' direction as far as formatting (I realize it would probably be very difficult/time-consuming to enforce super-specific standards at this stage). I looked at some of the completed transcripts to get an idea of what others were doing and tried to use my best judgment from there. I think I'm ready to attack a full episode, but it might take me a while to get through it. There are still some things I'm not entirely clear on, including exactly how the categories/redirects work, so I'm sure I'll ask for some help once I've finished transcribing a full episode (and probably while I'm in the middle of it). Also, I wanted to say that I usually don't have any trouble distinguishing voices (including Jay's and Bob's), so if there are any episodes/sections that need a second pair of ears for that specifically, I can definitely help out. Going forward, is this page the best way to communicate with other members? Thanks!<br>--[[User:Jacquie o|Jacquie o]] ([[User talk:Jacquie o|talk]]) 11:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Hi Jacquie! Those transcripts you've done look absolutely fantastic! In terms of direction, we're just feeling our way though here. :) I suppose the most important thing is to get as much of the content done, and so long as the meaning is accurate, that's the most important thing. I also try to think "what if someone was running this through google translate?", i.e. would it translate well? That's leading me to leave out "you know" and "um" and those types of things to make the transcript flow better.<p>Great to hear you can tell Jay and Bob apart, if you have time and want some lighter work, doing some proof reading might be right up your alley then. Some people do transcripts and leave, say B?: or J?: if they're not sure, so you could possibly go through and fix those.</p><p>Going forward, we're trying to work on a place to help members communicate. The best I've got so far is this: [[Special:WikiForum]], but it's a bit bare bones, so when I get some time I'm going to try to integrate something a little more sophisticated.</p>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hello all. I just joined. Jumped in and proofread [[SGU Episode 3]], some very minor copy edits, added a fair number of links, and subdivided a particularly long interview. I also added some "dead links" to pages I was figuring we should have locally: NESS and JREF. Or should I go back and change them to external links to THE Wikipedia?<br>--[[User:Bshirley|Bshirley]] ([[User talk:Bshirley|talk]]) 03:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
: Hi Bshirley. Thanks for the proof reading, it's very appreciated. It's always fun to add links during the proof reading process, I find I do that a lot too. I really like the subdivisions within the interview breaking it into its topics, that's something I might try to do in future; it would really help with deep linking to a particular subject of discussion. As for the dead links, I'm not so sure. I guess I see our site as not so much providing pages on particular topics à la Wikipedia, and am more inclined to link off to Wikipedia for those kinds of things. We can always improve them on Wikipedia if need be. Just my opinion tho.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 15:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hello everyone, <br>HNY and thanks for all the great work you're doing here. I'm new to transcribing and to this whole Wiki editing stuff but hope I won't make too much of a mess. <br>I posted a [[5X5_Episode_37|5x5 Episode 37]] for a start so I guess it's ready for proof-reading. I didn't go through the whole Help section yet, just copied the formatting from another verified episode. So if anyone can take a look and check what I got wrong, I'd appreciate it. <br>I'm not an English native speaker, so: (a) Though I tried to stick to the American spelling, there may be some impurities; (b) I'm never sure about punctuation. Guess I tend to abuse/misuse/misplace it. <br>One more thing: I wasn't sure what to do with all the "likes", "you knows"' etc. so I left them in. Don't know what the best practice is. Oh, and I didn't have too much trouble telling Jay and Bob apart. Beginner's luck? ;) <br>Keep up the good work! <br>--[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 00:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Great stuff! Welcome on board. I've proof read 5x5 #37 for you and I must say, I take my hat off to you. As someone who has some familiarity with a foreign language (having lived in France for a year), I must say you did an amazingly good job. I'd say your error rate is pretty much the same as transcripts done by native speakers. :)<br />
:* Re: American/British spelling: I don't really care, but I'm a bit more laissez faire than most other people on here. :) <br />
:* Re: likes/you knows: I tend to leave them out unless they modify the meaning of the sentence. <br />
:* Re: Bob/Jay: I'm beginning to suspect that this is a talent, as well as a skill. <br />
:One thing that might help is the [[Help:Contents#Useful_pages|skeleton pages]]. These are blank templates you can use when starting a new transcript. Cheers for your help! <br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 12:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Wow! Appreciate the thumbs up. That's very encouraging. And thanks for the proof read. Apart from obvious misspellings, you corrected the very bits I was least sure of and that's a good sign, I guess :) Care to look at [[5X5_Episode_41|5x5 #41]]? Hope it's not worse than the first one. Cheers! <br>--[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 13:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yep, done. That was even better than the first one, just one change really: [http://www.future-perfect.co.uk/grammartips/grammar-tip-practise-practice.asp practise vs practice]. I'm a native speaker and I still get those mixed up. :) <br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 15:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Thanks :) And now [[5X5_Episode_42|#42]] is up for grabs. This is fun ;)<br>--[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 18:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hi! Another newbie here, had a go at transcribing [[5X5_Episode_63| 5x5 #63]]. I haven't had much experience with wiki, but looks like I managed to save the page without crashing the website. The only thing so far I'm not sure about is changing the 'status' and the 'category' on the episode list page (maybe I'm not permitted to change this?). I've tried to weed out my antipodean spelling. Please let me know of any stupid rookie mistakes!<br />
<br>--[[User:Moodswing|Moodswing]] ([[User talk:Moodswing|talk]]) 13:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Hi Moodswing, thanks for helping out, it looks great! Sorry I'd neglected to add info on this to the help pages, the whole template in a template thing can be a bit confusing. You update the 5X5 episode list by editing [[Template:5X5 episode list]], scroll down to the relevant entry, and update the variables in the '5X5 list entry' template. I've added a bit more info on this to the [[Template:5X5 list entry]] page. So you would change <code>status = incomplete </code> to <code>status = complete</code>, pick your categories from the [[:Category:Topic|Topic page]], and add them as <code>category1 = ...</code> etc. I hope that makes sense. I thought you might like to have a try for yourself, but if you don't fancy it, just pick your categories and let us know - we'll happily make the changes for you.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Thank you Teleuteskitty! Very helpful.<br>--[[User:Moodswing|Moodswing]] ([[User talk:Moodswing|talk]]) 03:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Formatting ==<br />
=== Display ===<br />
Is there a way to get <nowiki><blockquote></nowiki> formatted a little bit. Maybe a light background color and/or some automatic large quote marks? Right now it's not necessarily worth using, imho.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Yep, we could probably change the CSS. I'll see what I can do. Do you have a site in mind that I could use as a basis (i.e. to steal the css from)?<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
::It looks like something has changed to add a light beige background, which achieves the goal. Personally I think it could be a little more distinct, by my aesthetic tastes are poorly defined and not widely popular. I didn't have any examples in mind, but the first one on [http://css-tricks.com/examples/Blockquotes/ this] site looks good to me. It shows an example of what I meant by the "large quote marks". I am okay with having issues I bring up be un-addressed. I just write down things I think of. I leave the risk/reward analysis to those with better information on the subject. Still, I think the better looking the site is the more likely people are to use it.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 21:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Did the way the diffs display change? They look good.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 02:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
: They ''do'' look good. :) I didn't intentionally change them, but perhaps they changed with the new 1.20 mediawiki version (along with user registration briefly being broken). <br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 13:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Design request: make the left pane logo and links float down the page when scrolling. Just another idea I'm throwing out there.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 21:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Quickie with Bob ===<br />
Help! I'm totally green and have a question: what am I supposed to do about "Quickies with Bob"? The one in Episode 414 comes in the middle of the news segments... and maybe this issue should be addressed in a Help section somewhere (sorry if I missed it)?<br>--[[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 16:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Hi Fallible, thanks for helping out on the site. It's a good question, and we don't yet have a set format for that. I searched through what's already been done, and I like the format in [[SGU Episode 387]] and [[SGU Episode 400]]. In these, it's treated as a new, 2nd level segment, followed by a 2nd level header "News items continued", and 3rd level headers for the remaining news items. If people agree this format works, I'll go back and change the other transcripts, and add a note in the help section.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks for the quick reply! I like it (the formatting proposal). The only comment I have is, are "Quickies with Bob" always in the news items section of the podcast? Because if not, we should agree on a format for how to interrupt a second level item with no sub-items (I suppose the same "X continued (time-stamp)" would work).<br>-- [[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 22:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
: G'day Fallible. What I do is start a new second-level heading for the quickie with Bob. If the quickie occurs in the middle of the news items or whatever, I just do a "News items continued" afterwards, see: http://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_414.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 08:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: Yeah, if there's no objections, I'll change the others over to this format in a couple of days.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 20:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Done!<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 09:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Extra references ===<br />
Another question about formatting(?): the news items sometimes include links to references which have been copied from the episode notes. If I think there are additional references which add more information, how can I (or even, should I) add them to the episode transcription? One possibility is to add more links at the start of a news item, but somehow that seems inelegant to me (because there is no distinction between the original link or links from the episode notes and additional links).<br>-- [[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 19:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Good question, I often add them as references to the relevant bit, eg. when they introduce that bit of the story. That way they're clearly not from the SGU guys, which is important, as you say, as it takes a value judgement on what to link to. Hope that helps.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 20:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== Adding descriptions ===<br />
And yet another question about formatting. In my episode, Bob, Steve, and Rebecca talk about the various ways the word "fungi" can be pronounced, but I currently have no way to distinguish between these pronunciations in the transcription. Would it be OK if I added IPA as is sometimes done in Wikipedia? The drawback is that this might break searching for phrases. <br>--[[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 19:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)<br />
:This hasn't been formally acknowledged before, but I think we usually do an approximation of the sounds in speech marks, eg. "Fun-guy", "Funjee" or "Fungee". This is more accessible than IPA, which I personally had to look up and would have no idea how to use. That's my thoughts, anyhow.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 20:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks, Teleuteskitty, I ended up adding the "speech markup" inside parentheses. My impression is that there's a partially declared convention that anything in parentheses is descriptive text added by the transcriber and not anything spoken by the rogues. Please correct me if I am wrong, and consider making this an officially declared convention. <br>--[[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 20:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::You're right, I've definitely done that. So far, we've tried not to be too prescriptive about formatting as this might inhibit contributions. I personally prefer guidelines and uniformity, but there are others who find it too constrictive. In this instance, I think you're right that we should agree a standard for descriptive text to separate it from the actual episode. I'm revising the help section soon, and will address this. does anyone have feedback about using regular parentheses for descriptive text? e.g. (imitating Schwarzenegger)<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 21:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I usually use parentheses as well, mostly because I haven't run into too many situations where parentheticals might be confusing. For things like ''[sic]''s where someone misspeaks or I need to indicate an editorial change, I usually use square brackets.<br>I forgot to mention that I also tend to use italics, as in ''(laughs)'' just to further indicate it's not part of the speech.<br>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 21:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Ah, thanks Av8rmike, your comment "made the light bulb over my head light up" that I've been using "(laughter)" wrong. A lot of the time I should have used "(laughs)" because I meant that the particular rogue who was currently being transcribed laughed and the help explicitly states that "(laughter)" indicates general laughter of all or most of the rogues. As for the italics, I'll have to think about it and get back to you if I think it's worth the extra effort. (Oh, and wow, I didn't think of adding [sic] and admire you for having the energy for it, the rogues are misspeaking soooo much in my episode...) [[User:Fallible|Fallible]] ([[User talk:Fallible|talk]]) 22:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Interviews ==<br />
Question regarding interviews. When an interview is incorporated into a segment, such as Dr Rachie's interview in SGU 366, does that make her a guest? It doesn't seem like a black and white distinction.<br>--[[User:Zambuck|Zambuck]] ([[User talk:Zambuck|talk]]) 22:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Hi Zambuck, we use the 'Guest' section in the infobox as a key for non-Rogue speakers, so you're right to add her in there. Thanks for your help!<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 10:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
I've posted the transcript for [[5X5 Episode 30]] so it's ready for a proof. Any takers? Tried my best to keep to US spelling. Mostly wiki links but some external, any preference? <br>--[[User:tnewsome|tnewsome]] ([[User talk:tnewsome|talk]]) 23:19, 18 October 2012 (EST)<br />
:We've mostly used wiki links, as it keeps a general standard of reference, they're often updated and they reference out to other sites. It's also very handy when you've got lots of linkable points, and it would take forever to find the ''best'' website for each. If readers are interested, it's generally a good place for them to start. Thanks for your help!<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Is it possible to have certain text automatically become a link? Like 'Skeptic's Guide to the Universe' or 'New England Skeptic's Society' or the rogues' names for example?<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Not that I know of, other than perhaps using a template<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Index of core concepts ==<br />
Had an idea for a project we could work on in conjunction with the transcription. We should keep track of places where the rogues explain a core concept in detail (a lot of 5x5 episodes I imagine) and link to that explanation from other places in the transcription. Paradolia, Occam's razor, selection bias, things like that. We could centralize them into a single page, as well. Within the canonical rogue explanation we can link out to wikipedia or other sources.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
: Sounds like a great idea, somewhat compatible with the TIL (Today I Learned) sections. I think centralising them into a single page would make them much easier to find... I know that when I'm transcribing and I hear someone say "we discussed that on a previous podcast" it'd be nice to have a place to go to find that, though perhaps searching would be sufficient.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Example page(s) ==<br />
Hi all. I think it would be a good idea to pick an episode that is the canonical one. One where whatever the current agreed upon standard is implemented that can be pointed to or referenced whenever needed. Just a thought. Oo... also, we should be careful about links. We need to use nofollow when appropriate so quacks don't get any google juice from our work.<br><br />
--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 03:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Good idea on the example episode, we're trying to figure out which one would be best. Suggestions welcome!<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
::It might be that we'll have to splice together a few episodes to get all the various elements in one place.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:::Hi, Geneocide! I think that the transcripts from episodes 350-365 (even the unverified ones) are probably as close to canonical as we're going to get. Those were done in the time when TK, RWH, and I had a little bit more time to devote to the pages and before we started to fall behind. (I'm particular to [[SGU_Episode_365|365]], since that's one I did almost entirely myself. =)<br>--[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 02:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Proof reading ==<br />
The [[5X5 Episode 6]] transcript has just gone up and is begging for a proof-read and voice check. Any takers? :) <br>--[[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 04:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
:I got it covered. Thanks, Skepticat!<br>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 02:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hello everyone! I heard Rob on the SGU and it sounded like a fantastic idea to contribute here. I transcribed a 5x5 episode to start (#39), and I'll probably do a few more before I go whole hog and tackle a full SGU episode. If anyone wants to proof-read that episode I did, that would be fantastic. I know the punctuation is way off there. Thanks in advance, and If you need my help specifically, don't be afraid to message me. Have fun! <br>--[[User:Thevipermike|Thevipermike]] ([[User talk:Thevipermike|talk]]) 05:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Great, thanks! I'll take a look when I get a chance. :)<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Time formats ==<br />
Hi guys, I've noticed we've used 2 different time-stamp formats. When it gets past the hour mark, I use the h:mm:ss format, but some pages use mm:ss, e.g. 78:12. As the time-stamps form the links for sections, I figure this is pretty important. My argument for using h:mm:ss is that, in my experience, that's what the majority of audio software and mp3 players use, plus I think it's more natural for us to think of time this way. What do you guys think?<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 17:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Kitty, the only reason I was using mm:ss was because that's what was already in use on the existing pages. =P I agree that h:mm:ss makes more intuitive sense and is used in more places, so I'm all in favor of switching over.<br>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 13:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks for responding. Rwh86's away this week, so I'm gonna be cheeky, assume he's cool with it and change them over. We can always change them back if anyone comes up with a good argument for the mm:ss format.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Categories ==<br />
Hi guys, and thanks for starting this project! I don't have a lot of time to devote to doing whole transcripts, but I'd like to start categorizing the wiki pages, like "SGU Transcripts", "Live Episodes", etc. I think it would also be helpful to have next/previous episode links on each page, either at the bottom or in the infobox. Any opinions?<br>--[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 15:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hi Av8rmike, thanks for your interest, any help is always appreciated, big or small. We were thinking of using the categories from the [http://theness.com/roguesgallery/ Rogues gallery], plus others more specific to the podcast, e.g. guests. I think adding a category for live episodes is a great idea. We're also considering using redirect pages for categorizing podcast sections separately. <br />
:I agree, previous/next buttons would be good (in fact I was just playing with some graphics for them). However, I'm not sure how to get a wiki template to recognise the episode number and add/subtract automatically, do you have any ideas about that? Otherwise we can just input them manually.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 16:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I took a stab at adding some categories to [[SGU_Episode_354]] to give an idea of how that would work. I don't know offhand how to do the auto-numbering in wiki templates, but from looking at the help pages for templates, you can do almost anything with them. I could probably do some experimenting and see how far I get.<br>--[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 18:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Who's who? Recognising the Rogues==<br />
I'd like to help, but I ''cannot'' tell Jay and Bob's voices apart. Am I useless?<br>--[[User:Jenpohl|Jenpohl]] 20:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I often find this difficult, and it's quite likely I've already made mistakes based on this, but mb you'll get better as you're listening closely. I find Bob more nasal. Another good indicator is whether they're referencing nanotechnology or porn. :)<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 21:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
:That may be a problem, but all it took for me to tell their voices apart was a little time.<br>--[[User:Jay One|Jay One]] 21:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Just a thought: if you want to put up a <ins>transcription page including</ins> timestamps in comments (using "< !--" and "-->" without spaces in them) for the points you're unsure about, you could flag the pages up here for me (or whoever) to see if we can help out. <ins>This way we can easily search for problem points.</ins><br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 06:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC) [edited:16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)]<br />
<br />
:You're definitely not useless! The most important thing is to get a first pass of the transcription done, corrections are then much quicker/easier. How about you put a question mark after the letter if you can't work out who's speaking? So like:<br />
:<br />
:B?: Stuff that Bob or Jay said<br />
:<br />
:Then someone else can go fix them later, should be pretty quick to do.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hi guys...First time transcriber here! I was inspired by Tim Farley's presentation at TAM 2012 to see where I could help out - and figured I could at least try this. I just transcribed and posted [[5X5_Episode_4]], but I'm not familiar enough with the Rogues to distinguish voice identities. The only voice IDs I'm somewhat sure of are Steve's and Rebecca's (the others I guessed at). If anyone can help with voice IDs in Ep. 4, that would be great. (Maybe I'll get better at the voices in the future -grin-) <br>--[[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 03:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Hi Skepticat, and (as Av8rmike said) welcome to the team! I proof-read [[5X5 Episode 4]] and added the speakers. The page is great, took me no time to add them. In future, if there's a lot of lines you can't attribute, don't worry about adding times to each, just the first in a cluster. Hopefully that will save you a bit of time too :)<br>I often find Bob and Jay hard to distinguish, but I think Bob's just a little more nasal, and it sounds like Jay might use a desktop mic instead of one close by his mouth. I don't know if that's any help.<br>Thanks for your help, I'm very jealous you got to go to Tam, if you have any feedback for the site, do let us know.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for the proof-read! Care to take a whack at [[5X5 Episode 5]], which I just posted? I don't think I'm going to have much luck with voice IDs (other than S & R) unless someone specifically says who's who, so I'll leave that to much more experienced folks, such as yourself, for now. Heck, I ended up riding down in the same elevator with the SGU crew at TAM (I think it was the first morning?) and I didn't fully realize who they were until later. As I was a "first TAMMER", that happened to me a few times with other skeptic notables there. :) <br>--[[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 04:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Done! And just for the record, I definitely don't get the voices right ''all'' the time. That's just one of the reasons to have subsequent contributors as proof-readers :) <br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 12:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Skepticat: Some things that may help you get more familiar with the voices:<br />
::* Listen to an episode and follow along with the transcript (assuming it's been verified), paying attention to who's speaking when.<br />
::* Transcribe some of the earlier episodes. Perry is easy to distinguish, and Jay (and sometimes Bob) aren't in all the early ones because of software limitations.<br>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 14:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC) <br />
<br />
== Professional transcribers ==<br />
Has anyone explored the idea of hiring a professional transcriptionist to do the work? This could be much faster, but there would be a cost involved. Perhaps a donation fund could be set up for SGU listeners to pay for it. Another podcast that goes this route is the "Security Now" podcast from Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte.<br>-- [[User:128.200.139.53|128.200.139.53]] ([[User talk:128.200.139.53|talk]]) 17:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
:I'm a professional trascriber and I would love to contribute towards this project. VLC is good but not optimized for transcription purpose. I would suggest NCH's ExpressScribe software and it's free. Also if you are spending a lot of time on this project, I would recommend investing on a foot pedal. It shouldn't cost you more than $25. With these two things, I am sure you can double your productivity.<br>--[[User:Eupraxsophic|Eupraxsophic]] ([[User talk:Eupraxsophic|talk]]) 02:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Fact lists ==<br />
Hi guys,<br>I'm guessing this is the best place to put project discussions, let me know if there's another way - I'm new to Wiki editing.<br />
<br />
Regarding time stamps for the sections, I've entered them into the headings of [[SGU_Episode_348]] using < small > tags. This shows them smaller in the actual headings, but the same size in the contents list. What do you guys think?<br />
<br />
I've also been thinking of ways to make these transcript pages as useful as poss without causing ourselves too much extra work. One way might be to include a kind of bullet-point list of facts from the episode, as they often have throw-away comments that are interesting. E.g. in ep.348, they talk about nut allergies, and that cashew nuts contain the same allergy-inducing resin as poison-ivy. We could lift these from the main text as we go and build a list at the end. It wouldn't make much difference if someone's reading the whole transcript, but it might make a nice feature for flicking through them.<br />
Just a thought, I figured it would be better said earlier than later. What do you think?<br />
<br>Cheers,<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 04:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I like the idea of compiling a fact list at the end of the transcription for each episode. It's just up to the individual transcriber I suppose. Regarding the < small > tags, I definitely think it would help to have the timestamps in these transcriptions, and having it in the section title makes it visible in the table of contents. The other option is to use the wikibox on your user page, which I think is very nice, containing the image, quote, times and links in one place. It just depends on whether or not other people like it too.<br>--[[User:Jay One|Jay One]] 20:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, I have no experience making wikibox templates, so if someone else knows more about these, mb they'd like to build one? (although I'm happy to try) we should probably come to some agreement about whether we want them and what they should contain.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 20:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I've inserted a rough draft of a fact list at the bottom of [[SGU_Episode_348]]. What do you guys think? It was easy to put together, but I didn't know what to call it.<br />
<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 05:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
:I originally thought it was a bad idea until I went and looked at your example. Now I think it's ''awesome'', I love it! :) Currently you've called it "Today I Learned..." which I think is good, but can anyone think of a title that's better? Like maybe "Interesting ideas from the podcast" except not that as it sounds terrible. ;)<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Yay! Thanks. For the name, the only thing I thought, was I wanted to be careful not to assert them as hard facts. Also, we should mb point out that they are not part of the transcript, but taken from it after.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Objectives ==<br />
Hi guys like others I've often thought about this as a project but put off by the amount of time that it would have taken one person, the main reason I thought about doing this was to be able to search the transcripts when needed, example: if someone asked me a question on Homoeopathy I would be able to use my smartphone to give an answer based on what the SGU have talked about in the past, as I generally take what the guys say as fact.<br />
<br />
Do you think that what I'm taking about would be possible using this WIKI project??<br />
<br />
Looking forward to starting and completing my first SGU Transcript :-)<br>--[[User:Manontop|Manontop]] 09:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hi Manontop.<br />
:Sure, I think that would be one of the most important uses of these transcripts. My ideas for having transcripts of the SGU episodes are to facilitate linking, searching and accessibility:<br />
:<br />
:* Linking. We have headings throughout the podcasts so that it's possible to link directly to a specific segment, for example [[SGU_Episode_352#Aristolochia_Nephropathy|Aristolochia Nephropathy]] (internal wiki link) or [http://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_352#Aristolochia_Nephropathy Aristolochia Nephropathy] (external link).<br />
:* Searching. Currently there are (at least) two ways to search. Either using Google or the built-in search box in the top right. If you want to use Google to search only this site, you can do so by using the "site:" term in your query. E.g. your Google query would be [https://www.google.com/search?q=site:sgutranscripts.org+titanic+disaster "site:sgutranscripts.org titanic disaster"]. Google is the king of them all, so I have installed proper semantic web (SEO) support. When a transcript is completed I go through and insert tags to important concepts that are covered in the podcast. This helps Google (and other search engines) know what is important about that page. You can see these by opening a transcript and viewing the source of the page. Then look for the <meta name="keywords" content="..."> tag. There are two components to this, tags that are site-wide such as "skeptics, sceptics, scepticism" etc. followed by tags that are local to a particular page such as "titanic, tragedy, ss, californian, space, junk" etc. Of course, Google also uses the page content when indexing.<br />
:* Accessibility. Quite simple really; people who can't listen to the podcast for any reason (deafness etc.) can now read the transcripts instead.<br />
:<br />
:Great to have you on board! :)<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 11:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==SGU Legal fund==<br />
You guys thinking about doing anything to help out with the SGU legal fund raising? Something to consider at least. I was thinking on the main page the 2nd T-shirt contest winner announcement could be replaced.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geneocide&diff=7920User talk:Geneocide2013-09-01T15:14:02Z<p>Geneocide: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Welcome to ''SGUTranscripts''!'''<br />
We hope you have fun.<br />
You will probably want to read the [[Help:Contents|help pages]].<br />
Again, welcome and have fun! [[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 22:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Welcome to the team, and congratulations on completing your first transcription!<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 22:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Thank ye <br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 23:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Gene, I finished proof-reading your transcript for episode 6. All in all, pretty nice work, and you can take a look to see what I corrected. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!<br/>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 04:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hi there, not sure if you've seen, but we have a bunch of 'Outro' templates for all the episodes so far in the [[Help:Template_list#Intros_.26_Outros|Template list]], which might help. Thanks for the continued help. <br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 17:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hey Gene, I like the picture - you look suitably skeptical in your well-earned prize! --[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 13:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Thank you. I posted here but ya'll feel free to use it wherever if you should want. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 15:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=User:Geneocide&diff=7897User:Geneocide2013-09-01T04:06:33Z<p>Geneocide: </p>
<hr />
<div>Long time listener who was unemployed. Sorta felt obligated to at least try to contribute given my situation. That how I won the contest. Now I have a job though. :([[File:Contest Winner.jpg|600px|right|Me and my prize]]<br />
<br />
===Useful Links stolen from [[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]]===<br />
*[[Template:SGU episode list]] &ndash; list of full episodes<br />
*[[Template:InfoBox]] &ndash; Full episode infobox; adds [[:Category:Full Episodes]]<br />
*[[Template:Editing required]] &ndash; Message box indicating aspects of page yet to complete<br />
----<br />
*[[Template:Outro1]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 301 onwards<br />
*[[Template:Outro291]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 291-300 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro119]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 119-288 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro61]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 61-118 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro39]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 39-60 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro30]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 30-38 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro18]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 18-29 (inclusive)<br />
----<br />
*[[Episode skeleton]] &ndash; Page with section formatting for use as "template" for full episodes<br />
<br />
===Also===<br />
<nowiki>{{transcribing all <br />
|transcriber = Geneocide<br />
}}</nowiki><br />
<br />
===Primary Contributor===<br />
*[[SGU Episode 6]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 7]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 8]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 9]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 10]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 11]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 12]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 15]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 49]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 127]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 232]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 257]]<br />
<br />
===Total Time===<br />
13 hours 11 minutes and 1 seconds<br />
<br />
===Things I've Learned===<br />
*Steve says "in fact" too much<br />
*Evan says "absolutely" too much</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=File:20130831_212701.jpg&diff=7896File:20130831 212701.jpg2013-09-01T03:57:57Z<p>Geneocide: Geneocide moved page File:20130831 212701.jpg to File:Contest Winner.jpg: old name is meaningless jibberish</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[File:Contest Winner.jpg]]</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=File:Contest_Winner.jpg&diff=7895File:Contest Winner.jpg2013-09-01T03:57:56Z<p>Geneocide: Geneocide moved page File:20130831 212701.jpg to File:Contest Winner.jpg: old name is meaningless jibberish</p>
<hr />
<div>Me and my shirt from the transcription contest</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=File:Contest_Winner.jpg&diff=7894File:Contest Winner.jpg2013-09-01T03:56:00Z<p>Geneocide: Me and my shirt from the transcription contest</p>
<hr />
<div>Me and my shirt from the transcription contest</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_407&diff=7134SGU Episode 4072013-07-31T21:30:43Z<p>Geneocide: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Google speech}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeNum = 407<br />
|episodeDate = 4<sup>th</sup> May 2013<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Oblivion.jpg<br />
|rebecca = y<br />
|bob = y<br />
|jay = y<br />
|evan = y<br />
|guest1 = SS: {{w|Seth Shostak}}<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2013-05-04.mp3<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,45907.0.html<br />
|qowText = Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.<br />
|qowAuthor = {{w|William Butler Yeats}}<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Tuesday, April 30th 2013 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella.<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Rebecca Watson.<br />
<br />
R: Hello Everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella<br />
<br />
J: Hey Guys<br />
<br />
S: And Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Are we still an effective team?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: We are still an effective team.<br />
<br />
B: Not in the slightest.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(00:33)</small> ==<br />
* May 4th, 2005: SGU records its first episode<br />
<br />
R: Happy anniversary everybody.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
S: The show goes out on May 4th which is exactly our 8 year anniversary.<br />
<br />
R: May the fourth be with you.<br />
<br />
B: Eight years!<br />
<br />
R: It seems like every week we have some arbitrary anniversary to celebrate.<br />
<br />
S: Milestone yea.<br />
<br />
E: This one's a little less than arbitrary.<br />
<br />
S: Eight freakin years that's a long time.<br />
<br />
E: That's a long slice of life, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So how many episodes?<br />
<br />
S: This is 407<br />
<br />
B: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: Hey you know how we read a lot of news items on the show and we're like and they said five years are going to get this, we could have actually followed up on some of those 5 year things.<br />
<br />
R: that's right<br />
<br />
E: Do you guys remember this is right before recorded episode 1 it didn't make it onto the show but there was talk about the alpha constant which might not be constant Bob do you remember that specificat reacts to 6921 Dr Michael Murphy if karen was speaking at the physics 2005 just said that the fine structure constant 26 might not be constant after all he was comparing gas cloud fingerprints with those teams on Earth and space in the day has changed by about 1 part 2013 the last 10 billion years show doesn't sound like a lot it's hard to put that in some sort of perspective saying is we may not it may not be constantly need more research to find out if in fact it is said its a tumor research there has been a research done and done more research other signs so done work 8 years later they're still in the same place where they started it is not widely accepted that there's any variation on in the in the constant news items as well does a few that I remember tonight. Time that I wanted to follow up on you guys remember the T Rex proteins oh yeah it was Haiti's scientist found some t-rex proteins and it was 68 million euro proteins me direction was cool and then they were burned protein so it to get dinosaurs related to personal sounded good well after that I started reading and Stephen Salter contact Mexican of the first person to say hey to rest of the community is not accepting this so there is a lot of push back a lot of push back against the original sin to see me just clean it with those said its a contaminant others who were saying it stay didn't do good statistical analysis is just a fluke and the data really didn't prove it real um send a clear Vista released original date of the years the resurgence reviews for a while then they related to now at eight years later where is oldest and it seems like actually did the original sin cos to do claim to find the protein of doing a lot of follow-up research have answered a lot of the critics and they are putting together a much more compelling story Really that they have actually 65 plus you equals year old dinosaur pregnancy did I had wrists or different special man show date the used stereo equipment in really try to control the contamination she stated to statistical analysis 200 saw the ghost criticisms but it seems like the rest of the community is still isn't accepting it they're saying essentially that and the state is coming out of 1 research team really needs to be independently replicated and they still haven't addressed the contamination issue maybe the contamination is coming very quickly 50's does laid on the ground for a long time and we can't be sure the proteins that there are you sleeping or actually soft tissue from the creatures that left those bones behind as opposed to to some other stores in nice story about Giants process assigned to one of those stories where they made a claim he got picked apart route to sleep by the rest of the scientific community in the Navy how to do more and more rigorous message to address all the criticism is it really is a nice story I just assumed they would just like crying wind by being oppressed and supposed to do those lighted sign to clean this conspiracy against and try to get it on schools anyway Tracy ca. to the concert dinosaur protein controversy other mothers news items from 2005 10 planets or eight in radio controversy over whether or not the new copper Belt objects should be named the 10th planet or should Pluto get demoted and not be considered a gun happy how about this one the first human to have to control a robotic arm with a computer chip when was that 2005 that is awesome article today Teresa some person today that um they were controlling it a robotic arm and it moves like a human arm and it had the same type of a text not your fingers but definitely the other joint add one more at the time the smallest rocky EXO planet was 7.5 times the size of my god can you remember that shoot the days back in the day where are we now with the closest to Earth side of multiple world that are the same size of the earth yeah we're stronger even a little smaller than a telescoping people waiting to us fish Alex I like this because this is where are they now at the said since 2021 Saved by the Bell alright TV show is the article from July 2005 single atom pick materials almost ready for primetime Find the talking about graphing a banana to Raffi's the researchers noted the sum of the application probably decades away but they expected to see ultra-fast transistors micromechanical devices innocence is based on one atom to crystals ready in a few years time fast forward a few years time and just a month ago here's the here's a headline for a month ago flash memory chip building built out of single atom pick components hang out app they put them together with traditional components and made a flash memory drive it still a few layers tickets not single layer but and Body Works absolutely works Dave put stuff on there a race did many times to see how it'll how it holds up everything and so there it is you know of Science in action and it's actually coming to fruition pretty much exactly they said it would be cool n***** happy Anniversary here's to another eight years very rare very scary at least 18 years I'm good good for a while and I got s*** to do yeah career does my cycle Oregon my hair did the Frank my hard drive on your Steve we're going to change a few things<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Funding Science <small>(08:24)</small>===<br />
* ''Science'': [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/04/us-lawmaker-proposes-new-criteri-1.html U.S. Lawmaker Proposes New Criteria for Choosing NSF Grants]<br />
<br />
Okay. Well let's go on to a few news items. Rebecca, you're going to tell us about politics and funding scientific research yes background church because now there's a stranger in the US who are in the US add a me not the stuff so NFS is the National Science Foundation and they are responsible for something along the lines of 20 percent of all federally funded science is is funded by then they have a budget of around seven and a half billion show how to decide which research gets funded the Trinity that's true AP review process and what does winter looking for is research that is in the public interest and also important to scientists hole so it could be very basic science could be applicable science and the thief and a broad range of things to do with the missus looking for is how this research contributes to the scientific understanding as a whole well there's the bill right now on the trash in trash sponsored by Lamar Smith to is out kind of well-known recently as the sponsor of the Stop Online Piracy Act super which was shut down last year um which wood is had some say catastrophic a fax on how easy Internet Lamar Smith is now the head of the house Science Committee and she's still would replace the pier in process that add to Germans when an assassin's Andrews place that process with a political Sheeran basically um to politicians with the people who would determine where all this money is going and in particular with they would be looking for I'll be to you from the actual del look for research proposal start in the interest of the United States to advance to national health prosperity or welfare and secure the National Defence to science the finest quality is groundbreaking and answers questions or solve problems after this Friday at large and not too productive other research project being funded by the foundation or other federal signs agencies show there a lot of problems that any difference question may seem like a lizard good positive things to work towards but a person for most probably say you have college tuitions who are determining what the most important scientific research is that needs to be funded add to that is of itself your mediately okay up the science spending two to politics so for instance if the Mar had a problem with shaved global warming research she could possibly turkey to the funding for it open the door for any politician to to destroy any research that the politically don't care don't pay per exactly lol free because of the CVS okasan things like national defense fake ad there's a ton of good science it's being done this at a very foundation a level it in other words it's not the result of the science are not sure the groundbreaking they're not going to create jobs immediately or create weapons as dirt but they're very important to understanding to the body of knowledge and distilled would automatically preclude research like that from being funded show you know it anything if this doesn't work for you then just picture Sarah Palin on the campaign trail complaining about wasted research money on fruit flies I need anything about science news health research fruit flies can beach um and how common it is send message in a politician likes your parents or like this guys like on the marsh miss you have no scientific background no signs of training send leaving the people who decide where this seven and a half billion dollars is going its frankly it's terrifying and irritated yesterday yeah it doesn't get it today created for the trip you any basic science research Plaza there that says that you're not going to do any research that duplicates of the research but that's replication baby what's wrong with the kids to know replication this is a maximally naive interference and 80 a process of deciding which valuable to research this happens actually quite frequently at lyrics funders say that will be one or money to go towards sushi what they say is translational research research that will have a specific usual outcome show in medicine for example you have grassroots organizations that raise money to cure disease a call we want the research to a go to do studies which can potentially cure this disease or improve the item for patience and they're putting a message from on the scale that has a very detrimental effect they mean well I understand weather hurt is but the problem is that you can't know how to balance basic science translational and clinical or Apple store application research unless you're in the field that balance is off is it takes a lot of judgement only the experts in the field to really know where we are and when you shift that balance because you want to research it going to have some specific application you can actually slow down the progress in the field at your funding by taking away funds and researches resources in universities space it cetera away from the more basic research. Really need to be focusing records so this to be a complete disaster is it really nice to be nice maybe has been I don't know a lack of communication or something into director or any pants have to do with them have not explained things clearly enough to a Smith and his colleagues can you can I have a shot in in fact addiszefen more communication is ever existed in the what 16 year history of the NSF because for the first time ever represented Smith station Dennis after the speech at the letter and demanded to see the anonymous what what what supposed to be in on this review of a number of studies funded by an assessed at perhaps she did not feel should have been funded this request at know if there's ever made 5410 see I started with a strongly worded letter does claritin you can't even read all of it on em over add to a science is website news.sciencemag.org Alright thanks, Rebecca.<br />
<br />
=== Curse Scam <small>(16:15)</small>===<br />
* CBS New York: [http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/04/23/con-artists-tormenting-chinese-immigrants-in-brooklyn-with-cash-or-curse-scam/ Con Artists Tormenting Chinese Immigrants In Brooklyn With Cash-Or-Curse Scam]<br />
<br />
Evan, You're going to tell us about the latest paranormal scam yeah this ones a hot is a celebrity sophisticated is other scams out there but it seems to be effective not coming to is courtesy of CBS New York I seem to con artist for targeting Chinese immigrants specifically in Brooklyn New York hey on your scam they will walk up to the target sometimes right now Street demand cash from now onwards jewels are something else of value and if they don't hand it over they will straighten them with an evil curse they will say things like oh you evil now before you or your family members will suffer and this is been dubbed the cash or curse scam so again you've got the Zelda Chinese people right there a very superstitious demographic and you know this it's basically a form of f****** that is being performed on and they have been known to give over their valuables their possessions the skin is not limited to Newark either days been reported across the country and in other countries around the world so this is taking route because of the fact is people are taking advantage of yeah it is easy to take advantage of the demographic and has a high rate of superstition does is this is a fuse con artists in general target the elderly because maybe they're not quite as savvy with the latest technology so you know computer scams against older people are very common or maybe they have a mild cognitive impairment to the accident taking advantage of a population has medical problems you know fieldstone are the population back potentially can have a lot of funny because they have to be completed over their license and it's not uncommon for for older addicting games 22 B swindled I did as you say another life savings is terrible yes and it seems to stem from something in the Paschal the Chinese blessings scam so I've read some articles about this from years past so it supposed to start carrying the street what the Connersville do with it will go into the shops in markets of these places on by bike Chinese people show the last for money shakedown if they refuse will say in okay well now your family is going to become ill what to do list is that in some cases the scammers will direct the victim to a relative or a doctor Cooper Fort Lee has the power to avert a certain desastre that's good because that's going to come to say something like alright if you want to get out of this bring a bag of valuables with you go see this person alright and I'll get it taken care of what to do the polls which route to take like jewels and stuff out of the bag and replace it with other things like that cause of rice water bottles in other things in the truck and don't open this until you get home wait for a week or two 7 to 10 days and then after that you'll find that no cursing before you and good spirits and Beyond will be with you by the time and I'll pay attention to the to these instructions to realize two weeks later been rocked the Chinese Blessing Scam is what that's called, so this is like a Very Asian of at two different than psychics who should I tell people that they are cursed they have some kind of evil threatening them and that they need to have the blessing done by the psychic who is president Falls thank you have some Christmas money bring me to stack of cash Laughlin to process ABC Street Dalton the money vanishing think about it obvious condo lease or where of it being poured all over the country hopefully awareness will bring about the best<br />
<br />
=== ITER - Fusion Reactor <small>(20:26)</small>===<br />
* The Independent: [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/one-giant-leap-for-mankind-13bn-iter-project-makes-breakthrough-in-the-quest-for-nuclear-fusion-a-solution-to-climate-change-and-an-age-of-clean-cheap-energy-8590480.html One giant leap for mankind: £13bn Iter project makes breakthrough in the quest for nuclear fusion]<br />
<br />
in India but they won't find out about the International clear experimental reactor really caught me by surprise I had never heard of this project for school TCH her project ITER I'm pretty sure to turn on Cedar and it's the international thermonuclear experimental reactor and or dinner in Latin mean the way and this Is a fusion research in ensuring project goes to demonstrate that it is possible to produce more energy from the fusion process that is used to initiate it courses I finish eating fruit in previous attempts if the project works what will end up with his and model of what the next generation would look like so this is actually going to be a reactor that supposed to be used to power homes Morgan just an experiment to proof of concept the project funded run by the European Union India Japan China Russia South Korea and United States with the European Union investing about 45 percent the money to do it under the current design with fully functional is supposed to produce 500 megabytes per 50 mega watch spent in order of magnitude of energy creation example 500 megabytes keep our about 300,000 average home David Guetta construction in 2007 and main question is why is this a big deal so I thought for such quickly define fusion fusion is when two hydrogen atoms are forming helium in neutron particles loss of Anarchy with the Adams armor Jincy in the form of heat fusion takes place in a measly high temperatures need to overcome the repulsive forces they keep Adams apart from each other neutron shoot off during diffusion process in their energies where he comes from sons core is about 15 million degrees Celsius in Ashford fusion is taking place fusion of course it's been a dream of Science in the beginning of the atomic age which is in 1945 and some people say the beginning of the atomic gauges set of the first bomb on Bruce sooner after the public became or more where it over the next two years about a million individual components of this highly complex usually actor will start to arrive in France in the south of France were three actors housed on these are being built around the world and this project in my opinion is epic for a lot of different reasons I'm first it's proving a huge triumph in countries working together in diplomacy and Science in Engineering it really is heading out a lot of friends here and I think it's awesome Carlson a hydrate who is the project deputy director responsible for safety said it is the largest scientific collaboration the world in fact a project so complex we even had to invent your own currency known as the inter unit of account to decide how much each country pays for Jerry got another one of those big clean off the right on I thought that the International Space Station was the biggest um global project but it did this in that I guess the two top when does the bigger I return yeah okay the great thing is diffusion reactors don't produce any co2 there is any please come out like burning fossil fuels really that would be fantastic to get away from my way to the way to have a meltdown the concern at all yeah you're right by Dr Ellis Hyundai said a female like accident is impossible at either because the fusion reaction is fundamentally safe any disturbance my deal conditions in the reaction will stop a runaway nuclear reaction in a quart meltdown are simply not possible I love reading that I'm thrilled that we are working on this project in that actually sounds phenomenal ISE for the opportunity street thanks for trying to find out where we are right now its not like we know it's going to work this is still experimental technology in there a problems that need to be some absolutely CVS like I said this is a proof-of-concept are going to be building this usually expensive to siilitie testing out the latest and greatest series that they have a meeting have a design building to expect they know what they're trying to achieve in the know exactly what the building or not anything at this point but we won't actually know until about the year 21 or 22 it in that's when the first upside my is scheduled on that's when the ice gases will be injected into into the mechanism and by 28 year 2728 it's going to go nuclear with injections of 50 to Trillium Trillium Grand and then bud 2030 the first demonstration of the fusion reactor to produce electricity and had that electricity be inserted into the grid will happen now keep this in mind they don't really think that's a first commercial nuclear fusion power plant in using new killer II don't know it does matter nuclear nuclear nuclear new year new clear clear clear new clear liquid in 2050 about their saying that if everything goes well that's when we would be able to start the first commercial nuclear fusion power but this has the potential of creating as you have energy without creating greenhouse gases Send to your meeting or chrome we need to release a part of it if it all works out right man 20470 Chinese yeah that would be nice to finish this may not be the technology I get to see if you should ever other designs out there people taking the one I am supposed to have a Mr fusion in two years has happened you like a fat<br />
<br />
=== Einstein Still Correct <small>(26:46)</small>===<br />
* CBS News: [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57581682/einsteins-gravity-theory-passes-toughest-test-yet/ Einstein's gravity theory passes toughest test yet]<br />
<br />
Bob, quickly tell us how Einstein is right yet again. Einstein's general security isn't shown to be accurate for the Virginia time a sign that your predictions accurate even when dealing with extreme cases namely the world characteristics of a closer to Dave ever found out via way to work by nurses to read this I was almost like your big deal mechanics Albert a pretty much was Rihanna born about everything right is special and general 2025 pretty much every a sauce on them pretty much every every last one words on skate does what is different about this because it is a little bit different first of all this was incredibly kind for general never been through the ringer like this one to find a recent study was really incredible is pulsar was is Macy's twice the mass of the Sun get its only 12 miles 20 Columbus across imagine it taking the Sun W to mass squeezing it down to 12 miles amazing even want to post on it ever been found it even in this is this one's class size and density so its pretty special and then talking about gravitational pull this one surprise me 300 billion times greater than the force of the earth is playing on your feet for your part 300 we're leaving right now 300 billion times greater gravitational pull send me dirty side to Mass on it weighs more than a billion times that's a little bit bigger than the regular do normal six sided die yeah in a meeting so you add to that the fact that this behemoth rotate on its axis 25 times a second answer with the way to work around that every 2 to 2&a half hours or so so is this a quickie realize our wireless printers would be a meeting location to put on your test yet and I am this test was all about gravitational waves which is pretty cheap about gravitational waves right yeah you kinda need to know where to hide a body explains gravity and mass working space-time fabric of the universe right sure yours once I started realizing it was really a small step for him to come to realize that an object moving in this workspace time ripples in the fabric and propagate at work and that means that did the energy contained in your system is being lost because it easy gravitation way to radiant away and energy loss manifest itself is a decrease in your mutual slowly getting closer and closer together so this is happening to the earth in orbit around the Sun is the earth is actually losing 200 Joules 2nd thru relational radiation to add something to my moms getting closer to the Sun everyday and not tomorrow will be one protons with closer to the Sun Now okay to touch your magic and it's because we were so far away and and we'd never to text that kind of change 7000 my way but this binary system is so massive in Scotia gether we can detect the affects of gravitational waves and that's just exactly what they did to Perdition made by turn around 230 compare to what serves matched perfectly namely the world the Cape 897 second per year Einstein wins yeah but yeah it's easy to get to why was his test performed if I if general 2002 many times as I thought that I found you cause you're a row to be almost definitely Ruby Ruby wrong at some point navigate to Siri is wrong obviously he's been shown to be rights to walk is definitely something to it it but it can't be the final exclamation right so today's not the day to end ever I never thought I'd say this but hopefully one day we will test I stand and I will be will have a minute I'm at says Einstein was wrong to be wrong not not that is Teresa Road Fountain eggs ground where you're weird series 280 Moran die and then forgetting to even you know the next layer to the amazing to me to call physics alright see fire bATTLE BEARS hahaha Hey<br />
<br />
== Special Report: ''Oblivion'' Review <small>(31:44)</small>==<br />
* ''Oblivion'' Review: The Rogues take a skeptical look at ''Oblivion'' the movie.<br />
<br />
What is the noisy we're going to have a special segment of the show where we do another movie review yes a meeting with you is so popular we all didn't we see the movie ok Livius sure I do and its good night for you guys I was at the end of the movie theater and I was going to go online and check it and I saw through when suddenly there's traffic Park 3d 130 Scientologists in Jurassic Park 3 day in a crazy it was a douchebag daddy's not seen any of it so uh maybe I went to see Jurassic Park instead of Hyde Park but we can talk about Jessica Alba naked I read the Wikipedia page for a new title of this place so we are going to be talking about the movie oblivion and we will be giving message boilers hope you don't happen to the movie yet fast forward to see you can come back and listen to this after you have watched a movie so you did see the movie what you guys gonna pressure is a better than promoted actually a raise he a future movie aliens attack to destroy the earth with war in the cruise is one of the last humans apparently I'm here ready idea was that she's one of the people that are left behind to clean up and to finish gathering iris water so they can the humanity can move to trade Titan Titan rather site right people to see the aliens but they had to destroy the earth in the kind of sucks I like it I mean II do have despise again screwed hard to what enjoy him anymore but I think you did a decent job I enjoy the movie and drank a little bit in the second act but I really enjoyed it did that there is a lot of on me to teach you want to terms of agreed Juice science a screw ups nothing for me to do things were there and she doing this weekend start start with you seen yo did the aliens states in a taxi or the first thing you did was blow up the moon which which Rudy recorder Craigs and tsunami you Nami and not yet I really want out of work I'm in the mood to smithereens a didn't couldn't recall election together and yeah that was that would be a problem but I was kind of cool it was really nice image with huge chunks of gravitation the band together with me reminder to breed going on in opposite direction really looks really cool I might have a little bit to find Briody outskirts of man Dan and in the night sky that was cool but you would not have a debit devastation Aisha gravitational force the moon was still there was still pretty much close enough together that does the tide really would have been impacted the movie come back together you wouldn't have big chunks the moon hanging right next to each other mutual gravity running right back together does it have been a good show kind of a ring of debris and you could have a ring of debris p.o.d smaller pieces are far enough away from the moon that there in world around the earth Ryan wouldn't want to collect back to the name of these two chunks right next to each other yeah but not clapping back into is here do you think it would take for two to recall ask not 60 and Shay I have devastated it was so intense I think that day it was kind of like a mini Destruction released a part of our part I do know though that scientists think that when the moon form you have a smart style optics impact earth Alta Vista pre went to orbit around the Earth it was pastor rose limit switch it rain down on Earth to the Moon River surprised it took me about a century for that she would ring around the earth to to form one possibly two moons for free. Right before they were together century so I think it would it would be quickly as long as it was in the proper order to not to and not to love and look like it it is collapse back together in within seconds to me to mediately they wouldn't be right there hanging a part of having some probs with the corner plot of the movie scores to contrive alien attack nearest movie have to allow for certain contrivances it to make the movie possible but we talked about this before why did Indians father coming to the earth just a second ride that's what you're doing Yeah right you didn't I know how you do water uh f*** the hydrogen atom I know it's ridiculous give me energy bad choice expended just getting your energy in the ocean today we can recover point oooo oooo oooo 1 percent of the year sorry I got 20 stupid water gas giants somewhere this did not happen if my people who are going to try to kill you defender planning your saying that the riders could have come up with a better reason why they needed Earth may be there yeah it's cliche lazy and doesn't really work because the map doesn't even work but that's alright you got a given that to happen does the machines work very cool in the ride where is it cool images Delia ship is a huge T four picture message on my iPhone with the movie quiz much more in the writing and directing because I was able to predict almost everything that was going on yahoo instant you see Tom Cruise claim you know as soon as PDF page as soon as I read it as memory race time like I said borrowed really have a lady from every other b**** yeah that sounds like noon did China King retreat memory wipe that's just something to my ass what you doing for the superficial reasons given that it was for security you need that right now obviously they don't expect you to believe it that's alright Meijer to the movie that again is contries in lazy is really so the the super advanced aliens get here with your message ship and then to take over the Earth send down loans for me to do the nearest little virus nice dinner gas tiny running errands right like why didn't they send does too many of them new pic on it what the hell is job was to watch repair them in and find the ridiculous like ghetto first of all the why are the drones getting damage so much not that many humans like I guess it was enough to wear casually take out the trash on your neck is there a text plan seems silly 1350 if we were just infestation in their way of sucking up all of our water I mean tell you to get here they would If the wife is at without having to send out an army Ridge Road east to be so many ways to do that would never have a chance against a speaker specially since this whole thing started in 2017 yeah what the hell why did you make that movie stars four years from now for your semen Eastland made 50 or 60 or 70 years and it's actually possible that he would have detected they were saying we're going to happen for you to check with the alien text about this to Nash if they sent to the gate have to be on in five years ago to have that shipping 2017 anything actually no reason for them not to just have it all happen in 2050 yes fly nothing around like a shower after next generation know where did that text I was out of whack and sleeping unit I have a problem with them they had to clock in like techno devices that basically the picture to sleep sleep sleep somebody cares receipt for 60 years no adult asleep of course cut to me Conyers image of don't what is your deepest sleep delta waves of the solution hyshiba to bring ways and so it makes you think by their naming convention at in the receipt in some way to work cited they look to sleep Rosen they weren't 200 any other way so we going with that team is it ridiculous you you're not going to sleep for 60 years I mean you couldn't even have Elizabeth you're going to be aging pop out of the car return to start raining around so I didn't like that idea of using the worst thing that I mean to the idea was that some of the crew was put in a few deep sleeper suspended animation works couple years while they got to the destination in Manassas are you even that far can definitely do 20 2015 Raider next couple years 2050 nudist 8040 going to go to Jupiter at 10 20:17 and how much time to get there no no it was a great fight fighters I was thinking the same thing because why did you take 60 years for the escape pod to get back to your ears Stevens I was thinking the same thing one camera angles what is your the text and then the difference right there with Natasha it was close is this as a question about the Indian or did Aaron or 56 years why did the aliens just kill them yeah they were drifting back to read okay to continue like what made them come to Earth after 60 years old is she bringing down ass b**** but today is so they said they were supposed to be asleep that's what the technology way to take it just sleep for 60 years and you're saying it does is sleep chambers ever designed for a couple years with work for 60 years and if you after 60 years of being in some sort of sleep slash suspended state she says she sees the actress who survives the cake is a ride to be Tom Cruise's wife. She said so keep you to feel well the next she has a bowl of soup and she's good to go How much is with you gone so maybe she would require you to do that you could survive for 60 years is ridiculous even if she did she would be months of rehab to get back to some kind of functioning yes to do because it's sci-fi a line to explain it away because of the blah blah blah you know you I 50 or 60 years in the future rider could have said oh you're don't worry your name high school I will take care of the whatever you know but something some futuristic text to 2017 yeah I know Steve 5 years what happened to my guys I didn't like the fact so many iconic structures were still standing I get to say had to portray that things like okay this is Washington DC in Washington Monument nothing else around it is come Washington mine barely holding up on its own why would that be anything else 500 mile radius that seems really nice things happen like delete a destroyed the Taj Mahal is Big Ben in the Eiffel Tower and what was the ground level say hi and that I didn't get any of that dirt basically vision York City was curious to see how to make believe show it was crazy some of the street to collapse to the trenches from Star Wars is the street with East now these trenches deep down into the into the earth my speculation is the tsunami sushi Washington 1323 dust fallout from the nuclear wars what is the best gas for the building still standing but let's see I was with me that was Washington to your to Berryman hey guys what's in that scene over the mountain ranges Mountain sprout 60 years in that time it was it I don't know what they were thinking without it was very light discontinuity there I've got one thing that you said I see in a much better so glad I see there's all these other you got these um she's not forget again a minir Fighters interpreter whatever they are and there's no way are you human being is going to be the dog fight with you too G Force yeah you know if you're a machine 1051 a problem where is Tom Cruise to be tricky stuff in the back of the back of his c*** b**** because you could not handle this is no way that he should be able to do birds season is dance a lease road please come up with the reason why nobody can hear anything when you're firing your weapon anybody find anything to watch the a-team too much I guess everything and wanted to hit you know the computer charger developed like all the Prometheus scale for describing how to clean accurate 125 125 is not that's not a good to hang out 51 previous is minor but unnecessary scientific inaccuracies. Two for me to use is multiple inaccuracies implausible series or is one major scientific gas 3 is multiple gas or is implausible premise of the whole movie where is the main part of the movie is based on the size of a massive scientific understanding 95 is the entire movie is one of the scientific abomination how many Prometheus with you give this movie is 2&a half 2.7 2.75 yeah give it to you too I gave you reading system 11 for me t.i toads gorgeous gorgeous movie I do I love his son scrap was fantastic Atlanta Galleria Birmingham recommended on YouTube and look up the making of that movie they show the the main set is there house which is a perch way up in the sky its very futuristic looking house just said that they build for that is incredible the sky that you see from that s*** is actually project on two screens physically in the room with the set is he did that because I didn't want the green screen color to brown talking to recycle services in on the set itself so go take a look at it that blew my mind<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(50:06)</small>==<br />
<br />
okay Evan quickly who said we see here we go last week who's that noisy Quality advice is black or blue plate and don't put too much food on your place you lose weight doing nothing too much weight on your plate for food Marie diamond is the gala speaking there and I'll read her by a few lines for bio leaving now and trance liters featured in the world life and I'm in on the secret she uses her extraordinary knowledge of Bob wants sex the law of attraction and sayings way energy to help people transformer environments and their lives to quack really millions of people buy her books to sear commentary in this week's winner of the contest is miranda Richardson well done Rand a good guess what are you up to this week for this weekend another noisy to play for you so I'm going to go ahead and turn it up a couple times I think to take a guess but to give it a shot here we go yeah okay so uh you're paying attention in last week or two you may have a new bed WTN at Oregon email address for that mean you guess is and the message boards beer gmail.com good luck Everyone.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Question 1: Is SETI Science?<small>(51:55)</small>===<br />
<br />
Thanks Evan. We're going to do an email this week this question comes from Jim Phynn from Horsham, PA (Pennsylvania) and Jim writes:<br />
<blockquote>Hi, guys! Got a question for you: do you consider the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence to be science or pseudoscience? I recently got into an online debate and found myself in the minority because I maintained that the central thesis -- that if intelligent life exists somewhere out there in the greater universe, we would be able to recognize it based upon patterns in radio waves -- is not falsifiable. It seems to me that there could be three reasons why, if we turn our telescopes in any specific direction, we would not find patterns in the radio waves: 1 -- there's nothing there, 2 -- there's something there but they haven't yet developed the technology to create those patterns, or 3 -- we're looking for the wrong things. It would seem to me that the only way to truly falsify SETI, we'd need to map quite literally every body in the universe and rule them out one by one and say that they don't have anything there in terms of extraterrestrial intelligence. Unlike other complex hypotheses that are limited by available technologies, I'm not convinced that the task of mapping the universe is even possible, even with a sufficiently advanced technology. What do you think? Am I missing something? I'm not trying to argue that the endeavor of SETI is a waste of time or energy, but I'm just not sold on it qualifying as genuine science. Thanks! Jim Phynn Horsham, PA</blockquote><br />
<br />
What do you guys think about that there's decades of research that has been that has been done and the consensus seems to be that it is actual science what about what is primary point there that the the main thesis of city is not full supply I mean so what I need to touch base is such a big place its so huge and be so hard to believe map in pounds that against the idea that we know that is pretty much know that is intelligent life out there and they could be communicating with the benefit of of finding it would just far outweighs any argument think you could you can muster about 945 wait wait hold it I hope you don't mind Bob might might might jumping in here is a Sun sets show stack from set it is it is this F City NC coming well I can I use to fire escape in the back door so you didn't notice it was really doing the podcast that's right it was just being played into my green bob says that we know that they're out there and I'd like to think he's right we don't know that they're out there that's really the point here the guy who sent you that email in a sense she's right its not a falsifiable hypothesis you can't see that the aliens are not out there you can't do that no wake me right you can't exam in every square centimeter of real estate in the cosmos not there but on the other hand you can prove they are there if you find a signal so you know this is expiration and Jackson valuable part of Science not all times has to be falsifiable think about this coming up black holes and nobody spected quasars hypothesized hypothesis there and it wasn't just found its expiration yeah I totally agree 1710 Automation exclamation is part of Science I think this comes from a Charlie nearing the definition of signs only one thing that countersigned fact many endeavors count as part of the scientific process an observation to Panji just wrong just looking to see what's there absolutely count also I would argue that the the Falls five billion the hypothesis entirely depends on how you phrase it as you said your hypothesis is there is no radio transmitting technological civilizations out there that's falsifiable with one counterexample there you go you have a false if I will have Papa so you could answer by doing radio astronomy in the city program contrived just do either way he's putting together the purpose of City to prove that there isn't a single in radio transmitting civilization out there its just to serve a crazy that we can serve eight and makes a testicle comments about the density of radio transmitting civilizations right absolutely right I'm doing with you know Captain Cook did the 250 years ago and it was sent out to the South Pacific by the British add meeting yeah idea was to go see what's out there in 10 mapid: reportin whatever exploration and says its a particularly in astronomy because in astronomy the track record of predicting what might be out there hasn't been so terrific its almost all been discovery by just people pointing telescopes at the sky. So if you want to say that a strong is not science uh you know you look send many of my friends but but I think that you could make the argument that yes it's on hey I was originally on your site their satisfaction the scene she realize that you are just a Serta charismatic leader that you would find heading up a religion like to search for sale I'm on the side of the mailer critical leader furniture to Hawaii call Michael Crichton 17 a.m. to talk to get down at Caltech that said he was a religion can say to that is if it were village and begin with I have a lot more money to be dressed better to that would probably be official garbage have to wear but you know that distinguishes religion from time is it in you don't require data to prove a hypothesis in here if you claim that you know well now we know they're out there Narayan around the starry hundred light years away in this direction to you need today to prevent any religion doesn't require data you taking something so I think it is different religion you're all you really need to do there is to tell me that I was on the same side dishes Michael Crichton and on your side again you had me convinced it's a trust unclean so it can extreme skepticism get in the way of progress I don't think so look at a sign of course I'm very very skeptical mean somebody publishes a result in your field take me to Meijer new discovery your reaction to that it's not raining me to meet his keys wrong and I'm going to write sentences skepticism because nobody wants the next guy to win the Nobel Prize so you know what are skeptical that's a fundamental of Science in the first thing that happens when you come up with something new is it three people write papers showing when you're wrong thats good its good to go to force you to backup your claims sure give me some things down sometimes going to be stupid remove the could you look even otherwise raining blood about this recently on there was some interesting comments wonderfully coming to suggest that we shouldn't be searching for radio waves hope that we should be hunting for scaler waves give me to talking about well did not not really I mean it looked at you look for electromagnetic radiation for radio we look for light you can include information in radio or lighter in December very clever very sophisticated invent things that we don't look for to be quite honest we have an exoskeleton possibly sex with skater boys are you talking about here I don't really know but I get emails everyday from people suggest other approaches like you know what you can gravity waves maybe you need to communicate to us with gravity ways and ready in 10 minutes attractive idea but you know its is it doesn't make a lot of sense because raboti way too fast in radio lights to make you need to shake a star or something like that. You know, That's a real to challenge a teacher to build a transmitter that would fit on my desk year and dad that would be powerful enough to to reach your mother started the people suggest neutrinos and then there are those who suggest hyperdimensional physics whatever the heck that is already collected to your things I can't I got one for 2010 golden thats it thats a favorite because people have decided that would let you know you can be to speed of light uh you can send information instantaneously it's true the quantum entanglement does involve teenies changes in the state of particles a great distance but it's also true that I'm Stein seems to be right it doesn't allow you to transmit information faster than the speed of light lymphangitis too bad I just was one question came up about what the range of radio waves for radio signal should be what I found was that narrow band signals could have a range of thousands of light years depends on the power to transmitter in the size you received this note range limits mean I've seen in the literature many times people who take some unknown source think I know what you're saying but after about a light year to any reasonable transmitter that the signal would disappear into the background noise of the universe will have some background you can always tease out that signal if you want to go to picking up into a meeting right hehehe you light up my eyes my eyes have a nice to have an aperture quarter financial whatever it is but that's good enough to pick up light coming to me for me to wake from Star right and butter pretty feet start I can see that are either people to faint just trying to have to do so I can see that you can always always be to rap by building a bigger instrument thank you for emerging from the podcast EE 37th Street on Saidi appreciate you always being on hand my pleasure anytime next time religion comes up in the context to Saidi let me know I'll do take care Seth.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:02:18)</small> ==<br />
[http://primaryfacts.com/408/amazon-river-facts-and-information/ Item #1]: Although not the longest river in the world, the Amazon is the biggest, containing more water than the next 10 largest rivers combined.<br />
[http://www.livescience.com/6426-reality-river-monsters.html Item #2]: Although not the threat often portrayed in film, schools of red-bellied piranha will occasionally feed on large animals and are responsible for about 20 human deaths per year. <br />
[http://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/fish.html Item #3]: The Amazon contains more fish species than the Atlantic Ocean.<br />
<br />
can you tell me which one is it take we have a steam this week the team is the Amazon River 23 pakadi Amazon River you guys ready yet we go I remember one thing longest river in the world the Amazon is the biggest containing more water in the next 10 largest rivers combined hangover 2 although im not a threat open for trade in film schools of red belly piranha will occasionally feet on large animals are responsible for about 22 min deaths per year and I am Number 3 the Amazon contains more fish species in the Atlantic Ocean Evan go first alright the first one in regards to it not being the longest river in the world the next 10 largest rivers combined that's the Nile nylon not sure about that one what about the red belly piranhas case we feeding on large animals to humans 20 min just for u I don't see a problem with that show my ways does bachata Portrane reality you in lots of ways from ac maybe one maybe not I'm feeling that this one is correct and then there's the last one more fish species in the Amazon in the entire Atlantic Ocean have to think on that that's the case ocean has one life in it but I'll lie that life is not fish species things going there I'm going to say it being the biggest river containing more water in the next 10 largest rivers that's the fiction ok a Bobb about dumb just fishin Atlantic Ocean the Amazon goes two ways a rainforest and I know the rainforest has a credible biological diversity and perhaps I could kind of can you still over as well ah but still it that sounds pretty bold more fish species Cindy Lane Goshen Corona yeah I feel a cation and large animals for 20 years never heard that hard I would I would think number one of the other biggest word in the 10 largest confined to see that fish did I'm going to go with the other garage okay okay what about the Amazon being the biggest I don't know much about how wide it is insured berries in parts in any BS that of course have to to take into account how deep it is a surprise in there it is possible for 20 Yuma desi year I have no reason to believe that if anyone has seen the movie pron paranahs Shack in front of their dead leader angry and they know what they're doing something that scares Ellie Drive movie in 3d yes they do you receive a good look at their facebook but I don't know man is trying to not good enough I was the last one about the Amazon contain more fish species in the Atlantic Ocean doubt that I could see more variation for some reason being in the Amazon okay that's gonna leave me to be to saying that the first one about the largest river in the world Amazon and Rebecca I'm torn between the first if I could totally play the damn son has fish finders fee Amazon for so many other two equally ugly people think I could believe that the Amazon is the biggest I feel like it's it up there in terms of being a long as it gets like second shirt Niles Indiana to get more water the next 10 Rana's there's no way they could be responsible for 20 deaths a year right like the have a reputation but as cheaply did out everyday Shinkansen films and did some certain ok sweet Lea AGS actuated there's no way to take Elijah to conception is the train is too I'm going to go to Corona one I don't think they kill 20 people a year okay so we got Bob Rebecca trying to Jane Evans with the biggest river into all agree that the Amazon contains more fish species in the Atlantic Ocean you all think that want to sign that one is science that's awesome but just barely I read that fact and then I tried to verify it and it seems to be true although I did find one source that says that they're the same b****** 3050 sees ok to be pretty consistent in the references I found that the Amazon River Basin River has about three thousand different species I could find reliable numbers for the Atlantic Ocean Sam said less than the Amazon some said the same but it's probably a moving target anyway cause they're in the middle of a big survey and they're finding more fish species ok that been five years that may not be true anymore but if anything works pieces in the Sun to pick up but for right now that what is sin number one of those not the longest river in the world Amazon is the biggest containing more water than the next 10 largest rivers combined Jane ever you think this one is the fiction and this one is science oh yeah baby yeah very surprised you knew it was big but it really is really big fish the Amazon releases more than 200,000 cubic meters of water per second into the Atlantic Ocean show on a train 630 South America pretty much it does it is about 4,000 miles or 6400 climate urs long 321 Nile is a little bit longer so that is also controversial and you know depends on how you measure it and said they may swap places wanted to know what were the years has different measurements how to right now the official measurement of the Nile to the little bit longer but the Amazon is bigger it has its wider usually between 1 to 5 miles wide on average it's much bigger when it floods when you're doing when he wanted to go over closing it 20 miles wide faces well yeah that's what I was saying I didn't know how wide are deep is the most variable figure that I have read every source I break a bit different number for the number of tributaries at the Amazon has a sound and it seems to be about the average 1000 1100 1700 505 yeah but I think it probably somewhere around $1000 so true because I guess it depends on how big you count of how big a tributary do you count and maybe in dry shoes in the dryer does the rainforest even have a dry season ah it's wet and weather radar actual dry season I mean variance down to the very thing that is don't know that we call it a dry season um 50 Amazon River so big that it is can support freshwater dolphins sisters difference between a dolphin send a nerd the largest species of river dolphins the motto is there and also the Anaconda course which is the largest snake and many species of Corona so the number to another threat fish species including dolphins for you you know that was number 3 was about fish species of the river not rated film streams red belly piranha location large animals are responsible for about 20 human deaths per year that is fiction show now the red belly piranha are the most aggressive species of Corona and they do sometimes I feed in large schools and they can't get into what is called a feeding frenzy which is what you see you know in the movies went all the waters it was disrupted is the Fisher eating in a frenzy fashion show prana mostly each other fish staples we plan to leave Chris stations and they will scavenge anything baby meat falls into River il happily skeletonize it shut the notion that one source that said that it was Teddy Roosevelt who made the observation that he saw school Corona skeletonized a cow 102 minutes or something that's not probably not really sure I would take a lot longer you need a massive amount 601 expert estimated like 300 fish in order to pull that off and that she get on this date don't usually go after healthy living large animals so if you're swimming in the Amazon they probably will stay away from you did bad worst you make it a bite if they're just sending their nest but they won't try to eat you the crocodile swell crocodiles well I could not find a single documented Schuman death from chronic haha really yeah I know I've sources Ferry on this I couldn't find any reliable source that says yes to the documented Tempe I got the Union the river by Prince there are naked Villagers claims that they put their happened to see if you have an open wound blood lab solutely attract when a product like going after the wounded in the den the dead and injured in the dining room don't like going after healthy animal so you may not want to wait into the Nile with the Lakeland so um get into the notion that you know if you go swimming in the in the Amazon did you run across school prom in adults we do should have bones his son is a myth that is a cinema its all G bones Jones hey does a good job I been Rebecca thank you enjoy for week yet I will<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:13:48)</small> ==<br />
<br />
so Jay, you got a quote for us this week? Huh and I wasn't invited Mr names Chris would disclose written invited man a poet named William Butler Yeats is Irish poet 20 century hey buddy yeah ah okay okay recognize named affect you more than you did<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.</blockquote><br />
<br />
B: yeah my iphone is like that<br />
<br />
J: William Butler Yeats!<br />
<br />
alright thanks Jay thank you for joining me this week everyone to use thank you Dr a lot of fun is always busy show me in till next week this is your skeptics' guide to the universe<br />
<br />
{{Outro404}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SGU_episode_list&diff=5625Template:SGU episode list2013-01-28T21:38:46Z<p>Geneocide: removed mark for 257</p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude>This template is used to display the list of full-length episodes on the [[Main Page]] and the [[SGU Episodes]] page. Additions and amendments to this template will be reflected on those pages.<br />
<br />
Pages currently in progress should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{i}}</nowiki></code> to add the pencil icon, and pages that have sections open to other contributors to transcribe should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{Open}}</nowiki></code> to include the green arrow icon. <br />
<br />
Pages that have been proof-read and verified by a contributor other than the author should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{tick}}</nowiki></code> to include the green tick icon.</noinclude><br />
{|style="margin:1em 3em"<br />
|style="padding-right: 6em;white-space:nowrap" valign="top"|<span id="2013"><big>'''2013'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 393]], Jan 26 2013<br />
* [[SGU Episode 392]], Jan 19 2013<br />
* [[SGU Episode 391]], Jan 12 2013 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 390]], Jan 5 2013<br />
<br />
<span id="2012"><big>'''2012'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 389]], Dec 29 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 388]], Dec 22 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 387]], Dec 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 386]], Dec 8 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 385]], Dec 1 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 384]], Nov 24 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 383]], Nov 17 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 382]], Nov 10 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 381]], Nov 3 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 380]], Oct 27 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 379]], Oct 20 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 378]], Oct 13 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 377]], Oct 6 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 376]], Sep 29 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 375]], Sep 22 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 374]], Sep 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 373]], Sep 8 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 372]], Sep 1 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 371]], Aug 25 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 370]], Aug 18 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 369]], Aug 11 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 368]], Aug 4 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 367]], Jul 28 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 366]], Jul 21 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 365]], Jul 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 364]], Jul 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 363]], Jun 30 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 362]], Jun 23 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 361]], Jun 16 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 360]], Jun 9 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 359]], Jun 2 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 358]], May 26 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 357]], May 19 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 356]], May 12 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 355]], May 5 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 354]], Apr 28 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 353]], Apr 21 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 352]], Apr 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 351]], Apr 7 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 350]], Mar 31 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 349]], Mar 24 2012 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 348]], Mar 17 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 347]], Mar 10 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 346]], Mar 3 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 345]], Feb 25 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 340]], Jan 21 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 339]], Jan 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 338]], Jan 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2011"><big>'''2011'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 337]], Dec 31 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 335]], Dec 17 2011 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 331]], Nov 19 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 330]], Nov 11 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 328]], Oct 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU 24hr]], Sep 23-24 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 320]], Aug 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 312]], Jul 5 2011 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 308]], Jun 08 2011 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 287]], Jan 12 2011 {{Open}}<br />
|valign="top" style=white-space:nowrap|<span id="2010"><big>'''2010'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 285]], Dec 29 2010 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 271]], Sep 22 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 260]], Jun 30 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 257]], Jun 14 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 252]], May 12 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 247]], Apr 7 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 245]], Mar 25 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 232]], Jan 1 2010<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2009"><big>'''2009'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 220]], Oct 7 2009 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 216]], Sep 9 2009 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 185]], Feb 4 2009<br />
* [[SGU Episode 184]], Jan 28 2009<br />
* [[SGU Episode 183]], Jan 21 2009 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2008"><big>'''2008'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 165]], Sep 17 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 156]], Jul 16 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 152]], Jun 11 2008 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 146]], May 7 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 144]], Apr 23 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 140]], Mar 26 2008 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2007"><big>'''2007'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 127]], Dec 26, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 116]], Oct 10, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 113]], Sep 19, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 110]], Aug 28, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 105]], Jul 25, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 103]], Jul 11, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 102]], Jul 3, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 100]], June 19, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 98]], June 6, 2007{{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 97]], May 30 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 89]], Apr 4, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24, 2007<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2006"><big>'''2006'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 73]], Dec 13 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 68]], Nov 8 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 62]], Sep 27 2006<br />
* [[SGU Episode 61]], Sep 20 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 55]], Aug 9 2006 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 49]], Jun 28 2006<br />
* [[SGU Episode 47]], Jun 14 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 46]], Jun 7 2006 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 38]], Apr 12 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 31]], Feb 22 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 27]], Jan 25 2006 {{Open}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2005"><big>'''2005'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 17]], Oct 26 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 16]], Oct 12 2005 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 15]], Oct 6 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 14]], Sep 28 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 13]], Sep 14 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 12]], Sep 7 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 11]], Aug 31 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 10]], Aug 23 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 9]], Aug 10 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 8]], Aug 2 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 7]], Jul 20 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 6]], Jul 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 5]], Jun 29 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 4]], Jun 15 2005 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 3]], Jun 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 2]], Jun 1 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 1]], May 4 2005 {{tick}}<br />
|}</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=User:Geneocide&diff=5624User:Geneocide2013-01-28T21:38:10Z<p>Geneocide: </p>
<hr />
<div>Long time listener who is unemployed. Sorta feel obligated to at least try to contribute given my situation.<br />
<br />
===Useful Links stolen from [[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]]===<br />
*[[Template:SGU episode list]] &ndash; list of full episodes<br />
*[[Template:InfoBox]] &ndash; Full episode infobox; adds [[:Category:Full Episodes]]<br />
*[[Template:Editing required]] &ndash; Message box indicating aspects of page yet to complete<br />
----<br />
*[[Template:Outro1]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 301 onwards<br />
*[[Template:Outro291]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 291-300 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro119]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 119-288 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro61]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 61-118 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro39]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 39-60 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro30]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 30-38 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro18]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 18-29 (inclusive)<br />
----<br />
*[[Episode skeleton]] &ndash; Page with section formatting for use as "template" for full episodes<br />
<br />
===Also===<br />
<nowiki>{{transcribing all <br />
|transcriber = Geneocide<br />
}}</nowiki><br />
<br />
===Primary Contributor===<br />
*[[SGU Episode 6]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 7]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 8]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 9]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 10]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 11]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 12]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 15]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 49]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 127]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 232]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 257]]<br />
<br />
===Total Time===<br />
13 hours 11 minutes and 1 seconds<br />
<br />
===Things I've Learned===<br />
*Steve says "in fact" too much<br />
*Evan says "absolutely" too much</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_257&diff=5623SGU Episode 2572013-01-28T21:36:57Z<p>Geneocide: done transcribing, changed header title, added categories</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
|proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present<br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = <br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 257<br />
|episodeDate = 14<sup>th</sup> June 2010<br />
|episodeIcon = File:amityvilledemoboy.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-06-14.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=257<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,28802.0.html<br />
|qowText = Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Monday, June 14<sup>th</sup>, 2010 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey everyone. How are you doing tonight?<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: Quite well.<br />
<br />
E: Good.<br />
<br />
S: No Rebecca tonight because we are on the lead up to TAM recording schedule. We going to have a little bit of a weird recording schedule the next few weeks and Rebecca was not available tonight and she has no internet access.<br />
<br />
J: That's because her and Sid bought a house.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: She hasn't been able to get internet and cable, I guess, to the house yet.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. But it's a big secret. Don't tell anyone, folks.<br />
<br />
S: They're moving into a new flat. Is it still a flat if it's a house?<br />
<br />
B: No. Wait wait, no, a flat's an apartment, isn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Are they moving into a house house, or is it like a condo or what is it?<br />
<br />
J: I think it's a house house.<br />
<br />
S: But no cable yet.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, if she has a house, that means she has a basement which means she could run a haunt in her house.<br />
<br />
B: Not necessarily. Florida houses don't have basements but that's because of the water table.<br />
<br />
J: Well, no. If she's in England she has a root cellar.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: Which is even creepier.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:19)</small> ==<br />
E: Well, on this day in 1648 Margaret Jones was hanged in Boston for witchcraft. The first such execution for the Massachusetts colony.<br />
<br />
S: How many people were killed?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they didn't stop with Margaret. It was 20 people.<br />
<br />
S: Were executed.<br />
<br />
E: We executed for witchcraft.<br />
<br />
J: Wow. And we got off lucky. Didn't&ndash;in Europe wasn't it a much bigger phenomenon in Europe?<br />
<br />
S: A conservative number is around 60,000 deaths directly attributable to the witch hunts.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Depending on how you count it. There were 20 people executed in Salem. 19 hung and that one guy, Giles Corey was crushed to death cause he refused to enter a plea.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Hayabusa Returns <small>(2:02)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100613/ts_afp/spacejapanaustraliaasteroidsreturn_20100613204620 <br />
<br />
possible replacement: [http://www.space.com/8592-japanese-asteroid-probe-historic-return-earth.html Space.com: Japanese Asteroid Probe Makes Historic Return to Earth]<br />
--><br />
S: Well Bob, tell us about Hayabusa returning to Earth.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this is pretty cool. I totally forgot about this guy but this is an interesting story. The Japanese space agency known as JAXA, Jay-Ay-Ex-Ay, completed a mission recently to bring a sample of an asteroid back to Earth. This is something that's never been accomplished before and regardless of what happens there has never been a spacecraft that touched down on an asteroid and then came back to Earth. So regardless if they even brought anything back with them this was a first. Like I said, the only real question that remains as of the taping of this podcast anyway is whether the canister they retrieved in Australia has any asteroid. If you remember back in 2003, JAXA's Hayabusa craft began a 2 year journey to an asteroid named Itokawa and I wish I could say the mission went swimmingly but I can't. The craft really experienced some nasty technical difficulties. It seems likes throughout the whole way, or at least through a lot of it. They just kept hitting problem after problem. They even had some&ndash;some solar flair even messed up with it's power source so the energy that it had was less than they had anticipated and some of the biggest failures, though, was they had this metal ball that they would shoot&ndash;or they planned on shooting at the asteroid to collect rock samples and that failed. And then there was another mechanism, which they were planning on using to stir up the dust around the lander on the asteroid and that failed as well to collect any samples. So you might think that it was a total bust but the real hope at this point is that they hope that the dust that stirred up during the landing kind of just was swirling around and entered the canister&ndash;the collection canister so that's really all their hope is on that.<br />
<br />
S: So they really don't know if there's going to be anything in that canister. <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, they have no idea at this point. It doesn't look good to me.<br />
<br />
J: Is it on it's way back to Earth or it can analyze it.<br />
<br />
B: It came back to Earth. The craft burned up in the atmosphere but it ejected this heat protected canister which landed at the Woomera Protected Area which is a restricted military zone in south Australian desert. Now some conspiracy hypothesists may say that in reality this whole 7 year mission was a subtle attempt to get access to this restricted military zone. But, ya know, I'm just saying.<br />
<br />
J: Look at that. It landed in Area 51. Could we go get it?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Yeah.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: But, being silly, but I want to congratulate JAXA, though. Even if there's no sample which would really be nasty, but even if there's no sample, it was a great effort that tested lots of new technologies, like, for example, sampling and retrieval, electrical propulsion, autonomous navigation. So lots of interesting new technologies and this really was a test bed. Problems like this are to be expected.<br />
<br />
J: At this point any kind of space exploration is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: In the time when we're worried that it's all gonna go away and dry up&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm really happy to hear about stuff like this.<br />
<br />
B: That's true. But you really got to hand it to JAXA, though, because they relentlessly attacked every difficulty that arose creatively solving problems, and according to some people it was Apollo 13 in scale in terms of how difficult these problems were.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: But granted, lives were not on the line, but still they had to go through a lot. On the way home they lost half of their engines kicked out and they had to figure out how to get home with only half the engines running so they did an amazing job.<br />
<br />
J: I don't like you comparing it to Apollo 13 because it being unmanned is one thing and the other thing was they got those people back to Earth safely with an enormous amount of effort. Nothing can match that.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I'm not comparing it and I did kind of say that not in terms of the lives but in terms of creative problem solving it was similar. Some people are comparing it.<br />
<br />
J: Well, if they make a movie about it I might believe it then.<br />
<br />
S: Cause it's not real unless Hollywood does a movie about it.<br />
<br />
B: As you can imagine this is a huge, huge news story in Japan. They're really playing it up. It's all over the place, cause this is&ndash;it's quite a feat. Regardless of what happens this is a first, so that's great. If they have a sample, even better, cause you learn lots of things about the solar system&ndash;because we don't have&ndash;think about it&ndash;the material we have from asteroids really is just meteorites, right, that have landed on the earth and they've gone through the atmosphere. They're not the same.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When you come through the atmosphere&ndash;they're not the same.<br />
<br />
E: Burn, yeah. Stuff burns away and, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: This will be pristine. This will be pristine rock and that will be invaluable.<br />
<br />
J: Do you guys think that one day we will park satellites in orbit and just mine them?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah. Mine asteroids?<br />
<br />
E: You mean bring them into a close orbit and then we send up vehicles and stuff to start plowing them for their platinum and all they're goodies?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. And how about&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
J: One thing that I remember thinking about when I was younger, why not put it in the same orbit that the earth is in, but just behind the earth. Would that mean that it would have to be the same size as the earth, though, in order to be in the same orbit?<br />
<br />
B: The velocity would be very different then. It couldn't have the same velocity because the mass would be so different, so, at some point, it would intersect with the earth. So I don't think that would work, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: You would need something to constantly regulate it's distance from the earth, right?<br />
<br />
S: You put it at a Lagrange point and it will sit there.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There ya go. Problem solved.<br />
<br />
S: A Lagrange point is a&ndash;if you have a map, a three dimensional map of the gravitational fields of the earth and the sun, for example, or any large body orbiting another large body, then those fields hit a pit, or they dip to a minimum. So anything that is at those points it's like being at the bottom of a hill, it's stuck there and it won't move away so it's actually fixed in position relative to the earth. So it would be perfect for something that we want to put someplace and have it stay there in terms of it's relationship to the earth.<br />
<br />
J: It's kind of like drafting, right?<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Come on, a little bit.<br />
<br />
S: But to complete that discussion there are a total of 5 Lagrangian points. One in the orbit of, lets say the earth, in front of it. One behind the earth in it's orbit. One on the opposite side of Earth's orbit. One between the earth and the sun and one outside the orbit on a line between the earth and the sun but farther than the earth. So five points total. A few of which would be pretty close. But also, there are asteroids that are said to quote unquote "stalk" the earth. For example, recently discovered the 2009 BD. It's not stationary with respect to the earth but it does&ndash;cause it interacts with the earth's gravity and it's not at a Lagrangian point, but it does get close to the earth and will sort of corkscrew around the earth's orbit and stay very close to use for a while and then maybe drift away and come back in it's orbit. It's got a very weird orbit but it does stay close to the earth.<br />
<br />
=== Einstein's Brain <small>(9:22)</small>===<br />
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305&ps=cprs NPR: Einstein's Brain Unlocks Some Mysteries Of The Mind]<br />
<br />
S: Jay, tell us about the amazing adventure of Einstein's brain.<br />
<br />
J: So this is a very interesting story. Before I get into the story let me just ask you guys a few questions. One, what makes you think Einstein was so smart? What was it about his brain that makes him smart? Some things that I'm sure most skeptics have heard was that, "Einstein used 10% of his brain where the regular person only uses 2 or 2.5%." You guys have heard of that, right?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, course.<br />
<br />
E: Or something similar to it, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's only be debunked about a million times on the internet and elsewhere, I believe, in our publication.<br />
<br />
E: Of course. That's what my phrenologist says.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: Here's one that is less common, but I've also heard and I believe I also used to think about this when I was younger and not knowing much about the brain but another thing that people think is that Einstein's brain had more hills and valleys on the exterior part of his brain.<br />
<br />
S: Sulci and gyri?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. So, that's basically the shape of the brain on the outside that makes it look like a brain. All those hills and valleys and little bumps and stuff that are on the outside of somebodies brain.<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: But, Steve, you said at one point that that does not mean you're smarter, correct?<br />
<br />
S: Well, not comparing one individual to another. There's too much variation to say that but that certainly is true when you compare species. The&ndash;what those do&ndash;what the gyri and sulci do&ndash;if you imagine the layers of the cortex and then fold it upon themselves like a ribbon that's what forms that structure and what the essentially does is it increases the surface area of the brain. So it's just a way of squeezing more computational surface area into a smaller three dimensional space which was obviously important to the evolution of our bigger, juicier brains. But you can't compare person A to person B and go, "Oh, he's got to be smarter because his brain looks smarter on an MRI scan. He's got more sulci." Doesn't work that way.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, why not also fill in the valleys between the hills? Between the gyri or the sulci or whatever they are?<br />
<br />
S: They're squished together. It's not significant.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
S: I mean, when you get old and your brain shrivels up and atrophies then you see expanded sulci and spaces but&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Your brain really shrivels up, huh?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, doesn't that suck?<br />
<br />
J: What the hell?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but Steve, I thought the idea, though, behind that was that they're not sure if the brain is really truly atrophying really, hugely, impacting cognition or is it just paring away the unessential parts of the brain that really aren't needed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, like motor skills and deep thinking.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: Barring, of course, dementia. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right Bob?<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's a complicated question. First of all those are not mutually exclusive cause both those things could be occurring at the same time. The pruning hypothesis where it's just cutting back neurons were sitting there waiting to be recruited but they haven't been, so they just go away at some point, but even still you imagine that there's fewer neurons around to be recruited so&ndash;after 50 or so we do start to lose our capacity to learn new things. We lose our flexibility. At least most of us. Some people really don't and they're brains don't atrophy as much, either.<br />
<br />
J: Bastards.<br />
<br />
S: So, some people genetically are built for more neurological longevity. But, yeah, you can't&ndash;I don't think it's accurate to say that there's no relationship between the atrophy of the brain as we age and the loss of cognitive ability. There absolutely is a relationship but it's complicated and we're not sure exactly what it is.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, it's not a black and white issue. It's more of a grey matter.<br />
<br />
B: Oh.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, wow, Evan, really?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright, so guys, let me continue. It's basically a story that I'm going to quickly tell everyone and then we'll discuss it.<br />
<br />
B: Alright.<br />
<br />
E: I love stories. Okay. I'm ready.<br />
<br />
J: So this man, named Thomas Harvey&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
E: Harvey.<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
J: and he&ndash;he actually performed the autopsy on Einstein at Princeton. Now this back in&ndash;Now this was when, '55 I believe Einstein died?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, around there.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. So, this is what the article said. The article said that during the autopsy routine the brain would be removed, examined, and then put back in the person's body for burial. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Which, by the way&ndash;we don't do that today. I don't know&ndash;that sounds odd. We don't put the brain back in the head. You take it out, you put it in a jar of formaldehyde and pickle it for 2 weeks, so that you can slice it up and look at it. Cause otherwise it's too much like jelly. You can't really slice into it. So that bit of that story certainly is not what's done today.<br />
<br />
J: Well maybe he took it out&ndash;cause it did say that he did put it in formaldehyde&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Well that's routine. That's routine.<br />
<br />
J: He was preparing it. He kept it out for the amount of time necessary and then instead of putting it back after the examination of the brain he kept it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, I think probably what happened is normally you would take it out, you pickle it for 2 weeks then you do what's called brain cutting. You slice it all the way through and you look for pathology and you look for the structures and whatnot and that's it. Then slides get filed away and the rest of it get thrown out, gets discarded as medical waste. Or, or, what can happen, sometimes the family may request that every last scrap of material gets returned and gets buried with the body.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. I'm sure that's&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: That happens sometimes, too. In fact, that happens even with&ndash;sometimes people will donate their body to science and their body will be dissected by medical students. Sometimes those bodies are just cremated. Other times everything's got to be put back&ndash;you don't put it back together but basically all bundled up and then sent back to the family to be buried or whatever they want to do with it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: That is a typical Jewish custom. I don't know how religious or close Einstein was to strict Jewish customs but I can tell you that that is Jewish customs. You bury as much of the remains as you possibly can.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So he probably&ndash;he held back the brain. He didn't do with it whatever was normally supposed to happen to it.<br />
<br />
J: No. He stole it. That's what happened.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. He stole it. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Brain thief.<br />
<br />
B: I'm going to donate my body to science fiction.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright. Continuing on&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: You stole that joke from somebody.<br />
<br />
J: So Thomas Harvey, because of what he did, because he kept Einstein's brain, he lost his job. Which seems to be the appropriate thing to take place.<br />
<br />
E: Bad trade.<br />
<br />
S: Cause that was unethical. What he did.<br />
<br />
J: And during that process he claimed that Einstein's son, Hans, gave him permission but that claim was denied by the family.<br />
<br />
S: What about Frans?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So, as I'm reading through this I realize, of course, hindsight being 20/20, I don't disagree with what the guy did. I think it was obvious to him at the time that there was something important about Einstein's brain and it should be studied further. Shouldn't just be thrown away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It kind of makes you wish that somebody at NASA thought that about the moon landing footage. <br />
<br />
B: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: "Ya know, I'm going to put this aside and not put it&ndash;file it with the rest of the tapes that are going to get erased and reused."<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Or, "Lets make a couple of backups, just in case. Or put it somewhere else. I don't know."<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Anyway.<br />
<br />
J: I've really gotta&ndash;let me sprint to the finish guys.<br />
<br />
B: Thanks for reminding me.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, go ahead.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. So I mentioned that I don't disagree. What Thomas Harvey wanted was he wanted neuro-anatomists to analyse Einstein's brain and see if they could find something out about it that we didn't know about the human brain before and that was his goal but as the story goes&ndash;so 40 years passes and then a writer named, Paterniti, he heard about all these events that we just went through and he decided that&ndash;I guess he wanted to write about what had taken place so he tracks down and finds Harvey. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Did he sue him?<br />
<br />
J: No. This guys an author.<br />
<br />
S: So he didn't give him a Paterniti suit?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god. You're on a roll tonight, Steve.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Any who, so, he tracks down Harvey, gets into a long conversation with him and, I guess, between the conversation and the two of them going back and forth they mutually decide the brain should be returned to Einstein's family and, I guess they new at the time that his granddaughter Evelyn was still alive so they wanted to return it to her. So Paterniti drives to Harvey's house, he described Harvey as bringing out Einstein's brain in a Tupperware jar. In a Tupperware container.<br />
<br />
E: Tupperware.<br />
<br />
J: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. That would seal in the freshness, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So the two of them planned to drive across the country from New Jersey all the way to California where the granddaughter lived. I guess they conversation had continued during this drive and Paterniti found out that Einstein had indeed&ndash;I'm sorry, that Harvey had indeed been sending out Einstein's brain when samples were requested he would take the samples and send them to neurologists across the globe. So, when saw the brain in the Tupperware container it had been cut up. It was sliced up. So, Harvey sent 3 different samples to a scientist named Marian Diamond and she had contacted Harvey years earlier and requested samples from 3 different parts of Einstein's brain and he did end up shipping them to her but he ended up shipping them to her in an old mayonnaise jar.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Okay? Not making this up.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: This was around 1980. She studied the samples. She found that Einstein's brain had normal amount of neurons but he had a higher than normal percentage of a different kind of brain cell and that cell was called a glial cell. That increase in glial cells was found especially in the parts of the brain that involved imagery and complex thinking, so that definitely made Diamond realize, "Well, this is very curious. Let me look into it." But first, Steve, why don't you tell us what a glial cell is.<br />
<br />
B: Support cells, aren't they?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's the other kinds of cells in the brain other than neurons and they are&ndash;yeah, for many years we thought they were basically support cells.<br />
<br />
B: Like structural cells.<br />
<br />
S: Not just structural but they create the friendly environment for the neurons. <br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right, they're there keeping the neurons alive and happy while the neurons are doing their job of remembering and calculating and stuff.<br />
<br />
B: Kind of like the Remora around sharks.<br />
<br />
S: I guess.<br />
<br />
J: So, at the time&ndash;<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Diamond was now asking questions like, "Well, why would there be more of these cells here if they're really just support cells? What's the significance of there being more of them here?" And it was a very odd idea at the time to think that glial cells had anything to do with Einstein's intelligence. Being that the cells were thought to be there for perhaps structural integrity perhaps there to just be, like Steve said, like more support cells than actual cells that were there for thinking. Alright, so now we go forward another 10 years and another researcher named Steven J. Smith published a paper that changed the perception of and understanding of the brain because what he did was&ndash;he was studying neurons and he was also studying these glial cells and he speculated that glial cells also were a part of the communication that happened within the cell and that also these cells weren't only communicating chemically but they were communicating with electricity in the manner that neurons communicate. And then he kept on fleshing out his idea and he also said that these glial cells could possibly be picking up communication between neurons&ndash;neurons are communicating with each other, glial cells would be listening in on this communication and then sending that data to other parts of the brain. So he came up with this idea that the brain&ndash;it's another way that the brain could be communicating internally. Which at the time was a profound idea. They though, at the time, that only neurons were doing the heavy lifting and that even though there was a ton of other cells in the brain that they didn't think really were doing anything. Neurons were it, but once they realized, "You know what? These glial cells might actually be doing complex things like be involved in learning and memory and ideas that we have of like what does it mean to be a genius. Glial cells might have something to do with high end thinking." So, once that started that started to really open up new ideas and that started a whole different school of thought. So then yet another scientist named, Doug Fields, he reproduced Smith's research and confirmed that it was actually valid. And, at one point, Doug Fields wrote, "Now we can see scores of ways in which astrocytes could be involved in many cognitive processes." And now it's not so crazy to find that there were abnormally high numbers of astrocytes in the parts of Einstein's brain involved in imagery and mathematical ability and that sort of thing. So, that was a pretty huge milestone and a huge leap forward in our understanding of the human brain. So in 2007, Harvey died. He really didn't know that him taking Einstein's brain, actually through these steps and through these different people actually lead to a move forward in our understanding of the riddle of the mind, but it seems that he actually did have something to do with it. And, Einstein's granddaughter didn't end up wanting her grandfather's brain so Harvey, before he died, he returned the brain back to the pathology department at Princeton, where it is today.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, can you only find out the number of astrocytes by cutting into a brain or is there a way to test it while you're still alive?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you can estimate it just by knowing what the density of astrocytes are and then calculating it by volume but if you want to look at an individuals astrocyte density, yeah, you gotta stain it. You gotta cut into it.<br />
<br />
J: So, Steve, could you just take a little&ndash;take a biopsy of somebody's brain and test it that way?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. You could.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think you could do&ndash;really?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Why not?<br />
<br />
E: Well, are you supposed to be biopsying the brain for this kind of testing purposes. It's really more for diseases.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you wouldn't do this. You wouldn't do that. You wouldn't biopsy a humans brain just out of curiosity but we do it for diagnostic purposes but it's got to be worth while to the person.<br />
<br />
E: Right. There's got to be something going on that you're looking for the answer for a cure or something.<br />
<br />
B: Risk benefit.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if they&ndash;I know it's not uncommon&ndash;brain surgery happens all the time. They open up people's skulls. They literally get in there with tools and go deep into the brain and remove tumors and do things like that. Cognitively if you did take someone's skull off, or a portion of the skull, and just cut out, say a jelly bean sized piece of the brain, under the idea that the person isn't going to bleed to death or whatever, just removing a piece of the brain then putting the skull piece back and letting the person heal. What would they lose from losing a portion of the brain that size?<br />
<br />
B: Depends. It depends on the portion.<br />
<br />
E: Lobotomi&ndash;You're lobotomizing a person at that point.<br />
<br />
B: It totally depends. My guess would be that either it's totally unnoticeable or you'd be completely debilitated.<br />
<br />
S: Bob's right. It completely depends on which jelly bean piece of brain you take out.<br />
<br />
B: Take the hypothalamus and you're f'd.<br />
<br />
S: For example, the right frontal lobe is largely redundant and you could do a lot of stuff to that without producing and noticeable deficits. <br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: And, in fact, when surgeons have to go into the brain they prefer to do the non-dominant frontal lobe because it's mostly redundant, but, you take out language cortex and you can make somebody completely lose their ability to speak, for example.<br />
<br />
B: It'd be like a stroke, Jay. It'd be like a stroke.<br />
<br />
J: But even a piece that small? <br />
<br />
S: If it's critical, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So there is one place in your brain that a certain type of functionality is happening and there's parts of your brains which is just storage for memory, there's parts of your brain that is doing something like processing what you see or what you hear. So you're better off losing a little portion of your memory than you are like a major piece of functionality, of course, but, I thought it was more evenly distributed.<br />
<br />
S: No. No no. It's not and it's also&ndash;memory's pretty evenly distributed but functions are localized and there's also&ndash;it's not just how localized it is it's how redundant it is. If something's really lateralized to one side you only have one piece of your brain that's doing that thing then you don't want to lose that. If you have bilateral redundancy then obviously you can afford to lose one cause the other side will make up for it. So, yeah, it depends on a lot of things. Interestingly, when reading through science news items this week&ndash;just this week was a study published by Swedish researchers from the University of Gothenburg and they were looking at astrocytes, which are a form of glial cells, and their effects on neuronal connections and function and essentially what they found is that the astrocytes are modulating the strength of the signalling between the neurons. Now, they basically are effecting how those synapses between neurons change over time. So what that means is is that the astrocytes might actually be directly involved in the formation of memories and plasticity of the brain and learning. Which, again, is just further evidence for their greatly enhanced role in actual memory function of the brain, not just, again, as support cells. So that research is ongoing and that was a huge shift in our thinking about the role of astrocytes.<br />
<br />
=== Largest Radio Telescope Array <small>(27:49)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.86c1ac9d54a51fd47b845663527a077d.1191&show_article=1 --><br />
<br />
S: Well lets go on. We have another bit of astronomy news, Bob, you're going to tell us about the largest radio telescope ever.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. This one's a quickie. This is the biggest radio telescope in the world and it was recently unveiled by scientists in the Netherlands. It's called LOFAR which stands Low Frequency Array. I think we touched upon this a while back. It consists of a whopping 25,000 small antennas and they're real tiny. They range in size from 50 centimeters to about 2 meters across. So they're not very big at all. And they're all spread out all over, not only the Netherlands, but also Germany, Sweden, France and Britain. And it's pretty cool. This thing is really going to do some amazing work I predict. Femke Beckhurst of the Netherlands Radio Astronomy Institute said, "Today we have launched the biggest radio telescope in the world. When you combine all the antennas you get a giant telescope with a diameter of about 1,000 kilometers," which is about 600 miles so that's pretty big. And it takes some nifty software to actually take all those separate signals and stitch them together. They're actually using a supercomputer to do some of that work. It's the Blue Gene P supercomputer which is a petaflop class supercomputer. So it's pretty fast. So with these observations that this radio telescope, or, I guess you can call it radio telescopes&ndash;So, the observations that they're going to be able to make with this&ndash;they're going to learn about the origin of the universe and some people are saying that they'll be able to go to the moment right after the big bang. Other&ndash;some other key science projects for LOFAR are what they call the epoch of re-ionization which is basically when the universe turned on. When things became. Also, things like ultra high energy cosmic rays which are a bit of a mystery, such as the one we mentioned&ndash;we mentioned one such cosmic ray a while back called the Oh My God Particle in 1991 which is probably the most energetic cosmic ray ever detected which was so powerful&ndash;imagine it was a subatomic particle with the energy of a baseball travelling at 60 miles an hour. Imagine, you get hit with one proton and it knocks you on your butt like it was a baseball travelling 60. So, amazingly fast. We're not sure what could have imparted so much energy to such a tiny thing. It was travelling so close to the speed of light it was essentially just a whisker&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But to clarify, it wouldn't really knock you on your butt, right? It would just go right through you.<br />
<br />
B: No. It's too tiny. Right. It is too tiny and it could do some damage, though, if it happened to hit the right, whatever in your body, DNA or something.<br />
<br />
E: Well, what if it hit a computer or something? It would really screw that up.<br />
<br />
B: That's a lot of kinetic energy. I don't know where&ndash;how all the kinetic energy would be transferred. Would it be transferred into heat. Would it fly right through? Probably&ndash;it might just fly right through.<br />
<br />
S: Or maybe it will smash through several particles on its way.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. It might hit&ndash;if hit's something squarely it could start a cascade so I think if it's just right it could actually&ndash;it could be noticeable. But there's other things&ndash;the solar science and space weather, cosmic magnetism, so I'm sure this thing is going to be used for a really long time and hopefully maybe even get even bigger.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob, what's the difference between the moment of the Big Bang and the moment of first illuminosity, I think is the word you used?<br />
<br />
B: Well, I believe it was 100,000 years or 1,000 years, it was a lot of time before things calmed down enough. Things were just so energetic that light&ndash;any photons that might have been generated were just bouncing around all over the place and they really couldn't settle down and just take a straight line any direction so there's nothing to see if you look back in visible light there's nothing to see cause all the photons are just kinda bouncing around. But also this epoch of re-ionization&ndash;that's kind of a different term than I'm used to. They refer to it as when things became luminous so I think it depends on&ndash;are they talking about the first stars, the first galaxies, the first quasars?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
B: If that's what they're talking about then that would actually be after what I'm talking&ndash;what I've just mentioned which is also called photon decoupling. So actually this epoch is a little bit different. I think it's later on.<br />
<br />
E: It's just amazing that they can make that distinction or make the determination that so much&ndash;however much time it is happened between the two.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: You think of the Big Bang&ndash;certainly in a visual display you're watching some show on TV that kinda of describes it and it's an intense white spot of light from the get go. At least that's how the depict it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But they always give you the impossible perspective of being outside the universe when the Big Bang happens.<br />
<br />
B: Space time, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But that's not a possible perspective. So it's kind of misleading.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A little.<br />
<br />
S: And a lot of that is&ndash;evidence is theoretical. They're just well what should have happened if you have the mass of the universe at a point and then what would happen over time? Based upon the temperatures and what things are like at those temperatures. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: But maybe this large radio telescope will help fill in those gaps.<br />
<br />
B: Some of them.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully.<br />
<br />
B: If it can actually get close to the moment after the Big Bang then absolutely it will be able to do&ndash;it will illuminate us in many ways.<br />
<br />
E: Very cool.<br />
<br />
J: I still don't get the concept that when the Big Bang took place&ndash;like, where it was specially in reality. You can't go to that space&ndash;that place in outer space because it doesn't really&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Sure you can. Wherever you go, there you are.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, geez. Really, Bob?<br />
<br />
E: It happened everywhere&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: It's true. It's true. It's everywhere. You can't point to it because it's not one specific spot. It's everywhere.<br />
<br />
J: Well, it didn't happen right here.<br />
<br />
E: It might have.<br />
<br />
S: Every part of the universe was at that point, Jay, at that time.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, so, meaning that the universe is growing in size.<br />
<br />
S: Of course. But it's like&ndash;if you do the two dimensional analogy, it's like blowing up a balloon. Where was it before you blew it up? Well it's&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: How&ndash;right. Try to explaining to a two dimensional creature on that balloon where&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: It was in the package.<br />
<br />
J: where the center is.<br />
<br />
S: You'd have to point into the 4th dimension.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
J: I can't picture it.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Amityville Horror House for Sale <small>(34:11)</small>===<br />
[http://www.theness.com/roguesgallery/?p=1676 Rogue's Gallery: Amityville Horror House for Sale]<br />
<br />
S: So, the Amityville Horror House is back in the news.<br />
<br />
E: And it's back in the news because its up for sale.<br />
<br />
S: Sale. That's right. For what? 1.5 million?<br />
<br />
E: 1.15 million dollars.<br />
<br />
B: In this market?<br />
<br />
J: I know. Isn't that crazy?<br />
<br />
S: You can own a piece of paranormal history.<br />
<br />
B: But, is that price kind of crazy for the neighborhood because the house is famous?<br />
<br />
E: I don't know. I imagine that has something to do with it. They said they'd done a lot of renovations recently on the house. So&mdash;Look, I imagine the main factor, like any other piece of property is&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Location.<br />
<br />
E: comparable&mdash;yeah, location and comparable houses for sale in the area.<br />
<br />
S: But here's my question. Now, typically, if a house is alleged to be haunted or if a murder took place there it's considered psychologically damaged and that actually reduces the value of the house. But in this case it's famous for being psychologically damaged, so does that increase the value of the house?<br />
<br />
E: Or do the two equal each other out?<br />
<br />
S: The balance out?<br />
<br />
E: The negative and positive balance out.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So, there were a series of murders there in 1974. Ronald DeFeo Sr., his wife, Louise, their two sons and two daughters were shot while they slept in the home and the one remaining family member alive, Ronald, nicknamed Butch DeFeo, he confessed to the murders and is serving a life sentence in prison. And then just a few weeks after the sentencing of Butch, George and Kathy Lutz and their three children moved into the home where a new round of supposed horrors began. Muwahaha. Well, not really.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about them.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, there was supposedly all sorts of things happening in this house. They reported sightings of&mdash;well, the kids reported sightings of animals, mostly a pig named Jody. A sculpted lion came to life and supposedly walked around the house.<br />
<br />
S: Cool.<br />
<br />
E: A demonic boy appeared. It was photographed and you can find that famous photograph online. Kind of looks like a regular boy but that's beside the point. And other strange things in the house. Oh, green slime oozed from the walls. Crucifix on the wall was constantly rotating until it left itself upside down and, needless to say, 28 days after they moved in&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: 28 days later.<br />
<br />
E: 28 days later. Good one Steve. The Lutz's fled.<br />
<br />
S: What about the&mdash;you forgot about the hell-mouth. It's a gaping mouth to hell in their basement.<br />
<br />
J: Wait. Wasn't that in Poltergeist.<br />
<br />
E: That was another movie, I think.<br />
<br />
B: No. No no no. <br />
<br />
E: You're right, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: It's the red room.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It was a red room, which in the movie they kind of made it seem like it was the road to hell or something.<br />
<br />
E: Now there was one small problem with all of these paranormal happenings. They never really happened. It was a story&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: It was fake.<br />
<br />
E: The whole thing was fake. However, that didn't stop famous demonologist and psychic investigator&mdash;paranormal investigator Ed Warren and his wife Loraine from investigating the matter and deeming that house to be one of the most haunted places in the world.<br />
<br />
S: Right. Right after their basement.<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Their basement in Monroe, Connecticut #1, Aminityville #2.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Right. It was fake. And now it's up for sale.<br />
<br />
E: It is. So&mdash;if you've got dollars burning a whole in your pocket&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: You might want to go get a piece of history.<br />
<br />
S: The people who bought the house after the Lutz's complained that they had to deal with the paranormal tourists bothering them day in and day out. Gawking at the house and everything. So&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So much so that they had to change the address of the house.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So it really was psychologically damaged for them, cause it came with all the tourists.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm looking at a picture of the demon boy.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: It's a little boy.<br />
<br />
S: With no eyes.<br />
<br />
J: Well, the eyes are whited out so it looks kind of creepy. Photo could have been doctored.<br />
<br />
E: Could have been a dozen things, right, other than a demonic boy from hell.<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:46)</small>==<br />
S: Well, thanks for that, Evan, and why don't we go on to Who's That Noisy?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. For those of you who forgot here is last week's Who's that Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: And then I began to study back&mdash;the relationships between the elements for plants and they are different as the elements for humans. Because Cali and Forswore are actually the friends of each other in the homeopathic material magica for humans, but in plants these two substances are each other's enemy.</blockquote><!-- The Cali and Forswore are just going phonetically. I couldn't understand what he said. --><br />
<br />
S: Mm hmm.<br />
<br />
E: Mm hmm. So, you learned a little bit about homeopathy in that clip.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Two substances&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or not.<br />
<br />
S: Two substances which are enemies in plants are friends in people. Or animals.<br />
<br />
E: Bet you didn't know that before.<br />
<br />
J: So who is that guy?<br />
<br />
E: That is V. D. Kaviraj. A homeopath of some repute and the reason I actually found this person is because I was watching a Youtube video of our&mdash;well, friend, Mr. Benneth&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Who had this fellow as part of an interview so I thought that would make a rather interesting Noisy, last week.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And, not only did someone get it correctly but they actually also went ahead and found the clip from which I clipped it so if you go onto our message boards and [[SGU_Episode 256 | Episode 256]] you can actually take a look and listen for yourself to the entire interview and bring some coffee cause you with otherwise fall asleep.<br />
<br />
S: You don't want your brain to explode. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Exactly. So, NoWoo, en-oh-double you-oh-oh, from the message boards guessed correctly. Congratulations. Well done.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. What have you got for this week, Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. And here is this weeks Who's That Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: Does the shade<!-- what? --> give you the authority you need to take dangerous products off the shelves? And the answers always yes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
E: That's a short one this week.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Thanks Evan.<br />
<br />
E: But I think there's enough information in there for someone to get it. So, be the first one to guess correctly. Good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Ev.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Soy <small>(41:02)</small>===<br />
S: We have time for a few e-mails this week. The first one comes from Michael Wilson from Prescott, Arizona and Michael writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Steve - You made the offhand comment that there are "serious concerns" that soy milk is producing an estrogen type hormonal effect. I am a vegan bodybuilder who drinks a quart of soy milk everyday. I am concerned your offhand comment will scare people away from switching to a healthier milk alternative with no saturated fat. I've looked in the past when people have made these claims, and all I can find is that there may be some very mild effect, but nothing that rises to the level of your "serious concern" comment. If there was, there would be serious estrogen related issues throughout Asian countries. Since you felt it necessary to scare people away from soy by telling them about the "serious concerns" science has with soy milk, I hope you will provide the research on you next show that proves soy milk causes serious estrogen like effects. I do love the show, and I thank everyone for the time and effort you guys put into it every week. <br><br>Michael Wilson Prescott, AZ</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So, Michael's referring to two weeks ago when we had Pamela Gay and Frazier Cane on when&mdash;I can't remember what we were talking about but the notion of estro&mdash;the notion of&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Pamela said she drink soy milk and then we got onto the discussion.<br />
<br />
S: She drinks soy milk. Yeah, so I was razzing her a little bit about the fact that not everything is perfectly safe. You could find concerns about anything and in fact there are concerns about the estrogen like effects of soy milk. But it was an off hand comment, but I do think it's good for follow up to see what the evidence actually shows. The concerns are raised by the fact that soy contains isoflavones which have an estrogen effect. It's hormonally active and therefor that creates that plausibility that it could have some actual clinical effects in people and there are various populations in which it has been studied. So, one group are women who&mdash;are women in general, especially women who have had breast cancer. The question is do the estrogens increase the risk of breast cancer or if you have breast cancer does it worsen the outcome. The answer to that question appears to be no. So the evidence so far is pretty solid that there's no negative effect for women with breast cancer. In fact one review I read said that there may in fact be a small beneficial effect because it may competitively block the effects of women who have high estrogen levels. So there it's either no effect or maybe a small beneficial effect in a subset of women. The bigger concerns are with men, though, because obviously estrogen is a feminizing hormone and the question is does&mdash;do the estrogen effects of isoflavones in soy milk have a feminizing effect on men? So far the research does not show any such effect. What about the reproductive effects on men? Here, we have animal data which shows that there is a negative effect. This is where the biggest concerns are. And these concerns are that we haven't done enough research to really know what the net effects are in people. So we have animal data that shows some concern but not really sufficient human data to rule out that there may be a negative effect on the reproduction of men. The final group are infants, especially since there is a soy based infant formulas. And here there were several reviews in the last couple of years. Some saying there's really no proven effect. Other reviewers saying that, again, there is concern that there maybe some hormonal effects on infants and that&mdash;and essentially where the reviewers agree is that the research is not adequate to rule out a significant effect. Therefor if you want to be cautious you may avoid using soy based infant formulas until more research is done to show that there isn't any significant effect. Estrogen like effect. So that's where we are. I do think it's fair to say that there are concerns. Nothing is proven. And while some of those concerns have been ruled out by research there are others, specifically reproduction in men and in infants where we don't have enough research to really say that they're safe. My take is that it's probably a very weak effect. I would be surprised if the research ultimately showed that there was a strong effect, but those are the areas where the research is not yet sufficient to confidently say that there isn't a potential effect.<br />
<br />
B: But also&mdash;but this guy, Steve, if you're&mdash;if you're not an infant and you're beyond&mdash;you've already had your kids and you're done with kids, then it would be even less of a concern?<br />
<br />
S: That's right. And if you're a woman, there's basically no concern.<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Cursed Cell Phone Number <small>(45:50)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>The cursed cell phone number Thought you guys might like this story of truly stupid superstitious thinking that misses the glaringly obvious. <br />
<br><br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7763578/Mobile-phone-number-suspended-after-three-users-die-in-10-years.html Telegraph: Mobile phone number suspended after three users die in 10 years]<br />
<br>Danforth France Glendale, CA</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Jay, you're gonna tell us about the cursed cell phone number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. This is really silly to be honest with you.<br />
<br />
B: It's silly.<br />
<br />
E: Silly.<br />
<br />
J: It's just one of those story where there's a string of coincidences that could make certain people think certain things but, basically there was a phone number that was given out. And I don't know if this is the real number but it seems like it isn't because it's a seri&mdash;it's 0-888-888-888&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: So, that's the number. I mean, my understanding from reading is that's the number that they suspended.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. Could be. Now, isn't the number 8 unlucky somewhere?<br />
<br />
B: No. It's lucky in Asian cultures. Isn't 8&mdash;8 is lucky, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: 4 is unlucky.<br />
<br />
S: 4 is unlucky cause it sounds like death.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: 4 is unlucky. 8 is&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So, here's the quick one two. The first person who got it, he was the former CEO of a Bulgarian mobile phone company. His company issued him the number.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: He died of cancer in 2001 at 48 years old. After he died some rumors came out that his cancer had been caused by a business rival using radioactive poisoning. I find that unlikely, but, okay. Take that away. Let's just say that guy died. It's horrible. Died of cancer in 2001. 48 years old. That was horrible. The second that got the number was a Bulgarian mafia boss. There's a couple of things that mafia bosses do really well. They kill, and then they get killed.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
J: Right? So this guy was gunned down in 2003 by an assassin.<br />
<br />
B: What are the odds?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: A mafia killing? What?<br />
<br />
J: Then the number went to another guy who was described as a crooked business man and he was gunned down outside of an Indian restaurant in Bulgaria. So since then the number was retired because the police are investigating and all this stuff, but, there's the idea that the number is cursed or unlucky&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Or jinxed.<br />
<br />
E: It's your unlucky number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's been&mdash;the number has been touched by evil and anyone who gets it is gonna get killed. So I'm thinking&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Anyone mob related who touches it will get killed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's pretty clear to see&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or crime related.<br />
<br />
J: through this. It's not that big of a coincidence that a bunch of people that were involved in very dangerous and crazy criminal activity are getting killed. <br />
<br />
B: But if a number becomes available&mdash;is it more likely that the number became available because somebody dumped the number or because somebody died? Because I'm never gonna want to lose my number today.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I don't know. Now that people have personal phone numbers. Yeah. Probably people hold on to them for life. Even if you change carrier, right? You can take your number to another carrier.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Now you can. I don't know if you could in early 2000&mdash;2003. I don't know if you could during that time period. So, anyway, the reason why we bring up this story was not just because somebody wrote in about it but we thought it was a quick and easy example of a series of events strung together to make a story where there really isn't a story or a connection.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. There's a few ways you can look at this. One is it's not that big a coincidence that 3 people with the same number die in the short period of time. Just taking the number of phone numbers out there, I'm sure that happens a lot just by coincidence. Right? I mean it would be surprising if that never happened. This is a little different because these people were high profile and the number's unusual. It's&mdash;you could of it as a very desirable number because it's all 8's. It's the kind of number you get if you work for the phone company like the CEO or you're a mob boss, I guess. Right? They're not going to give it to just some guy. And these&mdash;two of these three people were at high risk for dying so that makes it even less of a coincidence that this kind of number is going to go to the kind of people who may be in risky businesses. But then you also think of it from the phone companies point of view. Obviously the notion that the number itself is jinxed is magical thinking and it's ridiculous but from a business marketing point of view, do they want to hand this number over to somebody else and then what if something happens to that person or even&mdash;they may just get upset if they find out that the phone company assigned them a quote unquote "jinxed" number. You know what I mean? Probably just fewer headaches for the phone company if they just get rid of it, even for a while. You know what I mean? You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. It's a numbers racket.<br />
<br />
J: That's a good job, boys. It's good work, boys.<br />
<br />
=== Magic Bee Juice <small>(50:27)</small>===<br />
S: The next one comes from David Gardner from Osaka, Japan. And David writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>One of the branches of the company I work for in Japan has started selling Propolis as a means to make more money in a bad economy. This branch has repeatedly tried to get me to buy some of this magic bee juice. Many of my Japanese co-workers have taken the bait. They are putting bee juice in their drinks and swallowing magic bee juice pills. When I ask them if they feel any better, they all say they aren’t sure. Hmm… I think the company I work for has a snake oill division. Do you know of any scientific evidence that shows any benefit to taking Propolis? All the information I found say that Propolis may contain lead and other garbage bees pick up while flying around the city. Thank you for your time. <br><br>David Gardner Osaka, Japan </blockquote><!-- shouldn't we fix the "aren't" that's all messed up? --><br />
<br />
S: Well, do you guys now what Propolis is?<br />
<br />
B: Nope.<br />
<br />
J: No.<br />
<br />
E: It's the star in the sky that doesn't rotate.<br />
<br />
S: It's magic bee juice. This is&mdash;So, bees make a variety of things. This is the gooey, sticky stuff that bees use to hold together their nests. They largely pick it up&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Oh. The honey comb?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so, yeah. But it's not just wax. I guess this is even stronger structural stuff that they use&mdash;it's like the glue that they use to hold it together and its&mdash;they'll pick up the sap from coniferous trees. Resins. It sounds nasty. It doesn't sound like the kind of stuff you would want to eat. I mean the bees don't eat it. It contains phenolics, aromatic compounds, volatile oils and terpenes. But even worse that that, as the bees fly around our modern society they're not just picking up resins from pine trees. They're also picking up lead paint. They're picking up caulking.<br />
<br />
B: Yum.<br />
<br />
S: They're picking up road tar and other things.<br />
<br />
E: Fecal material.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. They're picking up all kinds of nasty stuff and mixing it all together with these resins and terpenes and they're using that to glue together their nests and then&mdash;and idiots are taking that stuff and eating it.<br />
<br />
E: Now, when you say idiot&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: It's glue like?<br />
<br />
S: It's sticky. If you get the sap off a pine tree&mdash;it's like that.<br />
<br />
E: That's awful.<br />
<br />
S: Now, of course, it contains a lot of chemicals, right? As you might imagine&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: It's all natural.<br />
<br />
S: Sure. And if you look at those chemicals those chemicals do stuff. The body's going to react to those chemicals. Actually, probably the most common reaction is an allergic dermatitis and when I looked up Propolis on PubMed most of the specific references to it and people were to&mdash;this allergic dermatitis.<br />
<br />
E: Is this the same allergic reaction people have when they get a bee sting?<br />
<br />
S: No. No. It's different. This is more just a contact dermatitis. The skin gets red and bee stings can have more of a systemic reaction. That's where it becomes a problem, as opposed to just a rash. So, there's no research in humans showing any beneficial effects. It's all extrapolating wildly from just nonspecific&mdash;or just reactions that happen to some chemical that you can find in this stuff. There some animal data that it does stuff, but there's nothing that really can be used to base any kind of medicinal claims. So this really is snake oil. And apparently it's been around for hundreds of years. This is nothing new. It's just an idea that crops up every now and then.<br />
<br />
E: Here. Eat this bee waste byproduct.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's bee waste. It is bee waste.<br />
<br />
E: Bee waste.<br />
<br />
S: Pretty much everything that bees make somebody has decided to sell as snake oil. Pollen, royal jelly, and even bee venom. You guys have heard&mdash;I've talked about bee venom therapy.<br />
<br />
E: Bee venom therapy, sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. For, multiple sclerosis and arthritis and things like that. Pretty much everything. The only thing that bees make that has real medicinal value is honey and only if you put it topically on your wound.<br />
<br />
E: Or on toast.<br />
<br />
J: I love honey.<br />
<br />
E: I love you too, honey.<br />
<br />
B: Never spoils.<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Incorrect Cause Fallacy <small>(54:41)</small> ==<br />
S: Well, we actually have a Name that Logical Fallacy this week.<br />
<br />
B: Ooo.<br />
<br />
E: Ooo. Queue the music.<br />
<br />
S: This is a question that comes from some guy called Mike Lacelle in Canada.<br />
<br />
J: Who is he?<br />
<br />
E: That a funny name.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know. Some bald guy.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: And Mike wants to know&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: But despite that&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: And Mike will be at TAM this year, by the way.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, this guy's gonna be at TAM?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Oh. I can't wait to meet him.<br />
<br />
B: I'm not going now.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: I'll see you there Mike.<br />
<br />
S: Mike writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Steve, I'm trying to figure out the difference between the Incorrect Cause fallacy and the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy? Skepticwiki is telling me that Post Hoc is a type of Incorrect Cause Fallacy, but I'm just not getting the difference. They seem to be one and the same. Any help would be appreciated. I'm trying to complete a 5x5 recording we did a few months ago and I'm recording a missing part which was about the "Incorrect Cause" fallacy. The topic of the 5x5 was Chemtrails and it seems to me that the Post Hoc fallacy would work better here.<br><br> Mike Lacelle Canada </blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So, this is an interesting one. The Incorrect Cause Fallacy is actually a category of logical fallacies.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There's lots of&mdash;and the Post Hoc is just a sub-category of it.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly. It's one type. <br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: It's any fallacy where you are making an invalid inference as to cause and effect. That's the Incorrect Cause Fallacy. My&mdash;I had a couple back and forths with Mike and he was saying that if you invoke the wrong cause for something just because your information is incorrect is that an incorrect cause fallacy and the answer to that is no. It doesn't me that you're just mistaken about what causes what, that's just a false premise, it's that the logical inference is incorrect, cause that's what a logical fallacy is. So, in the Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc Fallacy, you're concluding that B is caused by A ''because'' B follows A. That's where the invalid logic comes in. You're reaching the conclusion not because you just have a mistake belief but because you think that the fact that it comes after it is how you know that it's being caused by it.<br />
<br />
B: Right. So it's more sequential, whereas the Incorrect Cause Fallacy&mdash;it could be&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Is anything.<br />
<br />
B: It could be after. It could be anything.<br />
<br />
E: It could go any direction.<br />
<br />
B: They could happen at the same exact time. Could be AB instead of A followed by B. Could be at the same time or even&mdash;or other variations. So that's the main distinction as I see it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And it's not even restricted to temporal but&mdash;another common Incorrect Cause Fallacy is the&mdash;assuming causation from correlation as you're saying.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: They're correlated in some way, not because, necessarily, one follows the other but they could just be happening together more frequently or at the same time and then you assume that they're happening together because one is causing the other when, in fact, there are many relationships that possible. You cannot infer a specific causal relationship. Often people, however, say that&mdash;and I hear people say this, or write this, all the time, that correlation does not imply causation and that's incorrect. I ''does'' imply causation. It just does ''equal'' causation.<br />
<br />
B: Right. Right.<br />
<br />
S: Sometimes correlations occur because there ''is'' causation and it is&mdash;it certainly does imply that. It's one piece of evidence, but in order to make a specific causal conclusion you have to line up multiple correlations. Other examples of this would include the Complex Cause Fallacy, where maybe there are multiple causations but you pick one out and say that's ''the'' cause.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's a very common one, right? <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: We all sort of unconsciously do that all the time where we tend to think simplistically in terms of one cause for things when in fact many complex things will have multiple causes that are not mutually exclusive.<br />
<br />
J: And it's not just one cause. It could also be the most interesting cause has got to be it, too, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: We're so drawn to the one thats&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: That's interesting or&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: sexy.<br />
<br />
S: ''or'' the one that confirms our prior beliefs and ideology.<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Ah, confirmation bias.<br />
<br />
S: Then there's the Regression Fallacy. This is where you assume cause and effect because of what ultimately regression to the mean. Here's an example. Appearing on the cover of ''Sports Illustrated'' is a curse that will cause them to have a bad season or a bad game or whatever following that.<br />
<br />
E: I've heard that before, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. The ''Sports Illustrated'' curse. But that can be explained by regression to the mean.<br />
<br />
B: Right. They were on the cover in the first place because they might&mdash;they just happened to have, say, and exceptional season, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: And then of course the regression to the mean has got to kick in at some point, you would think, and then it's like, "Oh, damn. Bad luck."<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. They had their best game, their best season, whatever. That gets them on the cover and any extreme is likely to be followed by something closer to the mean. The regression to the mean.<br />
<br />
J: That's very similar to the Droning On Fallacy where skeptical enthusiasts just keep talking about logical fallacies over and over again.<br />
<br />
S: Jay, I'm not familiar with that one.<br />
<br />
E: I'm not either. Hey, here's another logical fallacy.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:07)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, what you're say Jay, is that you want to move on to Science or Fiction. Is that what you're saying?<br />
<br />
J: It's time for Science or Fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. We'll kick in the real music.<br />
<br />
VO: It's time for Science or Fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items of facts, two genuine and one fictitious and then I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Are you guys ready for this week?<br />
<br />
B: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: You can't make me play. Alright I'll play.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Here we go.<br />
<br />
*[http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots.<br />
<br />
Jay, go first.<br />
<br />
J: Well, okay, so I think that&mdash;the laser&mdash;the dark laser one that takes heat away from an object that it's focused on&mdash;that seems a little shifty to me. I don't see how&mdash;I wasn't aware that laser light had a temperature, either. I never really thought about that. And the second one about the comets that&mdash;coming from other solar systems. You know, I think that one's the fake.<br />
<br />
S: The comets?<br />
<br />
J: Mm hmm.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Evan?<br />
<br />
E: The dark laser is interesting. Taking heat away from an object on which it's focused. How exactly is it doing that? I absolutely don't know. Is it a laser at that point? Light&mdash;It's a beam of light that takes heat away from objects on which it's focused? That's fascinating. That's the most fascinating of these three. The one about the comets originating from other solar systems&mdash;I&mdash;seems very plausible. I guess you could argue that nothing is original in this solar system and that everything came from another place somewhere else. Other explosions. Other events that occur on a regular basis. So I think that one's rather plausible. I don't know why it's necessarily a new analysis, though. The last one was the five fold increase in the growth of rice plants. Alright, so you have a fungus on the rice plant. You manipulate the genetics of the fungus and it increases the yield times five. Boy I think the comets one is correct. I'm between this dark laser and this fungus. I'm just going to have to guess at this point. I'm going to say the fungus one is the fiction. I think that's wrong.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Bob?<br />
<br />
B: The comet one&mdash;yeah, that's unusual. You've got the Oort Cloud&mdash;big huge cloud of comets. It was always pretty much assumed or stated directly that they were just part of the solar system. The fact that they could have been captured or from another solar system is news to me. I could see it. I could see how perhaps we&mdash;we did capture them but we're talking billions of comets out there. That's an interesting one. So you increase the yeild of rice by manipulating the genetics of the fungus growing on their roots. That's makes perfect sense to me. Who knows, perhaps the fungus were siphoning off nutrients that would have been going to the rice and so you cut back on their take of the nutrients and so more goes to the rice, less goes to the fungus so you've got greater growth. That's totally plausible and actually and awesome application of genetic manipulation. How valuable will that be? It's almost too good. The first one&mdash;the dark laser&mdash;an endothermic laser&mdash;I just&mdash;I know a little bit about lasers. I just can't imagine off the top of my head how it's going to be taking away heat. I mean you're focusing radiation on an object. Perhaps you're knocking away&mdash;you're somehow knocking away the most energetic molecules or atoms and you're lowering the average temper&mdash;temperature. Kinda like&mdash;I think that similar to evaporation cooling. But still&mdash;I can't decide between that and the fungus. <br />
<br />
E: I'm in the same boat.<br />
<br />
B: I can kind of make an argument and I hope the fungus one is true and I'm going to say that the laser one is fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. So you guys are evenly divided.<br />
<br />
J: Guess so.<br />
<br />
B: Doesn't happen very often.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. So, I guess I'll take these in order. [http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused. And I should mention that NIST stands for the National Institutes of Standards and Technology.<br />
<br />
B: Science.<br />
<br />
S: And also that Dark Laser was a character from&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Ha! Yes. Timmy.<br />
<br />
S: Timmy Turner, yeah. Fairly Odd Parents.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: And that one is, the fiction.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah baby.<br />
<br />
S: Good job, Bob. And yeah, I did take it from another story. So that's one if you had read the headline only you might have gotten sucked into it but if you actually read the article then&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I dug deeper.<br />
<br />
S: So, yeah, I couldn't find anything about an endothermic laser so I figured I was safe, for that. But who knows.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I think you are.<br />
<br />
S: What the story is about a dark pulse laser. Now a pulse laser is a laser where they are pulses of increase in brightness. This is a dark pulse where there are pulses of decreases in brightness. So you have a laser humming along and then at certain intervals there are drop outs, essentially, of the brightness of the laser. And they were able to make these ultra short pulses, just 90 picoseconds, or trillionths of a second. They think this device could be very useful for communication. So this could have a lot of applications. So interesting.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Another way&mdash;I think another way to look at it, Steve, is that before this they would&mdash;when information was coming, when they would encode information, when they pulsed the laser&mdash;and that was kind of like the information and then there would be a pause. And then they would pulse more information and that would basically be the information. But this is the opposite.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When the light's hitting it's considered no information but when there's nothing coming then that's considered&mdash;the thrust of the information which&mdash;that's kind of odd but that's kind of how I took it.<br />
<br />
S: Right. No, I think so but&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: So opposite&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: The advantage is that they can pulse it much faster with much smaller pulses. I think that's&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Right. Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: why this approach may have some advantages. Right.<br />
<br />
B: And there's also because&mdash;if you get down to picoseconds they're getting so brief&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: so incredibly brief that&mdash;yeah. That seems like an awesome idea.<br />
<br />
S: Let's go to [http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems. That one is science. <br />
<br />
E: Yeah. Right.<br />
<br />
S: And this is a computer simulation. This one's actually been around for a couple days so figured some of you might have read it but&mdash;what essentially what astronomers did&mdash;this is Hal Levison, Martin Duncan from Queen's University, in Kingston, Canada and Ramon Brasser from France and David Kaufmann&mdash;what they did is they were investigating mainly through computer simulations the formation of our sun. Now, our sun formed in a stellar nursery, like most stars do, right? So when the star first formed it was surrounded closely by a lot of other stars but eventually when some of those stars went supernova it blew away a lot of the gas clouds and what pretty much ended the stellar nursery and the suns went their own way. But while they were still close together, what they surmise is that large planets in those systems would routinely fling out any small objects, like comets, into basically a cloud of interstellar space, right, among all these stars in the nursery. And that&mdash;when the stars went their own way they would just capture a random assortment of these interstellar comets and take them with them, cause they just got captured by that star's gravity. Right? So that may be why we have this cloud of comets around our sun. They were just all captured from this bigger cloud that was permeating this cluster of young stars in the stellar nursery. Does that make sense?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but so many? So many of them. I've heard estimates up in the billions.<br />
<br />
S: Why not? Why not? Basically all the stars were sharing their comets into one massive Oort Cloud and then&mdash;until our sun went its own way and just captured a bunch of them and took them away.<br />
<br />
B: That's pretty cool.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So this obviously needs empirical confirmation. Right now it's just a computer model, but it's an interesting idea. It would mean&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Good luck.<br />
<br />
J: They're like a light-year away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: They are far away. Pretty much by definition the farthest outskirts of the solar system.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But it would&mdash;and wouldn't that make sense, Bob, that that something so far out was simply captured by nearby stars?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And, Evan, to clarify, you said that everything is eventually from other stellar systems and that's true of a second generation star. By definition everything in our solar system was in a&mdash;previously in another solar system, but these were&mdash;when we say that comet came from another solar system that means after it condensed down into a comet. Not just the raw material that went into it but after it was already comet. Then it got captured.<br />
<br />
E: I gotcha.<br />
<br />
S: Just to clarify that one point.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: And lets go on to [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots and that one is also science.<br />
<br />
B: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Let me clarify a couple of things also that you guys said.<br />
<br />
J: Wait, can you hear Bob gushing cause he won this one?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: He's like, "Wheh&mdash;Cool! Yeah!"<br />
<br />
S: Jay, he's coming off a&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Jay.<br />
<br />
S: He's coming off a two weeks in a row losing so he's just happy it wasn't three in a row.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Jay, you have no idea what that's like, Jay.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh, I really don't. I really have no idea.<br />
<br />
S: So, Bob, both you and Evan if I remembered&mdash;if I heard correctly said that the yield of the rice increased by five fold but I didn't write or say that. It's the growth of the rice plants.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah. Okay.<br />
<br />
E: So the size&mdash;that actual physical size of the grain.<br />
<br />
S: Or the rate of growth. It said growth so that's what I wrote. It specifically did not say yield.<br />
<br />
B: Yield shpield.<br />
<br />
S: Yield is what we're interested in, though, right? So I don't know how that translates into yield. The other caveat that wasn't part of what I said was that this was done in a greenhouse, so not in rice paddies. So this was just in a lab&mdash;greenhouse somewhere.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah. Start there but you can kind of export&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well yeah, but just to say&mdash;we have to know how it translates into a completely natural environment.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah. Yeah. Details.<br />
<br />
S: Now, but Bob, you got the effect of the fungus backwards. This is a fungus&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
S: This is a fungus that actually increases the growth of the plant. It does not detract from it.<br />
<br />
B: Oh. Wow.<br />
<br />
S: And how do you think it does that?<br />
<br />
B: Really? It supports it. It's a symbiotic relationship then. It supports it and &mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's supplying nutrients to the rice.<br />
<br />
B: You let me use your roots and I'll get you some good juice.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, basically it supplies phosphate. That's what it does. Which is a very limiting nutrient for plants. The fungus is mycorrhizal species. This specific species is <i>Glomus intraradices</i> and this has some very interesting genetics in that one filament of this fungus can contain many genetically distinct nuclei. So basically different assortments of its own genes in different parts of itself. So they were abe&mdash;it was not genetic engineering, it was just genetic manipulation. They were just using techniques to choose which subset of the genes of this fungus they were going to express and they were able to find an assortment that provided a lot more phosphate to the rice roots and actually&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Well how'd they select it? Was it just&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: The report was vague on the details but it made it sound like cultivation. Yeah, they&mdash;just breeding and cultivation. No genetic engineering. And anyway, they found one genetic version of this fungus that increased the growth of the rice plants by five fold. Very interesting. Which I thought was huge. But again I don't know how that will translate ultimately to yield. But think about that. That's a very interesting application.<br />
<br />
B: Perhaps they will be able to have two growing seasons.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Who knows.<br />
<br />
B: Right. So ultimately hopefully it will increase the yield.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And this report says that rice is the most important crop globally. Food crop. We think&mdash;over here we eat a lot of rice, but we also eat a lot of wheat and other things but in other parts of the world rice is it. It's very important. Yeah. <br />
<br />
E: That's it. That's all you get.<br />
<br />
S: Important food staple.<br />
<br />
B: I just hope that this works out so well that everybody on the planet kind of eating this rice. Next thing you know we're all turning to zombies.<br />
<br />
S: Zombie rice?<br />
<br />
B: That'd be cool<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. That'd be cool.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Jay, how come you're not gushing over this week's science or fiction results?<br />
<br />
J: I'm not unhappy. I really actually don't care if I win or lose. Just that I learn.<br />
<br />
B: Apparently.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:14:40)</small> ==<br />
S: Jay, can you give us a quote this week?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Oooh, dang.<br />
<br />
J: Hey, Steve. How you doing? Alright, so I have different&mdash;I tried to mix it up. I found a bunch of quotes that are stupid things that perhaps not so stupid people said.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: You gonna tell us the quotes first and then the people?<br />
<br />
J: Yes, I will. Well, I'm not going to shout out these people's names because they don't deserve it.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: I'm not regaling them with "you're awesome." I'm going to just call them silly, stupid, ignorant, whatever. Ready? <blockquote>Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction.<br>-Pierre Pachet</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Ah, Pier.<br />
<br />
J: He was a professor of physiology at Toulouse in 1872. Next one,<br />
<blockquote>We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy.<br>-Simon Newcomb</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
J: That was said by Simon Newcomb, astronomer, 1888.<br />
<br />
B: Whoa.<br />
<br />
J: <blockquote>Heavier than air flying machines are impossible.<br>-Lord Kelvin</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Kelviiin. Kelvin, by the way, can I go on a little side thing here, Kelvin&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Please.<br />
<br />
S: also thought that the earth could only be like 100 million years old because of the temperature of the earth. He was one of those guys who was brilliant but because so arrogant that he started to say stupid things about other disciplines outside of his specialty and that's why we end up quoting him 100 years later.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but Steve, I think&mdash;it's funny you should say that one because I think&mdash;I remember reading a story about that one and I think he did hedge his bets a bit. When Kelvin said that he kind of said, "Well, you know, unless there's another source of energy the earth is so many years old," which is in effect exactly why&mdash;he wasn't aware of radioactivity.<br />
<br />
S: Yes. That's exactly right.<br />
<br />
B: If there was no radioactivity the earth would be just solid rock at this point.<br />
<br />
S: But the hubris was&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: in him thinking that his thermodynamic calculations trumped the entire field of geology.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: Meanwhile he&mdash;it was because he didn't know about radioactive decay heating the earth. So that's the cautionary tail. What else Jay. What else you got for us?<br />
<br />
J: Okay. I got&mdash;this one was from H. M. Warner from Warner Brothers, 1927. And he said,<br />
<blockquote>Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?<br>-H. M. Warner</blockquote><br />
<br />
B: Oh.<br />
<br />
J: And then I can't leave the bad taste in everybody's mouth so this is a quote from Winston Churchill.<br />
<blockquote>Man will occasionally stumble over the truth but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it, and carry on.<br>-Winston Churchill</blockquote><br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Winston Churchill!<br />
<br />
S: He was the goods.<br />
<br />
B: He rocked.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, he was one of my favorites.<br />
<br />
J: These quotes that I brought up, I picked people that probably were not stupid or considered stupid and this might be assuming too much but they were respected for one reason or another, seemed to be very knowledgeable in their fields but yet they can make incredibly ridiculous statements like these. It's easy for us to say that cause we're looking back.<br />
<br />
S: We actually quoted Steve Pinker at one time saying this, that making predictions about the future is an invitation to look stupid. Right? That if you're going to make pronouncements like, "This is impossible," "This will never happen,"&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: You're asking for it. Unless you're really sure you know what you're talking about.<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.</blockquote> <!-- the quote as read by Jay was different, should see if we can find a source to find the real quote --><br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS Con <small>(1:18:11)</small> ===<br />
S: Just one quick announcement this week. We are already organizing the NECSSCon 2011 in the spring of 2011. This will be probably around the end of April, but we're still nailing down a date. If you are interested in volunteering to help us organize that con then please contact us at info@necsscon.org. And I'll also point out that the DVDs for the 2009 NECSSCon are available for purchase from the [http://necsscon.org necsscon.org] website. So take a look.<br />
<br />
S: Well, thanks for joining me again this week guys.<br />
<br />
J: You're welcome.<br />
<br />
E: Thank you, doctor.<br />
<br />
B: Thanks, Steve. Have a good night.<br />
<br />
S: And until next week this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.<br />
<br />
{{Outro119}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --><br />
<br />
{{Page categories<br />
|Alternative Medicine = y<br />
|Astronomy & Space Science = y<br />
|Cons, Scams & Hoaxes = <br />
|Conspiracy Theories = <br />
|Creationism & ID = <br />
|Cryptozoology = <br />
|Energy Healing = <br />
|Entertainment = <br />
|ESP = <br />
|General Science = <br />
|Ghosts & Demons = <br />
|History = y<br />
|Homeopathy = <br />
|Humor = <br />
|Legal Issues & Regulations = <br />
|Logic & Philosophy = y<br />
|Myths & Misconceptions = <br />
|Nature & Evolution = <br />
|Neuroscience & Psychology = y<br />
|New Age = <br />
|Paranormal = y<br />
|Physics & Mechanics = <br />
|Politics = <br />
|Prophecy = <br />
|Pseudoscience = <br />
|Religion & Faith = <br />
|Science & Education = <br />
|Science & Medicine = <br />
|Science & the Media = <br />
|SGU = <br />
|Technology = y<br />
|UFOs & Aliens = <br />
|Other = <br />
}}</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_257&diff=5622SGU Episode 2572013-01-28T21:29:37Z<p>Geneocide: /* Announcements */ transcribed</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all |transcriber = Geneocide }}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 257<br />
|episodeDate = 14<sup>th</sup> June 2010<br />
|episodeIcon = File:amityvilledemoboy.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-06-14.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=257<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,28802.0.html<br />
|qowText = Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Monday, June 14<sup>th</sup>, 2010 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey everyone. How are you doing tonight?<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: Quite well.<br />
<br />
E: Good.<br />
<br />
S: No Rebecca tonight because we are on the lead up to TAM recording schedule. We going to have a little bit of a weird recording schedule the next few weeks and Rebecca was not available tonight and she has no internet access.<br />
<br />
J: That's because her and Sid bought a house.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: She hasn't been able to get internet and cable, I guess, to the house yet.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. But it's a big secret. Don't tell anyone, folks.<br />
<br />
S: They're moving into a new flat. Is it still a flat if it's a house?<br />
<br />
B: No. Wait wait, no, a flat's an apartment, isn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Are they moving into a house house, or is it like a condo or what is it?<br />
<br />
J: I think it's a house house.<br />
<br />
S: But no cable yet.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, if she has a house, that means she has a basement which means she could run a haunt in her house.<br />
<br />
B: Not necessarily. Florida houses don't have basements but that's because of the water table.<br />
<br />
J: Well, no. If she's in England she has a root cellar.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: Which is even creepier.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:19)</small> ==<br />
E: Well, on this day in 1648 Margaret Jones was hanged in Boston for witchcraft. The first such execution for the Massachusetts colony.<br />
<br />
S: How many people were killed?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they didn't stop with Margaret. It was 20 people.<br />
<br />
S: Were executed.<br />
<br />
E: We executed for witchcraft.<br />
<br />
J: Wow. And we got off lucky. Didn't&ndash;in Europe wasn't it a much bigger phenomenon in Europe?<br />
<br />
S: A conservative number is around 60,000 deaths directly attributable to the witch hunts.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Depending on how you count it. There were 20 people executed in Salem. 19 hung and that one guy, Giles Corey was crushed to death cause he refused to enter a plea.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Hayabusa Returns <small>(2:02)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100613/ts_afp/spacejapanaustraliaasteroidsreturn_20100613204620 <br />
<br />
possible replacement: [http://www.space.com/8592-japanese-asteroid-probe-historic-return-earth.html Space.com: Japanese Asteroid Probe Makes Historic Return to Earth]<br />
--><br />
S: Well Bob, tell us about Hayabusa returning to Earth.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this is pretty cool. I totally forgot about this guy but this is an interesting story. The Japanese space agency known as JAXA, Jay-Ay-Ex-Ay, completed a mission recently to bring a sample of an asteroid back to Earth. This is something that's never been accomplished before and regardless of what happens there has never been a spacecraft that touched down on an asteroid and then came back to Earth. So regardless if they even brought anything back with them this was a first. Like I said, the only real question that remains as of the taping of this podcast anyway is whether the canister they retrieved in Australia has any asteroid. If you remember back in 2003, JAXA's Hayabusa craft began a 2 year journey to an asteroid named Itokawa and I wish I could say the mission went swimmingly but I can't. The craft really experienced some nasty technical difficulties. It seems likes throughout the whole way, or at least through a lot of it. They just kept hitting problem after problem. They even had some&ndash;some solar flair even messed up with it's power source so the energy that it had was less than they had anticipated and some of the biggest failures, though, was they had this metal ball that they would shoot&ndash;or they planned on shooting at the asteroid to collect rock samples and that failed. And then there was another mechanism, which they were planning on using to stir up the dust around the lander on the asteroid and that failed as well to collect any samples. So you might think that it was a total bust but the real hope at this point is that they hope that the dust that stirred up during the landing kind of just was swirling around and entered the canister&ndash;the collection canister so that's really all their hope is on that.<br />
<br />
S: So they really don't know if there's going to be anything in that canister. <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, they have no idea at this point. It doesn't look good to me.<br />
<br />
J: Is it on it's way back to Earth or it can analyze it.<br />
<br />
B: It came back to Earth. The craft burned up in the atmosphere but it ejected this heat protected canister which landed at the Woomera Protected Area which is a restricted military zone in south Australian desert. Now some conspiracy hypothesists may say that in reality this whole 7 year mission was a subtle attempt to get access to this restricted military zone. But, ya know, I'm just saying.<br />
<br />
J: Look at that. It landed in Area 51. Could we go get it?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Yeah.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: But, being silly, but I want to congratulate JAXA, though. Even if there's no sample which would really be nasty, but even if there's no sample, it was a great effort that tested lots of new technologies, like, for example, sampling and retrieval, electrical propulsion, autonomous navigation. So lots of interesting new technologies and this really was a test bed. Problems like this are to be expected.<br />
<br />
J: At this point any kind of space exploration is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: In the time when we're worried that it's all gonna go away and dry up&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm really happy to hear about stuff like this.<br />
<br />
B: That's true. But you really got to hand it to JAXA, though, because they relentlessly attacked every difficulty that arose creatively solving problems, and according to some people it was Apollo 13 in scale in terms of how difficult these problems were.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: But granted, lives were not on the line, but still they had to go through a lot. On the way home they lost half of their engines kicked out and they had to figure out how to get home with only half the engines running so they did an amazing job.<br />
<br />
J: I don't like you comparing it to Apollo 13 because it being unmanned is one thing and the other thing was they got those people back to Earth safely with an enormous amount of effort. Nothing can match that.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I'm not comparing it and I did kind of say that not in terms of the lives but in terms of creative problem solving it was similar. Some people are comparing it.<br />
<br />
J: Well, if they make a movie about it I might believe it then.<br />
<br />
S: Cause it's not real unless Hollywood does a movie about it.<br />
<br />
B: As you can imagine this is a huge, huge news story in Japan. They're really playing it up. It's all over the place, cause this is&ndash;it's quite a feat. Regardless of what happens this is a first, so that's great. If they have a sample, even better, cause you learn lots of things about the solar system&ndash;because we don't have&ndash;think about it&ndash;the material we have from asteroids really is just meteorites, right, that have landed on the earth and they've gone through the atmosphere. They're not the same.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When you come through the atmosphere&ndash;they're not the same.<br />
<br />
E: Burn, yeah. Stuff burns away and, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: This will be pristine. This will be pristine rock and that will be invaluable.<br />
<br />
J: Do you guys think that one day we will park satellites in orbit and just mine them?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah. Mine asteroids?<br />
<br />
E: You mean bring them into a close orbit and then we send up vehicles and stuff to start plowing them for their platinum and all they're goodies?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. And how about&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
J: One thing that I remember thinking about when I was younger, why not put it in the same orbit that the earth is in, but just behind the earth. Would that mean that it would have to be the same size as the earth, though, in order to be in the same orbit?<br />
<br />
B: The velocity would be very different then. It couldn't have the same velocity because the mass would be so different, so, at some point, it would intersect with the earth. So I don't think that would work, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: You would need something to constantly regulate it's distance from the earth, right?<br />
<br />
S: You put it at a Lagrange point and it will sit there.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There ya go. Problem solved.<br />
<br />
S: A Lagrange point is a&ndash;if you have a map, a three dimensional map of the gravitational fields of the earth and the sun, for example, or any large body orbiting another large body, then those fields hit a pit, or they dip to a minimum. So anything that is at those points it's like being at the bottom of a hill, it's stuck there and it won't move away so it's actually fixed in position relative to the earth. So it would be perfect for something that we want to put someplace and have it stay there in terms of it's relationship to the earth.<br />
<br />
J: It's kind of like drafting, right?<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Come on, a little bit.<br />
<br />
S: But to complete that discussion there are a total of 5 Lagrangian points. One in the orbit of, lets say the earth, in front of it. One behind the earth in it's orbit. One on the opposite side of Earth's orbit. One between the earth and the sun and one outside the orbit on a line between the earth and the sun but farther than the earth. So five points total. A few of which would be pretty close. But also, there are asteroids that are said to quote unquote "stalk" the earth. For example, recently discovered the 2009 BD. It's not stationary with respect to the earth but it does&ndash;cause it interacts with the earth's gravity and it's not at a Lagrangian point, but it does get close to the earth and will sort of corkscrew around the earth's orbit and stay very close to use for a while and then maybe drift away and come back in it's orbit. It's got a very weird orbit but it does stay close to the earth.<br />
<br />
=== Einstein's Brain <small>(9:22)</small>===<br />
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305&ps=cprs NPR: Einstein's Brain Unlocks Some Mysteries Of The Mind]<br />
<br />
S: Jay, tell us about the amazing adventure of Einstein's brain.<br />
<br />
J: So this is a very interesting story. Before I get into the story let me just ask you guys a few questions. One, what makes you think Einstein was so smart? What was it about his brain that makes him smart? Some things that I'm sure most skeptics have heard was that, "Einstein used 10% of his brain where the regular person only uses 2 or 2.5%." You guys have heard of that, right?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, course.<br />
<br />
E: Or something similar to it, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's only be debunked about a million times on the internet and elsewhere, I believe, in our publication.<br />
<br />
E: Of course. That's what my phrenologist says.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: Here's one that is less common, but I've also heard and I believe I also used to think about this when I was younger and not knowing much about the brain but another thing that people think is that Einstein's brain had more hills and valleys on the exterior part of his brain.<br />
<br />
S: Sulci and gyri?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. So, that's basically the shape of the brain on the outside that makes it look like a brain. All those hills and valleys and little bumps and stuff that are on the outside of somebodies brain.<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: But, Steve, you said at one point that that does not mean you're smarter, correct?<br />
<br />
S: Well, not comparing one individual to another. There's too much variation to say that but that certainly is true when you compare species. The&ndash;what those do&ndash;what the gyri and sulci do&ndash;if you imagine the layers of the cortex and then fold it upon themselves like a ribbon that's what forms that structure and what the essentially does is it increases the surface area of the brain. So it's just a way of squeezing more computational surface area into a smaller three dimensional space which was obviously important to the evolution of our bigger, juicier brains. But you can't compare person A to person B and go, "Oh, he's got to be smarter because his brain looks smarter on an MRI scan. He's got more sulci." Doesn't work that way.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, why not also fill in the valleys between the hills? Between the gyri or the sulci or whatever they are?<br />
<br />
S: They're squished together. It's not significant.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
S: I mean, when you get old and your brain shrivels up and atrophies then you see expanded sulci and spaces but&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Your brain really shrivels up, huh?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, doesn't that suck?<br />
<br />
J: What the hell?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but Steve, I thought the idea, though, behind that was that they're not sure if the brain is really truly atrophying really, hugely, impacting cognition or is it just paring away the unessential parts of the brain that really aren't needed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, like motor skills and deep thinking.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: Barring, of course, dementia. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right Bob?<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's a complicated question. First of all those are not mutually exclusive cause both those things could be occurring at the same time. The pruning hypothesis where it's just cutting back neurons were sitting there waiting to be recruited but they haven't been, so they just go away at some point, but even still you imagine that there's fewer neurons around to be recruited so&ndash;after 50 or so we do start to lose our capacity to learn new things. We lose our flexibility. At least most of us. Some people really don't and they're brains don't atrophy as much, either.<br />
<br />
J: Bastards.<br />
<br />
S: So, some people genetically are built for more neurological longevity. But, yeah, you can't&ndash;I don't think it's accurate to say that there's no relationship between the atrophy of the brain as we age and the loss of cognitive ability. There absolutely is a relationship but it's complicated and we're not sure exactly what it is.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, it's not a black and white issue. It's more of a grey matter.<br />
<br />
B: Oh.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, wow, Evan, really?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright, so guys, let me continue. It's basically a story that I'm going to quickly tell everyone and then we'll discuss it.<br />
<br />
B: Alright.<br />
<br />
E: I love stories. Okay. I'm ready.<br />
<br />
J: So this man, named Thomas Harvey&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
E: Harvey.<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
J: and he&ndash;he actually performed the autopsy on Einstein at Princeton. Now this back in&ndash;Now this was when, '55 I believe Einstein died?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, around there.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. So, this is what the article said. The article said that during the autopsy routine the brain would be removed, examined, and then put back in the person's body for burial. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Which, by the way&ndash;we don't do that today. I don't know&ndash;that sounds odd. We don't put the brain back in the head. You take it out, you put it in a jar of formaldehyde and pickle it for 2 weeks, so that you can slice it up and look at it. Cause otherwise it's too much like jelly. You can't really slice into it. So that bit of that story certainly is not what's done today.<br />
<br />
J: Well maybe he took it out&ndash;cause it did say that he did put it in formaldehyde&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Well that's routine. That's routine.<br />
<br />
J: He was preparing it. He kept it out for the amount of time necessary and then instead of putting it back after the examination of the brain he kept it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, I think probably what happened is normally you would take it out, you pickle it for 2 weeks then you do what's called brain cutting. You slice it all the way through and you look for pathology and you look for the structures and whatnot and that's it. Then slides get filed away and the rest of it get thrown out, gets discarded as medical waste. Or, or, what can happen, sometimes the family may request that every last scrap of material gets returned and gets buried with the body.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. I'm sure that's&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: That happens sometimes, too. In fact, that happens even with&ndash;sometimes people will donate their body to science and their body will be dissected by medical students. Sometimes those bodies are just cremated. Other times everything's got to be put back&ndash;you don't put it back together but basically all bundled up and then sent back to the family to be buried or whatever they want to do with it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: That is a typical Jewish custom. I don't know how religious or close Einstein was to strict Jewish customs but I can tell you that that is Jewish customs. You bury as much of the remains as you possibly can.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So he probably&ndash;he held back the brain. He didn't do with it whatever was normally supposed to happen to it.<br />
<br />
J: No. He stole it. That's what happened.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. He stole it. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Brain thief.<br />
<br />
B: I'm going to donate my body to science fiction.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright. Continuing on&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: You stole that joke from somebody.<br />
<br />
J: So Thomas Harvey, because of what he did, because he kept Einstein's brain, he lost his job. Which seems to be the appropriate thing to take place.<br />
<br />
E: Bad trade.<br />
<br />
S: Cause that was unethical. What he did.<br />
<br />
J: And during that process he claimed that Einstein's son, Hans, gave him permission but that claim was denied by the family.<br />
<br />
S: What about Frans?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So, as I'm reading through this I realize, of course, hindsight being 20/20, I don't disagree with what the guy did. I think it was obvious to him at the time that there was something important about Einstein's brain and it should be studied further. Shouldn't just be thrown away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It kind of makes you wish that somebody at NASA thought that about the moon landing footage. <br />
<br />
B: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: "Ya know, I'm going to put this aside and not put it&ndash;file it with the rest of the tapes that are going to get erased and reused."<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Or, "Lets make a couple of backups, just in case. Or put it somewhere else. I don't know."<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Anyway.<br />
<br />
J: I've really gotta&ndash;let me sprint to the finish guys.<br />
<br />
B: Thanks for reminding me.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, go ahead.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. So I mentioned that I don't disagree. What Thomas Harvey wanted was he wanted neuro-anatomists to analyse Einstein's brain and see if they could find something out about it that we didn't know about the human brain before and that was his goal but as the story goes&ndash;so 40 years passes and then a writer named, Paterniti, he heard about all these events that we just went through and he decided that&ndash;I guess he wanted to write about what had taken place so he tracks down and finds Harvey. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Did he sue him?<br />
<br />
J: No. This guys an author.<br />
<br />
S: So he didn't give him a Paterniti suit?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god. You're on a roll tonight, Steve.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Any who, so, he tracks down Harvey, gets into a long conversation with him and, I guess, between the conversation and the two of them going back and forth they mutually decide the brain should be returned to Einstein's family and, I guess they new at the time that his granddaughter Evelyn was still alive so they wanted to return it to her. So Paterniti drives to Harvey's house, he described Harvey as bringing out Einstein's brain in a Tupperware jar. In a Tupperware container.<br />
<br />
E: Tupperware.<br />
<br />
J: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. That would seal in the freshness, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So the two of them planned to drive across the country from New Jersey all the way to California where the granddaughter lived. I guess they conversation had continued during this drive and Paterniti found out that Einstein had indeed&ndash;I'm sorry, that Harvey had indeed been sending out Einstein's brain when samples were requested he would take the samples and send them to neurologists across the globe. So, when saw the brain in the Tupperware container it had been cut up. It was sliced up. So, Harvey sent 3 different samples to a scientist named Marian Diamond and she had contacted Harvey years earlier and requested samples from 3 different parts of Einstein's brain and he did end up shipping them to her but he ended up shipping them to her in an old mayonnaise jar.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Okay? Not making this up.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: This was around 1980. She studied the samples. She found that Einstein's brain had normal amount of neurons but he had a higher than normal percentage of a different kind of brain cell and that cell was called a glial cell. That increase in glial cells was found especially in the parts of the brain that involved imagery and complex thinking, so that definitely made Diamond realize, "Well, this is very curious. Let me look into it." But first, Steve, why don't you tell us what a glial cell is.<br />
<br />
B: Support cells, aren't they?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's the other kinds of cells in the brain other than neurons and they are&ndash;yeah, for many years we thought they were basically support cells.<br />
<br />
B: Like structural cells.<br />
<br />
S: Not just structural but they create the friendly environment for the neurons. <br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right, they're there keeping the neurons alive and happy while the neurons are doing their job of remembering and calculating and stuff.<br />
<br />
B: Kind of like the Remora around sharks.<br />
<br />
S: I guess.<br />
<br />
J: So, at the time&ndash;<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Diamond was now asking questions like, "Well, why would there be more of these cells here if they're really just support cells? What's the significance of there being more of them here?" And it was a very odd idea at the time to think that glial cells had anything to do with Einstein's intelligence. Being that the cells were thought to be there for perhaps structural integrity perhaps there to just be, like Steve said, like more support cells than actual cells that were there for thinking. Alright, so now we go forward another 10 years and another researcher named Steven J. Smith published a paper that changed the perception of and understanding of the brain because what he did was&ndash;he was studying neurons and he was also studying these glial cells and he speculated that glial cells also were a part of the communication that happened within the cell and that also these cells weren't only communicating chemically but they were communicating with electricity in the manner that neurons communicate. And then he kept on fleshing out his idea and he also said that these glial cells could possibly be picking up communication between neurons&ndash;neurons are communicating with each other, glial cells would be listening in on this communication and then sending that data to other parts of the brain. So he came up with this idea that the brain&ndash;it's another way that the brain could be communicating internally. Which at the time was a profound idea. They though, at the time, that only neurons were doing the heavy lifting and that even though there was a ton of other cells in the brain that they didn't think really were doing anything. Neurons were it, but once they realized, "You know what? These glial cells might actually be doing complex things like be involved in learning and memory and ideas that we have of like what does it mean to be a genius. Glial cells might have something to do with high end thinking." So, once that started that started to really open up new ideas and that started a whole different school of thought. So then yet another scientist named, Doug Fields, he reproduced Smith's research and confirmed that it was actually valid. And, at one point, Doug Fields wrote, "Now we can see scores of ways in which astrocytes could be involved in many cognitive processes." And now it's not so crazy to find that there were abnormally high numbers of astrocytes in the parts of Einstein's brain involved in imagery and mathematical ability and that sort of thing. So, that was a pretty huge milestone and a huge leap forward in our understanding of the human brain. So in 2007, Harvey died. He really didn't know that him taking Einstein's brain, actually through these steps and through these different people actually lead to a move forward in our understanding of the riddle of the mind, but it seems that he actually did have something to do with it. And, Einstein's granddaughter didn't end up wanting her grandfather's brain so Harvey, before he died, he returned the brain back to the pathology department at Princeton, where it is today.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, can you only find out the number of astrocytes by cutting into a brain or is there a way to test it while you're still alive?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you can estimate it just by knowing what the density of astrocytes are and then calculating it by volume but if you want to look at an individuals astrocyte density, yeah, you gotta stain it. You gotta cut into it.<br />
<br />
J: So, Steve, could you just take a little&ndash;take a biopsy of somebody's brain and test it that way?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. You could.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think you could do&ndash;really?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Why not?<br />
<br />
E: Well, are you supposed to be biopsying the brain for this kind of testing purposes. It's really more for diseases.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you wouldn't do this. You wouldn't do that. You wouldn't biopsy a humans brain just out of curiosity but we do it for diagnostic purposes but it's got to be worth while to the person.<br />
<br />
E: Right. There's got to be something going on that you're looking for the answer for a cure or something.<br />
<br />
B: Risk benefit.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if they&ndash;I know it's not uncommon&ndash;brain surgery happens all the time. They open up people's skulls. They literally get in there with tools and go deep into the brain and remove tumors and do things like that. Cognitively if you did take someone's skull off, or a portion of the skull, and just cut out, say a jelly bean sized piece of the brain, under the idea that the person isn't going to bleed to death or whatever, just removing a piece of the brain then putting the skull piece back and letting the person heal. What would they lose from losing a portion of the brain that size?<br />
<br />
B: Depends. It depends on the portion.<br />
<br />
E: Lobotomi&ndash;You're lobotomizing a person at that point.<br />
<br />
B: It totally depends. My guess would be that either it's totally unnoticeable or you'd be completely debilitated.<br />
<br />
S: Bob's right. It completely depends on which jelly bean piece of brain you take out.<br />
<br />
B: Take the hypothalamus and you're f'd.<br />
<br />
S: For example, the right frontal lobe is largely redundant and you could do a lot of stuff to that without producing and noticeable deficits. <br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: And, in fact, when surgeons have to go into the brain they prefer to do the non-dominant frontal lobe because it's mostly redundant, but, you take out language cortex and you can make somebody completely lose their ability to speak, for example.<br />
<br />
B: It'd be like a stroke, Jay. It'd be like a stroke.<br />
<br />
J: But even a piece that small? <br />
<br />
S: If it's critical, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So there is one place in your brain that a certain type of functionality is happening and there's parts of your brains which is just storage for memory, there's parts of your brain that is doing something like processing what you see or what you hear. So you're better off losing a little portion of your memory than you are like a major piece of functionality, of course, but, I thought it was more evenly distributed.<br />
<br />
S: No. No no. It's not and it's also&ndash;memory's pretty evenly distributed but functions are localized and there's also&ndash;it's not just how localized it is it's how redundant it is. If something's really lateralized to one side you only have one piece of your brain that's doing that thing then you don't want to lose that. If you have bilateral redundancy then obviously you can afford to lose one cause the other side will make up for it. So, yeah, it depends on a lot of things. Interestingly, when reading through science news items this week&ndash;just this week was a study published by Swedish researchers from the University of Gothenburg and they were looking at astrocytes, which are a form of glial cells, and their effects on neuronal connections and function and essentially what they found is that the astrocytes are modulating the strength of the signalling between the neurons. Now, they basically are effecting how those synapses between neurons change over time. So what that means is is that the astrocytes might actually be directly involved in the formation of memories and plasticity of the brain and learning. Which, again, is just further evidence for their greatly enhanced role in actual memory function of the brain, not just, again, as support cells. So that research is ongoing and that was a huge shift in our thinking about the role of astrocytes.<br />
<br />
=== Largest Radio Telescope Array <small>(27:49)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.86c1ac9d54a51fd47b845663527a077d.1191&show_article=1 --><br />
<br />
S: Well lets go on. We have another bit of astronomy news, Bob, you're going to tell us about the largest radio telescope ever.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. This one's a quickie. This is the biggest radio telescope in the world and it was recently unveiled by scientists in the Netherlands. It's called LOFAR which stands Low Frequency Array. I think we touched upon this a while back. It consists of a whopping 25,000 small antennas and they're real tiny. They range in size from 50 centimeters to about 2 meters across. So they're not very big at all. And they're all spread out all over, not only the Netherlands, but also Germany, Sweden, France and Britain. And it's pretty cool. This thing is really going to do some amazing work I predict. Femke Beckhurst of the Netherlands Radio Astronomy Institute said, "Today we have launched the biggest radio telescope in the world. When you combine all the antennas you get a giant telescope with a diameter of about 1,000 kilometers," which is about 600 miles so that's pretty big. And it takes some nifty software to actually take all those separate signals and stitch them together. They're actually using a supercomputer to do some of that work. It's the Blue Gene P supercomputer which is a petaflop class supercomputer. So it's pretty fast. So with these observations that this radio telescope, or, I guess you can call it radio telescopes&ndash;So, the observations that they're going to be able to make with this&ndash;they're going to learn about the origin of the universe and some people are saying that they'll be able to go to the moment right after the big bang. Other&ndash;some other key science projects for LOFAR are what they call the epoch of re-ionization which is basically when the universe turned on. When things became. Also, things like ultra high energy cosmic rays which are a bit of a mystery, such as the one we mentioned&ndash;we mentioned one such cosmic ray a while back called the Oh My God Particle in 1991 which is probably the most energetic cosmic ray ever detected which was so powerful&ndash;imagine it was a subatomic particle with the energy of a baseball travelling at 60 miles an hour. Imagine, you get hit with one proton and it knocks you on your butt like it was a baseball travelling 60. So, amazingly fast. We're not sure what could have imparted so much energy to such a tiny thing. It was travelling so close to the speed of light it was essentially just a whisker&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But to clarify, it wouldn't really knock you on your butt, right? It would just go right through you.<br />
<br />
B: No. It's too tiny. Right. It is too tiny and it could do some damage, though, if it happened to hit the right, whatever in your body, DNA or something.<br />
<br />
E: Well, what if it hit a computer or something? It would really screw that up.<br />
<br />
B: That's a lot of kinetic energy. I don't know where&ndash;how all the kinetic energy would be transferred. Would it be transferred into heat. Would it fly right through? Probably&ndash;it might just fly right through.<br />
<br />
S: Or maybe it will smash through several particles on its way.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. It might hit&ndash;if hit's something squarely it could start a cascade so I think if it's just right it could actually&ndash;it could be noticeable. But there's other things&ndash;the solar science and space weather, cosmic magnetism, so I'm sure this thing is going to be used for a really long time and hopefully maybe even get even bigger.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob, what's the difference between the moment of the Big Bang and the moment of first illuminosity, I think is the word you used?<br />
<br />
B: Well, I believe it was 100,000 years or 1,000 years, it was a lot of time before things calmed down enough. Things were just so energetic that light&ndash;any photons that might have been generated were just bouncing around all over the place and they really couldn't settle down and just take a straight line any direction so there's nothing to see if you look back in visible light there's nothing to see cause all the photons are just kinda bouncing around. But also this epoch of re-ionization&ndash;that's kind of a different term than I'm used to. They refer to it as when things became luminous so I think it depends on&ndash;are they talking about the first stars, the first galaxies, the first quasars?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
B: If that's what they're talking about then that would actually be after what I'm talking&ndash;what I've just mentioned which is also called photon decoupling. So actually this epoch is a little bit different. I think it's later on.<br />
<br />
E: It's just amazing that they can make that distinction or make the determination that so much&ndash;however much time it is happened between the two.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: You think of the Big Bang&ndash;certainly in a visual display you're watching some show on TV that kinda of describes it and it's an intense white spot of light from the get go. At least that's how the depict it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But they always give you the impossible perspective of being outside the universe when the Big Bang happens.<br />
<br />
B: Space time, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But that's not a possible perspective. So it's kind of misleading.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A little.<br />
<br />
S: And a lot of that is&ndash;evidence is theoretical. They're just well what should have happened if you have the mass of the universe at a point and then what would happen over time? Based upon the temperatures and what things are like at those temperatures. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: But maybe this large radio telescope will help fill in those gaps.<br />
<br />
B: Some of them.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully.<br />
<br />
B: If it can actually get close to the moment after the Big Bang then absolutely it will be able to do&ndash;it will illuminate us in many ways.<br />
<br />
E: Very cool.<br />
<br />
J: I still don't get the concept that when the Big Bang took place&ndash;like, where it was specially in reality. You can't go to that space&ndash;that place in outer space because it doesn't really&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Sure you can. Wherever you go, there you are.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, geez. Really, Bob?<br />
<br />
E: It happened everywhere&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: It's true. It's true. It's everywhere. You can't point to it because it's not one specific spot. It's everywhere.<br />
<br />
J: Well, it didn't happen right here.<br />
<br />
E: It might have.<br />
<br />
S: Every part of the universe was at that point, Jay, at that time.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, so, meaning that the universe is growing in size.<br />
<br />
S: Of course. But it's like&ndash;if you do the two dimensional analogy, it's like blowing up a balloon. Where was it before you blew it up? Well it's&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: How&ndash;right. Try to explaining to a two dimensional creature on that balloon where&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: It was in the package.<br />
<br />
J: where the center is.<br />
<br />
S: You'd have to point into the 4th dimension.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
J: I can't picture it.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Amityville Horror House for Sale <small>(34:11)</small>===<br />
[http://www.theness.com/roguesgallery/?p=1676 Rogue's Gallery: Amityville Horror House for Sale]<br />
<br />
S: So, the Amityville Horror House is back in the news.<br />
<br />
E: And it's back in the news because its up for sale.<br />
<br />
S: Sale. That's right. For what? 1.5 million?<br />
<br />
E: 1.15 million dollars.<br />
<br />
B: In this market?<br />
<br />
J: I know. Isn't that crazy?<br />
<br />
S: You can own a piece of paranormal history.<br />
<br />
B: But, is that price kind of crazy for the neighborhood because the house is famous?<br />
<br />
E: I don't know. I imagine that has something to do with it. They said they'd done a lot of renovations recently on the house. So&mdash;Look, I imagine the main factor, like any other piece of property is&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Location.<br />
<br />
E: comparable&mdash;yeah, location and comparable houses for sale in the area.<br />
<br />
S: But here's my question. Now, typically, if a house is alleged to be haunted or if a murder took place there it's considered psychologically damaged and that actually reduces the value of the house. But in this case it's famous for being psychologically damaged, so does that increase the value of the house?<br />
<br />
E: Or do the two equal each other out?<br />
<br />
S: The balance out?<br />
<br />
E: The negative and positive balance out.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So, there were a series of murders there in 1974. Ronald DeFeo Sr., his wife, Louise, their two sons and two daughters were shot while they slept in the home and the one remaining family member alive, Ronald, nicknamed Butch DeFeo, he confessed to the murders and is serving a life sentence in prison. And then just a few weeks after the sentencing of Butch, George and Kathy Lutz and their three children moved into the home where a new round of supposed horrors began. Muwahaha. Well, not really.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about them.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, there was supposedly all sorts of things happening in this house. They reported sightings of&mdash;well, the kids reported sightings of animals, mostly a pig named Jody. A sculpted lion came to life and supposedly walked around the house.<br />
<br />
S: Cool.<br />
<br />
E: A demonic boy appeared. It was photographed and you can find that famous photograph online. Kind of looks like a regular boy but that's beside the point. And other strange things in the house. Oh, green slime oozed from the walls. Crucifix on the wall was constantly rotating until it left itself upside down and, needless to say, 28 days after they moved in&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: 28 days later.<br />
<br />
E: 28 days later. Good one Steve. The Lutz's fled.<br />
<br />
S: What about the&mdash;you forgot about the hell-mouth. It's a gaping mouth to hell in their basement.<br />
<br />
J: Wait. Wasn't that in Poltergeist.<br />
<br />
E: That was another movie, I think.<br />
<br />
B: No. No no no. <br />
<br />
E: You're right, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: It's the red room.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It was a red room, which in the movie they kind of made it seem like it was the road to hell or something.<br />
<br />
E: Now there was one small problem with all of these paranormal happenings. They never really happened. It was a story&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: It was fake.<br />
<br />
E: The whole thing was fake. However, that didn't stop famous demonologist and psychic investigator&mdash;paranormal investigator Ed Warren and his wife Loraine from investigating the matter and deeming that house to be one of the most haunted places in the world.<br />
<br />
S: Right. Right after their basement.<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Their basement in Monroe, Connecticut #1, Aminityville #2.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Right. It was fake. And now it's up for sale.<br />
<br />
E: It is. So&mdash;if you've got dollars burning a whole in your pocket&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: You might want to go get a piece of history.<br />
<br />
S: The people who bought the house after the Lutz's complained that they had to deal with the paranormal tourists bothering them day in and day out. Gawking at the house and everything. So&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So much so that they had to change the address of the house.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So it really was psychologically damaged for them, cause it came with all the tourists.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm looking at a picture of the demon boy.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: It's a little boy.<br />
<br />
S: With no eyes.<br />
<br />
J: Well, the eyes are whited out so it looks kind of creepy. Photo could have been doctored.<br />
<br />
E: Could have been a dozen things, right, other than a demonic boy from hell.<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:46)</small>==<br />
S: Well, thanks for that, Evan, and why don't we go on to Who's That Noisy?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. For those of you who forgot here is last week's Who's that Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: And then I began to study back&mdash;the relationships between the elements for plants and they are different as the elements for humans. Because Cali and Forswore are actually the friends of each other in the homeopathic material magica for humans, but in plants these two substances are each other's enemy.</blockquote><!-- The Cali and Forswore are just going phonetically. I couldn't understand what he said. --><br />
<br />
S: Mm hmm.<br />
<br />
E: Mm hmm. So, you learned a little bit about homeopathy in that clip.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Two substances&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or not.<br />
<br />
S: Two substances which are enemies in plants are friends in people. Or animals.<br />
<br />
E: Bet you didn't know that before.<br />
<br />
J: So who is that guy?<br />
<br />
E: That is V. D. Kaviraj. A homeopath of some repute and the reason I actually found this person is because I was watching a Youtube video of our&mdash;well, friend, Mr. Benneth&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Who had this fellow as part of an interview so I thought that would make a rather interesting Noisy, last week.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And, not only did someone get it correctly but they actually also went ahead and found the clip from which I clipped it so if you go onto our message boards and [[SGU_Episode 256 | Episode 256]] you can actually take a look and listen for yourself to the entire interview and bring some coffee cause you with otherwise fall asleep.<br />
<br />
S: You don't want your brain to explode. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Exactly. So, NoWoo, en-oh-double you-oh-oh, from the message boards guessed correctly. Congratulations. Well done.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. What have you got for this week, Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. And here is this weeks Who's That Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: Does the shade<!-- what? --> give you the authority you need to take dangerous products off the shelves? And the answers always yes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
E: That's a short one this week.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Thanks Evan.<br />
<br />
E: But I think there's enough information in there for someone to get it. So, be the first one to guess correctly. Good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Ev.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Soy <small>(41:02)</small>===<br />
S: We have time for a few e-mails this week. The first one comes from Michael Wilson from Prescott, Arizona and Michael writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Steve - You made the offhand comment that there are "serious concerns" that soy milk is producing an estrogen type hormonal effect. I am a vegan bodybuilder who drinks a quart of soy milk everyday. I am concerned your offhand comment will scare people away from switching to a healthier milk alternative with no saturated fat. I've looked in the past when people have made these claims, and all I can find is that there may be some very mild effect, but nothing that rises to the level of your "serious concern" comment. If there was, there would be serious estrogen related issues throughout Asian countries. Since you felt it necessary to scare people away from soy by telling them about the "serious concerns" science has with soy milk, I hope you will provide the research on you next show that proves soy milk causes serious estrogen like effects. I do love the show, and I thank everyone for the time and effort you guys put into it every week. <br><br>Michael Wilson Prescott, AZ</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So, Michael's referring to two weeks ago when we had Pamela Gay and Frazier Cane on when&mdash;I can't remember what we were talking about but the notion of estro&mdash;the notion of&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Pamela said she drink soy milk and then we got onto the discussion.<br />
<br />
S: She drinks soy milk. Yeah, so I was razzing her a little bit about the fact that not everything is perfectly safe. You could find concerns about anything and in fact there are concerns about the estrogen like effects of soy milk. But it was an off hand comment, but I do think it's good for follow up to see what the evidence actually shows. The concerns are raised by the fact that soy contains isoflavones which have an estrogen effect. It's hormonally active and therefor that creates that plausibility that it could have some actual clinical effects in people and there are various populations in which it has been studied. So, one group are women who&mdash;are women in general, especially women who have had breast cancer. The question is do the estrogens increase the risk of breast cancer or if you have breast cancer does it worsen the outcome. The answer to that question appears to be no. So the evidence so far is pretty solid that there's no negative effect for women with breast cancer. In fact one review I read said that there may in fact be a small beneficial effect because it may competitively block the effects of women who have high estrogen levels. So there it's either no effect or maybe a small beneficial effect in a subset of women. The bigger concerns are with men, though, because obviously estrogen is a feminizing hormone and the question is does&mdash;do the estrogen effects of isoflavones in soy milk have a feminizing effect on men? So far the research does not show any such effect. What about the reproductive effects on men? Here, we have animal data which shows that there is a negative effect. This is where the biggest concerns are. And these concerns are that we haven't done enough research to really know what the net effects are in people. So we have animal data that shows some concern but not really sufficient human data to rule out that there may be a negative effect on the reproduction of men. The final group are infants, especially since there is a soy based infant formulas. And here there were several reviews in the last couple of years. Some saying there's really no proven effect. Other reviewers saying that, again, there is concern that there maybe some hormonal effects on infants and that&mdash;and essentially where the reviewers agree is that the research is not adequate to rule out a significant effect. Therefor if you want to be cautious you may avoid using soy based infant formulas until more research is done to show that there isn't any significant effect. Estrogen like effect. So that's where we are. I do think it's fair to say that there are concerns. Nothing is proven. And while some of those concerns have been ruled out by research there are others, specifically reproduction in men and in infants where we don't have enough research to really say that they're safe. My take is that it's probably a very weak effect. I would be surprised if the research ultimately showed that there was a strong effect, but those are the areas where the research is not yet sufficient to confidently say that there isn't a potential effect.<br />
<br />
B: But also&mdash;but this guy, Steve, if you're&mdash;if you're not an infant and you're beyond&mdash;you've already had your kids and you're done with kids, then it would be even less of a concern?<br />
<br />
S: That's right. And if you're a woman, there's basically no concern.<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Cursed Cell Phone Number <small>(45:50)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>The cursed cell phone number Thought you guys might like this story of truly stupid superstitious thinking that misses the glaringly obvious. <br />
<br><br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7763578/Mobile-phone-number-suspended-after-three-users-die-in-10-years.html Telegraph: Mobile phone number suspended after three users die in 10 years]<br />
<br>Danforth France Glendale, CA</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Jay, you're gonna tell us about the cursed cell phone number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. This is really silly to be honest with you.<br />
<br />
B: It's silly.<br />
<br />
E: Silly.<br />
<br />
J: It's just one of those story where there's a string of coincidences that could make certain people think certain things but, basically there was a phone number that was given out. And I don't know if this is the real number but it seems like it isn't because it's a seri&mdash;it's 0-888-888-888&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: So, that's the number. I mean, my understanding from reading is that's the number that they suspended.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. Could be. Now, isn't the number 8 unlucky somewhere?<br />
<br />
B: No. It's lucky in Asian cultures. Isn't 8&mdash;8 is lucky, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: 4 is unlucky.<br />
<br />
S: 4 is unlucky cause it sounds like death.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: 4 is unlucky. 8 is&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So, here's the quick one two. The first person who got it, he was the former CEO of a Bulgarian mobile phone company. His company issued him the number.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: He died of cancer in 2001 at 48 years old. After he died some rumors came out that his cancer had been caused by a business rival using radioactive poisoning. I find that unlikely, but, okay. Take that away. Let's just say that guy died. It's horrible. Died of cancer in 2001. 48 years old. That was horrible. The second that got the number was a Bulgarian mafia boss. There's a couple of things that mafia bosses do really well. They kill, and then they get killed.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
J: Right? So this guy was gunned down in 2003 by an assassin.<br />
<br />
B: What are the odds?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: A mafia killing? What?<br />
<br />
J: Then the number went to another guy who was described as a crooked business man and he was gunned down outside of an Indian restaurant in Bulgaria. So since then the number was retired because the police are investigating and all this stuff, but, there's the idea that the number is cursed or unlucky&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Or jinxed.<br />
<br />
E: It's your unlucky number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's been&mdash;the number has been touched by evil and anyone who gets it is gonna get killed. So I'm thinking&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Anyone mob related who touches it will get killed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's pretty clear to see&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or crime related.<br />
<br />
J: through this. It's not that big of a coincidence that a bunch of people that were involved in very dangerous and crazy criminal activity are getting killed. <br />
<br />
B: But if a number becomes available&mdash;is it more likely that the number became available because somebody dumped the number or because somebody died? Because I'm never gonna want to lose my number today.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I don't know. Now that people have personal phone numbers. Yeah. Probably people hold on to them for life. Even if you change carrier, right? You can take your number to another carrier.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Now you can. I don't know if you could in early 2000&mdash;2003. I don't know if you could during that time period. So, anyway, the reason why we bring up this story was not just because somebody wrote in about it but we thought it was a quick and easy example of a series of events strung together to make a story where there really isn't a story or a connection.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. There's a few ways you can look at this. One is it's not that big a coincidence that 3 people with the same number die in the short period of time. Just taking the number of phone numbers out there, I'm sure that happens a lot just by coincidence. Right? I mean it would be surprising if that never happened. This is a little different because these people were high profile and the number's unusual. It's&mdash;you could of it as a very desirable number because it's all 8's. It's the kind of number you get if you work for the phone company like the CEO or you're a mob boss, I guess. Right? They're not going to give it to just some guy. And these&mdash;two of these three people were at high risk for dying so that makes it even less of a coincidence that this kind of number is going to go to the kind of people who may be in risky businesses. But then you also think of it from the phone companies point of view. Obviously the notion that the number itself is jinxed is magical thinking and it's ridiculous but from a business marketing point of view, do they want to hand this number over to somebody else and then what if something happens to that person or even&mdash;they may just get upset if they find out that the phone company assigned them a quote unquote "jinxed" number. You know what I mean? Probably just fewer headaches for the phone company if they just get rid of it, even for a while. You know what I mean? You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. It's a numbers racket.<br />
<br />
J: That's a good job, boys. It's good work, boys.<br />
<br />
=== Magic Bee Juice <small>(50:27)</small>===<br />
S: The next one comes from David Gardner from Osaka, Japan. And David writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>One of the branches of the company I work for in Japan has started selling Propolis as a means to make more money in a bad economy. This branch has repeatedly tried to get me to buy some of this magic bee juice. Many of my Japanese co-workers have taken the bait. They are putting bee juice in their drinks and swallowing magic bee juice pills. When I ask them if they feel any better, they all say they aren’t sure. Hmm… I think the company I work for has a snake oill division. Do you know of any scientific evidence that shows any benefit to taking Propolis? All the information I found say that Propolis may contain lead and other garbage bees pick up while flying around the city. Thank you for your time. <br><br>David Gardner Osaka, Japan </blockquote><!-- shouldn't we fix the "aren't" that's all messed up? --><br />
<br />
S: Well, do you guys now what Propolis is?<br />
<br />
B: Nope.<br />
<br />
J: No.<br />
<br />
E: It's the star in the sky that doesn't rotate.<br />
<br />
S: It's magic bee juice. This is&mdash;So, bees make a variety of things. This is the gooey, sticky stuff that bees use to hold together their nests. They largely pick it up&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Oh. The honey comb?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so, yeah. But it's not just wax. I guess this is even stronger structural stuff that they use&mdash;it's like the glue that they use to hold it together and its&mdash;they'll pick up the sap from coniferous trees. Resins. It sounds nasty. It doesn't sound like the kind of stuff you would want to eat. I mean the bees don't eat it. It contains phenolics, aromatic compounds, volatile oils and terpenes. But even worse that that, as the bees fly around our modern society they're not just picking up resins from pine trees. They're also picking up lead paint. They're picking up caulking.<br />
<br />
B: Yum.<br />
<br />
S: They're picking up road tar and other things.<br />
<br />
E: Fecal material.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. They're picking up all kinds of nasty stuff and mixing it all together with these resins and terpenes and they're using that to glue together their nests and then&mdash;and idiots are taking that stuff and eating it.<br />
<br />
E: Now, when you say idiot&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: It's glue like?<br />
<br />
S: It's sticky. If you get the sap off a pine tree&mdash;it's like that.<br />
<br />
E: That's awful.<br />
<br />
S: Now, of course, it contains a lot of chemicals, right? As you might imagine&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: It's all natural.<br />
<br />
S: Sure. And if you look at those chemicals those chemicals do stuff. The body's going to react to those chemicals. Actually, probably the most common reaction is an allergic dermatitis and when I looked up Propolis on PubMed most of the specific references to it and people were to&mdash;this allergic dermatitis.<br />
<br />
E: Is this the same allergic reaction people have when they get a bee sting?<br />
<br />
S: No. No. It's different. This is more just a contact dermatitis. The skin gets red and bee stings can have more of a systemic reaction. That's where it becomes a problem, as opposed to just a rash. So, there's no research in humans showing any beneficial effects. It's all extrapolating wildly from just nonspecific&mdash;or just reactions that happen to some chemical that you can find in this stuff. There some animal data that it does stuff, but there's nothing that really can be used to base any kind of medicinal claims. So this really is snake oil. And apparently it's been around for hundreds of years. This is nothing new. It's just an idea that crops up every now and then.<br />
<br />
E: Here. Eat this bee waste byproduct.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's bee waste. It is bee waste.<br />
<br />
E: Bee waste.<br />
<br />
S: Pretty much everything that bees make somebody has decided to sell as snake oil. Pollen, royal jelly, and even bee venom. You guys have heard&mdash;I've talked about bee venom therapy.<br />
<br />
E: Bee venom therapy, sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. For, multiple sclerosis and arthritis and things like that. Pretty much everything. The only thing that bees make that has real medicinal value is honey and only if you put it topically on your wound.<br />
<br />
E: Or on toast.<br />
<br />
J: I love honey.<br />
<br />
E: I love you too, honey.<br />
<br />
B: Never spoils.<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Personality Tests <small>(54:41)</small> ==<br />
S: Well, we actually have a Name that Logical Fallacy this week.<br />
<br />
B: Ooo.<br />
<br />
E: Ooo. Queue the music.<br />
<br />
S: This is a question that comes from some guy called Mike Lacelle in Canada.<br />
<br />
J: Who is he?<br />
<br />
E: That a funny name.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know. Some bald guy.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: And Mike wants to know&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: But despite that&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: And Mike will be at TAM this year, by the way.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, this guy's gonna be at TAM?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Oh. I can't wait to meet him.<br />
<br />
B: I'm not going now.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: I'll see you there Mike.<br />
<br />
S: Mike writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Steve, I'm trying to figure out the difference between the Incorrect Cause fallacy and the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy? Skepticwiki is telling me that Post Hoc is a type of Incorrect Cause Fallacy, but I'm just not getting the difference. They seem to be one and the same. Any help would be appreciated. I'm trying to complete a 5x5 recording we did a few months ago and I'm recording a missing part which was about the "Incorrect Cause" fallacy. The topic of the 5x5 was Chemtrails and it seems to me that the Post Hoc fallacy would work better here.<br><br> Mike Lacelle Canada </blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So, this is an interesting one. The Incorrect Cause Fallacy is actually a category of logical fallacies.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There's lots of&mdash;and the Post Hoc is just a sub-category of it.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly. It's one type. <br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: It's any fallacy where you are making an invalid inference as to cause and effect. That's the Incorrect Cause Fallacy. My&mdash;I had a couple back and forths with Mike and he was saying that if you invoke the wrong cause for something just because your information is incorrect is that an incorrect cause fallacy and the answer to that is no. It doesn't me that you're just mistaken about what causes what, that's just a false premise, it's that the logical inference is incorrect, cause that's what a logical fallacy is. So, in the Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc Fallacy, you're concluding that B is caused by A ''because'' B follows A. That's where the invalid logic comes in. You're reaching the conclusion not because you just have a mistake belief but because you think that the fact that it comes after it is how you know that it's being caused by it.<br />
<br />
B: Right. So it's more sequential, whereas the Incorrect Cause Fallacy&mdash;it could be&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Is anything.<br />
<br />
B: It could be after. It could be anything.<br />
<br />
E: It could go any direction.<br />
<br />
B: They could happen at the same exact time. Could be AB instead of A followed by B. Could be at the same time or even&mdash;or other variations. So that's the main distinction as I see it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And it's not even restricted to temporal but&mdash;another common Incorrect Cause Fallacy is the&mdash;assuming causation from correlation as you're saying.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: They're correlated in some way, not because, necessarily, one follows the other but they could just be happening together more frequently or at the same time and then you assume that they're happening together because one is causing the other when, in fact, there are many relationships that possible. You cannot infer a specific causal relationship. Often people, however, say that&mdash;and I hear people say this, or write this, all the time, that correlation does not imply causation and that's incorrect. I ''does'' imply causation. It just does ''equal'' causation.<br />
<br />
B: Right. Right.<br />
<br />
S: Sometimes correlations occur because there ''is'' causation and it is&mdash;it certainly does imply that. It's one piece of evidence, but in order to make a specific causal conclusion you have to line up multiple correlations. Other examples of this would include the Complex Cause Fallacy, where maybe there are multiple causations but you pick one out and say that's ''the'' cause.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's a very common one, right? <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: We all sort of unconsciously do that all the time where we tend to think simplistically in terms of one cause for things when in fact many complex things will have multiple causes that are not mutually exclusive.<br />
<br />
J: And it's not just one cause. It could also be the most interesting cause has got to be it, too, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: We're so drawn to the one thats&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: That's interesting or&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: sexy.<br />
<br />
S: ''or'' the one that confirms our prior beliefs and ideology.<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Ah, confirmation bias.<br />
<br />
S: Then there's the Regression Fallacy. This is where you assume cause and effect because of what ultimately regression to the mean. Here's an example. Appearing on the cover of ''Sports Illustrated'' is a curse that will cause them to have a bad season or a bad game or whatever following that.<br />
<br />
E: I've heard that before, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. The ''Sports Illustrated'' curse. But that can be explained by regression to the mean.<br />
<br />
B: Right. They were on the cover in the first place because they might&mdash;they just happened to have, say, and exceptional season, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: And then of course the regression to the mean has got to kick in at some point, you would think, and then it's like, "Oh, damn. Bad luck."<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. They had their best game, their best season, whatever. That gets them on the cover and any extreme is likely to be followed by something closer to the mean. The regression to the mean.<br />
<br />
J: That's very similar to the Droning On Fallacy where skeptical enthusiasts just keep talking about logical fallacies over and over again.<br />
<br />
S: Jay, I'm not familiar with that one.<br />
<br />
E: I'm not either. Hey, here's another logical fallacy.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:07)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, what you're say Jay, is that you want to move on to Science or Fiction. Is that what you're saying?<br />
<br />
J: It's time for Science or Fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. We'll kick in the real music.<br />
<br />
VO: It's time for Science or Fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items of facts, two genuine and one fictitious and then I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Are you guys ready for this week?<br />
<br />
B: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: You can't make me play. Alright I'll play.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Here we go.<br />
<br />
*[http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots.<br />
<br />
Jay, go first.<br />
<br />
J: Well, okay, so I think that&mdash;the laser&mdash;the dark laser one that takes heat away from an object that it's focused on&mdash;that seems a little shifty to me. I don't see how&mdash;I wasn't aware that laser light had a temperature, either. I never really thought about that. And the second one about the comets that&mdash;coming from other solar systems. You know, I think that one's the fake.<br />
<br />
S: The comets?<br />
<br />
J: Mm hmm.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Evan?<br />
<br />
E: The dark laser is interesting. Taking heat away from an object on which it's focused. How exactly is it doing that? I absolutely don't know. Is it a laser at that point? Light&mdash;It's a beam of light that takes heat away from objects on which it's focused? That's fascinating. That's the most fascinating of these three. The one about the comets originating from other solar systems&mdash;I&mdash;seems very plausible. I guess you could argue that nothing is original in this solar system and that everything came from another place somewhere else. Other explosions. Other events that occur on a regular basis. So I think that one's rather plausible. I don't know why it's necessarily a new analysis, though. The last one was the five fold increase in the growth of rice plants. Alright, so you have a fungus on the rice plant. You manipulate the genetics of the fungus and it increases the yield times five. Boy I think the comets one is correct. I'm between this dark laser and this fungus. I'm just going to have to guess at this point. I'm going to say the fungus one is the fiction. I think that's wrong.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Bob?<br />
<br />
B: The comet one&mdash;yeah, that's unusual. You've got the Oort Cloud&mdash;big huge cloud of comets. It was always pretty much assumed or stated directly that they were just part of the solar system. The fact that they could have been captured or from another solar system is news to me. I could see it. I could see how perhaps we&mdash;we did capture them but we're talking billions of comets out there. That's an interesting one. So you increase the yeild of rice by manipulating the genetics of the fungus growing on their roots. That's makes perfect sense to me. Who knows, perhaps the fungus were siphoning off nutrients that would have been going to the rice and so you cut back on their take of the nutrients and so more goes to the rice, less goes to the fungus so you've got greater growth. That's totally plausible and actually and awesome application of genetic manipulation. How valuable will that be? It's almost too good. The first one&mdash;the dark laser&mdash;an endothermic laser&mdash;I just&mdash;I know a little bit about lasers. I just can't imagine off the top of my head how it's going to be taking away heat. I mean you're focusing radiation on an object. Perhaps you're knocking away&mdash;you're somehow knocking away the most energetic molecules or atoms and you're lowering the average temper&mdash;temperature. Kinda like&mdash;I think that similar to evaporation cooling. But still&mdash;I can't decide between that and the fungus. <br />
<br />
E: I'm in the same boat.<br />
<br />
B: I can kind of make an argument and I hope the fungus one is true and I'm going to say that the laser one is fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. So you guys are evenly divided.<br />
<br />
J: Guess so.<br />
<br />
B: Doesn't happen very often.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. So, I guess I'll take these in order. [http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused. And I should mention that NIST stands for the National Institutes of Standards and Technology.<br />
<br />
B: Science.<br />
<br />
S: And also that Dark Laser was a character from&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Ha! Yes. Timmy.<br />
<br />
S: Timmy Turner, yeah. Fairly Odd Parents.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: And that one is, the fiction.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah baby.<br />
<br />
S: Good job, Bob. And yeah, I did take it from another story. So that's one if you had read the headline only you might have gotten sucked into it but if you actually read the article then&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I dug deeper.<br />
<br />
S: So, yeah, I couldn't find anything about an endothermic laser so I figured I was safe, for that. But who knows.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I think you are.<br />
<br />
S: What the story is about a dark pulse laser. Now a pulse laser is a laser where they are pulses of increase in brightness. This is a dark pulse where there are pulses of decreases in brightness. So you have a laser humming along and then at certain intervals there are drop outs, essentially, of the brightness of the laser. And they were able to make these ultra short pulses, just 90 picoseconds, or trillionths of a second. They think this device could be very useful for communication. So this could have a lot of applications. So interesting.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Another way&mdash;I think another way to look at it, Steve, is that before this they would&mdash;when information was coming, when they would encode information, when they pulsed the laser&mdash;and that was kind of like the information and then there would be a pause. And then they would pulse more information and that would basically be the information. But this is the opposite.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When the light's hitting it's considered no information but when there's nothing coming then that's considered&mdash;the thrust of the information which&mdash;that's kind of odd but that's kind of how I took it.<br />
<br />
S: Right. No, I think so but&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: So opposite&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: The advantage is that they can pulse it much faster with much smaller pulses. I think that's&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Right. Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: why this approach may have some advantages. Right.<br />
<br />
B: And there's also because&mdash;if you get down to picoseconds they're getting so brief&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: so incredibly brief that&mdash;yeah. That seems like an awesome idea.<br />
<br />
S: Let's go to [http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems. That one is science. <br />
<br />
E: Yeah. Right.<br />
<br />
S: And this is a computer simulation. This one's actually been around for a couple days so figured some of you might have read it but&mdash;what essentially what astronomers did&mdash;this is Hal Levison, Martin Duncan from Queen's University, in Kingston, Canada and Ramon Brasser from France and David Kaufmann&mdash;what they did is they were investigating mainly through computer simulations the formation of our sun. Now, our sun formed in a stellar nursery, like most stars do, right? So when the star first formed it was surrounded closely by a lot of other stars but eventually when some of those stars went supernova it blew away a lot of the gas clouds and what pretty much ended the stellar nursery and the suns went their own way. But while they were still close together, what they surmise is that large planets in those systems would routinely fling out any small objects, like comets, into basically a cloud of interstellar space, right, among all these stars in the nursery. And that&mdash;when the stars went their own way they would just capture a random assortment of these interstellar comets and take them with them, cause they just got captured by that star's gravity. Right? So that may be why we have this cloud of comets around our sun. They were just all captured from this bigger cloud that was permeating this cluster of young stars in the stellar nursery. Does that make sense?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but so many? So many of them. I've heard estimates up in the billions.<br />
<br />
S: Why not? Why not? Basically all the stars were sharing their comets into one massive Oort Cloud and then&mdash;until our sun went its own way and just captured a bunch of them and took them away.<br />
<br />
B: That's pretty cool.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So this obviously needs empirical confirmation. Right now it's just a computer model, but it's an interesting idea. It would mean&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Good luck.<br />
<br />
J: They're like a light-year away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: They are far away. Pretty much by definition the farthest outskirts of the solar system.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But it would&mdash;and wouldn't that make sense, Bob, that that something so far out was simply captured by nearby stars?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And, Evan, to clarify, you said that everything is eventually from other stellar systems and that's true of a second generation star. By definition everything in our solar system was in a&mdash;previously in another solar system, but these were&mdash;when we say that comet came from another solar system that means after it condensed down into a comet. Not just the raw material that went into it but after it was already comet. Then it got captured.<br />
<br />
E: I gotcha.<br />
<br />
S: Just to clarify that one point.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: And lets go on to [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots and that one is also science.<br />
<br />
B: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Let me clarify a couple of things also that you guys said.<br />
<br />
J: Wait, can you hear Bob gushing cause he won this one?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: He's like, "Wheh&mdash;Cool! Yeah!"<br />
<br />
S: Jay, he's coming off a&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Jay.<br />
<br />
S: He's coming off a two weeks in a row losing so he's just happy it wasn't three in a row.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Jay, you have no idea what that's like, Jay.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh, I really don't. I really have no idea.<br />
<br />
S: So, Bob, both you and Evan if I remembered&mdash;if I heard correctly said that the yield of the rice increased by five fold but I didn't write or say that. It's the growth of the rice plants.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah. Okay.<br />
<br />
E: So the size&mdash;that actual physical size of the grain.<br />
<br />
S: Or the rate of growth. It said growth so that's what I wrote. It specifically did not say yield.<br />
<br />
B: Yield shpield.<br />
<br />
S: Yield is what we're interested in, though, right? So I don't know how that translates into yield. The other caveat that wasn't part of what I said was that this was done in a greenhouse, so not in rice paddies. So this was just in a lab&mdash;greenhouse somewhere.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah. Start there but you can kind of export&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well yeah, but just to say&mdash;we have to know how it translates into a completely natural environment.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah. Yeah. Details.<br />
<br />
S: Now, but Bob, you got the effect of the fungus backwards. This is a fungus&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
S: This is a fungus that actually increases the growth of the plant. It does not detract from it.<br />
<br />
B: Oh. Wow.<br />
<br />
S: And how do you think it does that?<br />
<br />
B: Really? It supports it. It's a symbiotic relationship then. It supports it and &mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's supplying nutrients to the rice.<br />
<br />
B: You let me use your roots and I'll get you some good juice.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, basically it supplies phosphate. That's what it does. Which is a very limiting nutrient for plants. The fungus is mycorrhizal species. This specific species is <i>Glomus intraradices</i> and this has some very interesting genetics in that one filament of this fungus can contain many genetically distinct nuclei. So basically different assortments of its own genes in different parts of itself. So they were abe&mdash;it was not genetic engineering, it was just genetic manipulation. They were just using techniques to choose which subset of the genes of this fungus they were going to express and they were able to find an assortment that provided a lot more phosphate to the rice roots and actually&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Well how'd they select it? Was it just&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: The report was vague on the details but it made it sound like cultivation. Yeah, they&mdash;just breeding and cultivation. No genetic engineering. And anyway, they found one genetic version of this fungus that increased the growth of the rice plants by five fold. Very interesting. Which I thought was huge. But again I don't know how that will translate ultimately to yield. But think about that. That's a very interesting application.<br />
<br />
B: Perhaps they will be able to have two growing seasons.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Who knows.<br />
<br />
B: Right. So ultimately hopefully it will increase the yield.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And this report says that rice is the most important crop globally. Food crop. We think&mdash;over here we eat a lot of rice, but we also eat a lot of wheat and other things but in other parts of the world rice is it. It's very important. Yeah. <br />
<br />
E: That's it. That's all you get.<br />
<br />
S: Important food staple.<br />
<br />
B: I just hope that this works out so well that everybody on the planet kind of eating this rice. Next thing you know we're all turning to zombies.<br />
<br />
S: Zombie rice?<br />
<br />
B: That'd be cool<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. That'd be cool.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Jay, how come you're not gushing over this week's science or fiction results?<br />
<br />
J: I'm not unhappy. I really actually don't care if I win or lose. Just that I learn.<br />
<br />
B: Apparently.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:14:40)</small> ==<br />
S: Jay, can you give us a quote this week?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Oooh, dang.<br />
<br />
J: Hey, Steve. How you doing? Alright, so I have different&mdash;I tried to mix it up. I found a bunch of quotes that are stupid things that perhaps not so stupid people said.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: You gonna tell us the quotes first and then the people?<br />
<br />
J: Yes, I will. Well, I'm not going to shout out these people's names because they don't deserve it.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: I'm not regaling them with "you're awesome." I'm going to just call them silly, stupid, ignorant, whatever. Ready? <blockquote>Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction.<br>-Pierre Pachet</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Ah, Pier.<br />
<br />
J: He was a professor of physiology at Toulouse in 1872. Next one,<br />
<blockquote>We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy.<br>-Simon Newcomb</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
J: That was said by Simon Newcomb, astronomer, 1888.<br />
<br />
B: Whoa.<br />
<br />
J: <blockquote>Heavier than air flying machines are impossible.<br>-Lord Kelvin</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Kelviiin. Kelvin, by the way, can I go on a little side thing here, Kelvin&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Please.<br />
<br />
S: also thought that the earth could only be like 100 million years old because of the temperature of the earth. He was one of those guys who was brilliant but because so arrogant that he started to say stupid things about other disciplines outside of his specialty and that's why we end up quoting him 100 years later.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but Steve, I think&mdash;it's funny you should say that one because I think&mdash;I remember reading a story about that one and I think he did hedge his bets a bit. When Kelvin said that he kind of said, "Well, you know, unless there's another source of energy the earth is so many years old," which is in effect exactly why&mdash;he wasn't aware of radioactivity.<br />
<br />
S: Yes. That's exactly right.<br />
<br />
B: If there was no radioactivity the earth would be just solid rock at this point.<br />
<br />
S: But the hubris was&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: in him thinking that his thermodynamic calculations trumped the entire field of geology.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: Meanwhile he&mdash;it was because he didn't know about radioactive decay heating the earth. So that's the cautionary tail. What else Jay. What else you got for us?<br />
<br />
J: Okay. I got&mdash;this one was from H. M. Warner from Warner Brothers, 1927. And he said,<br />
<blockquote>Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?<br>-H. M. Warner</blockquote><br />
<br />
B: Oh.<br />
<br />
J: And then I can't leave the bad taste in everybody's mouth so this is a quote from Winston Churchill.<br />
<blockquote>Man will occasionally stumble over the truth but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it, and carry on.<br>-Winston Churchill</blockquote><br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Winston Churchill!<br />
<br />
S: He was the goods.<br />
<br />
B: He rocked.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, he was one of my favorites.<br />
<br />
J: These quotes that I brought up, I picked people that probably were not stupid or considered stupid and this might be assuming too much but they were respected for one reason or another, seemed to be very knowledgeable in their fields but yet they can make incredibly ridiculous statements like these. It's easy for us to say that cause we're looking back.<br />
<br />
S: We actually quoted Steve Pinker at one time saying this, that making predictions about the future is an invitation to look stupid. Right? That if you're going to make pronouncements like, "This is impossible," "This will never happen,"&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: You're asking for it. Unless you're really sure you know what you're talking about.<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.</blockquote> <!-- the quote as read by Jay was different, should see if we can find a source to find the real quote --><br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS Con <small>(1:18:11)</small> ===<br />
S: Just one quick announcement this week. We are already organizing the NECSSCon 2011 in the spring of 2011. This will be probably around the end of April, but we're still nailing down a date. If you are interested in volunteering to help us organize that con then please contact us at info@necsscon.org. And I'll also point out that the DVDs for the 2009 NECSSCon are available for purchase from the [http://necsscon.org necsscon.org] website. So take a look.<br />
<br />
S: Well, thanks for joining me again this week guys.<br />
<br />
J: You're welcome.<br />
<br />
E: Thank you, doctor.<br />
<br />
B: Thanks, Steve. Have a good night.<br />
<br />
S: And until next week this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.<br />
<br />
{{Outro119}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_257&diff=5621SGU Episode 2572013-01-28T21:21:45Z<p>Geneocide: /* Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:14:40) */ transcribed, Churchill quote unresolved</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all |transcriber = Geneocide }}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 257<br />
|episodeDate = 14<sup>th</sup> June 2010<br />
|episodeIcon = File:amityvilledemoboy.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-06-14.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=257<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,28802.0.html<br />
|qowText = Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Monday, June 14<sup>th</sup>, 2010 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey everyone. How are you doing tonight?<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: Quite well.<br />
<br />
E: Good.<br />
<br />
S: No Rebecca tonight because we are on the lead up to TAM recording schedule. We going to have a little bit of a weird recording schedule the next few weeks and Rebecca was not available tonight and she has no internet access.<br />
<br />
J: That's because her and Sid bought a house.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: She hasn't been able to get internet and cable, I guess, to the house yet.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. But it's a big secret. Don't tell anyone, folks.<br />
<br />
S: They're moving into a new flat. Is it still a flat if it's a house?<br />
<br />
B: No. Wait wait, no, a flat's an apartment, isn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Are they moving into a house house, or is it like a condo or what is it?<br />
<br />
J: I think it's a house house.<br />
<br />
S: But no cable yet.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, if she has a house, that means she has a basement which means she could run a haunt in her house.<br />
<br />
B: Not necessarily. Florida houses don't have basements but that's because of the water table.<br />
<br />
J: Well, no. If she's in England she has a root cellar.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: Which is even creepier.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:19)</small> ==<br />
E: Well, on this day in 1648 Margaret Jones was hanged in Boston for witchcraft. The first such execution for the Massachusetts colony.<br />
<br />
S: How many people were killed?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they didn't stop with Margaret. It was 20 people.<br />
<br />
S: Were executed.<br />
<br />
E: We executed for witchcraft.<br />
<br />
J: Wow. And we got off lucky. Didn't&ndash;in Europe wasn't it a much bigger phenomenon in Europe?<br />
<br />
S: A conservative number is around 60,000 deaths directly attributable to the witch hunts.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Depending on how you count it. There were 20 people executed in Salem. 19 hung and that one guy, Giles Corey was crushed to death cause he refused to enter a plea.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Hayabusa Returns <small>(2:02)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100613/ts_afp/spacejapanaustraliaasteroidsreturn_20100613204620 <br />
<br />
possible replacement: [http://www.space.com/8592-japanese-asteroid-probe-historic-return-earth.html Space.com: Japanese Asteroid Probe Makes Historic Return to Earth]<br />
--><br />
S: Well Bob, tell us about Hayabusa returning to Earth.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this is pretty cool. I totally forgot about this guy but this is an interesting story. The Japanese space agency known as JAXA, Jay-Ay-Ex-Ay, completed a mission recently to bring a sample of an asteroid back to Earth. This is something that's never been accomplished before and regardless of what happens there has never been a spacecraft that touched down on an asteroid and then came back to Earth. So regardless if they even brought anything back with them this was a first. Like I said, the only real question that remains as of the taping of this podcast anyway is whether the canister they retrieved in Australia has any asteroid. If you remember back in 2003, JAXA's Hayabusa craft began a 2 year journey to an asteroid named Itokawa and I wish I could say the mission went swimmingly but I can't. The craft really experienced some nasty technical difficulties. It seems likes throughout the whole way, or at least through a lot of it. They just kept hitting problem after problem. They even had some&ndash;some solar flair even messed up with it's power source so the energy that it had was less than they had anticipated and some of the biggest failures, though, was they had this metal ball that they would shoot&ndash;or they planned on shooting at the asteroid to collect rock samples and that failed. And then there was another mechanism, which they were planning on using to stir up the dust around the lander on the asteroid and that failed as well to collect any samples. So you might think that it was a total bust but the real hope at this point is that they hope that the dust that stirred up during the landing kind of just was swirling around and entered the canister&ndash;the collection canister so that's really all their hope is on that.<br />
<br />
S: So they really don't know if there's going to be anything in that canister. <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, they have no idea at this point. It doesn't look good to me.<br />
<br />
J: Is it on it's way back to Earth or it can analyze it.<br />
<br />
B: It came back to Earth. The craft burned up in the atmosphere but it ejected this heat protected canister which landed at the Woomera Protected Area which is a restricted military zone in south Australian desert. Now some conspiracy hypothesists may say that in reality this whole 7 year mission was a subtle attempt to get access to this restricted military zone. But, ya know, I'm just saying.<br />
<br />
J: Look at that. It landed in Area 51. Could we go get it?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Yeah.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: But, being silly, but I want to congratulate JAXA, though. Even if there's no sample which would really be nasty, but even if there's no sample, it was a great effort that tested lots of new technologies, like, for example, sampling and retrieval, electrical propulsion, autonomous navigation. So lots of interesting new technologies and this really was a test bed. Problems like this are to be expected.<br />
<br />
J: At this point any kind of space exploration is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: In the time when we're worried that it's all gonna go away and dry up&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm really happy to hear about stuff like this.<br />
<br />
B: That's true. But you really got to hand it to JAXA, though, because they relentlessly attacked every difficulty that arose creatively solving problems, and according to some people it was Apollo 13 in scale in terms of how difficult these problems were.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: But granted, lives were not on the line, but still they had to go through a lot. On the way home they lost half of their engines kicked out and they had to figure out how to get home with only half the engines running so they did an amazing job.<br />
<br />
J: I don't like you comparing it to Apollo 13 because it being unmanned is one thing and the other thing was they got those people back to Earth safely with an enormous amount of effort. Nothing can match that.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I'm not comparing it and I did kind of say that not in terms of the lives but in terms of creative problem solving it was similar. Some people are comparing it.<br />
<br />
J: Well, if they make a movie about it I might believe it then.<br />
<br />
S: Cause it's not real unless Hollywood does a movie about it.<br />
<br />
B: As you can imagine this is a huge, huge news story in Japan. They're really playing it up. It's all over the place, cause this is&ndash;it's quite a feat. Regardless of what happens this is a first, so that's great. If they have a sample, even better, cause you learn lots of things about the solar system&ndash;because we don't have&ndash;think about it&ndash;the material we have from asteroids really is just meteorites, right, that have landed on the earth and they've gone through the atmosphere. They're not the same.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When you come through the atmosphere&ndash;they're not the same.<br />
<br />
E: Burn, yeah. Stuff burns away and, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: This will be pristine. This will be pristine rock and that will be invaluable.<br />
<br />
J: Do you guys think that one day we will park satellites in orbit and just mine them?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah. Mine asteroids?<br />
<br />
E: You mean bring them into a close orbit and then we send up vehicles and stuff to start plowing them for their platinum and all they're goodies?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. And how about&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
J: One thing that I remember thinking about when I was younger, why not put it in the same orbit that the earth is in, but just behind the earth. Would that mean that it would have to be the same size as the earth, though, in order to be in the same orbit?<br />
<br />
B: The velocity would be very different then. It couldn't have the same velocity because the mass would be so different, so, at some point, it would intersect with the earth. So I don't think that would work, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: You would need something to constantly regulate it's distance from the earth, right?<br />
<br />
S: You put it at a Lagrange point and it will sit there.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There ya go. Problem solved.<br />
<br />
S: A Lagrange point is a&ndash;if you have a map, a three dimensional map of the gravitational fields of the earth and the sun, for example, or any large body orbiting another large body, then those fields hit a pit, or they dip to a minimum. So anything that is at those points it's like being at the bottom of a hill, it's stuck there and it won't move away so it's actually fixed in position relative to the earth. So it would be perfect for something that we want to put someplace and have it stay there in terms of it's relationship to the earth.<br />
<br />
J: It's kind of like drafting, right?<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Come on, a little bit.<br />
<br />
S: But to complete that discussion there are a total of 5 Lagrangian points. One in the orbit of, lets say the earth, in front of it. One behind the earth in it's orbit. One on the opposite side of Earth's orbit. One between the earth and the sun and one outside the orbit on a line between the earth and the sun but farther than the earth. So five points total. A few of which would be pretty close. But also, there are asteroids that are said to quote unquote "stalk" the earth. For example, recently discovered the 2009 BD. It's not stationary with respect to the earth but it does&ndash;cause it interacts with the earth's gravity and it's not at a Lagrangian point, but it does get close to the earth and will sort of corkscrew around the earth's orbit and stay very close to use for a while and then maybe drift away and come back in it's orbit. It's got a very weird orbit but it does stay close to the earth.<br />
<br />
=== Einstein's Brain <small>(9:22)</small>===<br />
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305&ps=cprs NPR: Einstein's Brain Unlocks Some Mysteries Of The Mind]<br />
<br />
S: Jay, tell us about the amazing adventure of Einstein's brain.<br />
<br />
J: So this is a very interesting story. Before I get into the story let me just ask you guys a few questions. One, what makes you think Einstein was so smart? What was it about his brain that makes him smart? Some things that I'm sure most skeptics have heard was that, "Einstein used 10% of his brain where the regular person only uses 2 or 2.5%." You guys have heard of that, right?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, course.<br />
<br />
E: Or something similar to it, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's only be debunked about a million times on the internet and elsewhere, I believe, in our publication.<br />
<br />
E: Of course. That's what my phrenologist says.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: Here's one that is less common, but I've also heard and I believe I also used to think about this when I was younger and not knowing much about the brain but another thing that people think is that Einstein's brain had more hills and valleys on the exterior part of his brain.<br />
<br />
S: Sulci and gyri?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. So, that's basically the shape of the brain on the outside that makes it look like a brain. All those hills and valleys and little bumps and stuff that are on the outside of somebodies brain.<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: But, Steve, you said at one point that that does not mean you're smarter, correct?<br />
<br />
S: Well, not comparing one individual to another. There's too much variation to say that but that certainly is true when you compare species. The&ndash;what those do&ndash;what the gyri and sulci do&ndash;if you imagine the layers of the cortex and then fold it upon themselves like a ribbon that's what forms that structure and what the essentially does is it increases the surface area of the brain. So it's just a way of squeezing more computational surface area into a smaller three dimensional space which was obviously important to the evolution of our bigger, juicier brains. But you can't compare person A to person B and go, "Oh, he's got to be smarter because his brain looks smarter on an MRI scan. He's got more sulci." Doesn't work that way.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, why not also fill in the valleys between the hills? Between the gyri or the sulci or whatever they are?<br />
<br />
S: They're squished together. It's not significant.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
S: I mean, when you get old and your brain shrivels up and atrophies then you see expanded sulci and spaces but&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Your brain really shrivels up, huh?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, doesn't that suck?<br />
<br />
J: What the hell?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but Steve, I thought the idea, though, behind that was that they're not sure if the brain is really truly atrophying really, hugely, impacting cognition or is it just paring away the unessential parts of the brain that really aren't needed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, like motor skills and deep thinking.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: Barring, of course, dementia. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right Bob?<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's a complicated question. First of all those are not mutually exclusive cause both those things could be occurring at the same time. The pruning hypothesis where it's just cutting back neurons were sitting there waiting to be recruited but they haven't been, so they just go away at some point, but even still you imagine that there's fewer neurons around to be recruited so&ndash;after 50 or so we do start to lose our capacity to learn new things. We lose our flexibility. At least most of us. Some people really don't and they're brains don't atrophy as much, either.<br />
<br />
J: Bastards.<br />
<br />
S: So, some people genetically are built for more neurological longevity. But, yeah, you can't&ndash;I don't think it's accurate to say that there's no relationship between the atrophy of the brain as we age and the loss of cognitive ability. There absolutely is a relationship but it's complicated and we're not sure exactly what it is.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, it's not a black and white issue. It's more of a grey matter.<br />
<br />
B: Oh.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, wow, Evan, really?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright, so guys, let me continue. It's basically a story that I'm going to quickly tell everyone and then we'll discuss it.<br />
<br />
B: Alright.<br />
<br />
E: I love stories. Okay. I'm ready.<br />
<br />
J: So this man, named Thomas Harvey&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
E: Harvey.<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
J: and he&ndash;he actually performed the autopsy on Einstein at Princeton. Now this back in&ndash;Now this was when, '55 I believe Einstein died?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, around there.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. So, this is what the article said. The article said that during the autopsy routine the brain would be removed, examined, and then put back in the person's body for burial. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Which, by the way&ndash;we don't do that today. I don't know&ndash;that sounds odd. We don't put the brain back in the head. You take it out, you put it in a jar of formaldehyde and pickle it for 2 weeks, so that you can slice it up and look at it. Cause otherwise it's too much like jelly. You can't really slice into it. So that bit of that story certainly is not what's done today.<br />
<br />
J: Well maybe he took it out&ndash;cause it did say that he did put it in formaldehyde&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Well that's routine. That's routine.<br />
<br />
J: He was preparing it. He kept it out for the amount of time necessary and then instead of putting it back after the examination of the brain he kept it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, I think probably what happened is normally you would take it out, you pickle it for 2 weeks then you do what's called brain cutting. You slice it all the way through and you look for pathology and you look for the structures and whatnot and that's it. Then slides get filed away and the rest of it get thrown out, gets discarded as medical waste. Or, or, what can happen, sometimes the family may request that every last scrap of material gets returned and gets buried with the body.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. I'm sure that's&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: That happens sometimes, too. In fact, that happens even with&ndash;sometimes people will donate their body to science and their body will be dissected by medical students. Sometimes those bodies are just cremated. Other times everything's got to be put back&ndash;you don't put it back together but basically all bundled up and then sent back to the family to be buried or whatever they want to do with it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: That is a typical Jewish custom. I don't know how religious or close Einstein was to strict Jewish customs but I can tell you that that is Jewish customs. You bury as much of the remains as you possibly can.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So he probably&ndash;he held back the brain. He didn't do with it whatever was normally supposed to happen to it.<br />
<br />
J: No. He stole it. That's what happened.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. He stole it. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Brain thief.<br />
<br />
B: I'm going to donate my body to science fiction.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright. Continuing on&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: You stole that joke from somebody.<br />
<br />
J: So Thomas Harvey, because of what he did, because he kept Einstein's brain, he lost his job. Which seems to be the appropriate thing to take place.<br />
<br />
E: Bad trade.<br />
<br />
S: Cause that was unethical. What he did.<br />
<br />
J: And during that process he claimed that Einstein's son, Hans, gave him permission but that claim was denied by the family.<br />
<br />
S: What about Frans?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So, as I'm reading through this I realize, of course, hindsight being 20/20, I don't disagree with what the guy did. I think it was obvious to him at the time that there was something important about Einstein's brain and it should be studied further. Shouldn't just be thrown away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It kind of makes you wish that somebody at NASA thought that about the moon landing footage. <br />
<br />
B: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: "Ya know, I'm going to put this aside and not put it&ndash;file it with the rest of the tapes that are going to get erased and reused."<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Or, "Lets make a couple of backups, just in case. Or put it somewhere else. I don't know."<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Anyway.<br />
<br />
J: I've really gotta&ndash;let me sprint to the finish guys.<br />
<br />
B: Thanks for reminding me.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, go ahead.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. So I mentioned that I don't disagree. What Thomas Harvey wanted was he wanted neuro-anatomists to analyse Einstein's brain and see if they could find something out about it that we didn't know about the human brain before and that was his goal but as the story goes&ndash;so 40 years passes and then a writer named, Paterniti, he heard about all these events that we just went through and he decided that&ndash;I guess he wanted to write about what had taken place so he tracks down and finds Harvey. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Did he sue him?<br />
<br />
J: No. This guys an author.<br />
<br />
S: So he didn't give him a Paterniti suit?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god. You're on a roll tonight, Steve.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Any who, so, he tracks down Harvey, gets into a long conversation with him and, I guess, between the conversation and the two of them going back and forth they mutually decide the brain should be returned to Einstein's family and, I guess they new at the time that his granddaughter Evelyn was still alive so they wanted to return it to her. So Paterniti drives to Harvey's house, he described Harvey as bringing out Einstein's brain in a Tupperware jar. In a Tupperware container.<br />
<br />
E: Tupperware.<br />
<br />
J: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. That would seal in the freshness, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So the two of them planned to drive across the country from New Jersey all the way to California where the granddaughter lived. I guess they conversation had continued during this drive and Paterniti found out that Einstein had indeed&ndash;I'm sorry, that Harvey had indeed been sending out Einstein's brain when samples were requested he would take the samples and send them to neurologists across the globe. So, when saw the brain in the Tupperware container it had been cut up. It was sliced up. So, Harvey sent 3 different samples to a scientist named Marian Diamond and she had contacted Harvey years earlier and requested samples from 3 different parts of Einstein's brain and he did end up shipping them to her but he ended up shipping them to her in an old mayonnaise jar.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Okay? Not making this up.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: This was around 1980. She studied the samples. She found that Einstein's brain had normal amount of neurons but he had a higher than normal percentage of a different kind of brain cell and that cell was called a glial cell. That increase in glial cells was found especially in the parts of the brain that involved imagery and complex thinking, so that definitely made Diamond realize, "Well, this is very curious. Let me look into it." But first, Steve, why don't you tell us what a glial cell is.<br />
<br />
B: Support cells, aren't they?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's the other kinds of cells in the brain other than neurons and they are&ndash;yeah, for many years we thought they were basically support cells.<br />
<br />
B: Like structural cells.<br />
<br />
S: Not just structural but they create the friendly environment for the neurons. <br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right, they're there keeping the neurons alive and happy while the neurons are doing their job of remembering and calculating and stuff.<br />
<br />
B: Kind of like the Remora around sharks.<br />
<br />
S: I guess.<br />
<br />
J: So, at the time&ndash;<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Diamond was now asking questions like, "Well, why would there be more of these cells here if they're really just support cells? What's the significance of there being more of them here?" And it was a very odd idea at the time to think that glial cells had anything to do with Einstein's intelligence. Being that the cells were thought to be there for perhaps structural integrity perhaps there to just be, like Steve said, like more support cells than actual cells that were there for thinking. Alright, so now we go forward another 10 years and another researcher named Steven J. Smith published a paper that changed the perception of and understanding of the brain because what he did was&ndash;he was studying neurons and he was also studying these glial cells and he speculated that glial cells also were a part of the communication that happened within the cell and that also these cells weren't only communicating chemically but they were communicating with electricity in the manner that neurons communicate. And then he kept on fleshing out his idea and he also said that these glial cells could possibly be picking up communication between neurons&ndash;neurons are communicating with each other, glial cells would be listening in on this communication and then sending that data to other parts of the brain. So he came up with this idea that the brain&ndash;it's another way that the brain could be communicating internally. Which at the time was a profound idea. They though, at the time, that only neurons were doing the heavy lifting and that even though there was a ton of other cells in the brain that they didn't think really were doing anything. Neurons were it, but once they realized, "You know what? These glial cells might actually be doing complex things like be involved in learning and memory and ideas that we have of like what does it mean to be a genius. Glial cells might have something to do with high end thinking." So, once that started that started to really open up new ideas and that started a whole different school of thought. So then yet another scientist named, Doug Fields, he reproduced Smith's research and confirmed that it was actually valid. And, at one point, Doug Fields wrote, "Now we can see scores of ways in which astrocytes could be involved in many cognitive processes." And now it's not so crazy to find that there were abnormally high numbers of astrocytes in the parts of Einstein's brain involved in imagery and mathematical ability and that sort of thing. So, that was a pretty huge milestone and a huge leap forward in our understanding of the human brain. So in 2007, Harvey died. He really didn't know that him taking Einstein's brain, actually through these steps and through these different people actually lead to a move forward in our understanding of the riddle of the mind, but it seems that he actually did have something to do with it. And, Einstein's granddaughter didn't end up wanting her grandfather's brain so Harvey, before he died, he returned the brain back to the pathology department at Princeton, where it is today.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, can you only find out the number of astrocytes by cutting into a brain or is there a way to test it while you're still alive?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you can estimate it just by knowing what the density of astrocytes are and then calculating it by volume but if you want to look at an individuals astrocyte density, yeah, you gotta stain it. You gotta cut into it.<br />
<br />
J: So, Steve, could you just take a little&ndash;take a biopsy of somebody's brain and test it that way?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. You could.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think you could do&ndash;really?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Why not?<br />
<br />
E: Well, are you supposed to be biopsying the brain for this kind of testing purposes. It's really more for diseases.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you wouldn't do this. You wouldn't do that. You wouldn't biopsy a humans brain just out of curiosity but we do it for diagnostic purposes but it's got to be worth while to the person.<br />
<br />
E: Right. There's got to be something going on that you're looking for the answer for a cure or something.<br />
<br />
B: Risk benefit.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if they&ndash;I know it's not uncommon&ndash;brain surgery happens all the time. They open up people's skulls. They literally get in there with tools and go deep into the brain and remove tumors and do things like that. Cognitively if you did take someone's skull off, or a portion of the skull, and just cut out, say a jelly bean sized piece of the brain, under the idea that the person isn't going to bleed to death or whatever, just removing a piece of the brain then putting the skull piece back and letting the person heal. What would they lose from losing a portion of the brain that size?<br />
<br />
B: Depends. It depends on the portion.<br />
<br />
E: Lobotomi&ndash;You're lobotomizing a person at that point.<br />
<br />
B: It totally depends. My guess would be that either it's totally unnoticeable or you'd be completely debilitated.<br />
<br />
S: Bob's right. It completely depends on which jelly bean piece of brain you take out.<br />
<br />
B: Take the hypothalamus and you're f'd.<br />
<br />
S: For example, the right frontal lobe is largely redundant and you could do a lot of stuff to that without producing and noticeable deficits. <br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: And, in fact, when surgeons have to go into the brain they prefer to do the non-dominant frontal lobe because it's mostly redundant, but, you take out language cortex and you can make somebody completely lose their ability to speak, for example.<br />
<br />
B: It'd be like a stroke, Jay. It'd be like a stroke.<br />
<br />
J: But even a piece that small? <br />
<br />
S: If it's critical, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So there is one place in your brain that a certain type of functionality is happening and there's parts of your brains which is just storage for memory, there's parts of your brain that is doing something like processing what you see or what you hear. So you're better off losing a little portion of your memory than you are like a major piece of functionality, of course, but, I thought it was more evenly distributed.<br />
<br />
S: No. No no. It's not and it's also&ndash;memory's pretty evenly distributed but functions are localized and there's also&ndash;it's not just how localized it is it's how redundant it is. If something's really lateralized to one side you only have one piece of your brain that's doing that thing then you don't want to lose that. If you have bilateral redundancy then obviously you can afford to lose one cause the other side will make up for it. So, yeah, it depends on a lot of things. Interestingly, when reading through science news items this week&ndash;just this week was a study published by Swedish researchers from the University of Gothenburg and they were looking at astrocytes, which are a form of glial cells, and their effects on neuronal connections and function and essentially what they found is that the astrocytes are modulating the strength of the signalling between the neurons. Now, they basically are effecting how those synapses between neurons change over time. So what that means is is that the astrocytes might actually be directly involved in the formation of memories and plasticity of the brain and learning. Which, again, is just further evidence for their greatly enhanced role in actual memory function of the brain, not just, again, as support cells. So that research is ongoing and that was a huge shift in our thinking about the role of astrocytes.<br />
<br />
=== Largest Radio Telescope Array <small>(27:49)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.86c1ac9d54a51fd47b845663527a077d.1191&show_article=1 --><br />
<br />
S: Well lets go on. We have another bit of astronomy news, Bob, you're going to tell us about the largest radio telescope ever.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. This one's a quickie. This is the biggest radio telescope in the world and it was recently unveiled by scientists in the Netherlands. It's called LOFAR which stands Low Frequency Array. I think we touched upon this a while back. It consists of a whopping 25,000 small antennas and they're real tiny. They range in size from 50 centimeters to about 2 meters across. So they're not very big at all. And they're all spread out all over, not only the Netherlands, but also Germany, Sweden, France and Britain. And it's pretty cool. This thing is really going to do some amazing work I predict. Femke Beckhurst of the Netherlands Radio Astronomy Institute said, "Today we have launched the biggest radio telescope in the world. When you combine all the antennas you get a giant telescope with a diameter of about 1,000 kilometers," which is about 600 miles so that's pretty big. And it takes some nifty software to actually take all those separate signals and stitch them together. They're actually using a supercomputer to do some of that work. It's the Blue Gene P supercomputer which is a petaflop class supercomputer. So it's pretty fast. So with these observations that this radio telescope, or, I guess you can call it radio telescopes&ndash;So, the observations that they're going to be able to make with this&ndash;they're going to learn about the origin of the universe and some people are saying that they'll be able to go to the moment right after the big bang. Other&ndash;some other key science projects for LOFAR are what they call the epoch of re-ionization which is basically when the universe turned on. When things became. Also, things like ultra high energy cosmic rays which are a bit of a mystery, such as the one we mentioned&ndash;we mentioned one such cosmic ray a while back called the Oh My God Particle in 1991 which is probably the most energetic cosmic ray ever detected which was so powerful&ndash;imagine it was a subatomic particle with the energy of a baseball travelling at 60 miles an hour. Imagine, you get hit with one proton and it knocks you on your butt like it was a baseball travelling 60. So, amazingly fast. We're not sure what could have imparted so much energy to such a tiny thing. It was travelling so close to the speed of light it was essentially just a whisker&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But to clarify, it wouldn't really knock you on your butt, right? It would just go right through you.<br />
<br />
B: No. It's too tiny. Right. It is too tiny and it could do some damage, though, if it happened to hit the right, whatever in your body, DNA or something.<br />
<br />
E: Well, what if it hit a computer or something? It would really screw that up.<br />
<br />
B: That's a lot of kinetic energy. I don't know where&ndash;how all the kinetic energy would be transferred. Would it be transferred into heat. Would it fly right through? Probably&ndash;it might just fly right through.<br />
<br />
S: Or maybe it will smash through several particles on its way.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. It might hit&ndash;if hit's something squarely it could start a cascade so I think if it's just right it could actually&ndash;it could be noticeable. But there's other things&ndash;the solar science and space weather, cosmic magnetism, so I'm sure this thing is going to be used for a really long time and hopefully maybe even get even bigger.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob, what's the difference between the moment of the Big Bang and the moment of first illuminosity, I think is the word you used?<br />
<br />
B: Well, I believe it was 100,000 years or 1,000 years, it was a lot of time before things calmed down enough. Things were just so energetic that light&ndash;any photons that might have been generated were just bouncing around all over the place and they really couldn't settle down and just take a straight line any direction so there's nothing to see if you look back in visible light there's nothing to see cause all the photons are just kinda bouncing around. But also this epoch of re-ionization&ndash;that's kind of a different term than I'm used to. They refer to it as when things became luminous so I think it depends on&ndash;are they talking about the first stars, the first galaxies, the first quasars?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
B: If that's what they're talking about then that would actually be after what I'm talking&ndash;what I've just mentioned which is also called photon decoupling. So actually this epoch is a little bit different. I think it's later on.<br />
<br />
E: It's just amazing that they can make that distinction or make the determination that so much&ndash;however much time it is happened between the two.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: You think of the Big Bang&ndash;certainly in a visual display you're watching some show on TV that kinda of describes it and it's an intense white spot of light from the get go. At least that's how the depict it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But they always give you the impossible perspective of being outside the universe when the Big Bang happens.<br />
<br />
B: Space time, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But that's not a possible perspective. So it's kind of misleading.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A little.<br />
<br />
S: And a lot of that is&ndash;evidence is theoretical. They're just well what should have happened if you have the mass of the universe at a point and then what would happen over time? Based upon the temperatures and what things are like at those temperatures. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: But maybe this large radio telescope will help fill in those gaps.<br />
<br />
B: Some of them.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully.<br />
<br />
B: If it can actually get close to the moment after the Big Bang then absolutely it will be able to do&ndash;it will illuminate us in many ways.<br />
<br />
E: Very cool.<br />
<br />
J: I still don't get the concept that when the Big Bang took place&ndash;like, where it was specially in reality. You can't go to that space&ndash;that place in outer space because it doesn't really&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Sure you can. Wherever you go, there you are.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, geez. Really, Bob?<br />
<br />
E: It happened everywhere&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: It's true. It's true. It's everywhere. You can't point to it because it's not one specific spot. It's everywhere.<br />
<br />
J: Well, it didn't happen right here.<br />
<br />
E: It might have.<br />
<br />
S: Every part of the universe was at that point, Jay, at that time.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, so, meaning that the universe is growing in size.<br />
<br />
S: Of course. But it's like&ndash;if you do the two dimensional analogy, it's like blowing up a balloon. Where was it before you blew it up? Well it's&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: How&ndash;right. Try to explaining to a two dimensional creature on that balloon where&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: It was in the package.<br />
<br />
J: where the center is.<br />
<br />
S: You'd have to point into the 4th dimension.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
J: I can't picture it.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Amityville Horror House for Sale <small>(34:11)</small>===<br />
[http://www.theness.com/roguesgallery/?p=1676 Rogue's Gallery: Amityville Horror House for Sale]<br />
<br />
S: So, the Amityville Horror House is back in the news.<br />
<br />
E: And it's back in the news because its up for sale.<br />
<br />
S: Sale. That's right. For what? 1.5 million?<br />
<br />
E: 1.15 million dollars.<br />
<br />
B: In this market?<br />
<br />
J: I know. Isn't that crazy?<br />
<br />
S: You can own a piece of paranormal history.<br />
<br />
B: But, is that price kind of crazy for the neighborhood because the house is famous?<br />
<br />
E: I don't know. I imagine that has something to do with it. They said they'd done a lot of renovations recently on the house. So&mdash;Look, I imagine the main factor, like any other piece of property is&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Location.<br />
<br />
E: comparable&mdash;yeah, location and comparable houses for sale in the area.<br />
<br />
S: But here's my question. Now, typically, if a house is alleged to be haunted or if a murder took place there it's considered psychologically damaged and that actually reduces the value of the house. But in this case it's famous for being psychologically damaged, so does that increase the value of the house?<br />
<br />
E: Or do the two equal each other out?<br />
<br />
S: The balance out?<br />
<br />
E: The negative and positive balance out.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So, there were a series of murders there in 1974. Ronald DeFeo Sr., his wife, Louise, their two sons and two daughters were shot while they slept in the home and the one remaining family member alive, Ronald, nicknamed Butch DeFeo, he confessed to the murders and is serving a life sentence in prison. And then just a few weeks after the sentencing of Butch, George and Kathy Lutz and their three children moved into the home where a new round of supposed horrors began. Muwahaha. Well, not really.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about them.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, there was supposedly all sorts of things happening in this house. They reported sightings of&mdash;well, the kids reported sightings of animals, mostly a pig named Jody. A sculpted lion came to life and supposedly walked around the house.<br />
<br />
S: Cool.<br />
<br />
E: A demonic boy appeared. It was photographed and you can find that famous photograph online. Kind of looks like a regular boy but that's beside the point. And other strange things in the house. Oh, green slime oozed from the walls. Crucifix on the wall was constantly rotating until it left itself upside down and, needless to say, 28 days after they moved in&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: 28 days later.<br />
<br />
E: 28 days later. Good one Steve. The Lutz's fled.<br />
<br />
S: What about the&mdash;you forgot about the hell-mouth. It's a gaping mouth to hell in their basement.<br />
<br />
J: Wait. Wasn't that in Poltergeist.<br />
<br />
E: That was another movie, I think.<br />
<br />
B: No. No no no. <br />
<br />
E: You're right, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: It's the red room.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It was a red room, which in the movie they kind of made it seem like it was the road to hell or something.<br />
<br />
E: Now there was one small problem with all of these paranormal happenings. They never really happened. It was a story&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: It was fake.<br />
<br />
E: The whole thing was fake. However, that didn't stop famous demonologist and psychic investigator&mdash;paranormal investigator Ed Warren and his wife Loraine from investigating the matter and deeming that house to be one of the most haunted places in the world.<br />
<br />
S: Right. Right after their basement.<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Their basement in Monroe, Connecticut #1, Aminityville #2.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Right. It was fake. And now it's up for sale.<br />
<br />
E: It is. So&mdash;if you've got dollars burning a whole in your pocket&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: You might want to go get a piece of history.<br />
<br />
S: The people who bought the house after the Lutz's complained that they had to deal with the paranormal tourists bothering them day in and day out. Gawking at the house and everything. So&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So much so that they had to change the address of the house.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So it really was psychologically damaged for them, cause it came with all the tourists.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm looking at a picture of the demon boy.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: It's a little boy.<br />
<br />
S: With no eyes.<br />
<br />
J: Well, the eyes are whited out so it looks kind of creepy. Photo could have been doctored.<br />
<br />
E: Could have been a dozen things, right, other than a demonic boy from hell.<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:46)</small>==<br />
S: Well, thanks for that, Evan, and why don't we go on to Who's That Noisy?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. For those of you who forgot here is last week's Who's that Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: And then I began to study back&mdash;the relationships between the elements for plants and they are different as the elements for humans. Because Cali and Forswore are actually the friends of each other in the homeopathic material magica for humans, but in plants these two substances are each other's enemy.</blockquote><!-- The Cali and Forswore are just going phonetically. I couldn't understand what he said. --><br />
<br />
S: Mm hmm.<br />
<br />
E: Mm hmm. So, you learned a little bit about homeopathy in that clip.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Two substances&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or not.<br />
<br />
S: Two substances which are enemies in plants are friends in people. Or animals.<br />
<br />
E: Bet you didn't know that before.<br />
<br />
J: So who is that guy?<br />
<br />
E: That is V. D. Kaviraj. A homeopath of some repute and the reason I actually found this person is because I was watching a Youtube video of our&mdash;well, friend, Mr. Benneth&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Who had this fellow as part of an interview so I thought that would make a rather interesting Noisy, last week.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And, not only did someone get it correctly but they actually also went ahead and found the clip from which I clipped it so if you go onto our message boards and [[SGU_Episode 256 | Episode 256]] you can actually take a look and listen for yourself to the entire interview and bring some coffee cause you with otherwise fall asleep.<br />
<br />
S: You don't want your brain to explode. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Exactly. So, NoWoo, en-oh-double you-oh-oh, from the message boards guessed correctly. Congratulations. Well done.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. What have you got for this week, Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. And here is this weeks Who's That Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: Does the shade<!-- what? --> give you the authority you need to take dangerous products off the shelves? And the answers always yes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
E: That's a short one this week.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Thanks Evan.<br />
<br />
E: But I think there's enough information in there for someone to get it. So, be the first one to guess correctly. Good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Ev.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Soy <small>(41:02)</small>===<br />
S: We have time for a few e-mails this week. The first one comes from Michael Wilson from Prescott, Arizona and Michael writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Steve - You made the offhand comment that there are "serious concerns" that soy milk is producing an estrogen type hormonal effect. I am a vegan bodybuilder who drinks a quart of soy milk everyday. I am concerned your offhand comment will scare people away from switching to a healthier milk alternative with no saturated fat. I've looked in the past when people have made these claims, and all I can find is that there may be some very mild effect, but nothing that rises to the level of your "serious concern" comment. If there was, there would be serious estrogen related issues throughout Asian countries. Since you felt it necessary to scare people away from soy by telling them about the "serious concerns" science has with soy milk, I hope you will provide the research on you next show that proves soy milk causes serious estrogen like effects. I do love the show, and I thank everyone for the time and effort you guys put into it every week. <br><br>Michael Wilson Prescott, AZ</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So, Michael's referring to two weeks ago when we had Pamela Gay and Frazier Cane on when&mdash;I can't remember what we were talking about but the notion of estro&mdash;the notion of&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Pamela said she drink soy milk and then we got onto the discussion.<br />
<br />
S: She drinks soy milk. Yeah, so I was razzing her a little bit about the fact that not everything is perfectly safe. You could find concerns about anything and in fact there are concerns about the estrogen like effects of soy milk. But it was an off hand comment, but I do think it's good for follow up to see what the evidence actually shows. The concerns are raised by the fact that soy contains isoflavones which have an estrogen effect. It's hormonally active and therefor that creates that plausibility that it could have some actual clinical effects in people and there are various populations in which it has been studied. So, one group are women who&mdash;are women in general, especially women who have had breast cancer. The question is do the estrogens increase the risk of breast cancer or if you have breast cancer does it worsen the outcome. The answer to that question appears to be no. So the evidence so far is pretty solid that there's no negative effect for women with breast cancer. In fact one review I read said that there may in fact be a small beneficial effect because it may competitively block the effects of women who have high estrogen levels. So there it's either no effect or maybe a small beneficial effect in a subset of women. The bigger concerns are with men, though, because obviously estrogen is a feminizing hormone and the question is does&mdash;do the estrogen effects of isoflavones in soy milk have a feminizing effect on men? So far the research does not show any such effect. What about the reproductive effects on men? Here, we have animal data which shows that there is a negative effect. This is where the biggest concerns are. And these concerns are that we haven't done enough research to really know what the net effects are in people. So we have animal data that shows some concern but not really sufficient human data to rule out that there may be a negative effect on the reproduction of men. The final group are infants, especially since there is a soy based infant formulas. And here there were several reviews in the last couple of years. Some saying there's really no proven effect. Other reviewers saying that, again, there is concern that there maybe some hormonal effects on infants and that&mdash;and essentially where the reviewers agree is that the research is not adequate to rule out a significant effect. Therefor if you want to be cautious you may avoid using soy based infant formulas until more research is done to show that there isn't any significant effect. Estrogen like effect. So that's where we are. I do think it's fair to say that there are concerns. Nothing is proven. And while some of those concerns have been ruled out by research there are others, specifically reproduction in men and in infants where we don't have enough research to really say that they're safe. My take is that it's probably a very weak effect. I would be surprised if the research ultimately showed that there was a strong effect, but those are the areas where the research is not yet sufficient to confidently say that there isn't a potential effect.<br />
<br />
B: But also&mdash;but this guy, Steve, if you're&mdash;if you're not an infant and you're beyond&mdash;you've already had your kids and you're done with kids, then it would be even less of a concern?<br />
<br />
S: That's right. And if you're a woman, there's basically no concern.<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Cursed Cell Phone Number <small>(45:50)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>The cursed cell phone number Thought you guys might like this story of truly stupid superstitious thinking that misses the glaringly obvious. <br />
<br><br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7763578/Mobile-phone-number-suspended-after-three-users-die-in-10-years.html Telegraph: Mobile phone number suspended after three users die in 10 years]<br />
<br>Danforth France Glendale, CA</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Jay, you're gonna tell us about the cursed cell phone number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. This is really silly to be honest with you.<br />
<br />
B: It's silly.<br />
<br />
E: Silly.<br />
<br />
J: It's just one of those story where there's a string of coincidences that could make certain people think certain things but, basically there was a phone number that was given out. And I don't know if this is the real number but it seems like it isn't because it's a seri&mdash;it's 0-888-888-888&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: So, that's the number. I mean, my understanding from reading is that's the number that they suspended.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. Could be. Now, isn't the number 8 unlucky somewhere?<br />
<br />
B: No. It's lucky in Asian cultures. Isn't 8&mdash;8 is lucky, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: 4 is unlucky.<br />
<br />
S: 4 is unlucky cause it sounds like death.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: 4 is unlucky. 8 is&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So, here's the quick one two. The first person who got it, he was the former CEO of a Bulgarian mobile phone company. His company issued him the number.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: He died of cancer in 2001 at 48 years old. After he died some rumors came out that his cancer had been caused by a business rival using radioactive poisoning. I find that unlikely, but, okay. Take that away. Let's just say that guy died. It's horrible. Died of cancer in 2001. 48 years old. That was horrible. The second that got the number was a Bulgarian mafia boss. There's a couple of things that mafia bosses do really well. They kill, and then they get killed.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
J: Right? So this guy was gunned down in 2003 by an assassin.<br />
<br />
B: What are the odds?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: A mafia killing? What?<br />
<br />
J: Then the number went to another guy who was described as a crooked business man and he was gunned down outside of an Indian restaurant in Bulgaria. So since then the number was retired because the police are investigating and all this stuff, but, there's the idea that the number is cursed or unlucky&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Or jinxed.<br />
<br />
E: It's your unlucky number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's been&mdash;the number has been touched by evil and anyone who gets it is gonna get killed. So I'm thinking&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Anyone mob related who touches it will get killed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's pretty clear to see&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or crime related.<br />
<br />
J: through this. It's not that big of a coincidence that a bunch of people that were involved in very dangerous and crazy criminal activity are getting killed. <br />
<br />
B: But if a number becomes available&mdash;is it more likely that the number became available because somebody dumped the number or because somebody died? Because I'm never gonna want to lose my number today.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I don't know. Now that people have personal phone numbers. Yeah. Probably people hold on to them for life. Even if you change carrier, right? You can take your number to another carrier.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Now you can. I don't know if you could in early 2000&mdash;2003. I don't know if you could during that time period. So, anyway, the reason why we bring up this story was not just because somebody wrote in about it but we thought it was a quick and easy example of a series of events strung together to make a story where there really isn't a story or a connection.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. There's a few ways you can look at this. One is it's not that big a coincidence that 3 people with the same number die in the short period of time. Just taking the number of phone numbers out there, I'm sure that happens a lot just by coincidence. Right? I mean it would be surprising if that never happened. This is a little different because these people were high profile and the number's unusual. It's&mdash;you could of it as a very desirable number because it's all 8's. It's the kind of number you get if you work for the phone company like the CEO or you're a mob boss, I guess. Right? They're not going to give it to just some guy. And these&mdash;two of these three people were at high risk for dying so that makes it even less of a coincidence that this kind of number is going to go to the kind of people who may be in risky businesses. But then you also think of it from the phone companies point of view. Obviously the notion that the number itself is jinxed is magical thinking and it's ridiculous but from a business marketing point of view, do they want to hand this number over to somebody else and then what if something happens to that person or even&mdash;they may just get upset if they find out that the phone company assigned them a quote unquote "jinxed" number. You know what I mean? Probably just fewer headaches for the phone company if they just get rid of it, even for a while. You know what I mean? You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. It's a numbers racket.<br />
<br />
J: That's a good job, boys. It's good work, boys.<br />
<br />
=== Magic Bee Juice <small>(50:27)</small>===<br />
S: The next one comes from David Gardner from Osaka, Japan. And David writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>One of the branches of the company I work for in Japan has started selling Propolis as a means to make more money in a bad economy. This branch has repeatedly tried to get me to buy some of this magic bee juice. Many of my Japanese co-workers have taken the bait. They are putting bee juice in their drinks and swallowing magic bee juice pills. When I ask them if they feel any better, they all say they aren’t sure. Hmm… I think the company I work for has a snake oill division. Do you know of any scientific evidence that shows any benefit to taking Propolis? All the information I found say that Propolis may contain lead and other garbage bees pick up while flying around the city. Thank you for your time. <br><br>David Gardner Osaka, Japan </blockquote><!-- shouldn't we fix the "aren't" that's all messed up? --><br />
<br />
S: Well, do you guys now what Propolis is?<br />
<br />
B: Nope.<br />
<br />
J: No.<br />
<br />
E: It's the star in the sky that doesn't rotate.<br />
<br />
S: It's magic bee juice. This is&mdash;So, bees make a variety of things. This is the gooey, sticky stuff that bees use to hold together their nests. They largely pick it up&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Oh. The honey comb?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so, yeah. But it's not just wax. I guess this is even stronger structural stuff that they use&mdash;it's like the glue that they use to hold it together and its&mdash;they'll pick up the sap from coniferous trees. Resins. It sounds nasty. It doesn't sound like the kind of stuff you would want to eat. I mean the bees don't eat it. It contains phenolics, aromatic compounds, volatile oils and terpenes. But even worse that that, as the bees fly around our modern society they're not just picking up resins from pine trees. They're also picking up lead paint. They're picking up caulking.<br />
<br />
B: Yum.<br />
<br />
S: They're picking up road tar and other things.<br />
<br />
E: Fecal material.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. They're picking up all kinds of nasty stuff and mixing it all together with these resins and terpenes and they're using that to glue together their nests and then&mdash;and idiots are taking that stuff and eating it.<br />
<br />
E: Now, when you say idiot&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: It's glue like?<br />
<br />
S: It's sticky. If you get the sap off a pine tree&mdash;it's like that.<br />
<br />
E: That's awful.<br />
<br />
S: Now, of course, it contains a lot of chemicals, right? As you might imagine&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: It's all natural.<br />
<br />
S: Sure. And if you look at those chemicals those chemicals do stuff. The body's going to react to those chemicals. Actually, probably the most common reaction is an allergic dermatitis and when I looked up Propolis on PubMed most of the specific references to it and people were to&mdash;this allergic dermatitis.<br />
<br />
E: Is this the same allergic reaction people have when they get a bee sting?<br />
<br />
S: No. No. It's different. This is more just a contact dermatitis. The skin gets red and bee stings can have more of a systemic reaction. That's where it becomes a problem, as opposed to just a rash. So, there's no research in humans showing any beneficial effects. It's all extrapolating wildly from just nonspecific&mdash;or just reactions that happen to some chemical that you can find in this stuff. There some animal data that it does stuff, but there's nothing that really can be used to base any kind of medicinal claims. So this really is snake oil. And apparently it's been around for hundreds of years. This is nothing new. It's just an idea that crops up every now and then.<br />
<br />
E: Here. Eat this bee waste byproduct.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's bee waste. It is bee waste.<br />
<br />
E: Bee waste.<br />
<br />
S: Pretty much everything that bees make somebody has decided to sell as snake oil. Pollen, royal jelly, and even bee venom. You guys have heard&mdash;I've talked about bee venom therapy.<br />
<br />
E: Bee venom therapy, sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. For, multiple sclerosis and arthritis and things like that. Pretty much everything. The only thing that bees make that has real medicinal value is honey and only if you put it topically on your wound.<br />
<br />
E: Or on toast.<br />
<br />
J: I love honey.<br />
<br />
E: I love you too, honey.<br />
<br />
B: Never spoils.<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Personality Tests <small>(54:41)</small> ==<br />
S: Well, we actually have a Name that Logical Fallacy this week.<br />
<br />
B: Ooo.<br />
<br />
E: Ooo. Queue the music.<br />
<br />
S: This is a question that comes from some guy called Mike Lacelle in Canada.<br />
<br />
J: Who is he?<br />
<br />
E: That a funny name.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know. Some bald guy.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: And Mike wants to know&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: But despite that&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: And Mike will be at TAM this year, by the way.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, this guy's gonna be at TAM?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Oh. I can't wait to meet him.<br />
<br />
B: I'm not going now.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: I'll see you there Mike.<br />
<br />
S: Mike writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Steve, I'm trying to figure out the difference between the Incorrect Cause fallacy and the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy? Skepticwiki is telling me that Post Hoc is a type of Incorrect Cause Fallacy, but I'm just not getting the difference. They seem to be one and the same. Any help would be appreciated. I'm trying to complete a 5x5 recording we did a few months ago and I'm recording a missing part which was about the "Incorrect Cause" fallacy. The topic of the 5x5 was Chemtrails and it seems to me that the Post Hoc fallacy would work better here.<br><br> Mike Lacelle Canada </blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So, this is an interesting one. The Incorrect Cause Fallacy is actually a category of logical fallacies.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There's lots of&mdash;and the Post Hoc is just a sub-category of it.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly. It's one type. <br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: It's any fallacy where you are making an invalid inference as to cause and effect. That's the Incorrect Cause Fallacy. My&mdash;I had a couple back and forths with Mike and he was saying that if you invoke the wrong cause for something just because your information is incorrect is that an incorrect cause fallacy and the answer to that is no. It doesn't me that you're just mistaken about what causes what, that's just a false premise, it's that the logical inference is incorrect, cause that's what a logical fallacy is. So, in the Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc Fallacy, you're concluding that B is caused by A ''because'' B follows A. That's where the invalid logic comes in. You're reaching the conclusion not because you just have a mistake belief but because you think that the fact that it comes after it is how you know that it's being caused by it.<br />
<br />
B: Right. So it's more sequential, whereas the Incorrect Cause Fallacy&mdash;it could be&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Is anything.<br />
<br />
B: It could be after. It could be anything.<br />
<br />
E: It could go any direction.<br />
<br />
B: They could happen at the same exact time. Could be AB instead of A followed by B. Could be at the same time or even&mdash;or other variations. So that's the main distinction as I see it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And it's not even restricted to temporal but&mdash;another common Incorrect Cause Fallacy is the&mdash;assuming causation from correlation as you're saying.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: They're correlated in some way, not because, necessarily, one follows the other but they could just be happening together more frequently or at the same time and then you assume that they're happening together because one is causing the other when, in fact, there are many relationships that possible. You cannot infer a specific causal relationship. Often people, however, say that&mdash;and I hear people say this, or write this, all the time, that correlation does not imply causation and that's incorrect. I ''does'' imply causation. It just does ''equal'' causation.<br />
<br />
B: Right. Right.<br />
<br />
S: Sometimes correlations occur because there ''is'' causation and it is&mdash;it certainly does imply that. It's one piece of evidence, but in order to make a specific causal conclusion you have to line up multiple correlations. Other examples of this would include the Complex Cause Fallacy, where maybe there are multiple causations but you pick one out and say that's ''the'' cause.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's a very common one, right? <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: We all sort of unconsciously do that all the time where we tend to think simplistically in terms of one cause for things when in fact many complex things will have multiple causes that are not mutually exclusive.<br />
<br />
J: And it's not just one cause. It could also be the most interesting cause has got to be it, too, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: We're so drawn to the one thats&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: That's interesting or&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: sexy.<br />
<br />
S: ''or'' the one that confirms our prior beliefs and ideology.<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Ah, confirmation bias.<br />
<br />
S: Then there's the Regression Fallacy. This is where you assume cause and effect because of what ultimately regression to the mean. Here's an example. Appearing on the cover of ''Sports Illustrated'' is a curse that will cause them to have a bad season or a bad game or whatever following that.<br />
<br />
E: I've heard that before, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. The ''Sports Illustrated'' curse. But that can be explained by regression to the mean.<br />
<br />
B: Right. They were on the cover in the first place because they might&mdash;they just happened to have, say, and exceptional season, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: And then of course the regression to the mean has got to kick in at some point, you would think, and then it's like, "Oh, damn. Bad luck."<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. They had their best game, their best season, whatever. That gets them on the cover and any extreme is likely to be followed by something closer to the mean. The regression to the mean.<br />
<br />
J: That's very similar to the Droning On Fallacy where skeptical enthusiasts just keep talking about logical fallacies over and over again.<br />
<br />
S: Jay, I'm not familiar with that one.<br />
<br />
E: I'm not either. Hey, here's another logical fallacy.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:07)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, what you're say Jay, is that you want to move on to Science or Fiction. Is that what you're saying?<br />
<br />
J: It's time for Science or Fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. We'll kick in the real music.<br />
<br />
VO: It's time for Science or Fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items of facts, two genuine and one fictitious and then I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Are you guys ready for this week?<br />
<br />
B: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: You can't make me play. Alright I'll play.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Here we go.<br />
<br />
*[http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots.<br />
<br />
Jay, go first.<br />
<br />
J: Well, okay, so I think that&mdash;the laser&mdash;the dark laser one that takes heat away from an object that it's focused on&mdash;that seems a little shifty to me. I don't see how&mdash;I wasn't aware that laser light had a temperature, either. I never really thought about that. And the second one about the comets that&mdash;coming from other solar systems. You know, I think that one's the fake.<br />
<br />
S: The comets?<br />
<br />
J: Mm hmm.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Evan?<br />
<br />
E: The dark laser is interesting. Taking heat away from an object on which it's focused. How exactly is it doing that? I absolutely don't know. Is it a laser at that point? Light&mdash;It's a beam of light that takes heat away from objects on which it's focused? That's fascinating. That's the most fascinating of these three. The one about the comets originating from other solar systems&mdash;I&mdash;seems very plausible. I guess you could argue that nothing is original in this solar system and that everything came from another place somewhere else. Other explosions. Other events that occur on a regular basis. So I think that one's rather plausible. I don't know why it's necessarily a new analysis, though. The last one was the five fold increase in the growth of rice plants. Alright, so you have a fungus on the rice plant. You manipulate the genetics of the fungus and it increases the yield times five. Boy I think the comets one is correct. I'm between this dark laser and this fungus. I'm just going to have to guess at this point. I'm going to say the fungus one is the fiction. I think that's wrong.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Bob?<br />
<br />
B: The comet one&mdash;yeah, that's unusual. You've got the Oort Cloud&mdash;big huge cloud of comets. It was always pretty much assumed or stated directly that they were just part of the solar system. The fact that they could have been captured or from another solar system is news to me. I could see it. I could see how perhaps we&mdash;we did capture them but we're talking billions of comets out there. That's an interesting one. So you increase the yeild of rice by manipulating the genetics of the fungus growing on their roots. That's makes perfect sense to me. Who knows, perhaps the fungus were siphoning off nutrients that would have been going to the rice and so you cut back on their take of the nutrients and so more goes to the rice, less goes to the fungus so you've got greater growth. That's totally plausible and actually and awesome application of genetic manipulation. How valuable will that be? It's almost too good. The first one&mdash;the dark laser&mdash;an endothermic laser&mdash;I just&mdash;I know a little bit about lasers. I just can't imagine off the top of my head how it's going to be taking away heat. I mean you're focusing radiation on an object. Perhaps you're knocking away&mdash;you're somehow knocking away the most energetic molecules or atoms and you're lowering the average temper&mdash;temperature. Kinda like&mdash;I think that similar to evaporation cooling. But still&mdash;I can't decide between that and the fungus. <br />
<br />
E: I'm in the same boat.<br />
<br />
B: I can kind of make an argument and I hope the fungus one is true and I'm going to say that the laser one is fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. So you guys are evenly divided.<br />
<br />
J: Guess so.<br />
<br />
B: Doesn't happen very often.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. So, I guess I'll take these in order. [http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused. And I should mention that NIST stands for the National Institutes of Standards and Technology.<br />
<br />
B: Science.<br />
<br />
S: And also that Dark Laser was a character from&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Ha! Yes. Timmy.<br />
<br />
S: Timmy Turner, yeah. Fairly Odd Parents.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: And that one is, the fiction.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah baby.<br />
<br />
S: Good job, Bob. And yeah, I did take it from another story. So that's one if you had read the headline only you might have gotten sucked into it but if you actually read the article then&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I dug deeper.<br />
<br />
S: So, yeah, I couldn't find anything about an endothermic laser so I figured I was safe, for that. But who knows.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I think you are.<br />
<br />
S: What the story is about a dark pulse laser. Now a pulse laser is a laser where they are pulses of increase in brightness. This is a dark pulse where there are pulses of decreases in brightness. So you have a laser humming along and then at certain intervals there are drop outs, essentially, of the brightness of the laser. And they were able to make these ultra short pulses, just 90 picoseconds, or trillionths of a second. They think this device could be very useful for communication. So this could have a lot of applications. So interesting.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Another way&mdash;I think another way to look at it, Steve, is that before this they would&mdash;when information was coming, when they would encode information, when they pulsed the laser&mdash;and that was kind of like the information and then there would be a pause. And then they would pulse more information and that would basically be the information. But this is the opposite.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When the light's hitting it's considered no information but when there's nothing coming then that's considered&mdash;the thrust of the information which&mdash;that's kind of odd but that's kind of how I took it.<br />
<br />
S: Right. No, I think so but&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: So opposite&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: The advantage is that they can pulse it much faster with much smaller pulses. I think that's&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Right. Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: why this approach may have some advantages. Right.<br />
<br />
B: And there's also because&mdash;if you get down to picoseconds they're getting so brief&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: so incredibly brief that&mdash;yeah. That seems like an awesome idea.<br />
<br />
S: Let's go to [http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems. That one is science. <br />
<br />
E: Yeah. Right.<br />
<br />
S: And this is a computer simulation. This one's actually been around for a couple days so figured some of you might have read it but&mdash;what essentially what astronomers did&mdash;this is Hal Levison, Martin Duncan from Queen's University, in Kingston, Canada and Ramon Brasser from France and David Kaufmann&mdash;what they did is they were investigating mainly through computer simulations the formation of our sun. Now, our sun formed in a stellar nursery, like most stars do, right? So when the star first formed it was surrounded closely by a lot of other stars but eventually when some of those stars went supernova it blew away a lot of the gas clouds and what pretty much ended the stellar nursery and the suns went their own way. But while they were still close together, what they surmise is that large planets in those systems would routinely fling out any small objects, like comets, into basically a cloud of interstellar space, right, among all these stars in the nursery. And that&mdash;when the stars went their own way they would just capture a random assortment of these interstellar comets and take them with them, cause they just got captured by that star's gravity. Right? So that may be why we have this cloud of comets around our sun. They were just all captured from this bigger cloud that was permeating this cluster of young stars in the stellar nursery. Does that make sense?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but so many? So many of them. I've heard estimates up in the billions.<br />
<br />
S: Why not? Why not? Basically all the stars were sharing their comets into one massive Oort Cloud and then&mdash;until our sun went its own way and just captured a bunch of them and took them away.<br />
<br />
B: That's pretty cool.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So this obviously needs empirical confirmation. Right now it's just a computer model, but it's an interesting idea. It would mean&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Good luck.<br />
<br />
J: They're like a light-year away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: They are far away. Pretty much by definition the farthest outskirts of the solar system.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But it would&mdash;and wouldn't that make sense, Bob, that that something so far out was simply captured by nearby stars?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And, Evan, to clarify, you said that everything is eventually from other stellar systems and that's true of a second generation star. By definition everything in our solar system was in a&mdash;previously in another solar system, but these were&mdash;when we say that comet came from another solar system that means after it condensed down into a comet. Not just the raw material that went into it but after it was already comet. Then it got captured.<br />
<br />
E: I gotcha.<br />
<br />
S: Just to clarify that one point.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: And lets go on to [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots and that one is also science.<br />
<br />
B: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Let me clarify a couple of things also that you guys said.<br />
<br />
J: Wait, can you hear Bob gushing cause he won this one?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: He's like, "Wheh&mdash;Cool! Yeah!"<br />
<br />
S: Jay, he's coming off a&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Jay.<br />
<br />
S: He's coming off a two weeks in a row losing so he's just happy it wasn't three in a row.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Jay, you have no idea what that's like, Jay.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh, I really don't. I really have no idea.<br />
<br />
S: So, Bob, both you and Evan if I remembered&mdash;if I heard correctly said that the yield of the rice increased by five fold but I didn't write or say that. It's the growth of the rice plants.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah. Okay.<br />
<br />
E: So the size&mdash;that actual physical size of the grain.<br />
<br />
S: Or the rate of growth. It said growth so that's what I wrote. It specifically did not say yield.<br />
<br />
B: Yield shpield.<br />
<br />
S: Yield is what we're interested in, though, right? So I don't know how that translates into yield. The other caveat that wasn't part of what I said was that this was done in a greenhouse, so not in rice paddies. So this was just in a lab&mdash;greenhouse somewhere.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah. Start there but you can kind of export&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well yeah, but just to say&mdash;we have to know how it translates into a completely natural environment.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah. Yeah. Details.<br />
<br />
S: Now, but Bob, you got the effect of the fungus backwards. This is a fungus&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
S: This is a fungus that actually increases the growth of the plant. It does not detract from it.<br />
<br />
B: Oh. Wow.<br />
<br />
S: And how do you think it does that?<br />
<br />
B: Really? It supports it. It's a symbiotic relationship then. It supports it and &mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's supplying nutrients to the rice.<br />
<br />
B: You let me use your roots and I'll get you some good juice.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, basically it supplies phosphate. That's what it does. Which is a very limiting nutrient for plants. The fungus is mycorrhizal species. This specific species is <i>Glomus intraradices</i> and this has some very interesting genetics in that one filament of this fungus can contain many genetically distinct nuclei. So basically different assortments of its own genes in different parts of itself. So they were abe&mdash;it was not genetic engineering, it was just genetic manipulation. They were just using techniques to choose which subset of the genes of this fungus they were going to express and they were able to find an assortment that provided a lot more phosphate to the rice roots and actually&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Well how'd they select it? Was it just&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: The report was vague on the details but it made it sound like cultivation. Yeah, they&mdash;just breeding and cultivation. No genetic engineering. And anyway, they found one genetic version of this fungus that increased the growth of the rice plants by five fold. Very interesting. Which I thought was huge. But again I don't know how that will translate ultimately to yield. But think about that. That's a very interesting application.<br />
<br />
B: Perhaps they will be able to have two growing seasons.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Who knows.<br />
<br />
B: Right. So ultimately hopefully it will increase the yield.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And this report says that rice is the most important crop globally. Food crop. We think&mdash;over here we eat a lot of rice, but we also eat a lot of wheat and other things but in other parts of the world rice is it. It's very important. Yeah. <br />
<br />
E: That's it. That's all you get.<br />
<br />
S: Important food staple.<br />
<br />
B: I just hope that this works out so well that everybody on the planet kind of eating this rice. Next thing you know we're all turning to zombies.<br />
<br />
S: Zombie rice?<br />
<br />
B: That'd be cool<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. That'd be cool.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Jay, how come you're not gushing over this week's science or fiction results?<br />
<br />
J: I'm not unhappy. I really actually don't care if I win or lose. Just that I learn.<br />
<br />
B: Apparently.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:14:40)</small> ==<br />
S: Jay, can you give us a quote this week?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Oooh, dang.<br />
<br />
J: Hey, Steve. How you doing? Alright, so I have different&mdash;I tried to mix it up. I found a bunch of quotes that are stupid things that perhaps not so stupid people said.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: You gonna tell us the quotes first and then the people?<br />
<br />
J: Yes, I will. Well, I'm not going to shout out these people's names because they don't deserve it.<br />
<br />
S: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: I'm not regaling them with "you're awesome." I'm going to just call them silly, stupid, ignorant, whatever. Ready? <blockquote>Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction.<br>-Pierre Pachet</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Ah, Pier.<br />
<br />
J: He was a professor of physiology at Toulouse in 1872. Next one,<br />
<blockquote>We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy.<br>-Simon Newcomb</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah.<br />
<br />
J: That was said by Simon Newcomb, astronomer, 1888.<br />
<br />
B: Whoa.<br />
<br />
J: <blockquote>Heavier than air flying machines are impossible.<br>-Lord Kelvin</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Kelviiin. Kelvin, by the way, can I go on a little side thing here, Kelvin&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Please.<br />
<br />
S: also thought that the earth could only be like 100 million years old because of the temperature of the earth. He was one of those guys who was brilliant but because so arrogant that he started to say stupid things about other disciplines outside of his specialty and that's why we end up quoting him 100 years later.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but Steve, I think&mdash;it's funny you should say that one because I think&mdash;I remember reading a story about that one and I think he did hedge his bets a bit. When Kelvin said that he kind of said, "Well, you know, unless there's another source of energy the earth is so many years old," which is in effect exactly why&mdash;he wasn't aware of radioactivity.<br />
<br />
S: Yes. That's exactly right.<br />
<br />
B: If there was no radioactivity the earth would be just solid rock at this point.<br />
<br />
S: But the hubris was&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: in him thinking that his thermodynamic calculations trumped the entire field of geology.<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: Meanwhile he&mdash;it was because he didn't know about radioactive decay heating the earth. So that's the cautionary tail. What else Jay. What else you got for us?<br />
<br />
J: Okay. I got&mdash;this one was from H. M. Warner from Warner Brothers, 1927. And he said,<br />
<blockquote>Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?<br>-H. M. Warner</blockquote><br />
<br />
B: Oh.<br />
<br />
J: And then I can't leave the bad taste in everybody's mouth so this is a quote from Winston Churchill.<br />
<blockquote>Man will occasionally stumble over the truth but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it, and carry on.<br>-Winston Churchill</blockquote><br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Winston Churchill!<br />
<br />
S: He was the goods.<br />
<br />
B: He rocked.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, he was one of my favorites.<br />
<br />
J: These quotes that I brought up, I picked people that probably were not stupid or considered stupid and this might be assuming too much but they were respected for one reason or another, seemed to be very knowledgeable in their fields but yet they can make incredibly ridiculous statements like these. It's easy for us to say that cause we're looking back.<br />
<br />
S: We actually quoted Steve Pinker at one time saying this, that making predictions about the future is an invitation to look stupid. Right? That if you're going to make pronouncements like, "This is impossible," "This will never happen,"&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: You're asking for it. Unless you're really sure you know what you're talking about.<br />
<br />
J: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.</blockquote> <!-- the quote as read by Jay was different, should see if we can find a source to find the real quote --><br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS Con <small>(1:18:11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro119}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_257&diff=5620SGU Episode 2572013-01-28T21:02:30Z<p>Geneocide: /* Science or Fiction (1:00:07) */ transcribed</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all |transcriber = Geneocide }}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 257<br />
|episodeDate = 14<sup>th</sup> June 2010<br />
|episodeIcon = File:amityvilledemoboy.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-06-14.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=257<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,28802.0.html<br />
|qowText = Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Monday, June 14<sup>th</sup>, 2010 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey everyone. How are you doing tonight?<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: Quite well.<br />
<br />
E: Good.<br />
<br />
S: No Rebecca tonight because we are on the lead up to TAM recording schedule. We going to have a little bit of a weird recording schedule the next few weeks and Rebecca was not available tonight and she has no internet access.<br />
<br />
J: That's because her and Sid bought a house.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: She hasn't been able to get internet and cable, I guess, to the house yet.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. But it's a big secret. Don't tell anyone, folks.<br />
<br />
S: They're moving into a new flat. Is it still a flat if it's a house?<br />
<br />
B: No. Wait wait, no, a flat's an apartment, isn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Are they moving into a house house, or is it like a condo or what is it?<br />
<br />
J: I think it's a house house.<br />
<br />
S: But no cable yet.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, if she has a house, that means she has a basement which means she could run a haunt in her house.<br />
<br />
B: Not necessarily. Florida houses don't have basements but that's because of the water table.<br />
<br />
J: Well, no. If she's in England she has a root cellar.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: Which is even creepier.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:19)</small> ==<br />
E: Well, on this day in 1648 Margaret Jones was hanged in Boston for witchcraft. The first such execution for the Massachusetts colony.<br />
<br />
S: How many people were killed?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they didn't stop with Margaret. It was 20 people.<br />
<br />
S: Were executed.<br />
<br />
E: We executed for witchcraft.<br />
<br />
J: Wow. And we got off lucky. Didn't&ndash;in Europe wasn't it a much bigger phenomenon in Europe?<br />
<br />
S: A conservative number is around 60,000 deaths directly attributable to the witch hunts.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Depending on how you count it. There were 20 people executed in Salem. 19 hung and that one guy, Giles Corey was crushed to death cause he refused to enter a plea.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Hayabusa Returns <small>(2:02)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100613/ts_afp/spacejapanaustraliaasteroidsreturn_20100613204620 <br />
<br />
possible replacement: [http://www.space.com/8592-japanese-asteroid-probe-historic-return-earth.html Space.com: Japanese Asteroid Probe Makes Historic Return to Earth]<br />
--><br />
S: Well Bob, tell us about Hayabusa returning to Earth.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this is pretty cool. I totally forgot about this guy but this is an interesting story. The Japanese space agency known as JAXA, Jay-Ay-Ex-Ay, completed a mission recently to bring a sample of an asteroid back to Earth. This is something that's never been accomplished before and regardless of what happens there has never been a spacecraft that touched down on an asteroid and then came back to Earth. So regardless if they even brought anything back with them this was a first. Like I said, the only real question that remains as of the taping of this podcast anyway is whether the canister they retrieved in Australia has any asteroid. If you remember back in 2003, JAXA's Hayabusa craft began a 2 year journey to an asteroid named Itokawa and I wish I could say the mission went swimmingly but I can't. The craft really experienced some nasty technical difficulties. It seems likes throughout the whole way, or at least through a lot of it. They just kept hitting problem after problem. They even had some&ndash;some solar flair even messed up with it's power source so the energy that it had was less than they had anticipated and some of the biggest failures, though, was they had this metal ball that they would shoot&ndash;or they planned on shooting at the asteroid to collect rock samples and that failed. And then there was another mechanism, which they were planning on using to stir up the dust around the lander on the asteroid and that failed as well to collect any samples. So you might think that it was a total bust but the real hope at this point is that they hope that the dust that stirred up during the landing kind of just was swirling around and entered the canister&ndash;the collection canister so that's really all their hope is on that.<br />
<br />
S: So they really don't know if there's going to be anything in that canister. <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, they have no idea at this point. It doesn't look good to me.<br />
<br />
J: Is it on it's way back to Earth or it can analyze it.<br />
<br />
B: It came back to Earth. The craft burned up in the atmosphere but it ejected this heat protected canister which landed at the Woomera Protected Area which is a restricted military zone in south Australian desert. Now some conspiracy hypothesists may say that in reality this whole 7 year mission was a subtle attempt to get access to this restricted military zone. But, ya know, I'm just saying.<br />
<br />
J: Look at that. It landed in Area 51. Could we go get it?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Yeah.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: But, being silly, but I want to congratulate JAXA, though. Even if there's no sample which would really be nasty, but even if there's no sample, it was a great effort that tested lots of new technologies, like, for example, sampling and retrieval, electrical propulsion, autonomous navigation. So lots of interesting new technologies and this really was a test bed. Problems like this are to be expected.<br />
<br />
J: At this point any kind of space exploration is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: In the time when we're worried that it's all gonna go away and dry up&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm really happy to hear about stuff like this.<br />
<br />
B: That's true. But you really got to hand it to JAXA, though, because they relentlessly attacked every difficulty that arose creatively solving problems, and according to some people it was Apollo 13 in scale in terms of how difficult these problems were.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: But granted, lives were not on the line, but still they had to go through a lot. On the way home they lost half of their engines kicked out and they had to figure out how to get home with only half the engines running so they did an amazing job.<br />
<br />
J: I don't like you comparing it to Apollo 13 because it being unmanned is one thing and the other thing was they got those people back to Earth safely with an enormous amount of effort. Nothing can match that.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I'm not comparing it and I did kind of say that not in terms of the lives but in terms of creative problem solving it was similar. Some people are comparing it.<br />
<br />
J: Well, if they make a movie about it I might believe it then.<br />
<br />
S: Cause it's not real unless Hollywood does a movie about it.<br />
<br />
B: As you can imagine this is a huge, huge news story in Japan. They're really playing it up. It's all over the place, cause this is&ndash;it's quite a feat. Regardless of what happens this is a first, so that's great. If they have a sample, even better, cause you learn lots of things about the solar system&ndash;because we don't have&ndash;think about it&ndash;the material we have from asteroids really is just meteorites, right, that have landed on the earth and they've gone through the atmosphere. They're not the same.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When you come through the atmosphere&ndash;they're not the same.<br />
<br />
E: Burn, yeah. Stuff burns away and, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: This will be pristine. This will be pristine rock and that will be invaluable.<br />
<br />
J: Do you guys think that one day we will park satellites in orbit and just mine them?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah. Mine asteroids?<br />
<br />
E: You mean bring them into a close orbit and then we send up vehicles and stuff to start plowing them for their platinum and all they're goodies?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. And how about&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
J: One thing that I remember thinking about when I was younger, why not put it in the same orbit that the earth is in, but just behind the earth. Would that mean that it would have to be the same size as the earth, though, in order to be in the same orbit?<br />
<br />
B: The velocity would be very different then. It couldn't have the same velocity because the mass would be so different, so, at some point, it would intersect with the earth. So I don't think that would work, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: You would need something to constantly regulate it's distance from the earth, right?<br />
<br />
S: You put it at a Lagrange point and it will sit there.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There ya go. Problem solved.<br />
<br />
S: A Lagrange point is a&ndash;if you have a map, a three dimensional map of the gravitational fields of the earth and the sun, for example, or any large body orbiting another large body, then those fields hit a pit, or they dip to a minimum. So anything that is at those points it's like being at the bottom of a hill, it's stuck there and it won't move away so it's actually fixed in position relative to the earth. So it would be perfect for something that we want to put someplace and have it stay there in terms of it's relationship to the earth.<br />
<br />
J: It's kind of like drafting, right?<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Come on, a little bit.<br />
<br />
S: But to complete that discussion there are a total of 5 Lagrangian points. One in the orbit of, lets say the earth, in front of it. One behind the earth in it's orbit. One on the opposite side of Earth's orbit. One between the earth and the sun and one outside the orbit on a line between the earth and the sun but farther than the earth. So five points total. A few of which would be pretty close. But also, there are asteroids that are said to quote unquote "stalk" the earth. For example, recently discovered the 2009 BD. It's not stationary with respect to the earth but it does&ndash;cause it interacts with the earth's gravity and it's not at a Lagrangian point, but it does get close to the earth and will sort of corkscrew around the earth's orbit and stay very close to use for a while and then maybe drift away and come back in it's orbit. It's got a very weird orbit but it does stay close to the earth.<br />
<br />
=== Einstein's Brain <small>(9:22)</small>===<br />
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305&ps=cprs NPR: Einstein's Brain Unlocks Some Mysteries Of The Mind]<br />
<br />
S: Jay, tell us about the amazing adventure of Einstein's brain.<br />
<br />
J: So this is a very interesting story. Before I get into the story let me just ask you guys a few questions. One, what makes you think Einstein was so smart? What was it about his brain that makes him smart? Some things that I'm sure most skeptics have heard was that, "Einstein used 10% of his brain where the regular person only uses 2 or 2.5%." You guys have heard of that, right?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, course.<br />
<br />
E: Or something similar to it, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's only be debunked about a million times on the internet and elsewhere, I believe, in our publication.<br />
<br />
E: Of course. That's what my phrenologist says.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: Here's one that is less common, but I've also heard and I believe I also used to think about this when I was younger and not knowing much about the brain but another thing that people think is that Einstein's brain had more hills and valleys on the exterior part of his brain.<br />
<br />
S: Sulci and gyri?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. So, that's basically the shape of the brain on the outside that makes it look like a brain. All those hills and valleys and little bumps and stuff that are on the outside of somebodies brain.<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: But, Steve, you said at one point that that does not mean you're smarter, correct?<br />
<br />
S: Well, not comparing one individual to another. There's too much variation to say that but that certainly is true when you compare species. The&ndash;what those do&ndash;what the gyri and sulci do&ndash;if you imagine the layers of the cortex and then fold it upon themselves like a ribbon that's what forms that structure and what the essentially does is it increases the surface area of the brain. So it's just a way of squeezing more computational surface area into a smaller three dimensional space which was obviously important to the evolution of our bigger, juicier brains. But you can't compare person A to person B and go, "Oh, he's got to be smarter because his brain looks smarter on an MRI scan. He's got more sulci." Doesn't work that way.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, why not also fill in the valleys between the hills? Between the gyri or the sulci or whatever they are?<br />
<br />
S: They're squished together. It's not significant.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
S: I mean, when you get old and your brain shrivels up and atrophies then you see expanded sulci and spaces but&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Your brain really shrivels up, huh?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, doesn't that suck?<br />
<br />
J: What the hell?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but Steve, I thought the idea, though, behind that was that they're not sure if the brain is really truly atrophying really, hugely, impacting cognition or is it just paring away the unessential parts of the brain that really aren't needed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, like motor skills and deep thinking.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: Barring, of course, dementia. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right Bob?<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's a complicated question. First of all those are not mutually exclusive cause both those things could be occurring at the same time. The pruning hypothesis where it's just cutting back neurons were sitting there waiting to be recruited but they haven't been, so they just go away at some point, but even still you imagine that there's fewer neurons around to be recruited so&ndash;after 50 or so we do start to lose our capacity to learn new things. We lose our flexibility. At least most of us. Some people really don't and they're brains don't atrophy as much, either.<br />
<br />
J: Bastards.<br />
<br />
S: So, some people genetically are built for more neurological longevity. But, yeah, you can't&ndash;I don't think it's accurate to say that there's no relationship between the atrophy of the brain as we age and the loss of cognitive ability. There absolutely is a relationship but it's complicated and we're not sure exactly what it is.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, it's not a black and white issue. It's more of a grey matter.<br />
<br />
B: Oh.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, wow, Evan, really?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright, so guys, let me continue. It's basically a story that I'm going to quickly tell everyone and then we'll discuss it.<br />
<br />
B: Alright.<br />
<br />
E: I love stories. Okay. I'm ready.<br />
<br />
J: So this man, named Thomas Harvey&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
E: Harvey.<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
J: and he&ndash;he actually performed the autopsy on Einstein at Princeton. Now this back in&ndash;Now this was when, '55 I believe Einstein died?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, around there.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. So, this is what the article said. The article said that during the autopsy routine the brain would be removed, examined, and then put back in the person's body for burial. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Which, by the way&ndash;we don't do that today. I don't know&ndash;that sounds odd. We don't put the brain back in the head. You take it out, you put it in a jar of formaldehyde and pickle it for 2 weeks, so that you can slice it up and look at it. Cause otherwise it's too much like jelly. You can't really slice into it. So that bit of that story certainly is not what's done today.<br />
<br />
J: Well maybe he took it out&ndash;cause it did say that he did put it in formaldehyde&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Well that's routine. That's routine.<br />
<br />
J: He was preparing it. He kept it out for the amount of time necessary and then instead of putting it back after the examination of the brain he kept it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, I think probably what happened is normally you would take it out, you pickle it for 2 weeks then you do what's called brain cutting. You slice it all the way through and you look for pathology and you look for the structures and whatnot and that's it. Then slides get filed away and the rest of it get thrown out, gets discarded as medical waste. Or, or, what can happen, sometimes the family may request that every last scrap of material gets returned and gets buried with the body.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. I'm sure that's&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: That happens sometimes, too. In fact, that happens even with&ndash;sometimes people will donate their body to science and their body will be dissected by medical students. Sometimes those bodies are just cremated. Other times everything's got to be put back&ndash;you don't put it back together but basically all bundled up and then sent back to the family to be buried or whatever they want to do with it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: That is a typical Jewish custom. I don't know how religious or close Einstein was to strict Jewish customs but I can tell you that that is Jewish customs. You bury as much of the remains as you possibly can.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So he probably&ndash;he held back the brain. He didn't do with it whatever was normally supposed to happen to it.<br />
<br />
J: No. He stole it. That's what happened.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. He stole it. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Brain thief.<br />
<br />
B: I'm going to donate my body to science fiction.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright. Continuing on&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: You stole that joke from somebody.<br />
<br />
J: So Thomas Harvey, because of what he did, because he kept Einstein's brain, he lost his job. Which seems to be the appropriate thing to take place.<br />
<br />
E: Bad trade.<br />
<br />
S: Cause that was unethical. What he did.<br />
<br />
J: And during that process he claimed that Einstein's son, Hans, gave him permission but that claim was denied by the family.<br />
<br />
S: What about Frans?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So, as I'm reading through this I realize, of course, hindsight being 20/20, I don't disagree with what the guy did. I think it was obvious to him at the time that there was something important about Einstein's brain and it should be studied further. Shouldn't just be thrown away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It kind of makes you wish that somebody at NASA thought that about the moon landing footage. <br />
<br />
B: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: "Ya know, I'm going to put this aside and not put it&ndash;file it with the rest of the tapes that are going to get erased and reused."<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Or, "Lets make a couple of backups, just in case. Or put it somewhere else. I don't know."<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Anyway.<br />
<br />
J: I've really gotta&ndash;let me sprint to the finish guys.<br />
<br />
B: Thanks for reminding me.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, go ahead.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. So I mentioned that I don't disagree. What Thomas Harvey wanted was he wanted neuro-anatomists to analyse Einstein's brain and see if they could find something out about it that we didn't know about the human brain before and that was his goal but as the story goes&ndash;so 40 years passes and then a writer named, Paterniti, he heard about all these events that we just went through and he decided that&ndash;I guess he wanted to write about what had taken place so he tracks down and finds Harvey. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Did he sue him?<br />
<br />
J: No. This guys an author.<br />
<br />
S: So he didn't give him a Paterniti suit?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god. You're on a roll tonight, Steve.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Any who, so, he tracks down Harvey, gets into a long conversation with him and, I guess, between the conversation and the two of them going back and forth they mutually decide the brain should be returned to Einstein's family and, I guess they new at the time that his granddaughter Evelyn was still alive so they wanted to return it to her. So Paterniti drives to Harvey's house, he described Harvey as bringing out Einstein's brain in a Tupperware jar. In a Tupperware container.<br />
<br />
E: Tupperware.<br />
<br />
J: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. That would seal in the freshness, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So the two of them planned to drive across the country from New Jersey all the way to California where the granddaughter lived. I guess they conversation had continued during this drive and Paterniti found out that Einstein had indeed&ndash;I'm sorry, that Harvey had indeed been sending out Einstein's brain when samples were requested he would take the samples and send them to neurologists across the globe. So, when saw the brain in the Tupperware container it had been cut up. It was sliced up. So, Harvey sent 3 different samples to a scientist named Marian Diamond and she had contacted Harvey years earlier and requested samples from 3 different parts of Einstein's brain and he did end up shipping them to her but he ended up shipping them to her in an old mayonnaise jar.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Okay? Not making this up.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: This was around 1980. She studied the samples. She found that Einstein's brain had normal amount of neurons but he had a higher than normal percentage of a different kind of brain cell and that cell was called a glial cell. That increase in glial cells was found especially in the parts of the brain that involved imagery and complex thinking, so that definitely made Diamond realize, "Well, this is very curious. Let me look into it." But first, Steve, why don't you tell us what a glial cell is.<br />
<br />
B: Support cells, aren't they?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's the other kinds of cells in the brain other than neurons and they are&ndash;yeah, for many years we thought they were basically support cells.<br />
<br />
B: Like structural cells.<br />
<br />
S: Not just structural but they create the friendly environment for the neurons. <br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right, they're there keeping the neurons alive and happy while the neurons are doing their job of remembering and calculating and stuff.<br />
<br />
B: Kind of like the Remora around sharks.<br />
<br />
S: I guess.<br />
<br />
J: So, at the time&ndash;<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Diamond was now asking questions like, "Well, why would there be more of these cells here if they're really just support cells? What's the significance of there being more of them here?" And it was a very odd idea at the time to think that glial cells had anything to do with Einstein's intelligence. Being that the cells were thought to be there for perhaps structural integrity perhaps there to just be, like Steve said, like more support cells than actual cells that were there for thinking. Alright, so now we go forward another 10 years and another researcher named Steven J. Smith published a paper that changed the perception of and understanding of the brain because what he did was&ndash;he was studying neurons and he was also studying these glial cells and he speculated that glial cells also were a part of the communication that happened within the cell and that also these cells weren't only communicating chemically but they were communicating with electricity in the manner that neurons communicate. And then he kept on fleshing out his idea and he also said that these glial cells could possibly be picking up communication between neurons&ndash;neurons are communicating with each other, glial cells would be listening in on this communication and then sending that data to other parts of the brain. So he came up with this idea that the brain&ndash;it's another way that the brain could be communicating internally. Which at the time was a profound idea. They though, at the time, that only neurons were doing the heavy lifting and that even though there was a ton of other cells in the brain that they didn't think really were doing anything. Neurons were it, but once they realized, "You know what? These glial cells might actually be doing complex things like be involved in learning and memory and ideas that we have of like what does it mean to be a genius. Glial cells might have something to do with high end thinking." So, once that started that started to really open up new ideas and that started a whole different school of thought. So then yet another scientist named, Doug Fields, he reproduced Smith's research and confirmed that it was actually valid. And, at one point, Doug Fields wrote, "Now we can see scores of ways in which astrocytes could be involved in many cognitive processes." And now it's not so crazy to find that there were abnormally high numbers of astrocytes in the parts of Einstein's brain involved in imagery and mathematical ability and that sort of thing. So, that was a pretty huge milestone and a huge leap forward in our understanding of the human brain. So in 2007, Harvey died. He really didn't know that him taking Einstein's brain, actually through these steps and through these different people actually lead to a move forward in our understanding of the riddle of the mind, but it seems that he actually did have something to do with it. And, Einstein's granddaughter didn't end up wanting her grandfather's brain so Harvey, before he died, he returned the brain back to the pathology department at Princeton, where it is today.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, can you only find out the number of astrocytes by cutting into a brain or is there a way to test it while you're still alive?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you can estimate it just by knowing what the density of astrocytes are and then calculating it by volume but if you want to look at an individuals astrocyte density, yeah, you gotta stain it. You gotta cut into it.<br />
<br />
J: So, Steve, could you just take a little&ndash;take a biopsy of somebody's brain and test it that way?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. You could.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think you could do&ndash;really?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Why not?<br />
<br />
E: Well, are you supposed to be biopsying the brain for this kind of testing purposes. It's really more for diseases.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you wouldn't do this. You wouldn't do that. You wouldn't biopsy a humans brain just out of curiosity but we do it for diagnostic purposes but it's got to be worth while to the person.<br />
<br />
E: Right. There's got to be something going on that you're looking for the answer for a cure or something.<br />
<br />
B: Risk benefit.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if they&ndash;I know it's not uncommon&ndash;brain surgery happens all the time. They open up people's skulls. They literally get in there with tools and go deep into the brain and remove tumors and do things like that. Cognitively if you did take someone's skull off, or a portion of the skull, and just cut out, say a jelly bean sized piece of the brain, under the idea that the person isn't going to bleed to death or whatever, just removing a piece of the brain then putting the skull piece back and letting the person heal. What would they lose from losing a portion of the brain that size?<br />
<br />
B: Depends. It depends on the portion.<br />
<br />
E: Lobotomi&ndash;You're lobotomizing a person at that point.<br />
<br />
B: It totally depends. My guess would be that either it's totally unnoticeable or you'd be completely debilitated.<br />
<br />
S: Bob's right. It completely depends on which jelly bean piece of brain you take out.<br />
<br />
B: Take the hypothalamus and you're f'd.<br />
<br />
S: For example, the right frontal lobe is largely redundant and you could do a lot of stuff to that without producing and noticeable deficits. <br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: And, in fact, when surgeons have to go into the brain they prefer to do the non-dominant frontal lobe because it's mostly redundant, but, you take out language cortex and you can make somebody completely lose their ability to speak, for example.<br />
<br />
B: It'd be like a stroke, Jay. It'd be like a stroke.<br />
<br />
J: But even a piece that small? <br />
<br />
S: If it's critical, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So there is one place in your brain that a certain type of functionality is happening and there's parts of your brains which is just storage for memory, there's parts of your brain that is doing something like processing what you see or what you hear. So you're better off losing a little portion of your memory than you are like a major piece of functionality, of course, but, I thought it was more evenly distributed.<br />
<br />
S: No. No no. It's not and it's also&ndash;memory's pretty evenly distributed but functions are localized and there's also&ndash;it's not just how localized it is it's how redundant it is. If something's really lateralized to one side you only have one piece of your brain that's doing that thing then you don't want to lose that. If you have bilateral redundancy then obviously you can afford to lose one cause the other side will make up for it. So, yeah, it depends on a lot of things. Interestingly, when reading through science news items this week&ndash;just this week was a study published by Swedish researchers from the University of Gothenburg and they were looking at astrocytes, which are a form of glial cells, and their effects on neuronal connections and function and essentially what they found is that the astrocytes are modulating the strength of the signalling between the neurons. Now, they basically are effecting how those synapses between neurons change over time. So what that means is is that the astrocytes might actually be directly involved in the formation of memories and plasticity of the brain and learning. Which, again, is just further evidence for their greatly enhanced role in actual memory function of the brain, not just, again, as support cells. So that research is ongoing and that was a huge shift in our thinking about the role of astrocytes.<br />
<br />
=== Largest Radio Telescope Array <small>(27:49)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.86c1ac9d54a51fd47b845663527a077d.1191&show_article=1 --><br />
<br />
S: Well lets go on. We have another bit of astronomy news, Bob, you're going to tell us about the largest radio telescope ever.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. This one's a quickie. This is the biggest radio telescope in the world and it was recently unveiled by scientists in the Netherlands. It's called LOFAR which stands Low Frequency Array. I think we touched upon this a while back. It consists of a whopping 25,000 small antennas and they're real tiny. They range in size from 50 centimeters to about 2 meters across. So they're not very big at all. And they're all spread out all over, not only the Netherlands, but also Germany, Sweden, France and Britain. And it's pretty cool. This thing is really going to do some amazing work I predict. Femke Beckhurst of the Netherlands Radio Astronomy Institute said, "Today we have launched the biggest radio telescope in the world. When you combine all the antennas you get a giant telescope with a diameter of about 1,000 kilometers," which is about 600 miles so that's pretty big. And it takes some nifty software to actually take all those separate signals and stitch them together. They're actually using a supercomputer to do some of that work. It's the Blue Gene P supercomputer which is a petaflop class supercomputer. So it's pretty fast. So with these observations that this radio telescope, or, I guess you can call it radio telescopes&ndash;So, the observations that they're going to be able to make with this&ndash;they're going to learn about the origin of the universe and some people are saying that they'll be able to go to the moment right after the big bang. Other&ndash;some other key science projects for LOFAR are what they call the epoch of re-ionization which is basically when the universe turned on. When things became. Also, things like ultra high energy cosmic rays which are a bit of a mystery, such as the one we mentioned&ndash;we mentioned one such cosmic ray a while back called the Oh My God Particle in 1991 which is probably the most energetic cosmic ray ever detected which was so powerful&ndash;imagine it was a subatomic particle with the energy of a baseball travelling at 60 miles an hour. Imagine, you get hit with one proton and it knocks you on your butt like it was a baseball travelling 60. So, amazingly fast. We're not sure what could have imparted so much energy to such a tiny thing. It was travelling so close to the speed of light it was essentially just a whisker&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But to clarify, it wouldn't really knock you on your butt, right? It would just go right through you.<br />
<br />
B: No. It's too tiny. Right. It is too tiny and it could do some damage, though, if it happened to hit the right, whatever in your body, DNA or something.<br />
<br />
E: Well, what if it hit a computer or something? It would really screw that up.<br />
<br />
B: That's a lot of kinetic energy. I don't know where&ndash;how all the kinetic energy would be transferred. Would it be transferred into heat. Would it fly right through? Probably&ndash;it might just fly right through.<br />
<br />
S: Or maybe it will smash through several particles on its way.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. It might hit&ndash;if hit's something squarely it could start a cascade so I think if it's just right it could actually&ndash;it could be noticeable. But there's other things&ndash;the solar science and space weather, cosmic magnetism, so I'm sure this thing is going to be used for a really long time and hopefully maybe even get even bigger.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob, what's the difference between the moment of the Big Bang and the moment of first illuminosity, I think is the word you used?<br />
<br />
B: Well, I believe it was 100,000 years or 1,000 years, it was a lot of time before things calmed down enough. Things were just so energetic that light&ndash;any photons that might have been generated were just bouncing around all over the place and they really couldn't settle down and just take a straight line any direction so there's nothing to see if you look back in visible light there's nothing to see cause all the photons are just kinda bouncing around. But also this epoch of re-ionization&ndash;that's kind of a different term than I'm used to. They refer to it as when things became luminous so I think it depends on&ndash;are they talking about the first stars, the first galaxies, the first quasars?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
B: If that's what they're talking about then that would actually be after what I'm talking&ndash;what I've just mentioned which is also called photon decoupling. So actually this epoch is a little bit different. I think it's later on.<br />
<br />
E: It's just amazing that they can make that distinction or make the determination that so much&ndash;however much time it is happened between the two.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: You think of the Big Bang&ndash;certainly in a visual display you're watching some show on TV that kinda of describes it and it's an intense white spot of light from the get go. At least that's how the depict it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But they always give you the impossible perspective of being outside the universe when the Big Bang happens.<br />
<br />
B: Space time, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But that's not a possible perspective. So it's kind of misleading.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A little.<br />
<br />
S: And a lot of that is&ndash;evidence is theoretical. They're just well what should have happened if you have the mass of the universe at a point and then what would happen over time? Based upon the temperatures and what things are like at those temperatures. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: But maybe this large radio telescope will help fill in those gaps.<br />
<br />
B: Some of them.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully.<br />
<br />
B: If it can actually get close to the moment after the Big Bang then absolutely it will be able to do&ndash;it will illuminate us in many ways.<br />
<br />
E: Very cool.<br />
<br />
J: I still don't get the concept that when the Big Bang took place&ndash;like, where it was specially in reality. You can't go to that space&ndash;that place in outer space because it doesn't really&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Sure you can. Wherever you go, there you are.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, geez. Really, Bob?<br />
<br />
E: It happened everywhere&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: It's true. It's true. It's everywhere. You can't point to it because it's not one specific spot. It's everywhere.<br />
<br />
J: Well, it didn't happen right here.<br />
<br />
E: It might have.<br />
<br />
S: Every part of the universe was at that point, Jay, at that time.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, so, meaning that the universe is growing in size.<br />
<br />
S: Of course. But it's like&ndash;if you do the two dimensional analogy, it's like blowing up a balloon. Where was it before you blew it up? Well it's&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: How&ndash;right. Try to explaining to a two dimensional creature on that balloon where&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: It was in the package.<br />
<br />
J: where the center is.<br />
<br />
S: You'd have to point into the 4th dimension.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
J: I can't picture it.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Amityville Horror House for Sale <small>(34:11)</small>===<br />
[http://www.theness.com/roguesgallery/?p=1676 Rogue's Gallery: Amityville Horror House for Sale]<br />
<br />
S: So, the Amityville Horror House is back in the news.<br />
<br />
E: And it's back in the news because its up for sale.<br />
<br />
S: Sale. That's right. For what? 1.5 million?<br />
<br />
E: 1.15 million dollars.<br />
<br />
B: In this market?<br />
<br />
J: I know. Isn't that crazy?<br />
<br />
S: You can own a piece of paranormal history.<br />
<br />
B: But, is that price kind of crazy for the neighborhood because the house is famous?<br />
<br />
E: I don't know. I imagine that has something to do with it. They said they'd done a lot of renovations recently on the house. So&mdash;Look, I imagine the main factor, like any other piece of property is&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Location.<br />
<br />
E: comparable&mdash;yeah, location and comparable houses for sale in the area.<br />
<br />
S: But here's my question. Now, typically, if a house is alleged to be haunted or if a murder took place there it's considered psychologically damaged and that actually reduces the value of the house. But in this case it's famous for being psychologically damaged, so does that increase the value of the house?<br />
<br />
E: Or do the two equal each other out?<br />
<br />
S: The balance out?<br />
<br />
E: The negative and positive balance out.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So, there were a series of murders there in 1974. Ronald DeFeo Sr., his wife, Louise, their two sons and two daughters were shot while they slept in the home and the one remaining family member alive, Ronald, nicknamed Butch DeFeo, he confessed to the murders and is serving a life sentence in prison. And then just a few weeks after the sentencing of Butch, George and Kathy Lutz and their three children moved into the home where a new round of supposed horrors began. Muwahaha. Well, not really.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about them.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, there was supposedly all sorts of things happening in this house. They reported sightings of&mdash;well, the kids reported sightings of animals, mostly a pig named Jody. A sculpted lion came to life and supposedly walked around the house.<br />
<br />
S: Cool.<br />
<br />
E: A demonic boy appeared. It was photographed and you can find that famous photograph online. Kind of looks like a regular boy but that's beside the point. And other strange things in the house. Oh, green slime oozed from the walls. Crucifix on the wall was constantly rotating until it left itself upside down and, needless to say, 28 days after they moved in&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: 28 days later.<br />
<br />
E: 28 days later. Good one Steve. The Lutz's fled.<br />
<br />
S: What about the&mdash;you forgot about the hell-mouth. It's a gaping mouth to hell in their basement.<br />
<br />
J: Wait. Wasn't that in Poltergeist.<br />
<br />
E: That was another movie, I think.<br />
<br />
B: No. No no no. <br />
<br />
E: You're right, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: It's the red room.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It was a red room, which in the movie they kind of made it seem like it was the road to hell or something.<br />
<br />
E: Now there was one small problem with all of these paranormal happenings. They never really happened. It was a story&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: It was fake.<br />
<br />
E: The whole thing was fake. However, that didn't stop famous demonologist and psychic investigator&mdash;paranormal investigator Ed Warren and his wife Loraine from investigating the matter and deeming that house to be one of the most haunted places in the world.<br />
<br />
S: Right. Right after their basement.<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Their basement in Monroe, Connecticut #1, Aminityville #2.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Right. It was fake. And now it's up for sale.<br />
<br />
E: It is. So&mdash;if you've got dollars burning a whole in your pocket&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: You might want to go get a piece of history.<br />
<br />
S: The people who bought the house after the Lutz's complained that they had to deal with the paranormal tourists bothering them day in and day out. Gawking at the house and everything. So&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So much so that they had to change the address of the house.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So it really was psychologically damaged for them, cause it came with all the tourists.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm looking at a picture of the demon boy.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: It's a little boy.<br />
<br />
S: With no eyes.<br />
<br />
J: Well, the eyes are whited out so it looks kind of creepy. Photo could have been doctored.<br />
<br />
E: Could have been a dozen things, right, other than a demonic boy from hell.<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:46)</small>==<br />
S: Well, thanks for that, Evan, and why don't we go on to Who's That Noisy?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. For those of you who forgot here is last week's Who's that Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: And then I began to study back&mdash;the relationships between the elements for plants and they are different as the elements for humans. Because Cali and Forswore are actually the friends of each other in the homeopathic material magica for humans, but in plants these two substances are each other's enemy.</blockquote><!-- The Cali and Forswore are just going phonetically. I couldn't understand what he said. --><br />
<br />
S: Mm hmm.<br />
<br />
E: Mm hmm. So, you learned a little bit about homeopathy in that clip.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Two substances&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or not.<br />
<br />
S: Two substances which are enemies in plants are friends in people. Or animals.<br />
<br />
E: Bet you didn't know that before.<br />
<br />
J: So who is that guy?<br />
<br />
E: That is V. D. Kaviraj. A homeopath of some repute and the reason I actually found this person is because I was watching a Youtube video of our&mdash;well, friend, Mr. Benneth&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Who had this fellow as part of an interview so I thought that would make a rather interesting Noisy, last week.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And, not only did someone get it correctly but they actually also went ahead and found the clip from which I clipped it so if you go onto our message boards and [[SGU_Episode 256 | Episode 256]] you can actually take a look and listen for yourself to the entire interview and bring some coffee cause you with otherwise fall asleep.<br />
<br />
S: You don't want your brain to explode. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Exactly. So, NoWoo, en-oh-double you-oh-oh, from the message boards guessed correctly. Congratulations. Well done.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. What have you got for this week, Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. And here is this weeks Who's That Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: Does the shade<!-- what? --> give you the authority you need to take dangerous products off the shelves? And the answers always yes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
E: That's a short one this week.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Thanks Evan.<br />
<br />
E: But I think there's enough information in there for someone to get it. So, be the first one to guess correctly. Good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Ev.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Soy <small>(41:02)</small>===<br />
S: We have time for a few e-mails this week. The first one comes from Michael Wilson from Prescott, Arizona and Michael writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Steve - You made the offhand comment that there are "serious concerns" that soy milk is producing an estrogen type hormonal effect. I am a vegan bodybuilder who drinks a quart of soy milk everyday. I am concerned your offhand comment will scare people away from switching to a healthier milk alternative with no saturated fat. I've looked in the past when people have made these claims, and all I can find is that there may be some very mild effect, but nothing that rises to the level of your "serious concern" comment. If there was, there would be serious estrogen related issues throughout Asian countries. Since you felt it necessary to scare people away from soy by telling them about the "serious concerns" science has with soy milk, I hope you will provide the research on you next show that proves soy milk causes serious estrogen like effects. I do love the show, and I thank everyone for the time and effort you guys put into it every week. <br><br>Michael Wilson Prescott, AZ</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So, Michael's referring to two weeks ago when we had Pamela Gay and Frazier Cane on when&mdash;I can't remember what we were talking about but the notion of estro&mdash;the notion of&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Pamela said she drink soy milk and then we got onto the discussion.<br />
<br />
S: She drinks soy milk. Yeah, so I was razzing her a little bit about the fact that not everything is perfectly safe. You could find concerns about anything and in fact there are concerns about the estrogen like effects of soy milk. But it was an off hand comment, but I do think it's good for follow up to see what the evidence actually shows. The concerns are raised by the fact that soy contains isoflavones which have an estrogen effect. It's hormonally active and therefor that creates that plausibility that it could have some actual clinical effects in people and there are various populations in which it has been studied. So, one group are women who&mdash;are women in general, especially women who have had breast cancer. The question is do the estrogens increase the risk of breast cancer or if you have breast cancer does it worsen the outcome. The answer to that question appears to be no. So the evidence so far is pretty solid that there's no negative effect for women with breast cancer. In fact one review I read said that there may in fact be a small beneficial effect because it may competitively block the effects of women who have high estrogen levels. So there it's either no effect or maybe a small beneficial effect in a subset of women. The bigger concerns are with men, though, because obviously estrogen is a feminizing hormone and the question is does&mdash;do the estrogen effects of isoflavones in soy milk have a feminizing effect on men? So far the research does not show any such effect. What about the reproductive effects on men? Here, we have animal data which shows that there is a negative effect. This is where the biggest concerns are. And these concerns are that we haven't done enough research to really know what the net effects are in people. So we have animal data that shows some concern but not really sufficient human data to rule out that there may be a negative effect on the reproduction of men. The final group are infants, especially since there is a soy based infant formulas. And here there were several reviews in the last couple of years. Some saying there's really no proven effect. Other reviewers saying that, again, there is concern that there maybe some hormonal effects on infants and that&mdash;and essentially where the reviewers agree is that the research is not adequate to rule out a significant effect. Therefor if you want to be cautious you may avoid using soy based infant formulas until more research is done to show that there isn't any significant effect. Estrogen like effect. So that's where we are. I do think it's fair to say that there are concerns. Nothing is proven. And while some of those concerns have been ruled out by research there are others, specifically reproduction in men and in infants where we don't have enough research to really say that they're safe. My take is that it's probably a very weak effect. I would be surprised if the research ultimately showed that there was a strong effect, but those are the areas where the research is not yet sufficient to confidently say that there isn't a potential effect.<br />
<br />
B: But also&mdash;but this guy, Steve, if you're&mdash;if you're not an infant and you're beyond&mdash;you've already had your kids and you're done with kids, then it would be even less of a concern?<br />
<br />
S: That's right. And if you're a woman, there's basically no concern.<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Cursed Cell Phone Number <small>(45:50)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>The cursed cell phone number Thought you guys might like this story of truly stupid superstitious thinking that misses the glaringly obvious. <br />
<br><br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7763578/Mobile-phone-number-suspended-after-three-users-die-in-10-years.html Telegraph: Mobile phone number suspended after three users die in 10 years]<br />
<br>Danforth France Glendale, CA</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Jay, you're gonna tell us about the cursed cell phone number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. This is really silly to be honest with you.<br />
<br />
B: It's silly.<br />
<br />
E: Silly.<br />
<br />
J: It's just one of those story where there's a string of coincidences that could make certain people think certain things but, basically there was a phone number that was given out. And I don't know if this is the real number but it seems like it isn't because it's a seri&mdash;it's 0-888-888-888&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: So, that's the number. I mean, my understanding from reading is that's the number that they suspended.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. Could be. Now, isn't the number 8 unlucky somewhere?<br />
<br />
B: No. It's lucky in Asian cultures. Isn't 8&mdash;8 is lucky, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: 4 is unlucky.<br />
<br />
S: 4 is unlucky cause it sounds like death.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: 4 is unlucky. 8 is&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So, here's the quick one two. The first person who got it, he was the former CEO of a Bulgarian mobile phone company. His company issued him the number.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: He died of cancer in 2001 at 48 years old. After he died some rumors came out that his cancer had been caused by a business rival using radioactive poisoning. I find that unlikely, but, okay. Take that away. Let's just say that guy died. It's horrible. Died of cancer in 2001. 48 years old. That was horrible. The second that got the number was a Bulgarian mafia boss. There's a couple of things that mafia bosses do really well. They kill, and then they get killed.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
J: Right? So this guy was gunned down in 2003 by an assassin.<br />
<br />
B: What are the odds?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: A mafia killing? What?<br />
<br />
J: Then the number went to another guy who was described as a crooked business man and he was gunned down outside of an Indian restaurant in Bulgaria. So since then the number was retired because the police are investigating and all this stuff, but, there's the idea that the number is cursed or unlucky&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Or jinxed.<br />
<br />
E: It's your unlucky number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's been&mdash;the number has been touched by evil and anyone who gets it is gonna get killed. So I'm thinking&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Anyone mob related who touches it will get killed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's pretty clear to see&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or crime related.<br />
<br />
J: through this. It's not that big of a coincidence that a bunch of people that were involved in very dangerous and crazy criminal activity are getting killed. <br />
<br />
B: But if a number becomes available&mdash;is it more likely that the number became available because somebody dumped the number or because somebody died? Because I'm never gonna want to lose my number today.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I don't know. Now that people have personal phone numbers. Yeah. Probably people hold on to them for life. Even if you change carrier, right? You can take your number to another carrier.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Now you can. I don't know if you could in early 2000&mdash;2003. I don't know if you could during that time period. So, anyway, the reason why we bring up this story was not just because somebody wrote in about it but we thought it was a quick and easy example of a series of events strung together to make a story where there really isn't a story or a connection.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. There's a few ways you can look at this. One is it's not that big a coincidence that 3 people with the same number die in the short period of time. Just taking the number of phone numbers out there, I'm sure that happens a lot just by coincidence. Right? I mean it would be surprising if that never happened. This is a little different because these people were high profile and the number's unusual. It's&mdash;you could of it as a very desirable number because it's all 8's. It's the kind of number you get if you work for the phone company like the CEO or you're a mob boss, I guess. Right? They're not going to give it to just some guy. And these&mdash;two of these three people were at high risk for dying so that makes it even less of a coincidence that this kind of number is going to go to the kind of people who may be in risky businesses. But then you also think of it from the phone companies point of view. Obviously the notion that the number itself is jinxed is magical thinking and it's ridiculous but from a business marketing point of view, do they want to hand this number over to somebody else and then what if something happens to that person or even&mdash;they may just get upset if they find out that the phone company assigned them a quote unquote "jinxed" number. You know what I mean? Probably just fewer headaches for the phone company if they just get rid of it, even for a while. You know what I mean? You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. It's a numbers racket.<br />
<br />
J: That's a good job, boys. It's good work, boys.<br />
<br />
=== Magic Bee Juice <small>(50:27)</small>===<br />
S: The next one comes from David Gardner from Osaka, Japan. And David writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>One of the branches of the company I work for in Japan has started selling Propolis as a means to make more money in a bad economy. This branch has repeatedly tried to get me to buy some of this magic bee juice. Many of my Japanese co-workers have taken the bait. They are putting bee juice in their drinks and swallowing magic bee juice pills. When I ask them if they feel any better, they all say they aren’t sure. Hmm… I think the company I work for has a snake oill division. Do you know of any scientific evidence that shows any benefit to taking Propolis? All the information I found say that Propolis may contain lead and other garbage bees pick up while flying around the city. Thank you for your time. <br><br>David Gardner Osaka, Japan </blockquote><!-- shouldn't we fix the "aren't" that's all messed up? --><br />
<br />
S: Well, do you guys now what Propolis is?<br />
<br />
B: Nope.<br />
<br />
J: No.<br />
<br />
E: It's the star in the sky that doesn't rotate.<br />
<br />
S: It's magic bee juice. This is&mdash;So, bees make a variety of things. This is the gooey, sticky stuff that bees use to hold together their nests. They largely pick it up&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Oh. The honey comb?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so, yeah. But it's not just wax. I guess this is even stronger structural stuff that they use&mdash;it's like the glue that they use to hold it together and its&mdash;they'll pick up the sap from coniferous trees. Resins. It sounds nasty. It doesn't sound like the kind of stuff you would want to eat. I mean the bees don't eat it. It contains phenolics, aromatic compounds, volatile oils and terpenes. But even worse that that, as the bees fly around our modern society they're not just picking up resins from pine trees. They're also picking up lead paint. They're picking up caulking.<br />
<br />
B: Yum.<br />
<br />
S: They're picking up road tar and other things.<br />
<br />
E: Fecal material.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. They're picking up all kinds of nasty stuff and mixing it all together with these resins and terpenes and they're using that to glue together their nests and then&mdash;and idiots are taking that stuff and eating it.<br />
<br />
E: Now, when you say idiot&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: It's glue like?<br />
<br />
S: It's sticky. If you get the sap off a pine tree&mdash;it's like that.<br />
<br />
E: That's awful.<br />
<br />
S: Now, of course, it contains a lot of chemicals, right? As you might imagine&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: It's all natural.<br />
<br />
S: Sure. And if you look at those chemicals those chemicals do stuff. The body's going to react to those chemicals. Actually, probably the most common reaction is an allergic dermatitis and when I looked up Propolis on PubMed most of the specific references to it and people were to&mdash;this allergic dermatitis.<br />
<br />
E: Is this the same allergic reaction people have when they get a bee sting?<br />
<br />
S: No. No. It's different. This is more just a contact dermatitis. The skin gets red and bee stings can have more of a systemic reaction. That's where it becomes a problem, as opposed to just a rash. So, there's no research in humans showing any beneficial effects. It's all extrapolating wildly from just nonspecific&mdash;or just reactions that happen to some chemical that you can find in this stuff. There some animal data that it does stuff, but there's nothing that really can be used to base any kind of medicinal claims. So this really is snake oil. And apparently it's been around for hundreds of years. This is nothing new. It's just an idea that crops up every now and then.<br />
<br />
E: Here. Eat this bee waste byproduct.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's bee waste. It is bee waste.<br />
<br />
E: Bee waste.<br />
<br />
S: Pretty much everything that bees make somebody has decided to sell as snake oil. Pollen, royal jelly, and even bee venom. You guys have heard&mdash;I've talked about bee venom therapy.<br />
<br />
E: Bee venom therapy, sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. For, multiple sclerosis and arthritis and things like that. Pretty much everything. The only thing that bees make that has real medicinal value is honey and only if you put it topically on your wound.<br />
<br />
E: Or on toast.<br />
<br />
J: I love honey.<br />
<br />
E: I love you too, honey.<br />
<br />
B: Never spoils.<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Personality Tests <small>(54:41)</small> ==<br />
S: Well, we actually have a Name that Logical Fallacy this week.<br />
<br />
B: Ooo.<br />
<br />
E: Ooo. Queue the music.<br />
<br />
S: This is a question that comes from some guy called Mike Lacelle in Canada.<br />
<br />
J: Who is he?<br />
<br />
E: That a funny name.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know. Some bald guy.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: And Mike wants to know&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: But despite that&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: And Mike will be at TAM this year, by the way.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, this guy's gonna be at TAM?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Oh. I can't wait to meet him.<br />
<br />
B: I'm not going now.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: I'll see you there Mike.<br />
<br />
S: Mike writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Steve, I'm trying to figure out the difference between the Incorrect Cause fallacy and the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy? Skepticwiki is telling me that Post Hoc is a type of Incorrect Cause Fallacy, but I'm just not getting the difference. They seem to be one and the same. Any help would be appreciated. I'm trying to complete a 5x5 recording we did a few months ago and I'm recording a missing part which was about the "Incorrect Cause" fallacy. The topic of the 5x5 was Chemtrails and it seems to me that the Post Hoc fallacy would work better here.<br><br> Mike Lacelle Canada </blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So, this is an interesting one. The Incorrect Cause Fallacy is actually a category of logical fallacies.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There's lots of&mdash;and the Post Hoc is just a sub-category of it.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly. It's one type. <br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: It's any fallacy where you are making an invalid inference as to cause and effect. That's the Incorrect Cause Fallacy. My&mdash;I had a couple back and forths with Mike and he was saying that if you invoke the wrong cause for something just because your information is incorrect is that an incorrect cause fallacy and the answer to that is no. It doesn't me that you're just mistaken about what causes what, that's just a false premise, it's that the logical inference is incorrect, cause that's what a logical fallacy is. So, in the Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc Fallacy, you're concluding that B is caused by A ''because'' B follows A. That's where the invalid logic comes in. You're reaching the conclusion not because you just have a mistake belief but because you think that the fact that it comes after it is how you know that it's being caused by it.<br />
<br />
B: Right. So it's more sequential, whereas the Incorrect Cause Fallacy&mdash;it could be&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Is anything.<br />
<br />
B: It could be after. It could be anything.<br />
<br />
E: It could go any direction.<br />
<br />
B: They could happen at the same exact time. Could be AB instead of A followed by B. Could be at the same time or even&mdash;or other variations. So that's the main distinction as I see it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And it's not even restricted to temporal but&mdash;another common Incorrect Cause Fallacy is the&mdash;assuming causation from correlation as you're saying.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: They're correlated in some way, not because, necessarily, one follows the other but they could just be happening together more frequently or at the same time and then you assume that they're happening together because one is causing the other when, in fact, there are many relationships that possible. You cannot infer a specific causal relationship. Often people, however, say that&mdash;and I hear people say this, or write this, all the time, that correlation does not imply causation and that's incorrect. I ''does'' imply causation. It just does ''equal'' causation.<br />
<br />
B: Right. Right.<br />
<br />
S: Sometimes correlations occur because there ''is'' causation and it is&mdash;it certainly does imply that. It's one piece of evidence, but in order to make a specific causal conclusion you have to line up multiple correlations. Other examples of this would include the Complex Cause Fallacy, where maybe there are multiple causations but you pick one out and say that's ''the'' cause.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's a very common one, right? <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: We all sort of unconsciously do that all the time where we tend to think simplistically in terms of one cause for things when in fact many complex things will have multiple causes that are not mutually exclusive.<br />
<br />
J: And it's not just one cause. It could also be the most interesting cause has got to be it, too, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: We're so drawn to the one thats&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: That's interesting or&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: sexy.<br />
<br />
S: ''or'' the one that confirms our prior beliefs and ideology.<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Ah, confirmation bias.<br />
<br />
S: Then there's the Regression Fallacy. This is where you assume cause and effect because of what ultimately regression to the mean. Here's an example. Appearing on the cover of ''Sports Illustrated'' is a curse that will cause them to have a bad season or a bad game or whatever following that.<br />
<br />
E: I've heard that before, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. The ''Sports Illustrated'' curse. But that can be explained by regression to the mean.<br />
<br />
B: Right. They were on the cover in the first place because they might&mdash;they just happened to have, say, and exceptional season, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: And then of course the regression to the mean has got to kick in at some point, you would think, and then it's like, "Oh, damn. Bad luck."<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. They had their best game, their best season, whatever. That gets them on the cover and any extreme is likely to be followed by something closer to the mean. The regression to the mean.<br />
<br />
J: That's very similar to the Droning On Fallacy where skeptical enthusiasts just keep talking about logical fallacies over and over again.<br />
<br />
S: Jay, I'm not familiar with that one.<br />
<br />
E: I'm not either. Hey, here's another logical fallacy.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:07)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, what you're say Jay, is that you want to move on to Science or Fiction. Is that what you're saying?<br />
<br />
J: It's time for Science or Fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. We'll kick in the real music.<br />
<br />
VO: It's time for Science or Fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Each week I come up with three science news items of facts, two genuine and one fictitious and then I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. Are you guys ready for this week?<br />
<br />
B: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: You can't make me play. Alright I'll play.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Here we go.<br />
<br />
*[http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots.<br />
<br />
Jay, go first.<br />
<br />
J: Well, okay, so I think that&mdash;the laser&mdash;the dark laser one that takes heat away from an object that it's focused on&mdash;that seems a little shifty to me. I don't see how&mdash;I wasn't aware that laser light had a temperature, either. I never really thought about that. And the second one about the comets that&mdash;coming from other solar systems. You know, I think that one's the fake.<br />
<br />
S: The comets?<br />
<br />
J: Mm hmm.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Evan?<br />
<br />
E: The dark laser is interesting. Taking heat away from an object on which it's focused. How exactly is it doing that? I absolutely don't know. Is it a laser at that point? Light&mdash;It's a beam of light that takes heat away from objects on which it's focused? That's fascinating. That's the most fascinating of these three. The one about the comets originating from other solar systems&mdash;I&mdash;seems very plausible. I guess you could argue that nothing is original in this solar system and that everything came from another place somewhere else. Other explosions. Other events that occur on a regular basis. So I think that one's rather plausible. I don't know why it's necessarily a new analysis, though. The last one was the five fold increase in the growth of rice plants. Alright, so you have a fungus on the rice plant. You manipulate the genetics of the fungus and it increases the yield times five. Boy I think the comets one is correct. I'm between this dark laser and this fungus. I'm just going to have to guess at this point. I'm going to say the fungus one is the fiction. I think that's wrong.<br />
<br />
S: Okay. Bob?<br />
<br />
B: The comet one&mdash;yeah, that's unusual. You've got the Oort Cloud&mdash;big huge cloud of comets. It was always pretty much assumed or stated directly that they were just part of the solar system. The fact that they could have been captured or from another solar system is news to me. I could see it. I could see how perhaps we&mdash;we did capture them but we're talking billions of comets out there. That's an interesting one. So you increase the yeild of rice by manipulating the genetics of the fungus growing on their roots. That's makes perfect sense to me. Who knows, perhaps the fungus were siphoning off nutrients that would have been going to the rice and so you cut back on their take of the nutrients and so more goes to the rice, less goes to the fungus so you've got greater growth. That's totally plausible and actually and awesome application of genetic manipulation. How valuable will that be? It's almost too good. The first one&mdash;the dark laser&mdash;an endothermic laser&mdash;I just&mdash;I know a little bit about lasers. I just can't imagine off the top of my head how it's going to be taking away heat. I mean you're focusing radiation on an object. Perhaps you're knocking away&mdash;you're somehow knocking away the most energetic molecules or atoms and you're lowering the average temper&mdash;temperature. Kinda like&mdash;I think that similar to evaporation cooling. But still&mdash;I can't decide between that and the fungus. <br />
<br />
E: I'm in the same boat.<br />
<br />
B: I can kind of make an argument and I hope the fungus one is true and I'm going to say that the laser one is fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. So you guys are evenly divided.<br />
<br />
J: Guess so.<br />
<br />
B: Doesn't happen very often.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. So, I guess I'll take these in order. [http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused. And I should mention that NIST stands for the National Institutes of Standards and Technology.<br />
<br />
B: Science.<br />
<br />
S: And also that Dark Laser was a character from&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: Ha! Yes. Timmy.<br />
<br />
S: Timmy Turner, yeah. Fairly Odd Parents.<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: And that one is, the fiction.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah baby.<br />
<br />
S: Good job, Bob. And yeah, I did take it from another story. So that's one if you had read the headline only you might have gotten sucked into it but if you actually read the article then&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I dug deeper.<br />
<br />
S: So, yeah, I couldn't find anything about an endothermic laser so I figured I was safe, for that. But who knows.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. I think you are.<br />
<br />
S: What the story is about a dark pulse laser. Now a pulse laser is a laser where they are pulses of increase in brightness. This is a dark pulse where there are pulses of decreases in brightness. So you have a laser humming along and then at certain intervals there are drop outs, essentially, of the brightness of the laser. And they were able to make these ultra short pulses, just 90 picoseconds, or trillionths of a second. They think this device could be very useful for communication. So this could have a lot of applications. So interesting.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Another way&mdash;I think another way to look at it, Steve, is that before this they would&mdash;when information was coming, when they would encode information, when they pulsed the laser&mdash;and that was kind of like the information and then there would be a pause. And then they would pulse more information and that would basically be the information. But this is the opposite.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When the light's hitting it's considered no information but when there's nothing coming then that's considered&mdash;the thrust of the information which&mdash;that's kind of odd but that's kind of how I took it.<br />
<br />
S: Right. No, I think so but&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: So opposite&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: The advantage is that they can pulse it much faster with much smaller pulses. I think that's&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Right. Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: why this approach may have some advantages. Right.<br />
<br />
B: And there's also because&mdash;if you get down to picoseconds they're getting so brief&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: so incredibly brief that&mdash;yeah. That seems like an awesome idea.<br />
<br />
S: Let's go to [http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems. That one is science. <br />
<br />
E: Yeah. Right.<br />
<br />
S: And this is a computer simulation. This one's actually been around for a couple days so figured some of you might have read it but&mdash;what essentially what astronomers did&mdash;this is Hal Levison, Martin Duncan from Queen's University, in Kingston, Canada and Ramon Brasser from France and David Kaufmann&mdash;what they did is they were investigating mainly through computer simulations the formation of our sun. Now, our sun formed in a stellar nursery, like most stars do, right? So when the star first formed it was surrounded closely by a lot of other stars but eventually when some of those stars went supernova it blew away a lot of the gas clouds and what pretty much ended the stellar nursery and the suns went their own way. But while they were still close together, what they surmise is that large planets in those systems would routinely fling out any small objects, like comets, into basically a cloud of interstellar space, right, among all these stars in the nursery. And that&mdash;when the stars went their own way they would just capture a random assortment of these interstellar comets and take them with them, cause they just got captured by that star's gravity. Right? So that may be why we have this cloud of comets around our sun. They were just all captured from this bigger cloud that was permeating this cluster of young stars in the stellar nursery. Does that make sense?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but so many? So many of them. I've heard estimates up in the billions.<br />
<br />
S: Why not? Why not? Basically all the stars were sharing their comets into one massive Oort Cloud and then&mdash;until our sun went its own way and just captured a bunch of them and took them away.<br />
<br />
B: That's pretty cool.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So this obviously needs empirical confirmation. Right now it's just a computer model, but it's an interesting idea. It would mean&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Good luck.<br />
<br />
J: They're like a light-year away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: They are far away. Pretty much by definition the farthest outskirts of the solar system.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But it would&mdash;and wouldn't that make sense, Bob, that that something so far out was simply captured by nearby stars?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: And, Evan, to clarify, you said that everything is eventually from other stellar systems and that's true of a second generation star. By definition everything in our solar system was in a&mdash;previously in another solar system, but these were&mdash;when we say that comet came from another solar system that means after it condensed down into a comet. Not just the raw material that went into it but after it was already comet. Then it got captured.<br />
<br />
E: I gotcha.<br />
<br />
S: Just to clarify that one point.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
S: And lets go on to [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots and that one is also science.<br />
<br />
B: Cool.<br />
<br />
S: Let me clarify a couple of things also that you guys said.<br />
<br />
J: Wait, can you hear Bob gushing cause he won this one?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: He's like, "Wheh&mdash;Cool! Yeah!"<br />
<br />
S: Jay, he's coming off a&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Jay.<br />
<br />
S: He's coming off a two weeks in a row losing so he's just happy it wasn't three in a row.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Jay, you have no idea what that's like, Jay.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh, I really don't. I really have no idea.<br />
<br />
S: So, Bob, both you and Evan if I remembered&mdash;if I heard correctly said that the yield of the rice increased by five fold but I didn't write or say that. It's the growth of the rice plants.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah. Okay.<br />
<br />
E: So the size&mdash;that actual physical size of the grain.<br />
<br />
S: Or the rate of growth. It said growth so that's what I wrote. It specifically did not say yield.<br />
<br />
B: Yield shpield.<br />
<br />
S: Yield is what we're interested in, though, right? So I don't know how that translates into yield. The other caveat that wasn't part of what I said was that this was done in a greenhouse, so not in rice paddies. So this was just in a lab&mdash;greenhouse somewhere.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah. Start there but you can kind of export&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Well yeah, but just to say&mdash;we have to know how it translates into a completely natural environment.<br />
<br />
B: Well, yeah. Yeah. Details.<br />
<br />
S: Now, but Bob, you got the effect of the fungus backwards. This is a fungus&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Really?<br />
<br />
S: This is a fungus that actually increases the growth of the plant. It does not detract from it.<br />
<br />
B: Oh. Wow.<br />
<br />
S: And how do you think it does that?<br />
<br />
B: Really? It supports it. It's a symbiotic relationship then. It supports it and &mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's supplying nutrients to the rice.<br />
<br />
B: You let me use your roots and I'll get you some good juice.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, basically it supplies phosphate. That's what it does. Which is a very limiting nutrient for plants. The fungus is mycorrhizal species. This specific species is <i>Glomus intraradices</i> and this has some very interesting genetics in that one filament of this fungus can contain many genetically distinct nuclei. So basically different assortments of its own genes in different parts of itself. So they were abe&mdash;it was not genetic engineering, it was just genetic manipulation. They were just using techniques to choose which subset of the genes of this fungus they were going to express and they were able to find an assortment that provided a lot more phosphate to the rice roots and actually&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Well how'd they select it? Was it just&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: The report was vague on the details but it made it sound like cultivation. Yeah, they&mdash;just breeding and cultivation. No genetic engineering. And anyway, they found one genetic version of this fungus that increased the growth of the rice plants by five fold. Very interesting. Which I thought was huge. But again I don't know how that will translate ultimately to yield. But think about that. That's a very interesting application.<br />
<br />
B: Perhaps they will be able to have two growing seasons.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Who knows.<br />
<br />
B: Right. So ultimately hopefully it will increase the yield.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And this report says that rice is the most important crop globally. Food crop. We think&mdash;over here we eat a lot of rice, but we also eat a lot of wheat and other things but in other parts of the world rice is it. It's very important. Yeah. <br />
<br />
E: That's it. That's all you get.<br />
<br />
S: Important food staple.<br />
<br />
B: I just hope that this works out so well that everybody on the planet kind of eating this rice. Next thing you know we're all turning to zombies.<br />
<br />
S: Zombie rice?<br />
<br />
B: That'd be cool<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. That'd be cool.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
E: Jay, how come you're not gushing over this week's science or fiction results?<br />
<br />
J: I'm not unhappy. I really actually don't care if I win or lose. Just that I learn.<br />
<br />
B: Apparently.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:14:40)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.</blockquote> <!-- the quote as read by Jay was different, should see if we can find a source to find the real quote --><br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS Con <small>(1:18:11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro119}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_257&diff=5590SGU Episode 2572013-01-25T19:37:17Z<p>Geneocide: /* Science or Fiction (1:00:07) */ few lines of transcription</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all |transcriber = Geneocide }}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 257<br />
|episodeDate = 14<sup>th</sup> June 2010<br />
|episodeIcon = File:amityvilledemoboy.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-06-14.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=257<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,28802.0.html<br />
|qowText = Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Monday, June 14<sup>th</sup>, 2010 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey everyone. How are you doing tonight?<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: Quite well.<br />
<br />
E: Good.<br />
<br />
S: No Rebecca tonight because we are on the lead up to TAM recording schedule. We going to have a little bit of a weird recording schedule the next few weeks and Rebecca was not available tonight and she has no internet access.<br />
<br />
J: That's because her and Sid bought a house.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: She hasn't been able to get internet and cable, I guess, to the house yet.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. But it's a big secret. Don't tell anyone, folks.<br />
<br />
S: They're moving into a new flat. Is it still a flat if it's a house?<br />
<br />
B: No. Wait wait, no, a flat's an apartment, isn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Are they moving into a house house, or is it like a condo or what is it?<br />
<br />
J: I think it's a house house.<br />
<br />
S: But no cable yet.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, if she has a house, that means she has a basement which means she could run a haunt in her house.<br />
<br />
B: Not necessarily. Florida houses don't have basements but that's because of the water table.<br />
<br />
J: Well, no. If she's in England she has a root cellar.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: Which is even creepier.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:19)</small> ==<br />
E: Well, on this day in 1648 Margaret Jones was hanged in Boston for witchcraft. The first such execution for the Massachusetts colony.<br />
<br />
S: How many people were killed?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they didn't stop with Margaret. It was 20 people.<br />
<br />
S: Were executed.<br />
<br />
E: We executed for witchcraft.<br />
<br />
J: Wow. And we got off lucky. Didn't&ndash;in Europe wasn't it a much bigger phenomenon in Europe?<br />
<br />
S: A conservative number is around 60,000 deaths directly attributable to the witch hunts.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Depending on how you count it. There were 20 people executed in Salem. 19 hung and that one guy, Giles Corey was crushed to death cause he refused to enter a plea.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Hayabusa Returns <small>(2:02)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100613/ts_afp/spacejapanaustraliaasteroidsreturn_20100613204620 <br />
<br />
possible replacement: [http://www.space.com/8592-japanese-asteroid-probe-historic-return-earth.html Space.com: Japanese Asteroid Probe Makes Historic Return to Earth]<br />
--><br />
S: Well Bob, tell us about Hayabusa returning to Earth.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this is pretty cool. I totally forgot about this guy but this is an interesting story. The Japanese space agency known as JAXA, Jay-Ay-Ex-Ay, completed a mission recently to bring a sample of an asteroid back to Earth. This is something that's never been accomplished before and regardless of what happens there has never been a spacecraft that touched down on an asteroid and then came back to Earth. So regardless if they even brought anything back with them this was a first. Like I said, the only real question that remains as of the taping of this podcast anyway is whether the canister they retrieved in Australia has any asteroid. If you remember back in 2003, JAXA's Hayabusa craft began a 2 year journey to an asteroid named Itokawa and I wish I could say the mission went swimmingly but I can't. The craft really experienced some nasty technical difficulties. It seems likes throughout the whole way, or at least through a lot of it. They just kept hitting problem after problem. They even had some&ndash;some solar flair even messed up with it's power source so the energy that it had was less than they had anticipated and some of the biggest failures, though, was they had this metal ball that they would shoot&ndash;or they planned on shooting at the asteroid to collect rock samples and that failed. And then there was another mechanism, which they were planning on using to stir up the dust around the lander on the asteroid and that failed as well to collect any samples. So you might think that it was a total bust but the real hope at this point is that they hope that the dust that stirred up during the landing kind of just was swirling around and entered the canister&ndash;the collection canister so that's really all their hope is on that.<br />
<br />
S: So they really don't know if there's going to be anything in that canister. <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, they have no idea at this point. It doesn't look good to me.<br />
<br />
J: Is it on it's way back to Earth or it can analyze it.<br />
<br />
B: It came back to Earth. The craft burned up in the atmosphere but it ejected this heat protected canister which landed at the Woomera Protected Area which is a restricted military zone in south Australian desert. Now some conspiracy hypothesists may say that in reality this whole 7 year mission was a subtle attempt to get access to this restricted military zone. But, ya know, I'm just saying.<br />
<br />
J: Look at that. It landed in Area 51. Could we go get it?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Yeah.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: But, being silly, but I want to congratulate JAXA, though. Even if there's no sample which would really be nasty, but even if there's no sample, it was a great effort that tested lots of new technologies, like, for example, sampling and retrieval, electrical propulsion, autonomous navigation. So lots of interesting new technologies and this really was a test bed. Problems like this are to be expected.<br />
<br />
J: At this point any kind of space exploration is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: In the time when we're worried that it's all gonna go away and dry up&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm really happy to hear about stuff like this.<br />
<br />
B: That's true. But you really got to hand it to JAXA, though, because they relentlessly attacked every difficulty that arose creatively solving problems, and according to some people it was Apollo 13 in scale in terms of how difficult these problems were.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: But granted, lives were not on the line, but still they had to go through a lot. On the way home they lost half of their engines kicked out and they had to figure out how to get home with only half the engines running so they did an amazing job.<br />
<br />
J: I don't like you comparing it to Apollo 13 because it being unmanned is one thing and the other thing was they got those people back to Earth safely with an enormous amount of effort. Nothing can match that.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I'm not comparing it and I did kind of say that not in terms of the lives but in terms of creative problem solving it was similar. Some people are comparing it.<br />
<br />
J: Well, if they make a movie about it I might believe it then.<br />
<br />
S: Cause it's not real unless Hollywood does a movie about it.<br />
<br />
B: As you can imagine this is a huge, huge news story in Japan. They're really playing it up. It's all over the place, cause this is&ndash;it's quite a feat. Regardless of what happens this is a first, so that's great. If they have a sample, even better, cause you learn lots of things about the solar system&ndash;because we don't have&ndash;think about it&ndash;the material we have from asteroids really is just meteorites, right, that have landed on the earth and they've gone through the atmosphere. They're not the same.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When you come through the atmosphere&ndash;they're not the same.<br />
<br />
E: Burn, yeah. Stuff burns away and, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: This will be pristine. This will be pristine rock and that will be invaluable.<br />
<br />
J: Do you guys think that one day we will park satellites in orbit and just mine them?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah. Mine asteroids?<br />
<br />
E: You mean bring them into a close orbit and then we send up vehicles and stuff to start plowing them for their platinum and all they're goodies?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. And how about&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
J: One thing that I remember thinking about when I was younger, why not put it in the same orbit that the earth is in, but just behind the earth. Would that mean that it would have to be the same size as the earth, though, in order to be in the same orbit?<br />
<br />
B: The velocity would be very different then. It couldn't have the same velocity because the mass would be so different, so, at some point, it would intersect with the earth. So I don't think that would work, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: You would need something to constantly regulate it's distance from the earth, right?<br />
<br />
S: You put it at a Lagrange point and it will sit there.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There ya go. Problem solved.<br />
<br />
S: A Lagrange point is a&ndash;if you have a map, a three dimensional map of the gravitational fields of the earth and the sun, for example, or any large body orbiting another large body, then those fields hit a pit, or they dip to a minimum. So anything that is at those points it's like being at the bottom of a hill, it's stuck there and it won't move away so it's actually fixed in position relative to the earth. So it would be perfect for something that we want to put someplace and have it stay there in terms of it's relationship to the earth.<br />
<br />
J: It's kind of like drafting, right?<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Come on, a little bit.<br />
<br />
S: But to complete that discussion there are a total of 5 Lagrangian points. One in the orbit of, lets say the earth, in front of it. One behind the earth in it's orbit. One on the opposite side of Earth's orbit. One between the earth and the sun and one outside the orbit on a line between the earth and the sun but farther than the earth. So five points total. A few of which would be pretty close. But also, there are asteroids that are said to quote unquote "stalk" the earth. For example, recently discovered the 2009 BD. It's not stationary with respect to the earth but it does&ndash;cause it interacts with the earth's gravity and it's not at a Lagrangian point, but it does get close to the earth and will sort of corkscrew around the earth's orbit and stay very close to use for a while and then maybe drift away and come back in it's orbit. It's got a very weird orbit but it does stay close to the earth.<br />
<br />
=== Einstein's Brain <small>(9:22)</small>===<br />
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305&ps=cprs NPR: Einstein's Brain Unlocks Some Mysteries Of The Mind]<br />
<br />
S: Jay, tell us about the amazing adventure of Einstein's brain.<br />
<br />
J: So this is a very interesting story. Before I get into the story let me just ask you guys a few questions. One, what makes you think Einstein was so smart? What was it about his brain that makes him smart? Some things that I'm sure most skeptics have heard was that, "Einstein used 10% of his brain where the regular person only uses 2 or 2.5%." You guys have heard of that, right?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, course.<br />
<br />
E: Or something similar to it, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's only be debunked about a million times on the internet and elsewhere, I believe, in our publication.<br />
<br />
E: Of course. That's what my phrenologist says.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: Here's one that is less common, but I've also heard and I believe I also used to think about this when I was younger and not knowing much about the brain but another thing that people think is that Einstein's brain had more hills and valleys on the exterior part of his brain.<br />
<br />
S: Sulci and gyri?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. So, that's basically the shape of the brain on the outside that makes it look like a brain. All those hills and valleys and little bumps and stuff that are on the outside of somebodies brain.<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: But, Steve, you said at one point that that does not mean you're smarter, correct?<br />
<br />
S: Well, not comparing one individual to another. There's too much variation to say that but that certainly is true when you compare species. The&ndash;what those do&ndash;what the gyri and sulci do&ndash;if you imagine the layers of the cortex and then fold it upon themselves like a ribbon that's what forms that structure and what the essentially does is it increases the surface area of the brain. So it's just a way of squeezing more computational surface area into a smaller three dimensional space which was obviously important to the evolution of our bigger, juicier brains. But you can't compare person A to person B and go, "Oh, he's got to be smarter because his brain looks smarter on an MRI scan. He's got more sulci." Doesn't work that way.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, why not also fill in the valleys between the hills? Between the gyri or the sulci or whatever they are?<br />
<br />
S: They're squished together. It's not significant.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
S: I mean, when you get old and your brain shrivels up and atrophies then you see expanded sulci and spaces but&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Your brain really shrivels up, huh?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, doesn't that suck?<br />
<br />
J: What the hell?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but Steve, I thought the idea, though, behind that was that they're not sure if the brain is really truly atrophying really, hugely, impacting cognition or is it just paring away the unessential parts of the brain that really aren't needed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, like motor skills and deep thinking.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: Barring, of course, dementia. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right Bob?<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's a complicated question. First of all those are not mutually exclusive cause both those things could be occurring at the same time. The pruning hypothesis where it's just cutting back neurons were sitting there waiting to be recruited but they haven't been, so they just go away at some point, but even still you imagine that there's fewer neurons around to be recruited so&ndash;after 50 or so we do start to lose our capacity to learn new things. We lose our flexibility. At least most of us. Some people really don't and they're brains don't atrophy as much, either.<br />
<br />
J: Bastards.<br />
<br />
S: So, some people genetically are built for more neurological longevity. But, yeah, you can't&ndash;I don't think it's accurate to say that there's no relationship between the atrophy of the brain as we age and the loss of cognitive ability. There absolutely is a relationship but it's complicated and we're not sure exactly what it is.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, it's not a black and white issue. It's more of a grey matter.<br />
<br />
B: Oh.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, wow, Evan, really?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright, so guys, let me continue. It's basically a story that I'm going to quickly tell everyone and then we'll discuss it.<br />
<br />
B: Alright.<br />
<br />
E: I love stories. Okay. I'm ready.<br />
<br />
J: So this man, named Thomas Harvey&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
E: Harvey.<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
J: and he&ndash;he actually performed the autopsy on Einstein at Princeton. Now this back in&ndash;Now this was when, '55 I believe Einstein died?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, around there.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. So, this is what the article said. The article said that during the autopsy routine the brain would be removed, examined, and then put back in the person's body for burial. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Which, by the way&ndash;we don't do that today. I don't know&ndash;that sounds odd. We don't put the brain back in the head. You take it out, you put it in a jar of formaldehyde and pickle it for 2 weeks, so that you can slice it up and look at it. Cause otherwise it's too much like jelly. You can't really slice into it. So that bit of that story certainly is not what's done today.<br />
<br />
J: Well maybe he took it out&ndash;cause it did say that he did put it in formaldehyde&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Well that's routine. That's routine.<br />
<br />
J: He was preparing it. He kept it out for the amount of time necessary and then instead of putting it back after the examination of the brain he kept it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, I think probably what happened is normally you would take it out, you pickle it for 2 weeks then you do what's called brain cutting. You slice it all the way through and you look for pathology and you look for the structures and whatnot and that's it. Then slides get filed away and the rest of it get thrown out, gets discarded as medical waste. Or, or, what can happen, sometimes the family may request that every last scrap of material gets returned and gets buried with the body.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. I'm sure that's&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: That happens sometimes, too. In fact, that happens even with&ndash;sometimes people will donate their body to science and their body will be dissected by medical students. Sometimes those bodies are just cremated. Other times everything's got to be put back&ndash;you don't put it back together but basically all bundled up and then sent back to the family to be buried or whatever they want to do with it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: That is a typical Jewish custom. I don't know how religious or close Einstein was to strict Jewish customs but I can tell you that that is Jewish customs. You bury as much of the remains as you possibly can.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So he probably&ndash;he held back the brain. He didn't do with it whatever was normally supposed to happen to it.<br />
<br />
J: No. He stole it. That's what happened.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. He stole it. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Brain thief.<br />
<br />
B: I'm going to donate my body to science fiction.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright. Continuing on&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: You stole that joke from somebody.<br />
<br />
J: So Thomas Harvey, because of what he did, because he kept Einstein's brain, he lost his job. Which seems to be the appropriate thing to take place.<br />
<br />
E: Bad trade.<br />
<br />
S: Cause that was unethical. What he did.<br />
<br />
J: And during that process he claimed that Einstein's son, Hans, gave him permission but that claim was denied by the family.<br />
<br />
S: What about Frans?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So, as I'm reading through this I realize, of course, hindsight being 20/20, I don't disagree with what the guy did. I think it was obvious to him at the time that there was something important about Einstein's brain and it should be studied further. Shouldn't just be thrown away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It kind of makes you wish that somebody at NASA thought that about the moon landing footage. <br />
<br />
B: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: "Ya know, I'm going to put this aside and not put it&ndash;file it with the rest of the tapes that are going to get erased and reused."<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Or, "Lets make a couple of backups, just in case. Or put it somewhere else. I don't know."<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Anyway.<br />
<br />
J: I've really gotta&ndash;let me sprint to the finish guys.<br />
<br />
B: Thanks for reminding me.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, go ahead.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. So I mentioned that I don't disagree. What Thomas Harvey wanted was he wanted neuro-anatomists to analyse Einstein's brain and see if they could find something out about it that we didn't know about the human brain before and that was his goal but as the story goes&ndash;so 40 years passes and then a writer named, Paterniti, he heard about all these events that we just went through and he decided that&ndash;I guess he wanted to write about what had taken place so he tracks down and finds Harvey. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Did he sue him?<br />
<br />
J: No. This guys an author.<br />
<br />
S: So he didn't give him a Paterniti suit?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god. You're on a roll tonight, Steve.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Any who, so, he tracks down Harvey, gets into a long conversation with him and, I guess, between the conversation and the two of them going back and forth they mutually decide the brain should be returned to Einstein's family and, I guess they new at the time that his granddaughter Evelyn was still alive so they wanted to return it to her. So Paterniti drives to Harvey's house, he described Harvey as bringing out Einstein's brain in a Tupperware jar. In a Tupperware container.<br />
<br />
E: Tupperware.<br />
<br />
J: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. That would seal in the freshness, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So the two of them planned to drive across the country from New Jersey all the way to California where the granddaughter lived. I guess they conversation had continued during this drive and Paterniti found out that Einstein had indeed&ndash;I'm sorry, that Harvey had indeed been sending out Einstein's brain when samples were requested he would take the samples and send them to neurologists across the globe. So, when saw the brain in the Tupperware container it had been cut up. It was sliced up. So, Harvey sent 3 different samples to a scientist named Marian Diamond and she had contacted Harvey years earlier and requested samples from 3 different parts of Einstein's brain and he did end up shipping them to her but he ended up shipping them to her in an old mayonnaise jar.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Okay? Not making this up.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: This was around 1980. She studied the samples. She found that Einstein's brain had normal amount of neurons but he had a higher than normal percentage of a different kind of brain cell and that cell was called a glial cell. That increase in glial cells was found especially in the parts of the brain that involved imagery and complex thinking, so that definitely made Diamond realize, "Well, this is very curious. Let me look into it." But first, Steve, why don't you tell us what a glial cell is.<br />
<br />
B: Support cells, aren't they?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's the other kinds of cells in the brain other than neurons and they are&ndash;yeah, for many years we thought they were basically support cells.<br />
<br />
B: Like structural cells.<br />
<br />
S: Not just structural but they create the friendly environment for the neurons. <br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right, they're there keeping the neurons alive and happy while the neurons are doing their job of remembering and calculating and stuff.<br />
<br />
B: Kind of like the Remora around sharks.<br />
<br />
S: I guess.<br />
<br />
J: So, at the time&ndash;<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Diamond was now asking questions like, "Well, why would there be more of these cells here if they're really just support cells? What's the significance of there being more of them here?" And it was a very odd idea at the time to think that glial cells had anything to do with Einstein's intelligence. Being that the cells were thought to be there for perhaps structural integrity perhaps there to just be, like Steve said, like more support cells than actual cells that were there for thinking. Alright, so now we go forward another 10 years and another researcher named Steven J. Smith published a paper that changed the perception of and understanding of the brain because what he did was&ndash;he was studying neurons and he was also studying these glial cells and he speculated that glial cells also were a part of the communication that happened within the cell and that also these cells weren't only communicating chemically but they were communicating with electricity in the manner that neurons communicate. And then he kept on fleshing out his idea and he also said that these glial cells could possibly be picking up communication between neurons&ndash;neurons are communicating with each other, glial cells would be listening in on this communication and then sending that data to other parts of the brain. So he came up with this idea that the brain&ndash;it's another way that the brain could be communicating internally. Which at the time was a profound idea. They though, at the time, that only neurons were doing the heavy lifting and that even though there was a ton of other cells in the brain that they didn't think really were doing anything. Neurons were it, but once they realized, "You know what? These glial cells might actually be doing complex things like be involved in learning and memory and ideas that we have of like what does it mean to be a genius. Glial cells might have something to do with high end thinking." So, once that started that started to really open up new ideas and that started a whole different school of thought. So then yet another scientist named, Doug Fields, he reproduced Smith's research and confirmed that it was actually valid. And, at one point, Doug Fields wrote, "Now we can see scores of ways in which astrocytes could be involved in many cognitive processes." And now it's not so crazy to find that there were abnormally high numbers of astrocytes in the parts of Einstein's brain involved in imagery and mathematical ability and that sort of thing. So, that was a pretty huge milestone and a huge leap forward in our understanding of the human brain. So in 2007, Harvey died. He really didn't know that him taking Einstein's brain, actually through these steps and through these different people actually lead to a move forward in our understanding of the riddle of the mind, but it seems that he actually did have something to do with it. And, Einstein's granddaughter didn't end up wanting her grandfather's brain so Harvey, before he died, he returned the brain back to the pathology department at Princeton, where it is today.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, can you only find out the number of astrocytes by cutting into a brain or is there a way to test it while you're still alive?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you can estimate it just by knowing what the density of astrocytes are and then calculating it by volume but if you want to look at an individuals astrocyte density, yeah, you gotta stain it. You gotta cut into it.<br />
<br />
J: So, Steve, could you just take a little&ndash;take a biopsy of somebody's brain and test it that way?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. You could.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think you could do&ndash;really?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Why not?<br />
<br />
E: Well, are you supposed to be biopsying the brain for this kind of testing purposes. It's really more for diseases.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you wouldn't do this. You wouldn't do that. You wouldn't biopsy a humans brain just out of curiosity but we do it for diagnostic purposes but it's got to be worth while to the person.<br />
<br />
E: Right. There's got to be something going on that you're looking for the answer for a cure or something.<br />
<br />
B: Risk benefit.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if they&ndash;I know it's not uncommon&ndash;brain surgery happens all the time. They open up people's skulls. They literally get in there with tools and go deep into the brain and remove tumors and do things like that. Cognitively if you did take someone's skull off, or a portion of the skull, and just cut out, say a jelly bean sized piece of the brain, under the idea that the person isn't going to bleed to death or whatever, just removing a piece of the brain then putting the skull piece back and letting the person heal. What would they lose from losing a portion of the brain that size?<br />
<br />
B: Depends. It depends on the portion.<br />
<br />
E: Lobotomi&ndash;You're lobotomizing a person at that point.<br />
<br />
B: It totally depends. My guess would be that either it's totally unnoticeable or you'd be completely debilitated.<br />
<br />
S: Bob's right. It completely depends on which jelly bean piece of brain you take out.<br />
<br />
B: Take the hypothalamus and you're f'd.<br />
<br />
S: For example, the right frontal lobe is largely redundant and you could do a lot of stuff to that without producing and noticeable deficits. <br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: And, in fact, when surgeons have to go into the brain they prefer to do the non-dominant frontal lobe because it's mostly redundant, but, you take out language cortex and you can make somebody completely lose their ability to speak, for example.<br />
<br />
B: It'd be like a stroke, Jay. It'd be like a stroke.<br />
<br />
J: But even a piece that small? <br />
<br />
S: If it's critical, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So there is one place in your brain that a certain type of functionality is happening and there's parts of your brains which is just storage for memory, there's parts of your brain that is doing something like processing what you see or what you hear. So you're better off losing a little portion of your memory than you are like a major piece of functionality, of course, but, I thought it was more evenly distributed.<br />
<br />
S: No. No no. It's not and it's also&ndash;memory's pretty evenly distributed but functions are localized and there's also&ndash;it's not just how localized it is it's how redundant it is. If something's really lateralized to one side you only have one piece of your brain that's doing that thing then you don't want to lose that. If you have bilateral redundancy then obviously you can afford to lose one cause the other side will make up for it. So, yeah, it depends on a lot of things. Interestingly, when reading through science news items this week&ndash;just this week was a study published by Swedish researchers from the University of Gothenburg and they were looking at astrocytes, which are a form of glial cells, and their effects on neuronal connections and function and essentially what they found is that the astrocytes are modulating the strength of the signalling between the neurons. Now, they basically are effecting how those synapses between neurons change over time. So what that means is is that the astrocytes might actually be directly involved in the formation of memories and plasticity of the brain and learning. Which, again, is just further evidence for their greatly enhanced role in actual memory function of the brain, not just, again, as support cells. So that research is ongoing and that was a huge shift in our thinking about the role of astrocytes.<br />
<br />
=== Largest Radio Telescope Array <small>(27:49)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.86c1ac9d54a51fd47b845663527a077d.1191&show_article=1 --><br />
<br />
S: Well lets go on. We have another bit of astronomy news, Bob, you're going to tell us about the largest radio telescope ever.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. This one's a quickie. This is the biggest radio telescope in the world and it was recently unveiled by scientists in the Netherlands. It's called LOFAR which stands Low Frequency Array. I think we touched upon this a while back. It consists of a whopping 25,000 small antennas and they're real tiny. They range in size from 50 centimeters to about 2 meters across. So they're not very big at all. And they're all spread out all over, not only the Netherlands, but also Germany, Sweden, France and Britain. And it's pretty cool. This thing is really going to do some amazing work I predict. Femke Beckhurst of the Netherlands Radio Astronomy Institute said, "Today we have launched the biggest radio telescope in the world. When you combine all the antennas you get a giant telescope with a diameter of about 1,000 kilometers," which is about 600 miles so that's pretty big. And it takes some nifty software to actually take all those separate signals and stitch them together. They're actually using a supercomputer to do some of that work. It's the Blue Gene P supercomputer which is a petaflop class supercomputer. So it's pretty fast. So with these observations that this radio telescope, or, I guess you can call it radio telescopes&ndash;So, the observations that they're going to be able to make with this&ndash;they're going to learn about the origin of the universe and some people are saying that they'll be able to go to the moment right after the big bang. Other&ndash;some other key science projects for LOFAR are what they call the epoch of re-ionization which is basically when the universe turned on. When things became. Also, things like ultra high energy cosmic rays which are a bit of a mystery, such as the one we mentioned&ndash;we mentioned one such cosmic ray a while back called the Oh My God Particle in 1991 which is probably the most energetic cosmic ray ever detected which was so powerful&ndash;imagine it was a subatomic particle with the energy of a baseball travelling at 60 miles an hour. Imagine, you get hit with one proton and it knocks you on your butt like it was a baseball travelling 60. So, amazingly fast. We're not sure what could have imparted so much energy to such a tiny thing. It was travelling so close to the speed of light it was essentially just a whisker&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But to clarify, it wouldn't really knock you on your butt, right? It would just go right through you.<br />
<br />
B: No. It's too tiny. Right. It is too tiny and it could do some damage, though, if it happened to hit the right, whatever in your body, DNA or something.<br />
<br />
E: Well, what if it hit a computer or something? It would really screw that up.<br />
<br />
B: That's a lot of kinetic energy. I don't know where&ndash;how all the kinetic energy would be transferred. Would it be transferred into heat. Would it fly right through? Probably&ndash;it might just fly right through.<br />
<br />
S: Or maybe it will smash through several particles on its way.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. It might hit&ndash;if hit's something squarely it could start a cascade so I think if it's just right it could actually&ndash;it could be noticeable. But there's other things&ndash;the solar science and space weather, cosmic magnetism, so I'm sure this thing is going to be used for a really long time and hopefully maybe even get even bigger.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob, what's the difference between the moment of the Big Bang and the moment of first illuminosity, I think is the word you used?<br />
<br />
B: Well, I believe it was 100,000 years or 1,000 years, it was a lot of time before things calmed down enough. Things were just so energetic that light&ndash;any photons that might have been generated were just bouncing around all over the place and they really couldn't settle down and just take a straight line any direction so there's nothing to see if you look back in visible light there's nothing to see cause all the photons are just kinda bouncing around. But also this epoch of re-ionization&ndash;that's kind of a different term than I'm used to. They refer to it as when things became luminous so I think it depends on&ndash;are they talking about the first stars, the first galaxies, the first quasars?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
B: If that's what they're talking about then that would actually be after what I'm talking&ndash;what I've just mentioned which is also called photon decoupling. So actually this epoch is a little bit different. I think it's later on.<br />
<br />
E: It's just amazing that they can make that distinction or make the determination that so much&ndash;however much time it is happened between the two.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: You think of the Big Bang&ndash;certainly in a visual display you're watching some show on TV that kinda of describes it and it's an intense white spot of light from the get go. At least that's how the depict it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But they always give you the impossible perspective of being outside the universe when the Big Bang happens.<br />
<br />
B: Space time, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But that's not a possible perspective. So it's kind of misleading.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A little.<br />
<br />
S: And a lot of that is&ndash;evidence is theoretical. They're just well what should have happened if you have the mass of the universe at a point and then what would happen over time? Based upon the temperatures and what things are like at those temperatures. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: But maybe this large radio telescope will help fill in those gaps.<br />
<br />
B: Some of them.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully.<br />
<br />
B: If it can actually get close to the moment after the Big Bang then absolutely it will be able to do&ndash;it will illuminate us in many ways.<br />
<br />
E: Very cool.<br />
<br />
J: I still don't get the concept that when the Big Bang took place&ndash;like, where it was specially in reality. You can't go to that space&ndash;that place in outer space because it doesn't really&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Sure you can. Wherever you go, there you are.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, geez. Really, Bob?<br />
<br />
E: It happened everywhere&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: It's true. It's true. It's everywhere. You can't point to it because it's not one specific spot. It's everywhere.<br />
<br />
J: Well, it didn't happen right here.<br />
<br />
E: It might have.<br />
<br />
S: Every part of the universe was at that point, Jay, at that time.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, so, meaning that the universe is growing in size.<br />
<br />
S: Of course. But it's like&ndash;if you do the two dimensional analogy, it's like blowing up a balloon. Where was it before you blew it up? Well it's&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: How&ndash;right. Try to explaining to a two dimensional creature on that balloon where&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: It was in the package.<br />
<br />
J: where the center is.<br />
<br />
S: You'd have to point into the 4th dimension.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
J: I can't picture it.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Amityville Horror House for Sale <small>(34:11)</small>===<br />
[http://www.theness.com/roguesgallery/?p=1676 Rogue's Gallery: Amityville Horror House for Sale]<br />
<br />
S: So, the Amityville Horror House is back in the news.<br />
<br />
E: And it's back in the news because its up for sale.<br />
<br />
S: Sale. That's right. For what? 1.5 million?<br />
<br />
E: 1.15 million dollars.<br />
<br />
B: In this market?<br />
<br />
J: I know. Isn't that crazy?<br />
<br />
S: You can own a piece of paranormal history.<br />
<br />
B: But, is that price kind of crazy for the neighborhood because the house is famous?<br />
<br />
E: I don't know. I imagine that has something to do with it. They said they'd done a lot of renovations recently on the house. So&mdash;Look, I imagine the main factor, like any other piece of property is&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Location.<br />
<br />
E: comparable&mdash;yeah, location and comparable houses for sale in the area.<br />
<br />
S: But here's my question. Now, typically, if a house is alleged to be haunted or if a murder took place there it's considered psychologically damaged and that actually reduces the value of the house. But in this case it's famous for being psychologically damaged, so does that increase the value of the house?<br />
<br />
E: Or do the two equal each other out?<br />
<br />
S: The balance out?<br />
<br />
E: The negative and positive balance out.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So, there were a series of murders there in 1974. Ronald DeFeo Sr., his wife, Louise, their two sons and two daughters were shot while they slept in the home and the one remaining family member alive, Ronald, nicknamed Butch DeFeo, he confessed to the murders and is serving a life sentence in prison. And then just a few weeks after the sentencing of Butch, George and Kathy Lutz and their three children moved into the home where a new round of supposed horrors began. Muwahaha. Well, not really.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about them.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, there was supposedly all sorts of things happening in this house. They reported sightings of&mdash;well, the kids reported sightings of animals, mostly a pig named Jody. A sculpted lion came to life and supposedly walked around the house.<br />
<br />
S: Cool.<br />
<br />
E: A demonic boy appeared. It was photographed and you can find that famous photograph online. Kind of looks like a regular boy but that's beside the point. And other strange things in the house. Oh, green slime oozed from the walls. Crucifix on the wall was constantly rotating until it left itself upside down and, needless to say, 28 days after they moved in&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: 28 days later.<br />
<br />
E: 28 days later. Good one Steve. The Lutz's fled.<br />
<br />
S: What about the&mdash;you forgot about the hell-mouth. It's a gaping mouth to hell in their basement.<br />
<br />
J: Wait. Wasn't that in Poltergeist.<br />
<br />
E: That was another movie, I think.<br />
<br />
B: No. No no no. <br />
<br />
E: You're right, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: It's the red room.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It was a red room, which in the movie they kind of made it seem like it was the road to hell or something.<br />
<br />
E: Now there was one small problem with all of these paranormal happenings. They never really happened. It was a story&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: It was fake.<br />
<br />
E: The whole thing was fake. However, that didn't stop famous demonologist and psychic investigator&mdash;paranormal investigator Ed Warren and his wife Loraine from investigating the matter and deeming that house to be one of the most haunted places in the world.<br />
<br />
S: Right. Right after their basement.<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Their basement in Monroe, Connecticut #1, Aminityville #2.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Right. It was fake. And now it's up for sale.<br />
<br />
E: It is. So&mdash;if you've got dollars burning a whole in your pocket&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: You might want to go get a piece of history.<br />
<br />
S: The people who bought the house after the Lutz's complained that they had to deal with the paranormal tourists bothering them day in and day out. Gawking at the house and everything. So&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So much so that they had to change the address of the house.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So it really was psychologically damaged for them, cause it came with all the tourists.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm looking at a picture of the demon boy.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: It's a little boy.<br />
<br />
S: With no eyes.<br />
<br />
J: Well, the eyes are whited out so it looks kind of creepy. Photo could have been doctored.<br />
<br />
E: Could have been a dozen things, right, other than a demonic boy from hell.<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:46)</small>==<br />
S: Well, thanks for that, Evan, and why don't we go on to Who's That Noisy?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. For those of you who forgot here is last week's Who's that Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: And then I began to study back&mdash;the relationships between the elements for plants and they are different as the elements for humans. Because Cali and Forswore are actually the friends of each other in the homeopathic material magica for humans, but in plants these two substances are each other's enemy.</blockquote><!-- The Cali and Forswore are just going phonetically. I couldn't understand what he said. --><br />
<br />
S: Mm hmm.<br />
<br />
E: Mm hmm. So, you learned a little bit about homeopathy in that clip.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Two substances&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or not.<br />
<br />
S: Two substances which are enemies in plants are friends in people. Or animals.<br />
<br />
E: Bet you didn't know that before.<br />
<br />
J: So who is that guy?<br />
<br />
E: That is V. D. Kaviraj. A homeopath of some repute and the reason I actually found this person is because I was watching a Youtube video of our&mdash;well, friend, Mr. Benneth&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Who had this fellow as part of an interview so I thought that would make a rather interesting Noisy, last week.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And, not only did someone get it correctly but they actually also went ahead and found the clip from which I clipped it so if you go onto our message boards and [[SGU_Episode 256 | Episode 256]] you can actually take a look and listen for yourself to the entire interview and bring some coffee cause you with otherwise fall asleep.<br />
<br />
S: You don't want your brain to explode. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Exactly. So, NoWoo, en-oh-double you-oh-oh, from the message boards guessed correctly. Congratulations. Well done.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. What have you got for this week, Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. And here is this weeks Who's That Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: Does the shade<!-- what? --> give you the authority you need to take dangerous products off the shelves? And the answers always yes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
E: That's a short one this week.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Thanks Evan.<br />
<br />
E: But I think there's enough information in there for someone to get it. So, be the first one to guess correctly. Good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Ev.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Soy <small>(41:02)</small>===<br />
S: We have time for a few e-mails this week. The first one comes from Michael Wilson from Prescott, Arizona and Michael writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Steve - You made the offhand comment that there are "serious concerns" that soy milk is producing an estrogen type hormonal effect. I am a vegan bodybuilder who drinks a quart of soy milk everyday. I am concerned your offhand comment will scare people away from switching to a healthier milk alternative with no saturated fat. I've looked in the past when people have made these claims, and all I can find is that there may be some very mild effect, but nothing that rises to the level of your "serious concern" comment. If there was, there would be serious estrogen related issues throughout Asian countries. Since you felt it necessary to scare people away from soy by telling them about the "serious concerns" science has with soy milk, I hope you will provide the research on you next show that proves soy milk causes serious estrogen like effects. I do love the show, and I thank everyone for the time and effort you guys put into it every week. <br><br>Michael Wilson Prescott, AZ</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So, Michael's referring to two weeks ago when we had Pamela Gay and Frazier Cane on when&mdash;I can't remember what we were talking about but the notion of estro&mdash;the notion of&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Pamela said she drink soy milk and then we got onto the discussion.<br />
<br />
S: She drinks soy milk. Yeah, so I was razzing her a little bit about the fact that not everything is perfectly safe. You could find concerns about anything and in fact there are concerns about the estrogen like effects of soy milk. But it was an off hand comment, but I do think it's good for follow up to see what the evidence actually shows. The concerns are raised by the fact that soy contains isoflavones which have an estrogen effect. It's hormonally active and therefor that creates that plausibility that it could have some actual clinical effects in people and there are various populations in which it has been studied. So, one group are women who&mdash;are women in general, especially women who have had breast cancer. The question is do the estrogens increase the risk of breast cancer or if you have breast cancer does it worsen the outcome. The answer to that question appears to be no. So the evidence so far is pretty solid that there's no negative effect for women with breast cancer. In fact one review I read said that there may in fact be a small beneficial effect because it may competitively block the effects of women who have high estrogen levels. So there it's either no effect or maybe a small beneficial effect in a subset of women. The bigger concerns are with men, though, because obviously estrogen is a feminizing hormone and the question is does&mdash;do the estrogen effects of isoflavones in soy milk have a feminizing effect on men? So far the research does not show any such effect. What about the reproductive effects on men? Here, we have animal data which shows that there is a negative effect. This is where the biggest concerns are. And these concerns are that we haven't done enough research to really know what the net effects are in people. So we have animal data that shows some concern but not really sufficient human data to rule out that there may be a negative effect on the reproduction of men. The final group are infants, especially since there is a soy based infant formulas. And here there were several reviews in the last couple of years. Some saying there's really no proven effect. Other reviewers saying that, again, there is concern that there maybe some hormonal effects on infants and that&mdash;and essentially where the reviewers agree is that the research is not adequate to rule out a significant effect. Therefor if you want to be cautious you may avoid using soy based infant formulas until more research is done to show that there isn't any significant effect. Estrogen like effect. So that's where we are. I do think it's fair to say that there are concerns. Nothing is proven. And while some of those concerns have been ruled out by research there are others, specifically reproduction in men and in infants where we don't have enough research to really say that they're safe. My take is that it's probably a very weak effect. I would be surprised if the research ultimately showed that there was a strong effect, but those are the areas where the research is not yet sufficient to confidently say that there isn't a potential effect.<br />
<br />
B: But also&mdash;but this guy, Steve, if you're&mdash;if you're not an infant and you're beyond&mdash;you've already had your kids and you're done with kids, then it would be even less of a concern?<br />
<br />
S: That's right. And if you're a woman, there's basically no concern.<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Cursed Cell Phone Number <small>(45:50)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>The cursed cell phone number Thought you guys might like this story of truly stupid superstitious thinking that misses the glaringly obvious. <br />
<br><br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7763578/Mobile-phone-number-suspended-after-three-users-die-in-10-years.html Telegraph: Mobile phone number suspended after three users die in 10 years]<br />
<br>Danforth France Glendale, CA</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Jay, you're gonna tell us about the cursed cell phone number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. This is really silly to be honest with you.<br />
<br />
B: It's silly.<br />
<br />
E: Silly.<br />
<br />
J: It's just one of those story where there's a string of coincidences that could make certain people think certain things but, basically there was a phone number that was given out. And I don't know if this is the real number but it seems like it isn't because it's a seri&mdash;it's 0-888-888-888&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: So, that's the number. I mean, my understanding from reading is that's the number that they suspended.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. Could be. Now, isn't the number 8 unlucky somewhere?<br />
<br />
B: No. It's lucky in Asian cultures. Isn't 8&mdash;8 is lucky, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: 4 is unlucky.<br />
<br />
S: 4 is unlucky cause it sounds like death.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: 4 is unlucky. 8 is&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So, here's the quick one two. The first person who got it, he was the former CEO of a Bulgarian mobile phone company. His company issued him the number.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: He died of cancer in 2001 at 48 years old. After he died some rumors came out that his cancer had been caused by a business rival using radioactive poisoning. I find that unlikely, but, okay. Take that away. Let's just say that guy died. It's horrible. Died of cancer in 2001. 48 years old. That was horrible. The second that got the number was a Bulgarian mafia boss. There's a couple of things that mafia bosses do really well. They kill, and then they get killed.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
J: Right? So this guy was gunned down in 2003 by an assassin.<br />
<br />
B: What are the odds?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: A mafia killing? What?<br />
<br />
J: Then the number went to another guy who was described as a crooked business man and he was gunned down outside of an Indian restaurant in Bulgaria. So since then the number was retired because the police are investigating and all this stuff, but, there's the idea that the number is cursed or unlucky&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Or jinxed.<br />
<br />
E: It's your unlucky number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's been&mdash;the number has been touched by evil and anyone who gets it is gonna get killed. So I'm thinking&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Anyone mob related who touches it will get killed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's pretty clear to see&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or crime related.<br />
<br />
J: through this. It's not that big of a coincidence that a bunch of people that were involved in very dangerous and crazy criminal activity are getting killed. <br />
<br />
B: But if a number becomes available&mdash;is it more likely that the number became available because somebody dumped the number or because somebody died? Because I'm never gonna want to lose my number today.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I don't know. Now that people have personal phone numbers. Yeah. Probably people hold on to them for life. Even if you change carrier, right? You can take your number to another carrier.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Now you can. I don't know if you could in early 2000&mdash;2003. I don't know if you could during that time period. So, anyway, the reason why we bring up this story was not just because somebody wrote in about it but we thought it was a quick and easy example of a series of events strung together to make a story where there really isn't a story or a connection.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. There's a few ways you can look at this. One is it's not that big a coincidence that 3 people with the same number die in the short period of time. Just taking the number of phone numbers out there, I'm sure that happens a lot just by coincidence. Right? I mean it would be surprising if that never happened. This is a little different because these people were high profile and the number's unusual. It's&mdash;you could of it as a very desirable number because it's all 8's. It's the kind of number you get if you work for the phone company like the CEO or you're a mob boss, I guess. Right? They're not going to give it to just some guy. And these&mdash;two of these three people were at high risk for dying so that makes it even less of a coincidence that this kind of number is going to go to the kind of people who may be in risky businesses. But then you also think of it from the phone companies point of view. Obviously the notion that the number itself is jinxed is magical thinking and it's ridiculous but from a business marketing point of view, do they want to hand this number over to somebody else and then what if something happens to that person or even&mdash;they may just get upset if they find out that the phone company assigned them a quote unquote "jinxed" number. You know what I mean? Probably just fewer headaches for the phone company if they just get rid of it, even for a while. You know what I mean? You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. It's a numbers racket.<br />
<br />
J: That's a good job, boys. It's good work, boys.<br />
<br />
=== Magic Bee Juice <small>(50:27)</small>===<br />
S: The next one comes from David Gardner from Osaka, Japan. And David writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>One of the branches of the company I work for in Japan has started selling Propolis as a means to make more money in a bad economy. This branch has repeatedly tried to get me to buy some of this magic bee juice. Many of my Japanese co-workers have taken the bait. They are putting bee juice in their drinks and swallowing magic bee juice pills. When I ask them if they feel any better, they all say they aren’t sure. Hmm… I think the company I work for has a snake oill division. Do you know of any scientific evidence that shows any benefit to taking Propolis? All the information I found say that Propolis may contain lead and other garbage bees pick up while flying around the city. Thank you for your time. <br><br>David Gardner Osaka, Japan </blockquote><!-- shouldn't we fix the "aren't" that's all messed up? --><br />
<br />
S: Well, do you guys now what Propolis is?<br />
<br />
B: Nope.<br />
<br />
J: No.<br />
<br />
E: It's the star in the sky that doesn't rotate.<br />
<br />
S: It's magic bee juice. This is&mdash;So, bees make a variety of things. This is the gooey, sticky stuff that bees use to hold together their nests. They largely pick it up&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Oh. The honey comb?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so, yeah. But it's not just wax. I guess this is even stronger structural stuff that they use&mdash;it's like the glue that they use to hold it together and its&mdash;they'll pick up the sap from coniferous trees. Resins. It sounds nasty. It doesn't sound like the kind of stuff you would want to eat. I mean the bees don't eat it. It contains phenolics, aromatic compounds, volatile oils and terpenes. But even worse that that, as the bees fly around our modern society they're not just picking up resins from pine trees. They're also picking up lead paint. They're picking up caulking.<br />
<br />
B: Yum.<br />
<br />
S: They're picking up road tar and other things.<br />
<br />
E: Fecal material.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. They're picking up all kinds of nasty stuff and mixing it all together with these resins and terpenes and they're using that to glue together their nests and then&mdash;and idiots are taking that stuff and eating it.<br />
<br />
E: Now, when you say idiot&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: It's glue like?<br />
<br />
S: It's sticky. If you get the sap off a pine tree&mdash;it's like that.<br />
<br />
E: That's awful.<br />
<br />
S: Now, of course, it contains a lot of chemicals, right? As you might imagine&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: It's all natural.<br />
<br />
S: Sure. And if you look at those chemicals those chemicals do stuff. The body's going to react to those chemicals. Actually, probably the most common reaction is an allergic dermatitis and when I looked up Propolis on PubMed most of the specific references to it and people were to&mdash;this allergic dermatitis.<br />
<br />
E: Is this the same allergic reaction people have when they get a bee sting?<br />
<br />
S: No. No. It's different. This is more just a contact dermatitis. The skin gets red and bee stings can have more of a systemic reaction. That's where it becomes a problem, as opposed to just a rash. So, there's no research in humans showing any beneficial effects. It's all extrapolating wildly from just nonspecific&mdash;or just reactions that happen to some chemical that you can find in this stuff. There some animal data that it does stuff, but there's nothing that really can be used to base any kind of medicinal claims. So this really is snake oil. And apparently it's been around for hundreds of years. This is nothing new. It's just an idea that crops up every now and then.<br />
<br />
E: Here. Eat this bee waste byproduct.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's bee waste. It is bee waste.<br />
<br />
E: Bee waste.<br />
<br />
S: Pretty much everything that bees make somebody has decided to sell as snake oil. Pollen, royal jelly, and even bee venom. You guys have heard&mdash;I've talked about bee venom therapy.<br />
<br />
E: Bee venom therapy, sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. For, multiple sclerosis and arthritis and things like that. Pretty much everything. The only thing that bees make that has real medicinal value is honey and only if you put it topically on your wound.<br />
<br />
E: Or on toast.<br />
<br />
J: I love honey.<br />
<br />
E: I love you too, honey.<br />
<br />
B: Never spoils.<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Personality Tests <small>(54:41)</small> ==<br />
S: Well, we actually have a Name that Logical Fallacy this week.<br />
<br />
B: Ooo.<br />
<br />
E: Ooo. Queue the music.<br />
<br />
S: This is a question that comes from some guy called Mike Lacelle in Canada.<br />
<br />
J: Who is he?<br />
<br />
E: That a funny name.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know. Some bald guy.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: And Mike wants to know&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: But despite that&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: And Mike will be at TAM this year, by the way.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, this guy's gonna be at TAM?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Oh. I can't wait to meet him.<br />
<br />
B: I'm not going now.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: I'll see you there Mike.<br />
<br />
S: Mike writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Steve, I'm trying to figure out the difference between the Incorrect Cause fallacy and the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy? Skepticwiki is telling me that Post Hoc is a type of Incorrect Cause Fallacy, but I'm just not getting the difference. They seem to be one and the same. Any help would be appreciated. I'm trying to complete a 5x5 recording we did a few months ago and I'm recording a missing part which was about the "Incorrect Cause" fallacy. The topic of the 5x5 was Chemtrails and it seems to me that the Post Hoc fallacy would work better here.<br><br> Mike Lacelle Canada </blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So, this is an interesting one. The Incorrect Cause Fallacy is actually a category of logical fallacies.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There's lots of&mdash;and the Post Hoc is just a sub-category of it.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly. It's one type. <br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: It's any fallacy where you are making an invalid inference as to cause and effect. That's the Incorrect Cause Fallacy. My&mdash;I had a couple back and forths with Mike and he was saying that if you invoke the wrong cause for something just because your information is incorrect is that an incorrect cause fallacy and the answer to that is no. It doesn't me that you're just mistaken about what causes what, that's just a false premise, it's that the logical inference is incorrect, cause that's what a logical fallacy is. So, in the Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc Fallacy, you're concluding that B is caused by A ''because'' B follows A. That's where the invalid logic comes in. You're reaching the conclusion not because you just have a mistake belief but because you think that the fact that it comes after it is how you know that it's being caused by it.<br />
<br />
B: Right. So it's more sequential, whereas the Incorrect Cause Fallacy&mdash;it could be&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Is anything.<br />
<br />
B: It could be after. It could be anything.<br />
<br />
E: It could go any direction.<br />
<br />
B: They could happen at the same exact time. Could be AB instead of A followed by B. Could be at the same time or even&mdash;or other variations. So that's the main distinction as I see it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And it's not even restricted to temporal but&mdash;another common Incorrect Cause Fallacy is the&mdash;assuming causation from correlation as you're saying.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: They're correlated in some way, not because, necessarily, one follows the other but they could just be happening together more frequently or at the same time and then you assume that they're happening together because one is causing the other when, in fact, there are many relationships that possible. You cannot infer a specific causal relationship. Often people, however, say that&mdash;and I hear people say this, or write this, all the time, that correlation does not imply causation and that's incorrect. I ''does'' imply causation. It just does ''equal'' causation.<br />
<br />
B: Right. Right.<br />
<br />
S: Sometimes correlations occur because there ''is'' causation and it is&mdash;it certainly does imply that. It's one piece of evidence, but in order to make a specific causal conclusion you have to line up multiple correlations. Other examples of this would include the Complex Cause Fallacy, where maybe there are multiple causations but you pick one out and say that's ''the'' cause.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's a very common one, right? <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: We all sort of unconsciously do that all the time where we tend to think simplistically in terms of one cause for things when in fact many complex things will have multiple causes that are not mutually exclusive.<br />
<br />
J: And it's not just one cause. It could also be the most interesting cause has got to be it, too, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: We're so drawn to the one thats&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: That's interesting or&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: sexy.<br />
<br />
S: ''or'' the one that confirms our prior beliefs and ideology.<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Ah, confirmation bias.<br />
<br />
S: Then there's the Regression Fallacy. This is where you assume cause and effect because of what ultimately regression to the mean. Here's an example. Appearing on the cover of ''Sports Illustrated'' is a curse that will cause them to have a bad season or a bad game or whatever following that.<br />
<br />
E: I've heard that before, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. The ''Sports Illustrated'' curse. But that can be explained by regression to the mean.<br />
<br />
B: Right. They were on the cover in the first place because they might&mdash;they just happened to have, say, and exceptional season, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: And then of course the regression to the mean has got to kick in at some point, you would think, and then it's like, "Oh, damn. Bad luck."<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. They had their best game, their best season, whatever. That gets them on the cover and any extreme is likely to be followed by something closer to the mean. The regression to the mean.<br />
<br />
J: That's very similar to the Droning On Fallacy where skeptical enthusiasts just keep talking about logical fallacies over and over again.<br />
<br />
S: Jay, I'm not familiar with that one.<br />
<br />
E: I'm not either. Hey, here's another logical fallacy.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:07)</small> ==<br />
<br />
S: So, what you're say Jay, is that you want to move on to Science or Fiction. Is that what you're saying?<br />
<br />
J: It's time for Science or Fiction.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. We'll kick in the real music.<br />
<br />
VO: It's time for Science or Fiction.<br />
<br />
*[http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:14:40)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.</blockquote> <!-- the quote as read by Jay was different, should see if we can find a source to find the real quote --><br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS Con <small>(1:18:11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro119}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_257&diff=5589SGU Episode 2572013-01-25T19:35:46Z<p>Geneocide: /* Soy (41:02) */ formatting</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all |transcriber = Geneocide }}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 257<br />
|episodeDate = 14<sup>th</sup> June 2010<br />
|episodeIcon = File:amityvilledemoboy.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-06-14.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=257<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,28802.0.html<br />
|qowText = Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Monday, June 14<sup>th</sup>, 2010 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey everyone. How are you doing tonight?<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: Quite well.<br />
<br />
E: Good.<br />
<br />
S: No Rebecca tonight because we are on the lead up to TAM recording schedule. We going to have a little bit of a weird recording schedule the next few weeks and Rebecca was not available tonight and she has no internet access.<br />
<br />
J: That's because her and Sid bought a house.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: She hasn't been able to get internet and cable, I guess, to the house yet.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. But it's a big secret. Don't tell anyone, folks.<br />
<br />
S: They're moving into a new flat. Is it still a flat if it's a house?<br />
<br />
B: No. Wait wait, no, a flat's an apartment, isn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Are they moving into a house house, or is it like a condo or what is it?<br />
<br />
J: I think it's a house house.<br />
<br />
S: But no cable yet.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, if she has a house, that means she has a basement which means she could run a haunt in her house.<br />
<br />
B: Not necessarily. Florida houses don't have basements but that's because of the water table.<br />
<br />
J: Well, no. If she's in England she has a root cellar.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: Which is even creepier.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:19)</small> ==<br />
E: Well, on this day in 1648 Margaret Jones was hanged in Boston for witchcraft. The first such execution for the Massachusetts colony.<br />
<br />
S: How many people were killed?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they didn't stop with Margaret. It was 20 people.<br />
<br />
S: Were executed.<br />
<br />
E: We executed for witchcraft.<br />
<br />
J: Wow. And we got off lucky. Didn't&ndash;in Europe wasn't it a much bigger phenomenon in Europe?<br />
<br />
S: A conservative number is around 60,000 deaths directly attributable to the witch hunts.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Depending on how you count it. There were 20 people executed in Salem. 19 hung and that one guy, Giles Corey was crushed to death cause he refused to enter a plea.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Hayabusa Returns <small>(2:02)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100613/ts_afp/spacejapanaustraliaasteroidsreturn_20100613204620 <br />
<br />
possible replacement: [http://www.space.com/8592-japanese-asteroid-probe-historic-return-earth.html Space.com: Japanese Asteroid Probe Makes Historic Return to Earth]<br />
--><br />
S: Well Bob, tell us about Hayabusa returning to Earth.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this is pretty cool. I totally forgot about this guy but this is an interesting story. The Japanese space agency known as JAXA, Jay-Ay-Ex-Ay, completed a mission recently to bring a sample of an asteroid back to Earth. This is something that's never been accomplished before and regardless of what happens there has never been a spacecraft that touched down on an asteroid and then came back to Earth. So regardless if they even brought anything back with them this was a first. Like I said, the only real question that remains as of the taping of this podcast anyway is whether the canister they retrieved in Australia has any asteroid. If you remember back in 2003, JAXA's Hayabusa craft began a 2 year journey to an asteroid named Itokawa and I wish I could say the mission went swimmingly but I can't. The craft really experienced some nasty technical difficulties. It seems likes throughout the whole way, or at least through a lot of it. They just kept hitting problem after problem. They even had some&ndash;some solar flair even messed up with it's power source so the energy that it had was less than they had anticipated and some of the biggest failures, though, was they had this metal ball that they would shoot&ndash;or they planned on shooting at the asteroid to collect rock samples and that failed. And then there was another mechanism, which they were planning on using to stir up the dust around the lander on the asteroid and that failed as well to collect any samples. So you might think that it was a total bust but the real hope at this point is that they hope that the dust that stirred up during the landing kind of just was swirling around and entered the canister&ndash;the collection canister so that's really all their hope is on that.<br />
<br />
S: So they really don't know if there's going to be anything in that canister. <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, they have no idea at this point. It doesn't look good to me.<br />
<br />
J: Is it on it's way back to Earth or it can analyze it.<br />
<br />
B: It came back to Earth. The craft burned up in the atmosphere but it ejected this heat protected canister which landed at the Woomera Protected Area which is a restricted military zone in south Australian desert. Now some conspiracy hypothesists may say that in reality this whole 7 year mission was a subtle attempt to get access to this restricted military zone. But, ya know, I'm just saying.<br />
<br />
J: Look at that. It landed in Area 51. Could we go get it?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Yeah.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: But, being silly, but I want to congratulate JAXA, though. Even if there's no sample which would really be nasty, but even if there's no sample, it was a great effort that tested lots of new technologies, like, for example, sampling and retrieval, electrical propulsion, autonomous navigation. So lots of interesting new technologies and this really was a test bed. Problems like this are to be expected.<br />
<br />
J: At this point any kind of space exploration is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: In the time when we're worried that it's all gonna go away and dry up&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm really happy to hear about stuff like this.<br />
<br />
B: That's true. But you really got to hand it to JAXA, though, because they relentlessly attacked every difficulty that arose creatively solving problems, and according to some people it was Apollo 13 in scale in terms of how difficult these problems were.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: But granted, lives were not on the line, but still they had to go through a lot. On the way home they lost half of their engines kicked out and they had to figure out how to get home with only half the engines running so they did an amazing job.<br />
<br />
J: I don't like you comparing it to Apollo 13 because it being unmanned is one thing and the other thing was they got those people back to Earth safely with an enormous amount of effort. Nothing can match that.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I'm not comparing it and I did kind of say that not in terms of the lives but in terms of creative problem solving it was similar. Some people are comparing it.<br />
<br />
J: Well, if they make a movie about it I might believe it then.<br />
<br />
S: Cause it's not real unless Hollywood does a movie about it.<br />
<br />
B: As you can imagine this is a huge, huge news story in Japan. They're really playing it up. It's all over the place, cause this is&ndash;it's quite a feat. Regardless of what happens this is a first, so that's great. If they have a sample, even better, cause you learn lots of things about the solar system&ndash;because we don't have&ndash;think about it&ndash;the material we have from asteroids really is just meteorites, right, that have landed on the earth and they've gone through the atmosphere. They're not the same.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When you come through the atmosphere&ndash;they're not the same.<br />
<br />
E: Burn, yeah. Stuff burns away and, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: This will be pristine. This will be pristine rock and that will be invaluable.<br />
<br />
J: Do you guys think that one day we will park satellites in orbit and just mine them?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah. Mine asteroids?<br />
<br />
E: You mean bring them into a close orbit and then we send up vehicles and stuff to start plowing them for their platinum and all they're goodies?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. And how about&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
J: One thing that I remember thinking about when I was younger, why not put it in the same orbit that the earth is in, but just behind the earth. Would that mean that it would have to be the same size as the earth, though, in order to be in the same orbit?<br />
<br />
B: The velocity would be very different then. It couldn't have the same velocity because the mass would be so different, so, at some point, it would intersect with the earth. So I don't think that would work, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: You would need something to constantly regulate it's distance from the earth, right?<br />
<br />
S: You put it at a Lagrange point and it will sit there.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There ya go. Problem solved.<br />
<br />
S: A Lagrange point is a&ndash;if you have a map, a three dimensional map of the gravitational fields of the earth and the sun, for example, or any large body orbiting another large body, then those fields hit a pit, or they dip to a minimum. So anything that is at those points it's like being at the bottom of a hill, it's stuck there and it won't move away so it's actually fixed in position relative to the earth. So it would be perfect for something that we want to put someplace and have it stay there in terms of it's relationship to the earth.<br />
<br />
J: It's kind of like drafting, right?<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Come on, a little bit.<br />
<br />
S: But to complete that discussion there are a total of 5 Lagrangian points. One in the orbit of, lets say the earth, in front of it. One behind the earth in it's orbit. One on the opposite side of Earth's orbit. One between the earth and the sun and one outside the orbit on a line between the earth and the sun but farther than the earth. So five points total. A few of which would be pretty close. But also, there are asteroids that are said to quote unquote "stalk" the earth. For example, recently discovered the 2009 BD. It's not stationary with respect to the earth but it does&ndash;cause it interacts with the earth's gravity and it's not at a Lagrangian point, but it does get close to the earth and will sort of corkscrew around the earth's orbit and stay very close to use for a while and then maybe drift away and come back in it's orbit. It's got a very weird orbit but it does stay close to the earth.<br />
<br />
=== Einstein's Brain <small>(9:22)</small>===<br />
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305&ps=cprs NPR: Einstein's Brain Unlocks Some Mysteries Of The Mind]<br />
<br />
S: Jay, tell us about the amazing adventure of Einstein's brain.<br />
<br />
J: So this is a very interesting story. Before I get into the story let me just ask you guys a few questions. One, what makes you think Einstein was so smart? What was it about his brain that makes him smart? Some things that I'm sure most skeptics have heard was that, "Einstein used 10% of his brain where the regular person only uses 2 or 2.5%." You guys have heard of that, right?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, course.<br />
<br />
E: Or something similar to it, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's only be debunked about a million times on the internet and elsewhere, I believe, in our publication.<br />
<br />
E: Of course. That's what my phrenologist says.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: Here's one that is less common, but I've also heard and I believe I also used to think about this when I was younger and not knowing much about the brain but another thing that people think is that Einstein's brain had more hills and valleys on the exterior part of his brain.<br />
<br />
S: Sulci and gyri?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. So, that's basically the shape of the brain on the outside that makes it look like a brain. All those hills and valleys and little bumps and stuff that are on the outside of somebodies brain.<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: But, Steve, you said at one point that that does not mean you're smarter, correct?<br />
<br />
S: Well, not comparing one individual to another. There's too much variation to say that but that certainly is true when you compare species. The&ndash;what those do&ndash;what the gyri and sulci do&ndash;if you imagine the layers of the cortex and then fold it upon themselves like a ribbon that's what forms that structure and what the essentially does is it increases the surface area of the brain. So it's just a way of squeezing more computational surface area into a smaller three dimensional space which was obviously important to the evolution of our bigger, juicier brains. But you can't compare person A to person B and go, "Oh, he's got to be smarter because his brain looks smarter on an MRI scan. He's got more sulci." Doesn't work that way.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, why not also fill in the valleys between the hills? Between the gyri or the sulci or whatever they are?<br />
<br />
S: They're squished together. It's not significant.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
S: I mean, when you get old and your brain shrivels up and atrophies then you see expanded sulci and spaces but&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Your brain really shrivels up, huh?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, doesn't that suck?<br />
<br />
J: What the hell?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but Steve, I thought the idea, though, behind that was that they're not sure if the brain is really truly atrophying really, hugely, impacting cognition or is it just paring away the unessential parts of the brain that really aren't needed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, like motor skills and deep thinking.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: Barring, of course, dementia. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right Bob?<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's a complicated question. First of all those are not mutually exclusive cause both those things could be occurring at the same time. The pruning hypothesis where it's just cutting back neurons were sitting there waiting to be recruited but they haven't been, so they just go away at some point, but even still you imagine that there's fewer neurons around to be recruited so&ndash;after 50 or so we do start to lose our capacity to learn new things. We lose our flexibility. At least most of us. Some people really don't and they're brains don't atrophy as much, either.<br />
<br />
J: Bastards.<br />
<br />
S: So, some people genetically are built for more neurological longevity. But, yeah, you can't&ndash;I don't think it's accurate to say that there's no relationship between the atrophy of the brain as we age and the loss of cognitive ability. There absolutely is a relationship but it's complicated and we're not sure exactly what it is.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, it's not a black and white issue. It's more of a grey matter.<br />
<br />
B: Oh.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, wow, Evan, really?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright, so guys, let me continue. It's basically a story that I'm going to quickly tell everyone and then we'll discuss it.<br />
<br />
B: Alright.<br />
<br />
E: I love stories. Okay. I'm ready.<br />
<br />
J: So this man, named Thomas Harvey&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
E: Harvey.<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
J: and he&ndash;he actually performed the autopsy on Einstein at Princeton. Now this back in&ndash;Now this was when, '55 I believe Einstein died?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, around there.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. So, this is what the article said. The article said that during the autopsy routine the brain would be removed, examined, and then put back in the person's body for burial. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Which, by the way&ndash;we don't do that today. I don't know&ndash;that sounds odd. We don't put the brain back in the head. You take it out, you put it in a jar of formaldehyde and pickle it for 2 weeks, so that you can slice it up and look at it. Cause otherwise it's too much like jelly. You can't really slice into it. So that bit of that story certainly is not what's done today.<br />
<br />
J: Well maybe he took it out&ndash;cause it did say that he did put it in formaldehyde&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Well that's routine. That's routine.<br />
<br />
J: He was preparing it. He kept it out for the amount of time necessary and then instead of putting it back after the examination of the brain he kept it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, I think probably what happened is normally you would take it out, you pickle it for 2 weeks then you do what's called brain cutting. You slice it all the way through and you look for pathology and you look for the structures and whatnot and that's it. Then slides get filed away and the rest of it get thrown out, gets discarded as medical waste. Or, or, what can happen, sometimes the family may request that every last scrap of material gets returned and gets buried with the body.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. I'm sure that's&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: That happens sometimes, too. In fact, that happens even with&ndash;sometimes people will donate their body to science and their body will be dissected by medical students. Sometimes those bodies are just cremated. Other times everything's got to be put back&ndash;you don't put it back together but basically all bundled up and then sent back to the family to be buried or whatever they want to do with it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: That is a typical Jewish custom. I don't know how religious or close Einstein was to strict Jewish customs but I can tell you that that is Jewish customs. You bury as much of the remains as you possibly can.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So he probably&ndash;he held back the brain. He didn't do with it whatever was normally supposed to happen to it.<br />
<br />
J: No. He stole it. That's what happened.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. He stole it. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Brain thief.<br />
<br />
B: I'm going to donate my body to science fiction.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright. Continuing on&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: You stole that joke from somebody.<br />
<br />
J: So Thomas Harvey, because of what he did, because he kept Einstein's brain, he lost his job. Which seems to be the appropriate thing to take place.<br />
<br />
E: Bad trade.<br />
<br />
S: Cause that was unethical. What he did.<br />
<br />
J: And during that process he claimed that Einstein's son, Hans, gave him permission but that claim was denied by the family.<br />
<br />
S: What about Frans?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So, as I'm reading through this I realize, of course, hindsight being 20/20, I don't disagree with what the guy did. I think it was obvious to him at the time that there was something important about Einstein's brain and it should be studied further. Shouldn't just be thrown away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It kind of makes you wish that somebody at NASA thought that about the moon landing footage. <br />
<br />
B: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: "Ya know, I'm going to put this aside and not put it&ndash;file it with the rest of the tapes that are going to get erased and reused."<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Or, "Lets make a couple of backups, just in case. Or put it somewhere else. I don't know."<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Anyway.<br />
<br />
J: I've really gotta&ndash;let me sprint to the finish guys.<br />
<br />
B: Thanks for reminding me.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, go ahead.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. So I mentioned that I don't disagree. What Thomas Harvey wanted was he wanted neuro-anatomists to analyse Einstein's brain and see if they could find something out about it that we didn't know about the human brain before and that was his goal but as the story goes&ndash;so 40 years passes and then a writer named, Paterniti, he heard about all these events that we just went through and he decided that&ndash;I guess he wanted to write about what had taken place so he tracks down and finds Harvey. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Did he sue him?<br />
<br />
J: No. This guys an author.<br />
<br />
S: So he didn't give him a Paterniti suit?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god. You're on a roll tonight, Steve.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Any who, so, he tracks down Harvey, gets into a long conversation with him and, I guess, between the conversation and the two of them going back and forth they mutually decide the brain should be returned to Einstein's family and, I guess they new at the time that his granddaughter Evelyn was still alive so they wanted to return it to her. So Paterniti drives to Harvey's house, he described Harvey as bringing out Einstein's brain in a Tupperware jar. In a Tupperware container.<br />
<br />
E: Tupperware.<br />
<br />
J: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. That would seal in the freshness, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So the two of them planned to drive across the country from New Jersey all the way to California where the granddaughter lived. I guess they conversation had continued during this drive and Paterniti found out that Einstein had indeed&ndash;I'm sorry, that Harvey had indeed been sending out Einstein's brain when samples were requested he would take the samples and send them to neurologists across the globe. So, when saw the brain in the Tupperware container it had been cut up. It was sliced up. So, Harvey sent 3 different samples to a scientist named Marian Diamond and she had contacted Harvey years earlier and requested samples from 3 different parts of Einstein's brain and he did end up shipping them to her but he ended up shipping them to her in an old mayonnaise jar.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Okay? Not making this up.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: This was around 1980. She studied the samples. She found that Einstein's brain had normal amount of neurons but he had a higher than normal percentage of a different kind of brain cell and that cell was called a glial cell. That increase in glial cells was found especially in the parts of the brain that involved imagery and complex thinking, so that definitely made Diamond realize, "Well, this is very curious. Let me look into it." But first, Steve, why don't you tell us what a glial cell is.<br />
<br />
B: Support cells, aren't they?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's the other kinds of cells in the brain other than neurons and they are&ndash;yeah, for many years we thought they were basically support cells.<br />
<br />
B: Like structural cells.<br />
<br />
S: Not just structural but they create the friendly environment for the neurons. <br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right, they're there keeping the neurons alive and happy while the neurons are doing their job of remembering and calculating and stuff.<br />
<br />
B: Kind of like the Remora around sharks.<br />
<br />
S: I guess.<br />
<br />
J: So, at the time&ndash;<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Diamond was now asking questions like, "Well, why would there be more of these cells here if they're really just support cells? What's the significance of there being more of them here?" And it was a very odd idea at the time to think that glial cells had anything to do with Einstein's intelligence. Being that the cells were thought to be there for perhaps structural integrity perhaps there to just be, like Steve said, like more support cells than actual cells that were there for thinking. Alright, so now we go forward another 10 years and another researcher named Steven J. Smith published a paper that changed the perception of and understanding of the brain because what he did was&ndash;he was studying neurons and he was also studying these glial cells and he speculated that glial cells also were a part of the communication that happened within the cell and that also these cells weren't only communicating chemically but they were communicating with electricity in the manner that neurons communicate. And then he kept on fleshing out his idea and he also said that these glial cells could possibly be picking up communication between neurons&ndash;neurons are communicating with each other, glial cells would be listening in on this communication and then sending that data to other parts of the brain. So he came up with this idea that the brain&ndash;it's another way that the brain could be communicating internally. Which at the time was a profound idea. They though, at the time, that only neurons were doing the heavy lifting and that even though there was a ton of other cells in the brain that they didn't think really were doing anything. Neurons were it, but once they realized, "You know what? These glial cells might actually be doing complex things like be involved in learning and memory and ideas that we have of like what does it mean to be a genius. Glial cells might have something to do with high end thinking." So, once that started that started to really open up new ideas and that started a whole different school of thought. So then yet another scientist named, Doug Fields, he reproduced Smith's research and confirmed that it was actually valid. And, at one point, Doug Fields wrote, "Now we can see scores of ways in which astrocytes could be involved in many cognitive processes." And now it's not so crazy to find that there were abnormally high numbers of astrocytes in the parts of Einstein's brain involved in imagery and mathematical ability and that sort of thing. So, that was a pretty huge milestone and a huge leap forward in our understanding of the human brain. So in 2007, Harvey died. He really didn't know that him taking Einstein's brain, actually through these steps and through these different people actually lead to a move forward in our understanding of the riddle of the mind, but it seems that he actually did have something to do with it. And, Einstein's granddaughter didn't end up wanting her grandfather's brain so Harvey, before he died, he returned the brain back to the pathology department at Princeton, where it is today.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, can you only find out the number of astrocytes by cutting into a brain or is there a way to test it while you're still alive?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you can estimate it just by knowing what the density of astrocytes are and then calculating it by volume but if you want to look at an individuals astrocyte density, yeah, you gotta stain it. You gotta cut into it.<br />
<br />
J: So, Steve, could you just take a little&ndash;take a biopsy of somebody's brain and test it that way?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. You could.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think you could do&ndash;really?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Why not?<br />
<br />
E: Well, are you supposed to be biopsying the brain for this kind of testing purposes. It's really more for diseases.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you wouldn't do this. You wouldn't do that. You wouldn't biopsy a humans brain just out of curiosity but we do it for diagnostic purposes but it's got to be worth while to the person.<br />
<br />
E: Right. There's got to be something going on that you're looking for the answer for a cure or something.<br />
<br />
B: Risk benefit.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if they&ndash;I know it's not uncommon&ndash;brain surgery happens all the time. They open up people's skulls. They literally get in there with tools and go deep into the brain and remove tumors and do things like that. Cognitively if you did take someone's skull off, or a portion of the skull, and just cut out, say a jelly bean sized piece of the brain, under the idea that the person isn't going to bleed to death or whatever, just removing a piece of the brain then putting the skull piece back and letting the person heal. What would they lose from losing a portion of the brain that size?<br />
<br />
B: Depends. It depends on the portion.<br />
<br />
E: Lobotomi&ndash;You're lobotomizing a person at that point.<br />
<br />
B: It totally depends. My guess would be that either it's totally unnoticeable or you'd be completely debilitated.<br />
<br />
S: Bob's right. It completely depends on which jelly bean piece of brain you take out.<br />
<br />
B: Take the hypothalamus and you're f'd.<br />
<br />
S: For example, the right frontal lobe is largely redundant and you could do a lot of stuff to that without producing and noticeable deficits. <br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: And, in fact, when surgeons have to go into the brain they prefer to do the non-dominant frontal lobe because it's mostly redundant, but, you take out language cortex and you can make somebody completely lose their ability to speak, for example.<br />
<br />
B: It'd be like a stroke, Jay. It'd be like a stroke.<br />
<br />
J: But even a piece that small? <br />
<br />
S: If it's critical, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So there is one place in your brain that a certain type of functionality is happening and there's parts of your brains which is just storage for memory, there's parts of your brain that is doing something like processing what you see or what you hear. So you're better off losing a little portion of your memory than you are like a major piece of functionality, of course, but, I thought it was more evenly distributed.<br />
<br />
S: No. No no. It's not and it's also&ndash;memory's pretty evenly distributed but functions are localized and there's also&ndash;it's not just how localized it is it's how redundant it is. If something's really lateralized to one side you only have one piece of your brain that's doing that thing then you don't want to lose that. If you have bilateral redundancy then obviously you can afford to lose one cause the other side will make up for it. So, yeah, it depends on a lot of things. Interestingly, when reading through science news items this week&ndash;just this week was a study published by Swedish researchers from the University of Gothenburg and they were looking at astrocytes, which are a form of glial cells, and their effects on neuronal connections and function and essentially what they found is that the astrocytes are modulating the strength of the signalling between the neurons. Now, they basically are effecting how those synapses between neurons change over time. So what that means is is that the astrocytes might actually be directly involved in the formation of memories and plasticity of the brain and learning. Which, again, is just further evidence for their greatly enhanced role in actual memory function of the brain, not just, again, as support cells. So that research is ongoing and that was a huge shift in our thinking about the role of astrocytes.<br />
<br />
=== Largest Radio Telescope Array <small>(27:49)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.86c1ac9d54a51fd47b845663527a077d.1191&show_article=1 --><br />
<br />
S: Well lets go on. We have another bit of astronomy news, Bob, you're going to tell us about the largest radio telescope ever.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. This one's a quickie. This is the biggest radio telescope in the world and it was recently unveiled by scientists in the Netherlands. It's called LOFAR which stands Low Frequency Array. I think we touched upon this a while back. It consists of a whopping 25,000 small antennas and they're real tiny. They range in size from 50 centimeters to about 2 meters across. So they're not very big at all. And they're all spread out all over, not only the Netherlands, but also Germany, Sweden, France and Britain. And it's pretty cool. This thing is really going to do some amazing work I predict. Femke Beckhurst of the Netherlands Radio Astronomy Institute said, "Today we have launched the biggest radio telescope in the world. When you combine all the antennas you get a giant telescope with a diameter of about 1,000 kilometers," which is about 600 miles so that's pretty big. And it takes some nifty software to actually take all those separate signals and stitch them together. They're actually using a supercomputer to do some of that work. It's the Blue Gene P supercomputer which is a petaflop class supercomputer. So it's pretty fast. So with these observations that this radio telescope, or, I guess you can call it radio telescopes&ndash;So, the observations that they're going to be able to make with this&ndash;they're going to learn about the origin of the universe and some people are saying that they'll be able to go to the moment right after the big bang. Other&ndash;some other key science projects for LOFAR are what they call the epoch of re-ionization which is basically when the universe turned on. When things became. Also, things like ultra high energy cosmic rays which are a bit of a mystery, such as the one we mentioned&ndash;we mentioned one such cosmic ray a while back called the Oh My God Particle in 1991 which is probably the most energetic cosmic ray ever detected which was so powerful&ndash;imagine it was a subatomic particle with the energy of a baseball travelling at 60 miles an hour. Imagine, you get hit with one proton and it knocks you on your butt like it was a baseball travelling 60. So, amazingly fast. We're not sure what could have imparted so much energy to such a tiny thing. It was travelling so close to the speed of light it was essentially just a whisker&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But to clarify, it wouldn't really knock you on your butt, right? It would just go right through you.<br />
<br />
B: No. It's too tiny. Right. It is too tiny and it could do some damage, though, if it happened to hit the right, whatever in your body, DNA or something.<br />
<br />
E: Well, what if it hit a computer or something? It would really screw that up.<br />
<br />
B: That's a lot of kinetic energy. I don't know where&ndash;how all the kinetic energy would be transferred. Would it be transferred into heat. Would it fly right through? Probably&ndash;it might just fly right through.<br />
<br />
S: Or maybe it will smash through several particles on its way.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. It might hit&ndash;if hit's something squarely it could start a cascade so I think if it's just right it could actually&ndash;it could be noticeable. But there's other things&ndash;the solar science and space weather, cosmic magnetism, so I'm sure this thing is going to be used for a really long time and hopefully maybe even get even bigger.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob, what's the difference between the moment of the Big Bang and the moment of first illuminosity, I think is the word you used?<br />
<br />
B: Well, I believe it was 100,000 years or 1,000 years, it was a lot of time before things calmed down enough. Things were just so energetic that light&ndash;any photons that might have been generated were just bouncing around all over the place and they really couldn't settle down and just take a straight line any direction so there's nothing to see if you look back in visible light there's nothing to see cause all the photons are just kinda bouncing around. But also this epoch of re-ionization&ndash;that's kind of a different term than I'm used to. They refer to it as when things became luminous so I think it depends on&ndash;are they talking about the first stars, the first galaxies, the first quasars?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
B: If that's what they're talking about then that would actually be after what I'm talking&ndash;what I've just mentioned which is also called photon decoupling. So actually this epoch is a little bit different. I think it's later on.<br />
<br />
E: It's just amazing that they can make that distinction or make the determination that so much&ndash;however much time it is happened between the two.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: You think of the Big Bang&ndash;certainly in a visual display you're watching some show on TV that kinda of describes it and it's an intense white spot of light from the get go. At least that's how the depict it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But they always give you the impossible perspective of being outside the universe when the Big Bang happens.<br />
<br />
B: Space time, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But that's not a possible perspective. So it's kind of misleading.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A little.<br />
<br />
S: And a lot of that is&ndash;evidence is theoretical. They're just well what should have happened if you have the mass of the universe at a point and then what would happen over time? Based upon the temperatures and what things are like at those temperatures. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: But maybe this large radio telescope will help fill in those gaps.<br />
<br />
B: Some of them.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully.<br />
<br />
B: If it can actually get close to the moment after the Big Bang then absolutely it will be able to do&ndash;it will illuminate us in many ways.<br />
<br />
E: Very cool.<br />
<br />
J: I still don't get the concept that when the Big Bang took place&ndash;like, where it was specially in reality. You can't go to that space&ndash;that place in outer space because it doesn't really&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Sure you can. Wherever you go, there you are.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, geez. Really, Bob?<br />
<br />
E: It happened everywhere&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: It's true. It's true. It's everywhere. You can't point to it because it's not one specific spot. It's everywhere.<br />
<br />
J: Well, it didn't happen right here.<br />
<br />
E: It might have.<br />
<br />
S: Every part of the universe was at that point, Jay, at that time.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, so, meaning that the universe is growing in size.<br />
<br />
S: Of course. But it's like&ndash;if you do the two dimensional analogy, it's like blowing up a balloon. Where was it before you blew it up? Well it's&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: How&ndash;right. Try to explaining to a two dimensional creature on that balloon where&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: It was in the package.<br />
<br />
J: where the center is.<br />
<br />
S: You'd have to point into the 4th dimension.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
J: I can't picture it.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Amityville Horror House for Sale <small>(34:11)</small>===<br />
[http://www.theness.com/roguesgallery/?p=1676 Rogue's Gallery: Amityville Horror House for Sale]<br />
<br />
S: So, the Amityville Horror House is back in the news.<br />
<br />
E: And it's back in the news because its up for sale.<br />
<br />
S: Sale. That's right. For what? 1.5 million?<br />
<br />
E: 1.15 million dollars.<br />
<br />
B: In this market?<br />
<br />
J: I know. Isn't that crazy?<br />
<br />
S: You can own a piece of paranormal history.<br />
<br />
B: But, is that price kind of crazy for the neighborhood because the house is famous?<br />
<br />
E: I don't know. I imagine that has something to do with it. They said they'd done a lot of renovations recently on the house. So&mdash;Look, I imagine the main factor, like any other piece of property is&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Location.<br />
<br />
E: comparable&mdash;yeah, location and comparable houses for sale in the area.<br />
<br />
S: But here's my question. Now, typically, if a house is alleged to be haunted or if a murder took place there it's considered psychologically damaged and that actually reduces the value of the house. But in this case it's famous for being psychologically damaged, so does that increase the value of the house?<br />
<br />
E: Or do the two equal each other out?<br />
<br />
S: The balance out?<br />
<br />
E: The negative and positive balance out.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So, there were a series of murders there in 1974. Ronald DeFeo Sr., his wife, Louise, their two sons and two daughters were shot while they slept in the home and the one remaining family member alive, Ronald, nicknamed Butch DeFeo, he confessed to the murders and is serving a life sentence in prison. And then just a few weeks after the sentencing of Butch, George and Kathy Lutz and their three children moved into the home where a new round of supposed horrors began. Muwahaha. Well, not really.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about them.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, there was supposedly all sorts of things happening in this house. They reported sightings of&mdash;well, the kids reported sightings of animals, mostly a pig named Jody. A sculpted lion came to life and supposedly walked around the house.<br />
<br />
S: Cool.<br />
<br />
E: A demonic boy appeared. It was photographed and you can find that famous photograph online. Kind of looks like a regular boy but that's beside the point. And other strange things in the house. Oh, green slime oozed from the walls. Crucifix on the wall was constantly rotating until it left itself upside down and, needless to say, 28 days after they moved in&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: 28 days later.<br />
<br />
E: 28 days later. Good one Steve. The Lutz's fled.<br />
<br />
S: What about the&mdash;you forgot about the hell-mouth. It's a gaping mouth to hell in their basement.<br />
<br />
J: Wait. Wasn't that in Poltergeist.<br />
<br />
E: That was another movie, I think.<br />
<br />
B: No. No no no. <br />
<br />
E: You're right, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: It's the red room.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It was a red room, which in the movie they kind of made it seem like it was the road to hell or something.<br />
<br />
E: Now there was one small problem with all of these paranormal happenings. They never really happened. It was a story&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: It was fake.<br />
<br />
E: The whole thing was fake. However, that didn't stop famous demonologist and psychic investigator&mdash;paranormal investigator Ed Warren and his wife Loraine from investigating the matter and deeming that house to be one of the most haunted places in the world.<br />
<br />
S: Right. Right after their basement.<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Their basement in Monroe, Connecticut #1, Aminityville #2.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Right. It was fake. And now it's up for sale.<br />
<br />
E: It is. So&mdash;if you've got dollars burning a whole in your pocket&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: You might want to go get a piece of history.<br />
<br />
S: The people who bought the house after the Lutz's complained that they had to deal with the paranormal tourists bothering them day in and day out. Gawking at the house and everything. So&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So much so that they had to change the address of the house.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So it really was psychologically damaged for them, cause it came with all the tourists.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm looking at a picture of the demon boy.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: It's a little boy.<br />
<br />
S: With no eyes.<br />
<br />
J: Well, the eyes are whited out so it looks kind of creepy. Photo could have been doctored.<br />
<br />
E: Could have been a dozen things, right, other than a demonic boy from hell.<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:46)</small>==<br />
S: Well, thanks for that, Evan, and why don't we go on to Who's That Noisy?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. For those of you who forgot here is last week's Who's that Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: And then I began to study back&mdash;the relationships between the elements for plants and they are different as the elements for humans. Because Cali and Forswore are actually the friends of each other in the homeopathic material magica for humans, but in plants these two substances are each other's enemy.</blockquote><!-- The Cali and Forswore are just going phonetically. I couldn't understand what he said. --><br />
<br />
S: Mm hmm.<br />
<br />
E: Mm hmm. So, you learned a little bit about homeopathy in that clip.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Two substances&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or not.<br />
<br />
S: Two substances which are enemies in plants are friends in people. Or animals.<br />
<br />
E: Bet you didn't know that before.<br />
<br />
J: So who is that guy?<br />
<br />
E: That is V. D. Kaviraj. A homeopath of some repute and the reason I actually found this person is because I was watching a Youtube video of our&mdash;well, friend, Mr. Benneth&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Who had this fellow as part of an interview so I thought that would make a rather interesting Noisy, last week.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And, not only did someone get it correctly but they actually also went ahead and found the clip from which I clipped it so if you go onto our message boards and [[SGU_Episode 256 | Episode 256]] you can actually take a look and listen for yourself to the entire interview and bring some coffee cause you with otherwise fall asleep.<br />
<br />
S: You don't want your brain to explode. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Exactly. So, NoWoo, en-oh-double you-oh-oh, from the message boards guessed correctly. Congratulations. Well done.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. What have you got for this week, Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. And here is this weeks Who's That Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: Does the shade<!-- what? --> give you the authority you need to take dangerous products off the shelves? And the answers always yes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
E: That's a short one this week.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Thanks Evan.<br />
<br />
E: But I think there's enough information in there for someone to get it. So, be the first one to guess correctly. Good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Ev.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Soy <small>(41:02)</small>===<br />
S: We have time for a few e-mails this week. The first one comes from Michael Wilson from Prescott, Arizona and Michael writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Steve - You made the offhand comment that there are "serious concerns" that soy milk is producing an estrogen type hormonal effect. I am a vegan bodybuilder who drinks a quart of soy milk everyday. I am concerned your offhand comment will scare people away from switching to a healthier milk alternative with no saturated fat. I've looked in the past when people have made these claims, and all I can find is that there may be some very mild effect, but nothing that rises to the level of your "serious concern" comment. If there was, there would be serious estrogen related issues throughout Asian countries. Since you felt it necessary to scare people away from soy by telling them about the "serious concerns" science has with soy milk, I hope you will provide the research on you next show that proves soy milk causes serious estrogen like effects. I do love the show, and I thank everyone for the time and effort you guys put into it every week. <br><br>Michael Wilson Prescott, AZ</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So, Michael's referring to two weeks ago when we had Pamela Gay and Frazier Cane on when&mdash;I can't remember what we were talking about but the notion of estro&mdash;the notion of&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Pamela said she drink soy milk and then we got onto the discussion.<br />
<br />
S: She drinks soy milk. Yeah, so I was razzing her a little bit about the fact that not everything is perfectly safe. You could find concerns about anything and in fact there are concerns about the estrogen like effects of soy milk. But it was an off hand comment, but I do think it's good for follow up to see what the evidence actually shows. The concerns are raised by the fact that soy contains isoflavones which have an estrogen effect. It's hormonally active and therefor that creates that plausibility that it could have some actual clinical effects in people and there are various populations in which it has been studied. So, one group are women who&mdash;are women in general, especially women who have had breast cancer. The question is do the estrogens increase the risk of breast cancer or if you have breast cancer does it worsen the outcome. The answer to that question appears to be no. So the evidence so far is pretty solid that there's no negative effect for women with breast cancer. In fact one review I read said that there may in fact be a small beneficial effect because it may competitively block the effects of women who have high estrogen levels. So there it's either no effect or maybe a small beneficial effect in a subset of women. The bigger concerns are with men, though, because obviously estrogen is a feminizing hormone and the question is does&mdash;do the estrogen effects of isoflavones in soy milk have a feminizing effect on men? So far the research does not show any such effect. What about the reproductive effects on men? Here, we have animal data which shows that there is a negative effect. This is where the biggest concerns are. And these concerns are that we haven't done enough research to really know what the net effects are in people. So we have animal data that shows some concern but not really sufficient human data to rule out that there may be a negative effect on the reproduction of men. The final group are infants, especially since there is a soy based infant formulas. And here there were several reviews in the last couple of years. Some saying there's really no proven effect. Other reviewers saying that, again, there is concern that there maybe some hormonal effects on infants and that&mdash;and essentially where the reviewers agree is that the research is not adequate to rule out a significant effect. Therefor if you want to be cautious you may avoid using soy based infant formulas until more research is done to show that there isn't any significant effect. Estrogen like effect. So that's where we are. I do think it's fair to say that there are concerns. Nothing is proven. And while some of those concerns have been ruled out by research there are others, specifically reproduction in men and in infants where we don't have enough research to really say that they're safe. My take is that it's probably a very weak effect. I would be surprised if the research ultimately showed that there was a strong effect, but those are the areas where the research is not yet sufficient to confidently say that there isn't a potential effect.<br />
<br />
B: But also&mdash;but this guy, Steve, if you're&mdash;if you're not an infant and you're beyond&mdash;you've already had your kids and you're done with kids, then it would be even less of a concern?<br />
<br />
S: That's right. And if you're a woman, there's basically no concern.<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Cursed Cell Phone Number <small>(45:50)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>The cursed cell phone number Thought you guys might like this story of truly stupid superstitious thinking that misses the glaringly obvious. <br />
<br><br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7763578/Mobile-phone-number-suspended-after-three-users-die-in-10-years.html Telegraph: Mobile phone number suspended after three users die in 10 years]<br />
<br>Danforth France Glendale, CA</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Jay, you're gonna tell us about the cursed cell phone number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. This is really silly to be honest with you.<br />
<br />
B: It's silly.<br />
<br />
E: Silly.<br />
<br />
J: It's just one of those story where there's a string of coincidences that could make certain people think certain things but, basically there was a phone number that was given out. And I don't know if this is the real number but it seems like it isn't because it's a seri&mdash;it's 0-888-888-888&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: So, that's the number. I mean, my understanding from reading is that's the number that they suspended.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. Could be. Now, isn't the number 8 unlucky somewhere?<br />
<br />
B: No. It's lucky in Asian cultures. Isn't 8&mdash;8 is lucky, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: 4 is unlucky.<br />
<br />
S: 4 is unlucky cause it sounds like death.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: 4 is unlucky. 8 is&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So, here's the quick one two. The first person who got it, he was the former CEO of a Bulgarian mobile phone company. His company issued him the number.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: He died of cancer in 2001 at 48 years old. After he died some rumors came out that his cancer had been caused by a business rival using radioactive poisoning. I find that unlikely, but, okay. Take that away. Let's just say that guy died. It's horrible. Died of cancer in 2001. 48 years old. That was horrible. The second that got the number was a Bulgarian mafia boss. There's a couple of things that mafia bosses do really well. They kill, and then they get killed.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
J: Right? So this guy was gunned down in 2003 by an assassin.<br />
<br />
B: What are the odds?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: A mafia killing? What?<br />
<br />
J: Then the number went to another guy who was described as a crooked business man and he was gunned down outside of an Indian restaurant in Bulgaria. So since then the number was retired because the police are investigating and all this stuff, but, there's the idea that the number is cursed or unlucky&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Or jinxed.<br />
<br />
E: It's your unlucky number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's been&mdash;the number has been touched by evil and anyone who gets it is gonna get killed. So I'm thinking&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Anyone mob related who touches it will get killed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's pretty clear to see&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or crime related.<br />
<br />
J: through this. It's not that big of a coincidence that a bunch of people that were involved in very dangerous and crazy criminal activity are getting killed. <br />
<br />
B: But if a number becomes available&mdash;is it more likely that the number became available because somebody dumped the number or because somebody died? Because I'm never gonna want to lose my number today.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I don't know. Now that people have personal phone numbers. Yeah. Probably people hold on to them for life. Even if you change carrier, right? You can take your number to another carrier.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Now you can. I don't know if you could in early 2000&mdash;2003. I don't know if you could during that time period. So, anyway, the reason why we bring up this story was not just because somebody wrote in about it but we thought it was a quick and easy example of a series of events strung together to make a story where there really isn't a story or a connection.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. There's a few ways you can look at this. One is it's not that big a coincidence that 3 people with the same number die in the short period of time. Just taking the number of phone numbers out there, I'm sure that happens a lot just by coincidence. Right? I mean it would be surprising if that never happened. This is a little different because these people were high profile and the number's unusual. It's&mdash;you could of it as a very desirable number because it's all 8's. It's the kind of number you get if you work for the phone company like the CEO or you're a mob boss, I guess. Right? They're not going to give it to just some guy. And these&mdash;two of these three people were at high risk for dying so that makes it even less of a coincidence that this kind of number is going to go to the kind of people who may be in risky businesses. But then you also think of it from the phone companies point of view. Obviously the notion that the number itself is jinxed is magical thinking and it's ridiculous but from a business marketing point of view, do they want to hand this number over to somebody else and then what if something happens to that person or even&mdash;they may just get upset if they find out that the phone company assigned them a quote unquote "jinxed" number. You know what I mean? Probably just fewer headaches for the phone company if they just get rid of it, even for a while. You know what I mean? You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. It's a numbers racket.<br />
<br />
J: That's a good job, boys. It's good work, boys.<br />
<br />
=== Magic Bee Juice <small>(50:27)</small>===<br />
S: The next one comes from David Gardner from Osaka, Japan. And David writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>One of the branches of the company I work for in Japan has started selling Propolis as a means to make more money in a bad economy. This branch has repeatedly tried to get me to buy some of this magic bee juice. Many of my Japanese co-workers have taken the bait. They are putting bee juice in their drinks and swallowing magic bee juice pills. When I ask them if they feel any better, they all say they aren’t sure. Hmm… I think the company I work for has a snake oill division. Do you know of any scientific evidence that shows any benefit to taking Propolis? All the information I found say that Propolis may contain lead and other garbage bees pick up while flying around the city. Thank you for your time. <br><br>David Gardner Osaka, Japan </blockquote><!-- shouldn't we fix the "aren't" that's all messed up? --><br />
<br />
S: Well, do you guys now what Propolis is?<br />
<br />
B: Nope.<br />
<br />
J: No.<br />
<br />
E: It's the star in the sky that doesn't rotate.<br />
<br />
S: It's magic bee juice. This is&mdash;So, bees make a variety of things. This is the gooey, sticky stuff that bees use to hold together their nests. They largely pick it up&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Oh. The honey comb?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so, yeah. But it's not just wax. I guess this is even stronger structural stuff that they use&mdash;it's like the glue that they use to hold it together and its&mdash;they'll pick up the sap from coniferous trees. Resins. It sounds nasty. It doesn't sound like the kind of stuff you would want to eat. I mean the bees don't eat it. It contains phenolics, aromatic compounds, volatile oils and terpenes. But even worse that that, as the bees fly around our modern society they're not just picking up resins from pine trees. They're also picking up lead paint. They're picking up caulking.<br />
<br />
B: Yum.<br />
<br />
S: They're picking up road tar and other things.<br />
<br />
E: Fecal material.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. They're picking up all kinds of nasty stuff and mixing it all together with these resins and terpenes and they're using that to glue together their nests and then&mdash;and idiots are taking that stuff and eating it.<br />
<br />
E: Now, when you say idiot&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: It's glue like?<br />
<br />
S: It's sticky. If you get the sap off a pine tree&mdash;it's like that.<br />
<br />
E: That's awful.<br />
<br />
S: Now, of course, it contains a lot of chemicals, right? As you might imagine&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: It's all natural.<br />
<br />
S: Sure. And if you look at those chemicals those chemicals do stuff. The body's going to react to those chemicals. Actually, probably the most common reaction is an allergic dermatitis and when I looked up Propolis on PubMed most of the specific references to it and people were to&mdash;this allergic dermatitis.<br />
<br />
E: Is this the same allergic reaction people have when they get a bee sting?<br />
<br />
S: No. No. It's different. This is more just a contact dermatitis. The skin gets red and bee stings can have more of a systemic reaction. That's where it becomes a problem, as opposed to just a rash. So, there's no research in humans showing any beneficial effects. It's all extrapolating wildly from just nonspecific&mdash;or just reactions that happen to some chemical that you can find in this stuff. There some animal data that it does stuff, but there's nothing that really can be used to base any kind of medicinal claims. So this really is snake oil. And apparently it's been around for hundreds of years. This is nothing new. It's just an idea that crops up every now and then.<br />
<br />
E: Here. Eat this bee waste byproduct.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's bee waste. It is bee waste.<br />
<br />
E: Bee waste.<br />
<br />
S: Pretty much everything that bees make somebody has decided to sell as snake oil. Pollen, royal jelly, and even bee venom. You guys have heard&mdash;I've talked about bee venom therapy.<br />
<br />
E: Bee venom therapy, sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. For, multiple sclerosis and arthritis and things like that. Pretty much everything. The only thing that bees make that has real medicinal value is honey and only if you put it topically on your wound.<br />
<br />
E: Or on toast.<br />
<br />
J: I love honey.<br />
<br />
E: I love you too, honey.<br />
<br />
B: Never spoils.<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Personality Tests <small>(54:41)</small> ==<br />
S: Well, we actually have a Name that Logical Fallacy this week.<br />
<br />
B: Ooo.<br />
<br />
E: Ooo. Queue the music.<br />
<br />
S: This is a question that comes from some guy called Mike Lacelle in Canada.<br />
<br />
J: Who is he?<br />
<br />
E: That a funny name.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know. Some bald guy.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: And Mike wants to know&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: But despite that&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: And Mike will be at TAM this year, by the way.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, this guy's gonna be at TAM?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Oh. I can't wait to meet him.<br />
<br />
B: I'm not going now.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: I'll see you there Mike.<br />
<br />
S: Mike writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Steve, I'm trying to figure out the difference between the Incorrect Cause fallacy and the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy? Skepticwiki is telling me that Post Hoc is a type of Incorrect Cause Fallacy, but I'm just not getting the difference. They seem to be one and the same. Any help would be appreciated. I'm trying to complete a 5x5 recording we did a few months ago and I'm recording a missing part which was about the "Incorrect Cause" fallacy. The topic of the 5x5 was Chemtrails and it seems to me that the Post Hoc fallacy would work better here.<br><br> Mike Lacelle Canada </blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So, this is an interesting one. The Incorrect Cause Fallacy is actually a category of logical fallacies.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There's lots of&mdash;and the Post Hoc is just a sub-category of it.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly. It's one type. <br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: It's any fallacy where you are making an invalid inference as to cause and effect. That's the Incorrect Cause Fallacy. My&mdash;I had a couple back and forths with Mike and he was saying that if you invoke the wrong cause for something just because your information is incorrect is that an incorrect cause fallacy and the answer to that is no. It doesn't me that you're just mistaken about what causes what, that's just a false premise, it's that the logical inference is incorrect, cause that's what a logical fallacy is. So, in the Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc Fallacy, you're concluding that B is caused by A ''because'' B follows A. That's where the invalid logic comes in. You're reaching the conclusion not because you just have a mistake belief but because you think that the fact that it comes after it is how you know that it's being caused by it.<br />
<br />
B: Right. So it's more sequential, whereas the Incorrect Cause Fallacy&mdash;it could be&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Is anything.<br />
<br />
B: It could be after. It could be anything.<br />
<br />
E: It could go any direction.<br />
<br />
B: They could happen at the same exact time. Could be AB instead of A followed by B. Could be at the same time or even&mdash;or other variations. So that's the main distinction as I see it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And it's not even restricted to temporal but&mdash;another common Incorrect Cause Fallacy is the&mdash;assuming causation from correlation as you're saying.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: They're correlated in some way, not because, necessarily, one follows the other but they could just be happening together more frequently or at the same time and then you assume that they're happening together because one is causing the other when, in fact, there are many relationships that possible. You cannot infer a specific causal relationship. Often people, however, say that&mdash;and I hear people say this, or write this, all the time, that correlation does not imply causation and that's incorrect. I ''does'' imply causation. It just does ''equal'' causation.<br />
<br />
B: Right. Right.<br />
<br />
S: Sometimes correlations occur because there ''is'' causation and it is&mdash;it certainly does imply that. It's one piece of evidence, but in order to make a specific causal conclusion you have to line up multiple correlations. Other examples of this would include the Complex Cause Fallacy, where maybe there are multiple causations but you pick one out and say that's ''the'' cause.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's a very common one, right? <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: We all sort of unconsciously do that all the time where we tend to think simplistically in terms of one cause for things when in fact many complex things will have multiple causes that are not mutually exclusive.<br />
<br />
J: And it's not just one cause. It could also be the most interesting cause has got to be it, too, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: We're so drawn to the one thats&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: That's interesting or&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: sexy.<br />
<br />
S: ''or'' the one that confirms our prior beliefs and ideology.<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Ah, confirmation bias.<br />
<br />
S: Then there's the Regression Fallacy. This is where you assume cause and effect because of what ultimately regression to the mean. Here's an example. Appearing on the cover of ''Sports Illustrated'' is a curse that will cause them to have a bad season or a bad game or whatever following that.<br />
<br />
E: I've heard that before, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. The ''Sports Illustrated'' curse. But that can be explained by regression to the mean.<br />
<br />
B: Right. They were on the cover in the first place because they might&mdash;they just happened to have, say, and exceptional season, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: And then of course the regression to the mean has got to kick in at some point, you would think, and then it's like, "Oh, damn. Bad luck."<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. They had their best game, their best season, whatever. That gets them on the cover and any extreme is likely to be followed by something closer to the mean. The regression to the mean.<br />
<br />
J: That's very similar to the Droning On Fallacy where skeptical enthusiasts just keep talking about logical fallacies over and over again.<br />
<br />
S: Jay, I'm not familiar with that one.<br />
<br />
E: I'm not either. Hey, here's another logical fallacy.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:07)</small> ==<br />
<br />
*[http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:14:40)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.</blockquote> <!-- the quote as read by Jay was different, should see if we can find a source to find the real quote --><br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS Con <small>(1:18:11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro119}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_257&diff=5588SGU Episode 2572013-01-25T19:35:25Z<p>Geneocide: /* Magic Bee Juice (50:27) */ formating</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all |transcriber = Geneocide }}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 257<br />
|episodeDate = 14<sup>th</sup> June 2010<br />
|episodeIcon = File:amityvilledemoboy.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-06-14.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=257<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,28802.0.html<br />
|qowText = Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Monday, June 14<sup>th</sup>, 2010 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey everyone. How are you doing tonight?<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: Quite well.<br />
<br />
E: Good.<br />
<br />
S: No Rebecca tonight because we are on the lead up to TAM recording schedule. We going to have a little bit of a weird recording schedule the next few weeks and Rebecca was not available tonight and she has no internet access.<br />
<br />
J: That's because her and Sid bought a house.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: She hasn't been able to get internet and cable, I guess, to the house yet.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. But it's a big secret. Don't tell anyone, folks.<br />
<br />
S: They're moving into a new flat. Is it still a flat if it's a house?<br />
<br />
B: No. Wait wait, no, a flat's an apartment, isn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Are they moving into a house house, or is it like a condo or what is it?<br />
<br />
J: I think it's a house house.<br />
<br />
S: But no cable yet.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, if she has a house, that means she has a basement which means she could run a haunt in her house.<br />
<br />
B: Not necessarily. Florida houses don't have basements but that's because of the water table.<br />
<br />
J: Well, no. If she's in England she has a root cellar.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: Which is even creepier.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:19)</small> ==<br />
E: Well, on this day in 1648 Margaret Jones was hanged in Boston for witchcraft. The first such execution for the Massachusetts colony.<br />
<br />
S: How many people were killed?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they didn't stop with Margaret. It was 20 people.<br />
<br />
S: Were executed.<br />
<br />
E: We executed for witchcraft.<br />
<br />
J: Wow. And we got off lucky. Didn't&ndash;in Europe wasn't it a much bigger phenomenon in Europe?<br />
<br />
S: A conservative number is around 60,000 deaths directly attributable to the witch hunts.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Depending on how you count it. There were 20 people executed in Salem. 19 hung and that one guy, Giles Corey was crushed to death cause he refused to enter a plea.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Hayabusa Returns <small>(2:02)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100613/ts_afp/spacejapanaustraliaasteroidsreturn_20100613204620 <br />
<br />
possible replacement: [http://www.space.com/8592-japanese-asteroid-probe-historic-return-earth.html Space.com: Japanese Asteroid Probe Makes Historic Return to Earth]<br />
--><br />
S: Well Bob, tell us about Hayabusa returning to Earth.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this is pretty cool. I totally forgot about this guy but this is an interesting story. The Japanese space agency known as JAXA, Jay-Ay-Ex-Ay, completed a mission recently to bring a sample of an asteroid back to Earth. This is something that's never been accomplished before and regardless of what happens there has never been a spacecraft that touched down on an asteroid and then came back to Earth. So regardless if they even brought anything back with them this was a first. Like I said, the only real question that remains as of the taping of this podcast anyway is whether the canister they retrieved in Australia has any asteroid. If you remember back in 2003, JAXA's Hayabusa craft began a 2 year journey to an asteroid named Itokawa and I wish I could say the mission went swimmingly but I can't. The craft really experienced some nasty technical difficulties. It seems likes throughout the whole way, or at least through a lot of it. They just kept hitting problem after problem. They even had some&ndash;some solar flair even messed up with it's power source so the energy that it had was less than they had anticipated and some of the biggest failures, though, was they had this metal ball that they would shoot&ndash;or they planned on shooting at the asteroid to collect rock samples and that failed. And then there was another mechanism, which they were planning on using to stir up the dust around the lander on the asteroid and that failed as well to collect any samples. So you might think that it was a total bust but the real hope at this point is that they hope that the dust that stirred up during the landing kind of just was swirling around and entered the canister&ndash;the collection canister so that's really all their hope is on that.<br />
<br />
S: So they really don't know if there's going to be anything in that canister. <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, they have no idea at this point. It doesn't look good to me.<br />
<br />
J: Is it on it's way back to Earth or it can analyze it.<br />
<br />
B: It came back to Earth. The craft burned up in the atmosphere but it ejected this heat protected canister which landed at the Woomera Protected Area which is a restricted military zone in south Australian desert. Now some conspiracy hypothesists may say that in reality this whole 7 year mission was a subtle attempt to get access to this restricted military zone. But, ya know, I'm just saying.<br />
<br />
J: Look at that. It landed in Area 51. Could we go get it?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Yeah.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: But, being silly, but I want to congratulate JAXA, though. Even if there's no sample which would really be nasty, but even if there's no sample, it was a great effort that tested lots of new technologies, like, for example, sampling and retrieval, electrical propulsion, autonomous navigation. So lots of interesting new technologies and this really was a test bed. Problems like this are to be expected.<br />
<br />
J: At this point any kind of space exploration is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: In the time when we're worried that it's all gonna go away and dry up&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm really happy to hear about stuff like this.<br />
<br />
B: That's true. But you really got to hand it to JAXA, though, because they relentlessly attacked every difficulty that arose creatively solving problems, and according to some people it was Apollo 13 in scale in terms of how difficult these problems were.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: But granted, lives were not on the line, but still they had to go through a lot. On the way home they lost half of their engines kicked out and they had to figure out how to get home with only half the engines running so they did an amazing job.<br />
<br />
J: I don't like you comparing it to Apollo 13 because it being unmanned is one thing and the other thing was they got those people back to Earth safely with an enormous amount of effort. Nothing can match that.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I'm not comparing it and I did kind of say that not in terms of the lives but in terms of creative problem solving it was similar. Some people are comparing it.<br />
<br />
J: Well, if they make a movie about it I might believe it then.<br />
<br />
S: Cause it's not real unless Hollywood does a movie about it.<br />
<br />
B: As you can imagine this is a huge, huge news story in Japan. They're really playing it up. It's all over the place, cause this is&ndash;it's quite a feat. Regardless of what happens this is a first, so that's great. If they have a sample, even better, cause you learn lots of things about the solar system&ndash;because we don't have&ndash;think about it&ndash;the material we have from asteroids really is just meteorites, right, that have landed on the earth and they've gone through the atmosphere. They're not the same.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When you come through the atmosphere&ndash;they're not the same.<br />
<br />
E: Burn, yeah. Stuff burns away and, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: This will be pristine. This will be pristine rock and that will be invaluable.<br />
<br />
J: Do you guys think that one day we will park satellites in orbit and just mine them?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah. Mine asteroids?<br />
<br />
E: You mean bring them into a close orbit and then we send up vehicles and stuff to start plowing them for their platinum and all they're goodies?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. And how about&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
J: One thing that I remember thinking about when I was younger, why not put it in the same orbit that the earth is in, but just behind the earth. Would that mean that it would have to be the same size as the earth, though, in order to be in the same orbit?<br />
<br />
B: The velocity would be very different then. It couldn't have the same velocity because the mass would be so different, so, at some point, it would intersect with the earth. So I don't think that would work, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: You would need something to constantly regulate it's distance from the earth, right?<br />
<br />
S: You put it at a Lagrange point and it will sit there.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There ya go. Problem solved.<br />
<br />
S: A Lagrange point is a&ndash;if you have a map, a three dimensional map of the gravitational fields of the earth and the sun, for example, or any large body orbiting another large body, then those fields hit a pit, or they dip to a minimum. So anything that is at those points it's like being at the bottom of a hill, it's stuck there and it won't move away so it's actually fixed in position relative to the earth. So it would be perfect for something that we want to put someplace and have it stay there in terms of it's relationship to the earth.<br />
<br />
J: It's kind of like drafting, right?<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Come on, a little bit.<br />
<br />
S: But to complete that discussion there are a total of 5 Lagrangian points. One in the orbit of, lets say the earth, in front of it. One behind the earth in it's orbit. One on the opposite side of Earth's orbit. One between the earth and the sun and one outside the orbit on a line between the earth and the sun but farther than the earth. So five points total. A few of which would be pretty close. But also, there are asteroids that are said to quote unquote "stalk" the earth. For example, recently discovered the 2009 BD. It's not stationary with respect to the earth but it does&ndash;cause it interacts with the earth's gravity and it's not at a Lagrangian point, but it does get close to the earth and will sort of corkscrew around the earth's orbit and stay very close to use for a while and then maybe drift away and come back in it's orbit. It's got a very weird orbit but it does stay close to the earth.<br />
<br />
=== Einstein's Brain <small>(9:22)</small>===<br />
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305&ps=cprs NPR: Einstein's Brain Unlocks Some Mysteries Of The Mind]<br />
<br />
S: Jay, tell us about the amazing adventure of Einstein's brain.<br />
<br />
J: So this is a very interesting story. Before I get into the story let me just ask you guys a few questions. One, what makes you think Einstein was so smart? What was it about his brain that makes him smart? Some things that I'm sure most skeptics have heard was that, "Einstein used 10% of his brain where the regular person only uses 2 or 2.5%." You guys have heard of that, right?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, course.<br />
<br />
E: Or something similar to it, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's only be debunked about a million times on the internet and elsewhere, I believe, in our publication.<br />
<br />
E: Of course. That's what my phrenologist says.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: Here's one that is less common, but I've also heard and I believe I also used to think about this when I was younger and not knowing much about the brain but another thing that people think is that Einstein's brain had more hills and valleys on the exterior part of his brain.<br />
<br />
S: Sulci and gyri?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. So, that's basically the shape of the brain on the outside that makes it look like a brain. All those hills and valleys and little bumps and stuff that are on the outside of somebodies brain.<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: But, Steve, you said at one point that that does not mean you're smarter, correct?<br />
<br />
S: Well, not comparing one individual to another. There's too much variation to say that but that certainly is true when you compare species. The&ndash;what those do&ndash;what the gyri and sulci do&ndash;if you imagine the layers of the cortex and then fold it upon themselves like a ribbon that's what forms that structure and what the essentially does is it increases the surface area of the brain. So it's just a way of squeezing more computational surface area into a smaller three dimensional space which was obviously important to the evolution of our bigger, juicier brains. But you can't compare person A to person B and go, "Oh, he's got to be smarter because his brain looks smarter on an MRI scan. He's got more sulci." Doesn't work that way.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, why not also fill in the valleys between the hills? Between the gyri or the sulci or whatever they are?<br />
<br />
S: They're squished together. It's not significant.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
S: I mean, when you get old and your brain shrivels up and atrophies then you see expanded sulci and spaces but&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Your brain really shrivels up, huh?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, doesn't that suck?<br />
<br />
J: What the hell?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but Steve, I thought the idea, though, behind that was that they're not sure if the brain is really truly atrophying really, hugely, impacting cognition or is it just paring away the unessential parts of the brain that really aren't needed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, like motor skills and deep thinking.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: Barring, of course, dementia. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right Bob?<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's a complicated question. First of all those are not mutually exclusive cause both those things could be occurring at the same time. The pruning hypothesis where it's just cutting back neurons were sitting there waiting to be recruited but they haven't been, so they just go away at some point, but even still you imagine that there's fewer neurons around to be recruited so&ndash;after 50 or so we do start to lose our capacity to learn new things. We lose our flexibility. At least most of us. Some people really don't and they're brains don't atrophy as much, either.<br />
<br />
J: Bastards.<br />
<br />
S: So, some people genetically are built for more neurological longevity. But, yeah, you can't&ndash;I don't think it's accurate to say that there's no relationship between the atrophy of the brain as we age and the loss of cognitive ability. There absolutely is a relationship but it's complicated and we're not sure exactly what it is.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, it's not a black and white issue. It's more of a grey matter.<br />
<br />
B: Oh.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, wow, Evan, really?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright, so guys, let me continue. It's basically a story that I'm going to quickly tell everyone and then we'll discuss it.<br />
<br />
B: Alright.<br />
<br />
E: I love stories. Okay. I'm ready.<br />
<br />
J: So this man, named Thomas Harvey&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
E: Harvey.<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
J: and he&ndash;he actually performed the autopsy on Einstein at Princeton. Now this back in&ndash;Now this was when, '55 I believe Einstein died?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, around there.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. So, this is what the article said. The article said that during the autopsy routine the brain would be removed, examined, and then put back in the person's body for burial. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Which, by the way&ndash;we don't do that today. I don't know&ndash;that sounds odd. We don't put the brain back in the head. You take it out, you put it in a jar of formaldehyde and pickle it for 2 weeks, so that you can slice it up and look at it. Cause otherwise it's too much like jelly. You can't really slice into it. So that bit of that story certainly is not what's done today.<br />
<br />
J: Well maybe he took it out&ndash;cause it did say that he did put it in formaldehyde&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Well that's routine. That's routine.<br />
<br />
J: He was preparing it. He kept it out for the amount of time necessary and then instead of putting it back after the examination of the brain he kept it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, I think probably what happened is normally you would take it out, you pickle it for 2 weeks then you do what's called brain cutting. You slice it all the way through and you look for pathology and you look for the structures and whatnot and that's it. Then slides get filed away and the rest of it get thrown out, gets discarded as medical waste. Or, or, what can happen, sometimes the family may request that every last scrap of material gets returned and gets buried with the body.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. I'm sure that's&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: That happens sometimes, too. In fact, that happens even with&ndash;sometimes people will donate their body to science and their body will be dissected by medical students. Sometimes those bodies are just cremated. Other times everything's got to be put back&ndash;you don't put it back together but basically all bundled up and then sent back to the family to be buried or whatever they want to do with it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: That is a typical Jewish custom. I don't know how religious or close Einstein was to strict Jewish customs but I can tell you that that is Jewish customs. You bury as much of the remains as you possibly can.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So he probably&ndash;he held back the brain. He didn't do with it whatever was normally supposed to happen to it.<br />
<br />
J: No. He stole it. That's what happened.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. He stole it. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Brain thief.<br />
<br />
B: I'm going to donate my body to science fiction.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright. Continuing on&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: You stole that joke from somebody.<br />
<br />
J: So Thomas Harvey, because of what he did, because he kept Einstein's brain, he lost his job. Which seems to be the appropriate thing to take place.<br />
<br />
E: Bad trade.<br />
<br />
S: Cause that was unethical. What he did.<br />
<br />
J: And during that process he claimed that Einstein's son, Hans, gave him permission but that claim was denied by the family.<br />
<br />
S: What about Frans?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So, as I'm reading through this I realize, of course, hindsight being 20/20, I don't disagree with what the guy did. I think it was obvious to him at the time that there was something important about Einstein's brain and it should be studied further. Shouldn't just be thrown away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It kind of makes you wish that somebody at NASA thought that about the moon landing footage. <br />
<br />
B: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: "Ya know, I'm going to put this aside and not put it&ndash;file it with the rest of the tapes that are going to get erased and reused."<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Or, "Lets make a couple of backups, just in case. Or put it somewhere else. I don't know."<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Anyway.<br />
<br />
J: I've really gotta&ndash;let me sprint to the finish guys.<br />
<br />
B: Thanks for reminding me.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, go ahead.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. So I mentioned that I don't disagree. What Thomas Harvey wanted was he wanted neuro-anatomists to analyse Einstein's brain and see if they could find something out about it that we didn't know about the human brain before and that was his goal but as the story goes&ndash;so 40 years passes and then a writer named, Paterniti, he heard about all these events that we just went through and he decided that&ndash;I guess he wanted to write about what had taken place so he tracks down and finds Harvey. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Did he sue him?<br />
<br />
J: No. This guys an author.<br />
<br />
S: So he didn't give him a Paterniti suit?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god. You're on a roll tonight, Steve.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Any who, so, he tracks down Harvey, gets into a long conversation with him and, I guess, between the conversation and the two of them going back and forth they mutually decide the brain should be returned to Einstein's family and, I guess they new at the time that his granddaughter Evelyn was still alive so they wanted to return it to her. So Paterniti drives to Harvey's house, he described Harvey as bringing out Einstein's brain in a Tupperware jar. In a Tupperware container.<br />
<br />
E: Tupperware.<br />
<br />
J: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. That would seal in the freshness, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So the two of them planned to drive across the country from New Jersey all the way to California where the granddaughter lived. I guess they conversation had continued during this drive and Paterniti found out that Einstein had indeed&ndash;I'm sorry, that Harvey had indeed been sending out Einstein's brain when samples were requested he would take the samples and send them to neurologists across the globe. So, when saw the brain in the Tupperware container it had been cut up. It was sliced up. So, Harvey sent 3 different samples to a scientist named Marian Diamond and she had contacted Harvey years earlier and requested samples from 3 different parts of Einstein's brain and he did end up shipping them to her but he ended up shipping them to her in an old mayonnaise jar.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Okay? Not making this up.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: This was around 1980. She studied the samples. She found that Einstein's brain had normal amount of neurons but he had a higher than normal percentage of a different kind of brain cell and that cell was called a glial cell. That increase in glial cells was found especially in the parts of the brain that involved imagery and complex thinking, so that definitely made Diamond realize, "Well, this is very curious. Let me look into it." But first, Steve, why don't you tell us what a glial cell is.<br />
<br />
B: Support cells, aren't they?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's the other kinds of cells in the brain other than neurons and they are&ndash;yeah, for many years we thought they were basically support cells.<br />
<br />
B: Like structural cells.<br />
<br />
S: Not just structural but they create the friendly environment for the neurons. <br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right, they're there keeping the neurons alive and happy while the neurons are doing their job of remembering and calculating and stuff.<br />
<br />
B: Kind of like the Remora around sharks.<br />
<br />
S: I guess.<br />
<br />
J: So, at the time&ndash;<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Diamond was now asking questions like, "Well, why would there be more of these cells here if they're really just support cells? What's the significance of there being more of them here?" And it was a very odd idea at the time to think that glial cells had anything to do with Einstein's intelligence. Being that the cells were thought to be there for perhaps structural integrity perhaps there to just be, like Steve said, like more support cells than actual cells that were there for thinking. Alright, so now we go forward another 10 years and another researcher named Steven J. Smith published a paper that changed the perception of and understanding of the brain because what he did was&ndash;he was studying neurons and he was also studying these glial cells and he speculated that glial cells also were a part of the communication that happened within the cell and that also these cells weren't only communicating chemically but they were communicating with electricity in the manner that neurons communicate. And then he kept on fleshing out his idea and he also said that these glial cells could possibly be picking up communication between neurons&ndash;neurons are communicating with each other, glial cells would be listening in on this communication and then sending that data to other parts of the brain. So he came up with this idea that the brain&ndash;it's another way that the brain could be communicating internally. Which at the time was a profound idea. They though, at the time, that only neurons were doing the heavy lifting and that even though there was a ton of other cells in the brain that they didn't think really were doing anything. Neurons were it, but once they realized, "You know what? These glial cells might actually be doing complex things like be involved in learning and memory and ideas that we have of like what does it mean to be a genius. Glial cells might have something to do with high end thinking." So, once that started that started to really open up new ideas and that started a whole different school of thought. So then yet another scientist named, Doug Fields, he reproduced Smith's research and confirmed that it was actually valid. And, at one point, Doug Fields wrote, "Now we can see scores of ways in which astrocytes could be involved in many cognitive processes." And now it's not so crazy to find that there were abnormally high numbers of astrocytes in the parts of Einstein's brain involved in imagery and mathematical ability and that sort of thing. So, that was a pretty huge milestone and a huge leap forward in our understanding of the human brain. So in 2007, Harvey died. He really didn't know that him taking Einstein's brain, actually through these steps and through these different people actually lead to a move forward in our understanding of the riddle of the mind, but it seems that he actually did have something to do with it. And, Einstein's granddaughter didn't end up wanting her grandfather's brain so Harvey, before he died, he returned the brain back to the pathology department at Princeton, where it is today.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, can you only find out the number of astrocytes by cutting into a brain or is there a way to test it while you're still alive?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you can estimate it just by knowing what the density of astrocytes are and then calculating it by volume but if you want to look at an individuals astrocyte density, yeah, you gotta stain it. You gotta cut into it.<br />
<br />
J: So, Steve, could you just take a little&ndash;take a biopsy of somebody's brain and test it that way?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. You could.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think you could do&ndash;really?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Why not?<br />
<br />
E: Well, are you supposed to be biopsying the brain for this kind of testing purposes. It's really more for diseases.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you wouldn't do this. You wouldn't do that. You wouldn't biopsy a humans brain just out of curiosity but we do it for diagnostic purposes but it's got to be worth while to the person.<br />
<br />
E: Right. There's got to be something going on that you're looking for the answer for a cure or something.<br />
<br />
B: Risk benefit.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if they&ndash;I know it's not uncommon&ndash;brain surgery happens all the time. They open up people's skulls. They literally get in there with tools and go deep into the brain and remove tumors and do things like that. Cognitively if you did take someone's skull off, or a portion of the skull, and just cut out, say a jelly bean sized piece of the brain, under the idea that the person isn't going to bleed to death or whatever, just removing a piece of the brain then putting the skull piece back and letting the person heal. What would they lose from losing a portion of the brain that size?<br />
<br />
B: Depends. It depends on the portion.<br />
<br />
E: Lobotomi&ndash;You're lobotomizing a person at that point.<br />
<br />
B: It totally depends. My guess would be that either it's totally unnoticeable or you'd be completely debilitated.<br />
<br />
S: Bob's right. It completely depends on which jelly bean piece of brain you take out.<br />
<br />
B: Take the hypothalamus and you're f'd.<br />
<br />
S: For example, the right frontal lobe is largely redundant and you could do a lot of stuff to that without producing and noticeable deficits. <br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: And, in fact, when surgeons have to go into the brain they prefer to do the non-dominant frontal lobe because it's mostly redundant, but, you take out language cortex and you can make somebody completely lose their ability to speak, for example.<br />
<br />
B: It'd be like a stroke, Jay. It'd be like a stroke.<br />
<br />
J: But even a piece that small? <br />
<br />
S: If it's critical, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So there is one place in your brain that a certain type of functionality is happening and there's parts of your brains which is just storage for memory, there's parts of your brain that is doing something like processing what you see or what you hear. So you're better off losing a little portion of your memory than you are like a major piece of functionality, of course, but, I thought it was more evenly distributed.<br />
<br />
S: No. No no. It's not and it's also&ndash;memory's pretty evenly distributed but functions are localized and there's also&ndash;it's not just how localized it is it's how redundant it is. If something's really lateralized to one side you only have one piece of your brain that's doing that thing then you don't want to lose that. If you have bilateral redundancy then obviously you can afford to lose one cause the other side will make up for it. So, yeah, it depends on a lot of things. Interestingly, when reading through science news items this week&ndash;just this week was a study published by Swedish researchers from the University of Gothenburg and they were looking at astrocytes, which are a form of glial cells, and their effects on neuronal connections and function and essentially what they found is that the astrocytes are modulating the strength of the signalling between the neurons. Now, they basically are effecting how those synapses between neurons change over time. So what that means is is that the astrocytes might actually be directly involved in the formation of memories and plasticity of the brain and learning. Which, again, is just further evidence for their greatly enhanced role in actual memory function of the brain, not just, again, as support cells. So that research is ongoing and that was a huge shift in our thinking about the role of astrocytes.<br />
<br />
=== Largest Radio Telescope Array <small>(27:49)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.86c1ac9d54a51fd47b845663527a077d.1191&show_article=1 --><br />
<br />
S: Well lets go on. We have another bit of astronomy news, Bob, you're going to tell us about the largest radio telescope ever.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. This one's a quickie. This is the biggest radio telescope in the world and it was recently unveiled by scientists in the Netherlands. It's called LOFAR which stands Low Frequency Array. I think we touched upon this a while back. It consists of a whopping 25,000 small antennas and they're real tiny. They range in size from 50 centimeters to about 2 meters across. So they're not very big at all. And they're all spread out all over, not only the Netherlands, but also Germany, Sweden, France and Britain. And it's pretty cool. This thing is really going to do some amazing work I predict. Femke Beckhurst of the Netherlands Radio Astronomy Institute said, "Today we have launched the biggest radio telescope in the world. When you combine all the antennas you get a giant telescope with a diameter of about 1,000 kilometers," which is about 600 miles so that's pretty big. And it takes some nifty software to actually take all those separate signals and stitch them together. They're actually using a supercomputer to do some of that work. It's the Blue Gene P supercomputer which is a petaflop class supercomputer. So it's pretty fast. So with these observations that this radio telescope, or, I guess you can call it radio telescopes&ndash;So, the observations that they're going to be able to make with this&ndash;they're going to learn about the origin of the universe and some people are saying that they'll be able to go to the moment right after the big bang. Other&ndash;some other key science projects for LOFAR are what they call the epoch of re-ionization which is basically when the universe turned on. When things became. Also, things like ultra high energy cosmic rays which are a bit of a mystery, such as the one we mentioned&ndash;we mentioned one such cosmic ray a while back called the Oh My God Particle in 1991 which is probably the most energetic cosmic ray ever detected which was so powerful&ndash;imagine it was a subatomic particle with the energy of a baseball travelling at 60 miles an hour. Imagine, you get hit with one proton and it knocks you on your butt like it was a baseball travelling 60. So, amazingly fast. We're not sure what could have imparted so much energy to such a tiny thing. It was travelling so close to the speed of light it was essentially just a whisker&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But to clarify, it wouldn't really knock you on your butt, right? It would just go right through you.<br />
<br />
B: No. It's too tiny. Right. It is too tiny and it could do some damage, though, if it happened to hit the right, whatever in your body, DNA or something.<br />
<br />
E: Well, what if it hit a computer or something? It would really screw that up.<br />
<br />
B: That's a lot of kinetic energy. I don't know where&ndash;how all the kinetic energy would be transferred. Would it be transferred into heat. Would it fly right through? Probably&ndash;it might just fly right through.<br />
<br />
S: Or maybe it will smash through several particles on its way.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. It might hit&ndash;if hit's something squarely it could start a cascade so I think if it's just right it could actually&ndash;it could be noticeable. But there's other things&ndash;the solar science and space weather, cosmic magnetism, so I'm sure this thing is going to be used for a really long time and hopefully maybe even get even bigger.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob, what's the difference between the moment of the Big Bang and the moment of first illuminosity, I think is the word you used?<br />
<br />
B: Well, I believe it was 100,000 years or 1,000 years, it was a lot of time before things calmed down enough. Things were just so energetic that light&ndash;any photons that might have been generated were just bouncing around all over the place and they really couldn't settle down and just take a straight line any direction so there's nothing to see if you look back in visible light there's nothing to see cause all the photons are just kinda bouncing around. But also this epoch of re-ionization&ndash;that's kind of a different term than I'm used to. They refer to it as when things became luminous so I think it depends on&ndash;are they talking about the first stars, the first galaxies, the first quasars?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
B: If that's what they're talking about then that would actually be after what I'm talking&ndash;what I've just mentioned which is also called photon decoupling. So actually this epoch is a little bit different. I think it's later on.<br />
<br />
E: It's just amazing that they can make that distinction or make the determination that so much&ndash;however much time it is happened between the two.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: You think of the Big Bang&ndash;certainly in a visual display you're watching some show on TV that kinda of describes it and it's an intense white spot of light from the get go. At least that's how the depict it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But they always give you the impossible perspective of being outside the universe when the Big Bang happens.<br />
<br />
B: Space time, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But that's not a possible perspective. So it's kind of misleading.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A little.<br />
<br />
S: And a lot of that is&ndash;evidence is theoretical. They're just well what should have happened if you have the mass of the universe at a point and then what would happen over time? Based upon the temperatures and what things are like at those temperatures. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: But maybe this large radio telescope will help fill in those gaps.<br />
<br />
B: Some of them.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully.<br />
<br />
B: If it can actually get close to the moment after the Big Bang then absolutely it will be able to do&ndash;it will illuminate us in many ways.<br />
<br />
E: Very cool.<br />
<br />
J: I still don't get the concept that when the Big Bang took place&ndash;like, where it was specially in reality. You can't go to that space&ndash;that place in outer space because it doesn't really&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Sure you can. Wherever you go, there you are.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, geez. Really, Bob?<br />
<br />
E: It happened everywhere&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: It's true. It's true. It's everywhere. You can't point to it because it's not one specific spot. It's everywhere.<br />
<br />
J: Well, it didn't happen right here.<br />
<br />
E: It might have.<br />
<br />
S: Every part of the universe was at that point, Jay, at that time.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, so, meaning that the universe is growing in size.<br />
<br />
S: Of course. But it's like&ndash;if you do the two dimensional analogy, it's like blowing up a balloon. Where was it before you blew it up? Well it's&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: How&ndash;right. Try to explaining to a two dimensional creature on that balloon where&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: It was in the package.<br />
<br />
J: where the center is.<br />
<br />
S: You'd have to point into the 4th dimension.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
J: I can't picture it.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Amityville Horror House for Sale <small>(34:11)</small>===<br />
[http://www.theness.com/roguesgallery/?p=1676 Rogue's Gallery: Amityville Horror House for Sale]<br />
<br />
S: So, the Amityville Horror House is back in the news.<br />
<br />
E: And it's back in the news because its up for sale.<br />
<br />
S: Sale. That's right. For what? 1.5 million?<br />
<br />
E: 1.15 million dollars.<br />
<br />
B: In this market?<br />
<br />
J: I know. Isn't that crazy?<br />
<br />
S: You can own a piece of paranormal history.<br />
<br />
B: But, is that price kind of crazy for the neighborhood because the house is famous?<br />
<br />
E: I don't know. I imagine that has something to do with it. They said they'd done a lot of renovations recently on the house. So&mdash;Look, I imagine the main factor, like any other piece of property is&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Location.<br />
<br />
E: comparable&mdash;yeah, location and comparable houses for sale in the area.<br />
<br />
S: But here's my question. Now, typically, if a house is alleged to be haunted or if a murder took place there it's considered psychologically damaged and that actually reduces the value of the house. But in this case it's famous for being psychologically damaged, so does that increase the value of the house?<br />
<br />
E: Or do the two equal each other out?<br />
<br />
S: The balance out?<br />
<br />
E: The negative and positive balance out.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So, there were a series of murders there in 1974. Ronald DeFeo Sr., his wife, Louise, their two sons and two daughters were shot while they slept in the home and the one remaining family member alive, Ronald, nicknamed Butch DeFeo, he confessed to the murders and is serving a life sentence in prison. And then just a few weeks after the sentencing of Butch, George and Kathy Lutz and their three children moved into the home where a new round of supposed horrors began. Muwahaha. Well, not really.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about them.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, there was supposedly all sorts of things happening in this house. They reported sightings of&mdash;well, the kids reported sightings of animals, mostly a pig named Jody. A sculpted lion came to life and supposedly walked around the house.<br />
<br />
S: Cool.<br />
<br />
E: A demonic boy appeared. It was photographed and you can find that famous photograph online. Kind of looks like a regular boy but that's beside the point. And other strange things in the house. Oh, green slime oozed from the walls. Crucifix on the wall was constantly rotating until it left itself upside down and, needless to say, 28 days after they moved in&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: 28 days later.<br />
<br />
E: 28 days later. Good one Steve. The Lutz's fled.<br />
<br />
S: What about the&mdash;you forgot about the hell-mouth. It's a gaping mouth to hell in their basement.<br />
<br />
J: Wait. Wasn't that in Poltergeist.<br />
<br />
E: That was another movie, I think.<br />
<br />
B: No. No no no. <br />
<br />
E: You're right, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: It's the red room.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It was a red room, which in the movie they kind of made it seem like it was the road to hell or something.<br />
<br />
E: Now there was one small problem with all of these paranormal happenings. They never really happened. It was a story&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: It was fake.<br />
<br />
E: The whole thing was fake. However, that didn't stop famous demonologist and psychic investigator&mdash;paranormal investigator Ed Warren and his wife Loraine from investigating the matter and deeming that house to be one of the most haunted places in the world.<br />
<br />
S: Right. Right after their basement.<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Their basement in Monroe, Connecticut #1, Aminityville #2.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Right. It was fake. And now it's up for sale.<br />
<br />
E: It is. So&mdash;if you've got dollars burning a whole in your pocket&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: You might want to go get a piece of history.<br />
<br />
S: The people who bought the house after the Lutz's complained that they had to deal with the paranormal tourists bothering them day in and day out. Gawking at the house and everything. So&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So much so that they had to change the address of the house.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So it really was psychologically damaged for them, cause it came with all the tourists.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm looking at a picture of the demon boy.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: It's a little boy.<br />
<br />
S: With no eyes.<br />
<br />
J: Well, the eyes are whited out so it looks kind of creepy. Photo could have been doctored.<br />
<br />
E: Could have been a dozen things, right, other than a demonic boy from hell.<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:46)</small>==<br />
S: Well, thanks for that, Evan, and why don't we go on to Who's That Noisy?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. For those of you who forgot here is last week's Who's that Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: And then I began to study back&mdash;the relationships between the elements for plants and they are different as the elements for humans. Because Cali and Forswore are actually the friends of each other in the homeopathic material magica for humans, but in plants these two substances are each other's enemy.</blockquote><!-- The Cali and Forswore are just going phonetically. I couldn't understand what he said. --><br />
<br />
S: Mm hmm.<br />
<br />
E: Mm hmm. So, you learned a little bit about homeopathy in that clip.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Two substances&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or not.<br />
<br />
S: Two substances which are enemies in plants are friends in people. Or animals.<br />
<br />
E: Bet you didn't know that before.<br />
<br />
J: So who is that guy?<br />
<br />
E: That is V. D. Kaviraj. A homeopath of some repute and the reason I actually found this person is because I was watching a Youtube video of our&mdash;well, friend, Mr. Benneth&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Who had this fellow as part of an interview so I thought that would make a rather interesting Noisy, last week.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And, not only did someone get it correctly but they actually also went ahead and found the clip from which I clipped it so if you go onto our message boards and [[SGU_Episode 256 | Episode 256]] you can actually take a look and listen for yourself to the entire interview and bring some coffee cause you with otherwise fall asleep.<br />
<br />
S: You don't want your brain to explode. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Exactly. So, NoWoo, en-oh-double you-oh-oh, from the message boards guessed correctly. Congratulations. Well done.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. What have you got for this week, Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. And here is this weeks Who's That Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: Does the shade<!-- what? --> give you the authority you need to take dangerous products off the shelves? And the answers always yes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
E: That's a short one this week.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Thanks Evan.<br />
<br />
E: But I think there's enough information in there for someone to get it. So, be the first one to guess correctly. Good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Ev.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Soy <small>(41:02)</small>===<br />
S: We have time for a few e-mails this week. The first one comes from Michael Wilson from Prescott, Arizona and Michael writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Steve - You made the offhand comment that there are "serious concerns" that soy milk is producing an estrogen type hormonal effect. I am a vegan bodybuilder who drinks a quart of soy milk everyday. I am concerned your offhand comment will scare people away from switching to a healthier milk alternative with no saturated fat. I've looked in the past when people have made these claims, and all I can find is that there may be some very mild effect, but nothing that rises to the level of your "serious concern" comment. If there was, there would be serious estrogen related issues throughout Asian countries. Since you felt it necessary to scare people away from soy by telling them about the "serious concerns" science has with soy milk, I hope you will provide the research on you next show that proves soy milk causes serious estrogen like effects. I do love the show, and I thank everyone for the time and effort you guys put into it every week. Michael Wilson Prescott, AZ</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So, Michael's referring to two weeks ago when we had Pamela Gay and Frazier Cane on when&mdash;I can't remember what we were talking about but the notion of estro&mdash;the notion of&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Pamela said she drink soy milk and then we got onto the discussion.<br />
<br />
S: She drinks soy milk. Yeah, so I was razzing her a little bit about the fact that not everything is perfectly safe. You could find concerns about anything and in fact there are concerns about the estrogen like effects of soy milk. But it was an off hand comment, but I do think it's good for follow up to see what the evidence actually shows. The concerns are raised by the fact that soy contains isoflavones which have an estrogen effect. It's hormonally active and therefor that creates that plausibility that it could have some actual clinical effects in people and there are various populations in which it has been studied. So, one group are women who&mdash;are women in general, especially women who have had breast cancer. The question is do the estrogens increase the risk of breast cancer or if you have breast cancer does it worsen the outcome. The answer to that question appears to be no. So the evidence so far is pretty solid that there's no negative effect for women with breast cancer. In fact one review I read said that there may in fact be a small beneficial effect because it may competitively block the effects of women who have high estrogen levels. So there it's either no effect or maybe a small beneficial effect in a subset of women. The bigger concerns are with men, though, because obviously estrogen is a feminizing hormone and the question is does&mdash;do the estrogen effects of isoflavones in soy milk have a feminizing effect on men? So far the research does not show any such effect. What about the reproductive effects on men? Here, we have animal data which shows that there is a negative effect. This is where the biggest concerns are. And these concerns are that we haven't done enough research to really know what the net effects are in people. So we have animal data that shows some concern but not really sufficient human data to rule out that there may be a negative effect on the reproduction of men. The final group are infants, especially since there is a soy based infant formulas. And here there were several reviews in the last couple of years. Some saying there's really no proven effect. Other reviewers saying that, again, there is concern that there maybe some hormonal effects on infants and that&mdash;and essentially where the reviewers agree is that the research is not adequate to rule out a significant effect. Therefor if you want to be cautious you may avoid using soy based infant formulas until more research is done to show that there isn't any significant effect. Estrogen like effect. So that's where we are. I do think it's fair to say that there are concerns. Nothing is proven. And while some of those concerns have been ruled out by research there are others, specifically reproduction in men and in infants where we don't have enough research to really say that they're safe. My take is that it's probably a very weak effect. I would be surprised if the research ultimately showed that there was a strong effect, but those are the areas where the research is not yet sufficient to confidently say that there isn't a potential effect.<br />
<br />
B: But also&mdash;but this guy, Steve, if you're&mdash;if you're not an infant and you're beyond&mdash;you've already had your kids and you're done with kids, then it would be even less of a concern?<br />
<br />
S: That's right. And if you're a woman, there's basically no concern.<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Cursed Cell Phone Number <small>(45:50)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>The cursed cell phone number Thought you guys might like this story of truly stupid superstitious thinking that misses the glaringly obvious. <br />
<br><br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7763578/Mobile-phone-number-suspended-after-three-users-die-in-10-years.html Telegraph: Mobile phone number suspended after three users die in 10 years]<br />
<br>Danforth France Glendale, CA</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Jay, you're gonna tell us about the cursed cell phone number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. This is really silly to be honest with you.<br />
<br />
B: It's silly.<br />
<br />
E: Silly.<br />
<br />
J: It's just one of those story where there's a string of coincidences that could make certain people think certain things but, basically there was a phone number that was given out. And I don't know if this is the real number but it seems like it isn't because it's a seri&mdash;it's 0-888-888-888&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: So, that's the number. I mean, my understanding from reading is that's the number that they suspended.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. Could be. Now, isn't the number 8 unlucky somewhere?<br />
<br />
B: No. It's lucky in Asian cultures. Isn't 8&mdash;8 is lucky, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: 4 is unlucky.<br />
<br />
S: 4 is unlucky cause it sounds like death.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: 4 is unlucky. 8 is&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So, here's the quick one two. The first person who got it, he was the former CEO of a Bulgarian mobile phone company. His company issued him the number.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: He died of cancer in 2001 at 48 years old. After he died some rumors came out that his cancer had been caused by a business rival using radioactive poisoning. I find that unlikely, but, okay. Take that away. Let's just say that guy died. It's horrible. Died of cancer in 2001. 48 years old. That was horrible. The second that got the number was a Bulgarian mafia boss. There's a couple of things that mafia bosses do really well. They kill, and then they get killed.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
J: Right? So this guy was gunned down in 2003 by an assassin.<br />
<br />
B: What are the odds?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: A mafia killing? What?<br />
<br />
J: Then the number went to another guy who was described as a crooked business man and he was gunned down outside of an Indian restaurant in Bulgaria. So since then the number was retired because the police are investigating and all this stuff, but, there's the idea that the number is cursed or unlucky&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Or jinxed.<br />
<br />
E: It's your unlucky number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's been&mdash;the number has been touched by evil and anyone who gets it is gonna get killed. So I'm thinking&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Anyone mob related who touches it will get killed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's pretty clear to see&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or crime related.<br />
<br />
J: through this. It's not that big of a coincidence that a bunch of people that were involved in very dangerous and crazy criminal activity are getting killed. <br />
<br />
B: But if a number becomes available&mdash;is it more likely that the number became available because somebody dumped the number or because somebody died? Because I'm never gonna want to lose my number today.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I don't know. Now that people have personal phone numbers. Yeah. Probably people hold on to them for life. Even if you change carrier, right? You can take your number to another carrier.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Now you can. I don't know if you could in early 2000&mdash;2003. I don't know if you could during that time period. So, anyway, the reason why we bring up this story was not just because somebody wrote in about it but we thought it was a quick and easy example of a series of events strung together to make a story where there really isn't a story or a connection.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. There's a few ways you can look at this. One is it's not that big a coincidence that 3 people with the same number die in the short period of time. Just taking the number of phone numbers out there, I'm sure that happens a lot just by coincidence. Right? I mean it would be surprising if that never happened. This is a little different because these people were high profile and the number's unusual. It's&mdash;you could of it as a very desirable number because it's all 8's. It's the kind of number you get if you work for the phone company like the CEO or you're a mob boss, I guess. Right? They're not going to give it to just some guy. And these&mdash;two of these three people were at high risk for dying so that makes it even less of a coincidence that this kind of number is going to go to the kind of people who may be in risky businesses. But then you also think of it from the phone companies point of view. Obviously the notion that the number itself is jinxed is magical thinking and it's ridiculous but from a business marketing point of view, do they want to hand this number over to somebody else and then what if something happens to that person or even&mdash;they may just get upset if they find out that the phone company assigned them a quote unquote "jinxed" number. You know what I mean? Probably just fewer headaches for the phone company if they just get rid of it, even for a while. You know what I mean? You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. It's a numbers racket.<br />
<br />
J: That's a good job, boys. It's good work, boys.<br />
<br />
=== Magic Bee Juice <small>(50:27)</small>===<br />
S: The next one comes from David Gardner from Osaka, Japan. And David writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>One of the branches of the company I work for in Japan has started selling Propolis as a means to make more money in a bad economy. This branch has repeatedly tried to get me to buy some of this magic bee juice. Many of my Japanese co-workers have taken the bait. They are putting bee juice in their drinks and swallowing magic bee juice pills. When I ask them if they feel any better, they all say they aren’t sure. Hmm… I think the company I work for has a snake oill division. Do you know of any scientific evidence that shows any benefit to taking Propolis? All the information I found say that Propolis may contain lead and other garbage bees pick up while flying around the city. Thank you for your time. <br><br>David Gardner Osaka, Japan </blockquote><!-- shouldn't we fix the "aren't" that's all messed up? --><br />
<br />
S: Well, do you guys now what Propolis is?<br />
<br />
B: Nope.<br />
<br />
J: No.<br />
<br />
E: It's the star in the sky that doesn't rotate.<br />
<br />
S: It's magic bee juice. This is&mdash;So, bees make a variety of things. This is the gooey, sticky stuff that bees use to hold together their nests. They largely pick it up&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Oh. The honey comb?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so, yeah. But it's not just wax. I guess this is even stronger structural stuff that they use&mdash;it's like the glue that they use to hold it together and its&mdash;they'll pick up the sap from coniferous trees. Resins. It sounds nasty. It doesn't sound like the kind of stuff you would want to eat. I mean the bees don't eat it. It contains phenolics, aromatic compounds, volatile oils and terpenes. But even worse that that, as the bees fly around our modern society they're not just picking up resins from pine trees. They're also picking up lead paint. They're picking up caulking.<br />
<br />
B: Yum.<br />
<br />
S: They're picking up road tar and other things.<br />
<br />
E: Fecal material.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. They're picking up all kinds of nasty stuff and mixing it all together with these resins and terpenes and they're using that to glue together their nests and then&mdash;and idiots are taking that stuff and eating it.<br />
<br />
E: Now, when you say idiot&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: It's glue like?<br />
<br />
S: It's sticky. If you get the sap off a pine tree&mdash;it's like that.<br />
<br />
E: That's awful.<br />
<br />
S: Now, of course, it contains a lot of chemicals, right? As you might imagine&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: It's all natural.<br />
<br />
S: Sure. And if you look at those chemicals those chemicals do stuff. The body's going to react to those chemicals. Actually, probably the most common reaction is an allergic dermatitis and when I looked up Propolis on PubMed most of the specific references to it and people were to&mdash;this allergic dermatitis.<br />
<br />
E: Is this the same allergic reaction people have when they get a bee sting?<br />
<br />
S: No. No. It's different. This is more just a contact dermatitis. The skin gets red and bee stings can have more of a systemic reaction. That's where it becomes a problem, as opposed to just a rash. So, there's no research in humans showing any beneficial effects. It's all extrapolating wildly from just nonspecific&mdash;or just reactions that happen to some chemical that you can find in this stuff. There some animal data that it does stuff, but there's nothing that really can be used to base any kind of medicinal claims. So this really is snake oil. And apparently it's been around for hundreds of years. This is nothing new. It's just an idea that crops up every now and then.<br />
<br />
E: Here. Eat this bee waste byproduct.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's bee waste. It is bee waste.<br />
<br />
E: Bee waste.<br />
<br />
S: Pretty much everything that bees make somebody has decided to sell as snake oil. Pollen, royal jelly, and even bee venom. You guys have heard&mdash;I've talked about bee venom therapy.<br />
<br />
E: Bee venom therapy, sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. For, multiple sclerosis and arthritis and things like that. Pretty much everything. The only thing that bees make that has real medicinal value is honey and only if you put it topically on your wound.<br />
<br />
E: Or on toast.<br />
<br />
J: I love honey.<br />
<br />
E: I love you too, honey.<br />
<br />
B: Never spoils.<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Personality Tests <small>(54:41)</small> ==<br />
S: Well, we actually have a Name that Logical Fallacy this week.<br />
<br />
B: Ooo.<br />
<br />
E: Ooo. Queue the music.<br />
<br />
S: This is a question that comes from some guy called Mike Lacelle in Canada.<br />
<br />
J: Who is he?<br />
<br />
E: That a funny name.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know. Some bald guy.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: And Mike wants to know&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: But despite that&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: And Mike will be at TAM this year, by the way.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, this guy's gonna be at TAM?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Oh. I can't wait to meet him.<br />
<br />
B: I'm not going now.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: I'll see you there Mike.<br />
<br />
S: Mike writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Steve, I'm trying to figure out the difference between the Incorrect Cause fallacy and the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy? Skepticwiki is telling me that Post Hoc is a type of Incorrect Cause Fallacy, but I'm just not getting the difference. They seem to be one and the same. Any help would be appreciated. I'm trying to complete a 5x5 recording we did a few months ago and I'm recording a missing part which was about the "Incorrect Cause" fallacy. The topic of the 5x5 was Chemtrails and it seems to me that the Post Hoc fallacy would work better here.<br><br> Mike Lacelle Canada </blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So, this is an interesting one. The Incorrect Cause Fallacy is actually a category of logical fallacies.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There's lots of&mdash;and the Post Hoc is just a sub-category of it.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly. It's one type. <br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: It's any fallacy where you are making an invalid inference as to cause and effect. That's the Incorrect Cause Fallacy. My&mdash;I had a couple back and forths with Mike and he was saying that if you invoke the wrong cause for something just because your information is incorrect is that an incorrect cause fallacy and the answer to that is no. It doesn't me that you're just mistaken about what causes what, that's just a false premise, it's that the logical inference is incorrect, cause that's what a logical fallacy is. So, in the Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc Fallacy, you're concluding that B is caused by A ''because'' B follows A. That's where the invalid logic comes in. You're reaching the conclusion not because you just have a mistake belief but because you think that the fact that it comes after it is how you know that it's being caused by it.<br />
<br />
B: Right. So it's more sequential, whereas the Incorrect Cause Fallacy&mdash;it could be&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Is anything.<br />
<br />
B: It could be after. It could be anything.<br />
<br />
E: It could go any direction.<br />
<br />
B: They could happen at the same exact time. Could be AB instead of A followed by B. Could be at the same time or even&mdash;or other variations. So that's the main distinction as I see it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And it's not even restricted to temporal but&mdash;another common Incorrect Cause Fallacy is the&mdash;assuming causation from correlation as you're saying.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: They're correlated in some way, not because, necessarily, one follows the other but they could just be happening together more frequently or at the same time and then you assume that they're happening together because one is causing the other when, in fact, there are many relationships that possible. You cannot infer a specific causal relationship. Often people, however, say that&mdash;and I hear people say this, or write this, all the time, that correlation does not imply causation and that's incorrect. I ''does'' imply causation. It just does ''equal'' causation.<br />
<br />
B: Right. Right.<br />
<br />
S: Sometimes correlations occur because there ''is'' causation and it is&mdash;it certainly does imply that. It's one piece of evidence, but in order to make a specific causal conclusion you have to line up multiple correlations. Other examples of this would include the Complex Cause Fallacy, where maybe there are multiple causations but you pick one out and say that's ''the'' cause.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's a very common one, right? <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: We all sort of unconsciously do that all the time where we tend to think simplistically in terms of one cause for things when in fact many complex things will have multiple causes that are not mutually exclusive.<br />
<br />
J: And it's not just one cause. It could also be the most interesting cause has got to be it, too, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: We're so drawn to the one thats&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: That's interesting or&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: sexy.<br />
<br />
S: ''or'' the one that confirms our prior beliefs and ideology.<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Ah, confirmation bias.<br />
<br />
S: Then there's the Regression Fallacy. This is where you assume cause and effect because of what ultimately regression to the mean. Here's an example. Appearing on the cover of ''Sports Illustrated'' is a curse that will cause them to have a bad season or a bad game or whatever following that.<br />
<br />
E: I've heard that before, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. The ''Sports Illustrated'' curse. But that can be explained by regression to the mean.<br />
<br />
B: Right. They were on the cover in the first place because they might&mdash;they just happened to have, say, and exceptional season, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: And then of course the regression to the mean has got to kick in at some point, you would think, and then it's like, "Oh, damn. Bad luck."<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. They had their best game, their best season, whatever. That gets them on the cover and any extreme is likely to be followed by something closer to the mean. The regression to the mean.<br />
<br />
J: That's very similar to the Droning On Fallacy where skeptical enthusiasts just keep talking about logical fallacies over and over again.<br />
<br />
S: Jay, I'm not familiar with that one.<br />
<br />
E: I'm not either. Hey, here's another logical fallacy.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:07)</small> ==<br />
<br />
*[http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:14:40)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.</blockquote> <!-- the quote as read by Jay was different, should see if we can find a source to find the real quote --><br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS Con <small>(1:18:11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro119}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_257&diff=5587SGU Episode 2572013-01-25T19:35:06Z<p>Geneocide: /* Name That Logical Fallacy: Personality Tests (54:41) */ transcribed</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all |transcriber = Geneocide }}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 257<br />
|episodeDate = 14<sup>th</sup> June 2010<br />
|episodeIcon = File:amityvilledemoboy.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-06-14.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=257<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,28802.0.html<br />
|qowText = Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Monday, June 14<sup>th</sup>, 2010 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey everyone. How are you doing tonight?<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: Quite well.<br />
<br />
E: Good.<br />
<br />
S: No Rebecca tonight because we are on the lead up to TAM recording schedule. We going to have a little bit of a weird recording schedule the next few weeks and Rebecca was not available tonight and she has no internet access.<br />
<br />
J: That's because her and Sid bought a house.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: She hasn't been able to get internet and cable, I guess, to the house yet.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. But it's a big secret. Don't tell anyone, folks.<br />
<br />
S: They're moving into a new flat. Is it still a flat if it's a house?<br />
<br />
B: No. Wait wait, no, a flat's an apartment, isn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Are they moving into a house house, or is it like a condo or what is it?<br />
<br />
J: I think it's a house house.<br />
<br />
S: But no cable yet.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, if she has a house, that means she has a basement which means she could run a haunt in her house.<br />
<br />
B: Not necessarily. Florida houses don't have basements but that's because of the water table.<br />
<br />
J: Well, no. If she's in England she has a root cellar.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: Which is even creepier.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:19)</small> ==<br />
E: Well, on this day in 1648 Margaret Jones was hanged in Boston for witchcraft. The first such execution for the Massachusetts colony.<br />
<br />
S: How many people were killed?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they didn't stop with Margaret. It was 20 people.<br />
<br />
S: Were executed.<br />
<br />
E: We executed for witchcraft.<br />
<br />
J: Wow. And we got off lucky. Didn't&ndash;in Europe wasn't it a much bigger phenomenon in Europe?<br />
<br />
S: A conservative number is around 60,000 deaths directly attributable to the witch hunts.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Depending on how you count it. There were 20 people executed in Salem. 19 hung and that one guy, Giles Corey was crushed to death cause he refused to enter a plea.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Hayabusa Returns <small>(2:02)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100613/ts_afp/spacejapanaustraliaasteroidsreturn_20100613204620 <br />
<br />
possible replacement: [http://www.space.com/8592-japanese-asteroid-probe-historic-return-earth.html Space.com: Japanese Asteroid Probe Makes Historic Return to Earth]<br />
--><br />
S: Well Bob, tell us about Hayabusa returning to Earth.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this is pretty cool. I totally forgot about this guy but this is an interesting story. The Japanese space agency known as JAXA, Jay-Ay-Ex-Ay, completed a mission recently to bring a sample of an asteroid back to Earth. This is something that's never been accomplished before and regardless of what happens there has never been a spacecraft that touched down on an asteroid and then came back to Earth. So regardless if they even brought anything back with them this was a first. Like I said, the only real question that remains as of the taping of this podcast anyway is whether the canister they retrieved in Australia has any asteroid. If you remember back in 2003, JAXA's Hayabusa craft began a 2 year journey to an asteroid named Itokawa and I wish I could say the mission went swimmingly but I can't. The craft really experienced some nasty technical difficulties. It seems likes throughout the whole way, or at least through a lot of it. They just kept hitting problem after problem. They even had some&ndash;some solar flair even messed up with it's power source so the energy that it had was less than they had anticipated and some of the biggest failures, though, was they had this metal ball that they would shoot&ndash;or they planned on shooting at the asteroid to collect rock samples and that failed. And then there was another mechanism, which they were planning on using to stir up the dust around the lander on the asteroid and that failed as well to collect any samples. So you might think that it was a total bust but the real hope at this point is that they hope that the dust that stirred up during the landing kind of just was swirling around and entered the canister&ndash;the collection canister so that's really all their hope is on that.<br />
<br />
S: So they really don't know if there's going to be anything in that canister. <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, they have no idea at this point. It doesn't look good to me.<br />
<br />
J: Is it on it's way back to Earth or it can analyze it.<br />
<br />
B: It came back to Earth. The craft burned up in the atmosphere but it ejected this heat protected canister which landed at the Woomera Protected Area which is a restricted military zone in south Australian desert. Now some conspiracy hypothesists may say that in reality this whole 7 year mission was a subtle attempt to get access to this restricted military zone. But, ya know, I'm just saying.<br />
<br />
J: Look at that. It landed in Area 51. Could we go get it?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Yeah.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: But, being silly, but I want to congratulate JAXA, though. Even if there's no sample which would really be nasty, but even if there's no sample, it was a great effort that tested lots of new technologies, like, for example, sampling and retrieval, electrical propulsion, autonomous navigation. So lots of interesting new technologies and this really was a test bed. Problems like this are to be expected.<br />
<br />
J: At this point any kind of space exploration is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: In the time when we're worried that it's all gonna go away and dry up&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm really happy to hear about stuff like this.<br />
<br />
B: That's true. But you really got to hand it to JAXA, though, because they relentlessly attacked every difficulty that arose creatively solving problems, and according to some people it was Apollo 13 in scale in terms of how difficult these problems were.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: But granted, lives were not on the line, but still they had to go through a lot. On the way home they lost half of their engines kicked out and they had to figure out how to get home with only half the engines running so they did an amazing job.<br />
<br />
J: I don't like you comparing it to Apollo 13 because it being unmanned is one thing and the other thing was they got those people back to Earth safely with an enormous amount of effort. Nothing can match that.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I'm not comparing it and I did kind of say that not in terms of the lives but in terms of creative problem solving it was similar. Some people are comparing it.<br />
<br />
J: Well, if they make a movie about it I might believe it then.<br />
<br />
S: Cause it's not real unless Hollywood does a movie about it.<br />
<br />
B: As you can imagine this is a huge, huge news story in Japan. They're really playing it up. It's all over the place, cause this is&ndash;it's quite a feat. Regardless of what happens this is a first, so that's great. If they have a sample, even better, cause you learn lots of things about the solar system&ndash;because we don't have&ndash;think about it&ndash;the material we have from asteroids really is just meteorites, right, that have landed on the earth and they've gone through the atmosphere. They're not the same.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When you come through the atmosphere&ndash;they're not the same.<br />
<br />
E: Burn, yeah. Stuff burns away and, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: This will be pristine. This will be pristine rock and that will be invaluable.<br />
<br />
J: Do you guys think that one day we will park satellites in orbit and just mine them?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah. Mine asteroids?<br />
<br />
E: You mean bring them into a close orbit and then we send up vehicles and stuff to start plowing them for their platinum and all they're goodies?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. And how about&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
J: One thing that I remember thinking about when I was younger, why not put it in the same orbit that the earth is in, but just behind the earth. Would that mean that it would have to be the same size as the earth, though, in order to be in the same orbit?<br />
<br />
B: The velocity would be very different then. It couldn't have the same velocity because the mass would be so different, so, at some point, it would intersect with the earth. So I don't think that would work, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: You would need something to constantly regulate it's distance from the earth, right?<br />
<br />
S: You put it at a Lagrange point and it will sit there.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There ya go. Problem solved.<br />
<br />
S: A Lagrange point is a&ndash;if you have a map, a three dimensional map of the gravitational fields of the earth and the sun, for example, or any large body orbiting another large body, then those fields hit a pit, or they dip to a minimum. So anything that is at those points it's like being at the bottom of a hill, it's stuck there and it won't move away so it's actually fixed in position relative to the earth. So it would be perfect for something that we want to put someplace and have it stay there in terms of it's relationship to the earth.<br />
<br />
J: It's kind of like drafting, right?<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Come on, a little bit.<br />
<br />
S: But to complete that discussion there are a total of 5 Lagrangian points. One in the orbit of, lets say the earth, in front of it. One behind the earth in it's orbit. One on the opposite side of Earth's orbit. One between the earth and the sun and one outside the orbit on a line between the earth and the sun but farther than the earth. So five points total. A few of which would be pretty close. But also, there are asteroids that are said to quote unquote "stalk" the earth. For example, recently discovered the 2009 BD. It's not stationary with respect to the earth but it does&ndash;cause it interacts with the earth's gravity and it's not at a Lagrangian point, but it does get close to the earth and will sort of corkscrew around the earth's orbit and stay very close to use for a while and then maybe drift away and come back in it's orbit. It's got a very weird orbit but it does stay close to the earth.<br />
<br />
=== Einstein's Brain <small>(9:22)</small>===<br />
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305&ps=cprs NPR: Einstein's Brain Unlocks Some Mysteries Of The Mind]<br />
<br />
S: Jay, tell us about the amazing adventure of Einstein's brain.<br />
<br />
J: So this is a very interesting story. Before I get into the story let me just ask you guys a few questions. One, what makes you think Einstein was so smart? What was it about his brain that makes him smart? Some things that I'm sure most skeptics have heard was that, "Einstein used 10% of his brain where the regular person only uses 2 or 2.5%." You guys have heard of that, right?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, course.<br />
<br />
E: Or something similar to it, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's only be debunked about a million times on the internet and elsewhere, I believe, in our publication.<br />
<br />
E: Of course. That's what my phrenologist says.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: Here's one that is less common, but I've also heard and I believe I also used to think about this when I was younger and not knowing much about the brain but another thing that people think is that Einstein's brain had more hills and valleys on the exterior part of his brain.<br />
<br />
S: Sulci and gyri?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. So, that's basically the shape of the brain on the outside that makes it look like a brain. All those hills and valleys and little bumps and stuff that are on the outside of somebodies brain.<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: But, Steve, you said at one point that that does not mean you're smarter, correct?<br />
<br />
S: Well, not comparing one individual to another. There's too much variation to say that but that certainly is true when you compare species. The&ndash;what those do&ndash;what the gyri and sulci do&ndash;if you imagine the layers of the cortex and then fold it upon themselves like a ribbon that's what forms that structure and what the essentially does is it increases the surface area of the brain. So it's just a way of squeezing more computational surface area into a smaller three dimensional space which was obviously important to the evolution of our bigger, juicier brains. But you can't compare person A to person B and go, "Oh, he's got to be smarter because his brain looks smarter on an MRI scan. He's got more sulci." Doesn't work that way.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, why not also fill in the valleys between the hills? Between the gyri or the sulci or whatever they are?<br />
<br />
S: They're squished together. It's not significant.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
S: I mean, when you get old and your brain shrivels up and atrophies then you see expanded sulci and spaces but&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Your brain really shrivels up, huh?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, doesn't that suck?<br />
<br />
J: What the hell?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but Steve, I thought the idea, though, behind that was that they're not sure if the brain is really truly atrophying really, hugely, impacting cognition or is it just paring away the unessential parts of the brain that really aren't needed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, like motor skills and deep thinking.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: Barring, of course, dementia. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right Bob?<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's a complicated question. First of all those are not mutually exclusive cause both those things could be occurring at the same time. The pruning hypothesis where it's just cutting back neurons were sitting there waiting to be recruited but they haven't been, so they just go away at some point, but even still you imagine that there's fewer neurons around to be recruited so&ndash;after 50 or so we do start to lose our capacity to learn new things. We lose our flexibility. At least most of us. Some people really don't and they're brains don't atrophy as much, either.<br />
<br />
J: Bastards.<br />
<br />
S: So, some people genetically are built for more neurological longevity. But, yeah, you can't&ndash;I don't think it's accurate to say that there's no relationship between the atrophy of the brain as we age and the loss of cognitive ability. There absolutely is a relationship but it's complicated and we're not sure exactly what it is.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, it's not a black and white issue. It's more of a grey matter.<br />
<br />
B: Oh.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, wow, Evan, really?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright, so guys, let me continue. It's basically a story that I'm going to quickly tell everyone and then we'll discuss it.<br />
<br />
B: Alright.<br />
<br />
E: I love stories. Okay. I'm ready.<br />
<br />
J: So this man, named Thomas Harvey&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
E: Harvey.<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
J: and he&ndash;he actually performed the autopsy on Einstein at Princeton. Now this back in&ndash;Now this was when, '55 I believe Einstein died?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, around there.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. So, this is what the article said. The article said that during the autopsy routine the brain would be removed, examined, and then put back in the person's body for burial. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Which, by the way&ndash;we don't do that today. I don't know&ndash;that sounds odd. We don't put the brain back in the head. You take it out, you put it in a jar of formaldehyde and pickle it for 2 weeks, so that you can slice it up and look at it. Cause otherwise it's too much like jelly. You can't really slice into it. So that bit of that story certainly is not what's done today.<br />
<br />
J: Well maybe he took it out&ndash;cause it did say that he did put it in formaldehyde&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Well that's routine. That's routine.<br />
<br />
J: He was preparing it. He kept it out for the amount of time necessary and then instead of putting it back after the examination of the brain he kept it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, I think probably what happened is normally you would take it out, you pickle it for 2 weeks then you do what's called brain cutting. You slice it all the way through and you look for pathology and you look for the structures and whatnot and that's it. Then slides get filed away and the rest of it get thrown out, gets discarded as medical waste. Or, or, what can happen, sometimes the family may request that every last scrap of material gets returned and gets buried with the body.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. I'm sure that's&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: That happens sometimes, too. In fact, that happens even with&ndash;sometimes people will donate their body to science and their body will be dissected by medical students. Sometimes those bodies are just cremated. Other times everything's got to be put back&ndash;you don't put it back together but basically all bundled up and then sent back to the family to be buried or whatever they want to do with it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: That is a typical Jewish custom. I don't know how religious or close Einstein was to strict Jewish customs but I can tell you that that is Jewish customs. You bury as much of the remains as you possibly can.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So he probably&ndash;he held back the brain. He didn't do with it whatever was normally supposed to happen to it.<br />
<br />
J: No. He stole it. That's what happened.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. He stole it. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Brain thief.<br />
<br />
B: I'm going to donate my body to science fiction.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright. Continuing on&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: You stole that joke from somebody.<br />
<br />
J: So Thomas Harvey, because of what he did, because he kept Einstein's brain, he lost his job. Which seems to be the appropriate thing to take place.<br />
<br />
E: Bad trade.<br />
<br />
S: Cause that was unethical. What he did.<br />
<br />
J: And during that process he claimed that Einstein's son, Hans, gave him permission but that claim was denied by the family.<br />
<br />
S: What about Frans?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So, as I'm reading through this I realize, of course, hindsight being 20/20, I don't disagree with what the guy did. I think it was obvious to him at the time that there was something important about Einstein's brain and it should be studied further. Shouldn't just be thrown away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It kind of makes you wish that somebody at NASA thought that about the moon landing footage. <br />
<br />
B: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: "Ya know, I'm going to put this aside and not put it&ndash;file it with the rest of the tapes that are going to get erased and reused."<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Or, "Lets make a couple of backups, just in case. Or put it somewhere else. I don't know."<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Anyway.<br />
<br />
J: I've really gotta&ndash;let me sprint to the finish guys.<br />
<br />
B: Thanks for reminding me.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, go ahead.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. So I mentioned that I don't disagree. What Thomas Harvey wanted was he wanted neuro-anatomists to analyse Einstein's brain and see if they could find something out about it that we didn't know about the human brain before and that was his goal but as the story goes&ndash;so 40 years passes and then a writer named, Paterniti, he heard about all these events that we just went through and he decided that&ndash;I guess he wanted to write about what had taken place so he tracks down and finds Harvey. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Did he sue him?<br />
<br />
J: No. This guys an author.<br />
<br />
S: So he didn't give him a Paterniti suit?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god. You're on a roll tonight, Steve.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Any who, so, he tracks down Harvey, gets into a long conversation with him and, I guess, between the conversation and the two of them going back and forth they mutually decide the brain should be returned to Einstein's family and, I guess they new at the time that his granddaughter Evelyn was still alive so they wanted to return it to her. So Paterniti drives to Harvey's house, he described Harvey as bringing out Einstein's brain in a Tupperware jar. In a Tupperware container.<br />
<br />
E: Tupperware.<br />
<br />
J: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. That would seal in the freshness, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So the two of them planned to drive across the country from New Jersey all the way to California where the granddaughter lived. I guess they conversation had continued during this drive and Paterniti found out that Einstein had indeed&ndash;I'm sorry, that Harvey had indeed been sending out Einstein's brain when samples were requested he would take the samples and send them to neurologists across the globe. So, when saw the brain in the Tupperware container it had been cut up. It was sliced up. So, Harvey sent 3 different samples to a scientist named Marian Diamond and she had contacted Harvey years earlier and requested samples from 3 different parts of Einstein's brain and he did end up shipping them to her but he ended up shipping them to her in an old mayonnaise jar.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Okay? Not making this up.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: This was around 1980. She studied the samples. She found that Einstein's brain had normal amount of neurons but he had a higher than normal percentage of a different kind of brain cell and that cell was called a glial cell. That increase in glial cells was found especially in the parts of the brain that involved imagery and complex thinking, so that definitely made Diamond realize, "Well, this is very curious. Let me look into it." But first, Steve, why don't you tell us what a glial cell is.<br />
<br />
B: Support cells, aren't they?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's the other kinds of cells in the brain other than neurons and they are&ndash;yeah, for many years we thought they were basically support cells.<br />
<br />
B: Like structural cells.<br />
<br />
S: Not just structural but they create the friendly environment for the neurons. <br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right, they're there keeping the neurons alive and happy while the neurons are doing their job of remembering and calculating and stuff.<br />
<br />
B: Kind of like the Remora around sharks.<br />
<br />
S: I guess.<br />
<br />
J: So, at the time&ndash;<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Diamond was now asking questions like, "Well, why would there be more of these cells here if they're really just support cells? What's the significance of there being more of them here?" And it was a very odd idea at the time to think that glial cells had anything to do with Einstein's intelligence. Being that the cells were thought to be there for perhaps structural integrity perhaps there to just be, like Steve said, like more support cells than actual cells that were there for thinking. Alright, so now we go forward another 10 years and another researcher named Steven J. Smith published a paper that changed the perception of and understanding of the brain because what he did was&ndash;he was studying neurons and he was also studying these glial cells and he speculated that glial cells also were a part of the communication that happened within the cell and that also these cells weren't only communicating chemically but they were communicating with electricity in the manner that neurons communicate. And then he kept on fleshing out his idea and he also said that these glial cells could possibly be picking up communication between neurons&ndash;neurons are communicating with each other, glial cells would be listening in on this communication and then sending that data to other parts of the brain. So he came up with this idea that the brain&ndash;it's another way that the brain could be communicating internally. Which at the time was a profound idea. They though, at the time, that only neurons were doing the heavy lifting and that even though there was a ton of other cells in the brain that they didn't think really were doing anything. Neurons were it, but once they realized, "You know what? These glial cells might actually be doing complex things like be involved in learning and memory and ideas that we have of like what does it mean to be a genius. Glial cells might have something to do with high end thinking." So, once that started that started to really open up new ideas and that started a whole different school of thought. So then yet another scientist named, Doug Fields, he reproduced Smith's research and confirmed that it was actually valid. And, at one point, Doug Fields wrote, "Now we can see scores of ways in which astrocytes could be involved in many cognitive processes." And now it's not so crazy to find that there were abnormally high numbers of astrocytes in the parts of Einstein's brain involved in imagery and mathematical ability and that sort of thing. So, that was a pretty huge milestone and a huge leap forward in our understanding of the human brain. So in 2007, Harvey died. He really didn't know that him taking Einstein's brain, actually through these steps and through these different people actually lead to a move forward in our understanding of the riddle of the mind, but it seems that he actually did have something to do with it. And, Einstein's granddaughter didn't end up wanting her grandfather's brain so Harvey, before he died, he returned the brain back to the pathology department at Princeton, where it is today.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, can you only find out the number of astrocytes by cutting into a brain or is there a way to test it while you're still alive?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you can estimate it just by knowing what the density of astrocytes are and then calculating it by volume but if you want to look at an individuals astrocyte density, yeah, you gotta stain it. You gotta cut into it.<br />
<br />
J: So, Steve, could you just take a little&ndash;take a biopsy of somebody's brain and test it that way?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. You could.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think you could do&ndash;really?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Why not?<br />
<br />
E: Well, are you supposed to be biopsying the brain for this kind of testing purposes. It's really more for diseases.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you wouldn't do this. You wouldn't do that. You wouldn't biopsy a humans brain just out of curiosity but we do it for diagnostic purposes but it's got to be worth while to the person.<br />
<br />
E: Right. There's got to be something going on that you're looking for the answer for a cure or something.<br />
<br />
B: Risk benefit.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if they&ndash;I know it's not uncommon&ndash;brain surgery happens all the time. They open up people's skulls. They literally get in there with tools and go deep into the brain and remove tumors and do things like that. Cognitively if you did take someone's skull off, or a portion of the skull, and just cut out, say a jelly bean sized piece of the brain, under the idea that the person isn't going to bleed to death or whatever, just removing a piece of the brain then putting the skull piece back and letting the person heal. What would they lose from losing a portion of the brain that size?<br />
<br />
B: Depends. It depends on the portion.<br />
<br />
E: Lobotomi&ndash;You're lobotomizing a person at that point.<br />
<br />
B: It totally depends. My guess would be that either it's totally unnoticeable or you'd be completely debilitated.<br />
<br />
S: Bob's right. It completely depends on which jelly bean piece of brain you take out.<br />
<br />
B: Take the hypothalamus and you're f'd.<br />
<br />
S: For example, the right frontal lobe is largely redundant and you could do a lot of stuff to that without producing and noticeable deficits. <br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: And, in fact, when surgeons have to go into the brain they prefer to do the non-dominant frontal lobe because it's mostly redundant, but, you take out language cortex and you can make somebody completely lose their ability to speak, for example.<br />
<br />
B: It'd be like a stroke, Jay. It'd be like a stroke.<br />
<br />
J: But even a piece that small? <br />
<br />
S: If it's critical, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So there is one place in your brain that a certain type of functionality is happening and there's parts of your brains which is just storage for memory, there's parts of your brain that is doing something like processing what you see or what you hear. So you're better off losing a little portion of your memory than you are like a major piece of functionality, of course, but, I thought it was more evenly distributed.<br />
<br />
S: No. No no. It's not and it's also&ndash;memory's pretty evenly distributed but functions are localized and there's also&ndash;it's not just how localized it is it's how redundant it is. If something's really lateralized to one side you only have one piece of your brain that's doing that thing then you don't want to lose that. If you have bilateral redundancy then obviously you can afford to lose one cause the other side will make up for it. So, yeah, it depends on a lot of things. Interestingly, when reading through science news items this week&ndash;just this week was a study published by Swedish researchers from the University of Gothenburg and they were looking at astrocytes, which are a form of glial cells, and their effects on neuronal connections and function and essentially what they found is that the astrocytes are modulating the strength of the signalling between the neurons. Now, they basically are effecting how those synapses between neurons change over time. So what that means is is that the astrocytes might actually be directly involved in the formation of memories and plasticity of the brain and learning. Which, again, is just further evidence for their greatly enhanced role in actual memory function of the brain, not just, again, as support cells. So that research is ongoing and that was a huge shift in our thinking about the role of astrocytes.<br />
<br />
=== Largest Radio Telescope Array <small>(27:49)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.86c1ac9d54a51fd47b845663527a077d.1191&show_article=1 --><br />
<br />
S: Well lets go on. We have another bit of astronomy news, Bob, you're going to tell us about the largest radio telescope ever.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. This one's a quickie. This is the biggest radio telescope in the world and it was recently unveiled by scientists in the Netherlands. It's called LOFAR which stands Low Frequency Array. I think we touched upon this a while back. It consists of a whopping 25,000 small antennas and they're real tiny. They range in size from 50 centimeters to about 2 meters across. So they're not very big at all. And they're all spread out all over, not only the Netherlands, but also Germany, Sweden, France and Britain. And it's pretty cool. This thing is really going to do some amazing work I predict. Femke Beckhurst of the Netherlands Radio Astronomy Institute said, "Today we have launched the biggest radio telescope in the world. When you combine all the antennas you get a giant telescope with a diameter of about 1,000 kilometers," which is about 600 miles so that's pretty big. And it takes some nifty software to actually take all those separate signals and stitch them together. They're actually using a supercomputer to do some of that work. It's the Blue Gene P supercomputer which is a petaflop class supercomputer. So it's pretty fast. So with these observations that this radio telescope, or, I guess you can call it radio telescopes&ndash;So, the observations that they're going to be able to make with this&ndash;they're going to learn about the origin of the universe and some people are saying that they'll be able to go to the moment right after the big bang. Other&ndash;some other key science projects for LOFAR are what they call the epoch of re-ionization which is basically when the universe turned on. When things became. Also, things like ultra high energy cosmic rays which are a bit of a mystery, such as the one we mentioned&ndash;we mentioned one such cosmic ray a while back called the Oh My God Particle in 1991 which is probably the most energetic cosmic ray ever detected which was so powerful&ndash;imagine it was a subatomic particle with the energy of a baseball travelling at 60 miles an hour. Imagine, you get hit with one proton and it knocks you on your butt like it was a baseball travelling 60. So, amazingly fast. We're not sure what could have imparted so much energy to such a tiny thing. It was travelling so close to the speed of light it was essentially just a whisker&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But to clarify, it wouldn't really knock you on your butt, right? It would just go right through you.<br />
<br />
B: No. It's too tiny. Right. It is too tiny and it could do some damage, though, if it happened to hit the right, whatever in your body, DNA or something.<br />
<br />
E: Well, what if it hit a computer or something? It would really screw that up.<br />
<br />
B: That's a lot of kinetic energy. I don't know where&ndash;how all the kinetic energy would be transferred. Would it be transferred into heat. Would it fly right through? Probably&ndash;it might just fly right through.<br />
<br />
S: Or maybe it will smash through several particles on its way.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. It might hit&ndash;if hit's something squarely it could start a cascade so I think if it's just right it could actually&ndash;it could be noticeable. But there's other things&ndash;the solar science and space weather, cosmic magnetism, so I'm sure this thing is going to be used for a really long time and hopefully maybe even get even bigger.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob, what's the difference between the moment of the Big Bang and the moment of first illuminosity, I think is the word you used?<br />
<br />
B: Well, I believe it was 100,000 years or 1,000 years, it was a lot of time before things calmed down enough. Things were just so energetic that light&ndash;any photons that might have been generated were just bouncing around all over the place and they really couldn't settle down and just take a straight line any direction so there's nothing to see if you look back in visible light there's nothing to see cause all the photons are just kinda bouncing around. But also this epoch of re-ionization&ndash;that's kind of a different term than I'm used to. They refer to it as when things became luminous so I think it depends on&ndash;are they talking about the first stars, the first galaxies, the first quasars?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
B: If that's what they're talking about then that would actually be after what I'm talking&ndash;what I've just mentioned which is also called photon decoupling. So actually this epoch is a little bit different. I think it's later on.<br />
<br />
E: It's just amazing that they can make that distinction or make the determination that so much&ndash;however much time it is happened between the two.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: You think of the Big Bang&ndash;certainly in a visual display you're watching some show on TV that kinda of describes it and it's an intense white spot of light from the get go. At least that's how the depict it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But they always give you the impossible perspective of being outside the universe when the Big Bang happens.<br />
<br />
B: Space time, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But that's not a possible perspective. So it's kind of misleading.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A little.<br />
<br />
S: And a lot of that is&ndash;evidence is theoretical. They're just well what should have happened if you have the mass of the universe at a point and then what would happen over time? Based upon the temperatures and what things are like at those temperatures. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: But maybe this large radio telescope will help fill in those gaps.<br />
<br />
B: Some of them.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully.<br />
<br />
B: If it can actually get close to the moment after the Big Bang then absolutely it will be able to do&ndash;it will illuminate us in many ways.<br />
<br />
E: Very cool.<br />
<br />
J: I still don't get the concept that when the Big Bang took place&ndash;like, where it was specially in reality. You can't go to that space&ndash;that place in outer space because it doesn't really&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Sure you can. Wherever you go, there you are.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, geez. Really, Bob?<br />
<br />
E: It happened everywhere&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: It's true. It's true. It's everywhere. You can't point to it because it's not one specific spot. It's everywhere.<br />
<br />
J: Well, it didn't happen right here.<br />
<br />
E: It might have.<br />
<br />
S: Every part of the universe was at that point, Jay, at that time.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, so, meaning that the universe is growing in size.<br />
<br />
S: Of course. But it's like&ndash;if you do the two dimensional analogy, it's like blowing up a balloon. Where was it before you blew it up? Well it's&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: How&ndash;right. Try to explaining to a two dimensional creature on that balloon where&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: It was in the package.<br />
<br />
J: where the center is.<br />
<br />
S: You'd have to point into the 4th dimension.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
J: I can't picture it.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Amityville Horror House for Sale <small>(34:11)</small>===<br />
[http://www.theness.com/roguesgallery/?p=1676 Rogue's Gallery: Amityville Horror House for Sale]<br />
<br />
S: So, the Amityville Horror House is back in the news.<br />
<br />
E: And it's back in the news because its up for sale.<br />
<br />
S: Sale. That's right. For what? 1.5 million?<br />
<br />
E: 1.15 million dollars.<br />
<br />
B: In this market?<br />
<br />
J: I know. Isn't that crazy?<br />
<br />
S: You can own a piece of paranormal history.<br />
<br />
B: But, is that price kind of crazy for the neighborhood because the house is famous?<br />
<br />
E: I don't know. I imagine that has something to do with it. They said they'd done a lot of renovations recently on the house. So&mdash;Look, I imagine the main factor, like any other piece of property is&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Location.<br />
<br />
E: comparable&mdash;yeah, location and comparable houses for sale in the area.<br />
<br />
S: But here's my question. Now, typically, if a house is alleged to be haunted or if a murder took place there it's considered psychologically damaged and that actually reduces the value of the house. But in this case it's famous for being psychologically damaged, so does that increase the value of the house?<br />
<br />
E: Or do the two equal each other out?<br />
<br />
S: The balance out?<br />
<br />
E: The negative and positive balance out.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So, there were a series of murders there in 1974. Ronald DeFeo Sr., his wife, Louise, their two sons and two daughters were shot while they slept in the home and the one remaining family member alive, Ronald, nicknamed Butch DeFeo, he confessed to the murders and is serving a life sentence in prison. And then just a few weeks after the sentencing of Butch, George and Kathy Lutz and their three children moved into the home where a new round of supposed horrors began. Muwahaha. Well, not really.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about them.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, there was supposedly all sorts of things happening in this house. They reported sightings of&mdash;well, the kids reported sightings of animals, mostly a pig named Jody. A sculpted lion came to life and supposedly walked around the house.<br />
<br />
S: Cool.<br />
<br />
E: A demonic boy appeared. It was photographed and you can find that famous photograph online. Kind of looks like a regular boy but that's beside the point. And other strange things in the house. Oh, green slime oozed from the walls. Crucifix on the wall was constantly rotating until it left itself upside down and, needless to say, 28 days after they moved in&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: 28 days later.<br />
<br />
E: 28 days later. Good one Steve. The Lutz's fled.<br />
<br />
S: What about the&mdash;you forgot about the hell-mouth. It's a gaping mouth to hell in their basement.<br />
<br />
J: Wait. Wasn't that in Poltergeist.<br />
<br />
E: That was another movie, I think.<br />
<br />
B: No. No no no. <br />
<br />
E: You're right, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: It's the red room.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It was a red room, which in the movie they kind of made it seem like it was the road to hell or something.<br />
<br />
E: Now there was one small problem with all of these paranormal happenings. They never really happened. It was a story&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: It was fake.<br />
<br />
E: The whole thing was fake. However, that didn't stop famous demonologist and psychic investigator&mdash;paranormal investigator Ed Warren and his wife Loraine from investigating the matter and deeming that house to be one of the most haunted places in the world.<br />
<br />
S: Right. Right after their basement.<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Their basement in Monroe, Connecticut #1, Aminityville #2.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Right. It was fake. And now it's up for sale.<br />
<br />
E: It is. So&mdash;if you've got dollars burning a whole in your pocket&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: You might want to go get a piece of history.<br />
<br />
S: The people who bought the house after the Lutz's complained that they had to deal with the paranormal tourists bothering them day in and day out. Gawking at the house and everything. So&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So much so that they had to change the address of the house.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So it really was psychologically damaged for them, cause it came with all the tourists.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm looking at a picture of the demon boy.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: It's a little boy.<br />
<br />
S: With no eyes.<br />
<br />
J: Well, the eyes are whited out so it looks kind of creepy. Photo could have been doctored.<br />
<br />
E: Could have been a dozen things, right, other than a demonic boy from hell.<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:46)</small>==<br />
S: Well, thanks for that, Evan, and why don't we go on to Who's That Noisy?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. For those of you who forgot here is last week's Who's that Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: And then I began to study back&mdash;the relationships between the elements for plants and they are different as the elements for humans. Because Cali and Forswore are actually the friends of each other in the homeopathic material magica for humans, but in plants these two substances are each other's enemy.</blockquote><!-- The Cali and Forswore are just going phonetically. I couldn't understand what he said. --><br />
<br />
S: Mm hmm.<br />
<br />
E: Mm hmm. So, you learned a little bit about homeopathy in that clip.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Two substances&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or not.<br />
<br />
S: Two substances which are enemies in plants are friends in people. Or animals.<br />
<br />
E: Bet you didn't know that before.<br />
<br />
J: So who is that guy?<br />
<br />
E: That is V. D. Kaviraj. A homeopath of some repute and the reason I actually found this person is because I was watching a Youtube video of our&mdash;well, friend, Mr. Benneth&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Who had this fellow as part of an interview so I thought that would make a rather interesting Noisy, last week.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And, not only did someone get it correctly but they actually also went ahead and found the clip from which I clipped it so if you go onto our message boards and [[SGU_Episode 256 | Episode 256]] you can actually take a look and listen for yourself to the entire interview and bring some coffee cause you with otherwise fall asleep.<br />
<br />
S: You don't want your brain to explode. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Exactly. So, NoWoo, en-oh-double you-oh-oh, from the message boards guessed correctly. Congratulations. Well done.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. What have you got for this week, Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. And here is this weeks Who's That Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: Does the shade<!-- what? --> give you the authority you need to take dangerous products off the shelves? And the answers always yes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
E: That's a short one this week.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Thanks Evan.<br />
<br />
E: But I think there's enough information in there for someone to get it. So, be the first one to guess correctly. Good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Ev.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Soy <small>(41:02)</small>===<br />
S: We have time for a few e-mails this week. The first one comes from Michael Wilson from Prescott, Arizona and Michael writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Steve - You made the offhand comment that there are "serious concerns" that soy milk is producing an estrogen type hormonal effect. I am a vegan bodybuilder who drinks a quart of soy milk everyday. I am concerned your offhand comment will scare people away from switching to a healthier milk alternative with no saturated fat. I've looked in the past when people have made these claims, and all I can find is that there may be some very mild effect, but nothing that rises to the level of your "serious concern" comment. If there was, there would be serious estrogen related issues throughout Asian countries. Since you felt it necessary to scare people away from soy by telling them about the "serious concerns" science has with soy milk, I hope you will provide the research on you next show that proves soy milk causes serious estrogen like effects. I do love the show, and I thank everyone for the time and effort you guys put into it every week. Michael Wilson Prescott, AZ</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So, Michael's referring to two weeks ago when we had Pamela Gay and Frazier Cane on when&mdash;I can't remember what we were talking about but the notion of estro&mdash;the notion of&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Pamela said she drink soy milk and then we got onto the discussion.<br />
<br />
S: She drinks soy milk. Yeah, so I was razzing her a little bit about the fact that not everything is perfectly safe. You could find concerns about anything and in fact there are concerns about the estrogen like effects of soy milk. But it was an off hand comment, but I do think it's good for follow up to see what the evidence actually shows. The concerns are raised by the fact that soy contains isoflavones which have an estrogen effect. It's hormonally active and therefor that creates that plausibility that it could have some actual clinical effects in people and there are various populations in which it has been studied. So, one group are women who&mdash;are women in general, especially women who have had breast cancer. The question is do the estrogens increase the risk of breast cancer or if you have breast cancer does it worsen the outcome. The answer to that question appears to be no. So the evidence so far is pretty solid that there's no negative effect for women with breast cancer. In fact one review I read said that there may in fact be a small beneficial effect because it may competitively block the effects of women who have high estrogen levels. So there it's either no effect or maybe a small beneficial effect in a subset of women. The bigger concerns are with men, though, because obviously estrogen is a feminizing hormone and the question is does&mdash;do the estrogen effects of isoflavones in soy milk have a feminizing effect on men? So far the research does not show any such effect. What about the reproductive effects on men? Here, we have animal data which shows that there is a negative effect. This is where the biggest concerns are. And these concerns are that we haven't done enough research to really know what the net effects are in people. So we have animal data that shows some concern but not really sufficient human data to rule out that there may be a negative effect on the reproduction of men. The final group are infants, especially since there is a soy based infant formulas. And here there were several reviews in the last couple of years. Some saying there's really no proven effect. Other reviewers saying that, again, there is concern that there maybe some hormonal effects on infants and that&mdash;and essentially where the reviewers agree is that the research is not adequate to rule out a significant effect. Therefor if you want to be cautious you may avoid using soy based infant formulas until more research is done to show that there isn't any significant effect. Estrogen like effect. So that's where we are. I do think it's fair to say that there are concerns. Nothing is proven. And while some of those concerns have been ruled out by research there are others, specifically reproduction in men and in infants where we don't have enough research to really say that they're safe. My take is that it's probably a very weak effect. I would be surprised if the research ultimately showed that there was a strong effect, but those are the areas where the research is not yet sufficient to confidently say that there isn't a potential effect.<br />
<br />
B: But also&mdash;but this guy, Steve, if you're&mdash;if you're not an infant and you're beyond&mdash;you've already had your kids and you're done with kids, then it would be even less of a concern?<br />
<br />
S: That's right. And if you're a woman, there's basically no concern.<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Cursed Cell Phone Number <small>(45:50)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>The cursed cell phone number Thought you guys might like this story of truly stupid superstitious thinking that misses the glaringly obvious. <br />
<br><br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7763578/Mobile-phone-number-suspended-after-three-users-die-in-10-years.html Telegraph: Mobile phone number suspended after three users die in 10 years]<br />
<br>Danforth France Glendale, CA</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Jay, you're gonna tell us about the cursed cell phone number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. This is really silly to be honest with you.<br />
<br />
B: It's silly.<br />
<br />
E: Silly.<br />
<br />
J: It's just one of those story where there's a string of coincidences that could make certain people think certain things but, basically there was a phone number that was given out. And I don't know if this is the real number but it seems like it isn't because it's a seri&mdash;it's 0-888-888-888&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: So, that's the number. I mean, my understanding from reading is that's the number that they suspended.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. Could be. Now, isn't the number 8 unlucky somewhere?<br />
<br />
B: No. It's lucky in Asian cultures. Isn't 8&mdash;8 is lucky, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: 4 is unlucky.<br />
<br />
S: 4 is unlucky cause it sounds like death.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: 4 is unlucky. 8 is&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So, here's the quick one two. The first person who got it, he was the former CEO of a Bulgarian mobile phone company. His company issued him the number.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: He died of cancer in 2001 at 48 years old. After he died some rumors came out that his cancer had been caused by a business rival using radioactive poisoning. I find that unlikely, but, okay. Take that away. Let's just say that guy died. It's horrible. Died of cancer in 2001. 48 years old. That was horrible. The second that got the number was a Bulgarian mafia boss. There's a couple of things that mafia bosses do really well. They kill, and then they get killed.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
J: Right? So this guy was gunned down in 2003 by an assassin.<br />
<br />
B: What are the odds?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: A mafia killing? What?<br />
<br />
J: Then the number went to another guy who was described as a crooked business man and he was gunned down outside of an Indian restaurant in Bulgaria. So since then the number was retired because the police are investigating and all this stuff, but, there's the idea that the number is cursed or unlucky&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Or jinxed.<br />
<br />
E: It's your unlucky number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's been&mdash;the number has been touched by evil and anyone who gets it is gonna get killed. So I'm thinking&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Anyone mob related who touches it will get killed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's pretty clear to see&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or crime related.<br />
<br />
J: through this. It's not that big of a coincidence that a bunch of people that were involved in very dangerous and crazy criminal activity are getting killed. <br />
<br />
B: But if a number becomes available&mdash;is it more likely that the number became available because somebody dumped the number or because somebody died? Because I'm never gonna want to lose my number today.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I don't know. Now that people have personal phone numbers. Yeah. Probably people hold on to them for life. Even if you change carrier, right? You can take your number to another carrier.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Now you can. I don't know if you could in early 2000&mdash;2003. I don't know if you could during that time period. So, anyway, the reason why we bring up this story was not just because somebody wrote in about it but we thought it was a quick and easy example of a series of events strung together to make a story where there really isn't a story or a connection.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. There's a few ways you can look at this. One is it's not that big a coincidence that 3 people with the same number die in the short period of time. Just taking the number of phone numbers out there, I'm sure that happens a lot just by coincidence. Right? I mean it would be surprising if that never happened. This is a little different because these people were high profile and the number's unusual. It's&mdash;you could of it as a very desirable number because it's all 8's. It's the kind of number you get if you work for the phone company like the CEO or you're a mob boss, I guess. Right? They're not going to give it to just some guy. And these&mdash;two of these three people were at high risk for dying so that makes it even less of a coincidence that this kind of number is going to go to the kind of people who may be in risky businesses. But then you also think of it from the phone companies point of view. Obviously the notion that the number itself is jinxed is magical thinking and it's ridiculous but from a business marketing point of view, do they want to hand this number over to somebody else and then what if something happens to that person or even&mdash;they may just get upset if they find out that the phone company assigned them a quote unquote "jinxed" number. You know what I mean? Probably just fewer headaches for the phone company if they just get rid of it, even for a while. You know what I mean? You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. It's a numbers racket.<br />
<br />
J: That's a good job, boys. It's good work, boys.<br />
<br />
=== Magic Bee Juice <small>(50:27)</small>===<br />
S: The next one comes from David Gardner from Osaka, Japan. And David writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>One of the branches of the company I work for in Japan has started selling Propolis as a means to make more money in a bad economy. This branch has repeatedly tried to get me to buy some of this magic bee juice. Many of my Japanese co-workers have taken the bait. They are putting bee juice in their drinks and swallowing magic bee juice pills. When I ask them if they feel any better, they all say they aren’t sure. Hmm… I think the company I work for has a snake oill division. Do you know of any scientific evidence that shows any benefit to taking Propolis? All the information I found say that Propolis may contain lead and other garbage bees pick up while flying around the city. Thank you for your time. David Gardner Osaka, Japan </blockquote><!-- shouldn't we fix the "aren't" that's all messed up? --><br />
<br />
S: Well, do you guys now what Propolis is?<br />
<br />
B: Nope.<br />
<br />
J: No.<br />
<br />
E: It's the star in the sky that doesn't rotate.<br />
<br />
S: It's magic bee juice. This is&mdash;So, bees make a variety of things. This is the gooey, sticky stuff that bees use to hold together their nests. They largely pick it up&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Oh. The honey comb?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so, yeah. But it's not just wax. I guess this is even stronger structural stuff that they use&mdash;it's like the glue that they use to hold it together and its&mdash;they'll pick up the sap from coniferous trees. Resins. It sounds nasty. It doesn't sound like the kind of stuff you would want to eat. I mean the bees don't eat it. It contains phenolics, aromatic compounds, volatile oils and terpenes. But even worse that that, as the bees fly around our modern society they're not just picking up resins from pine trees. They're also picking up lead paint. They're picking up caulking.<br />
<br />
B: Yum.<br />
<br />
S: They're picking up road tar and other things.<br />
<br />
E: Fecal material.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. They're picking up all kinds of nasty stuff and mixing it all together with these resins and terpenes and they're using that to glue together their nests and then&mdash;and idiots are taking that stuff and eating it.<br />
<br />
E: Now, when you say idiot&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: It's glue like?<br />
<br />
S: It's sticky. If you get the sap off a pine tree&mdash;it's like that.<br />
<br />
E: That's awful.<br />
<br />
S: Now, of course, it contains a lot of chemicals, right? As you might imagine&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: It's all natural.<br />
<br />
S: Sure. And if you look at those chemicals those chemicals do stuff. The body's going to react to those chemicals. Actually, probably the most common reaction is an allergic dermatitis and when I looked up Propolis on PubMed most of the specific references to it and people were to&mdash;this allergic dermatitis.<br />
<br />
E: Is this the same allergic reaction people have when they get a bee sting?<br />
<br />
S: No. No. It's different. This is more just a contact dermatitis. The skin gets red and bee stings can have more of a systemic reaction. That's where it becomes a problem, as opposed to just a rash. So, there's no research in humans showing any beneficial effects. It's all extrapolating wildly from just nonspecific&mdash;or just reactions that happen to some chemical that you can find in this stuff. There some animal data that it does stuff, but there's nothing that really can be used to base any kind of medicinal claims. So this really is snake oil. And apparently it's been around for hundreds of years. This is nothing new. It's just an idea that crops up every now and then.<br />
<br />
E: Here. Eat this bee waste byproduct.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's bee waste. It is bee waste.<br />
<br />
E: Bee waste.<br />
<br />
S: Pretty much everything that bees make somebody has decided to sell as snake oil. Pollen, royal jelly, and even bee venom. You guys have heard&mdash;I've talked about bee venom therapy.<br />
<br />
E: Bee venom therapy, sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. For, multiple sclerosis and arthritis and things like that. Pretty much everything. The only thing that bees make that has real medicinal value is honey and only if you put it topically on your wound.<br />
<br />
E: Or on toast.<br />
<br />
J: I love honey.<br />
<br />
E: I love you too, honey.<br />
<br />
B: Never spoils.<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Personality Tests <small>(54:41)</small> ==<br />
S: Well, we actually have a Name that Logical Fallacy this week.<br />
<br />
B: Ooo.<br />
<br />
E: Ooo. Queue the music.<br />
<br />
S: This is a question that comes from some guy called Mike Lacelle in Canada.<br />
<br />
J: Who is he?<br />
<br />
E: That a funny name.<br />
<br />
S: I don't know. Some bald guy.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
S: And Mike wants to know&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: But despite that&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: And Mike will be at TAM this year, by the way.<br />
<br />
S: Oh, this guy's gonna be at TAM?<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Oh. I can't wait to meet him.<br />
<br />
B: I'm not going now.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: I'll see you there Mike.<br />
<br />
S: Mike writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Steve, I'm trying to figure out the difference between the Incorrect Cause fallacy and the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy? Skepticwiki is telling me that Post Hoc is a type of Incorrect Cause Fallacy, but I'm just not getting the difference. They seem to be one and the same. Any help would be appreciated. I'm trying to complete a 5x5 recording we did a few months ago and I'm recording a missing part which was about the "Incorrect Cause" fallacy. The topic of the 5x5 was Chemtrails and it seems to me that the Post Hoc fallacy would work better here.<br><br> Mike Lacelle Canada </blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So, this is an interesting one. The Incorrect Cause Fallacy is actually a category of logical fallacies.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There's lots of&mdash;and the Post Hoc is just a sub-category of it.<br />
<br />
S: Exactly. It's one type. <br />
<br />
B: Right.<br />
<br />
S: It's any fallacy where you are making an invalid inference as to cause and effect. That's the Incorrect Cause Fallacy. My&mdash;I had a couple back and forths with Mike and he was saying that if you invoke the wrong cause for something just because your information is incorrect is that an incorrect cause fallacy and the answer to that is no. It doesn't me that you're just mistaken about what causes what, that's just a false premise, it's that the logical inference is incorrect, cause that's what a logical fallacy is. So, in the Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc Fallacy, you're concluding that B is caused by A ''because'' B follows A. That's where the invalid logic comes in. You're reaching the conclusion not because you just have a mistake belief but because you think that the fact that it comes after it is how you know that it's being caused by it.<br />
<br />
B: Right. So it's more sequential, whereas the Incorrect Cause Fallacy&mdash;it could be&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Is anything.<br />
<br />
B: It could be after. It could be anything.<br />
<br />
E: It could go any direction.<br />
<br />
B: They could happen at the same exact time. Could be AB instead of A followed by B. Could be at the same time or even&mdash;or other variations. So that's the main distinction as I see it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. And it's not even restricted to temporal but&mdash;another common Incorrect Cause Fallacy is the&mdash;assuming causation from correlation as you're saying.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: They're correlated in some way, not because, necessarily, one follows the other but they could just be happening together more frequently or at the same time and then you assume that they're happening together because one is causing the other when, in fact, there are many relationships that possible. You cannot infer a specific causal relationship. Often people, however, say that&mdash;and I hear people say this, or write this, all the time, that correlation does not imply causation and that's incorrect. I ''does'' imply causation. It just does ''equal'' causation.<br />
<br />
B: Right. Right.<br />
<br />
S: Sometimes correlations occur because there ''is'' causation and it is&mdash;it certainly does imply that. It's one piece of evidence, but in order to make a specific causal conclusion you have to line up multiple correlations. Other examples of this would include the Complex Cause Fallacy, where maybe there are multiple causations but you pick one out and say that's ''the'' cause.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's a very common one, right? <br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
S: We all sort of unconsciously do that all the time where we tend to think simplistically in terms of one cause for things when in fact many complex things will have multiple causes that are not mutually exclusive.<br />
<br />
J: And it's not just one cause. It could also be the most interesting cause has got to be it, too, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: We're so drawn to the one thats&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: That's interesting or&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: sexy.<br />
<br />
S: ''or'' the one that confirms our prior beliefs and ideology.<br />
<br />
J: Yes.<br />
<br />
E: Ah, confirmation bias.<br />
<br />
S: Then there's the Regression Fallacy. This is where you assume cause and effect because of what ultimately regression to the mean. Here's an example. Appearing on the cover of ''Sports Illustrated'' is a curse that will cause them to have a bad season or a bad game or whatever following that.<br />
<br />
E: I've heard that before, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. The ''Sports Illustrated'' curse. But that can be explained by regression to the mean.<br />
<br />
B: Right. They were on the cover in the first place because they might&mdash;they just happened to have, say, and exceptional season, right?<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
B: And then of course the regression to the mean has got to kick in at some point, you would think, and then it's like, "Oh, damn. Bad luck."<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. They had their best game, their best season, whatever. That gets them on the cover and any extreme is likely to be followed by something closer to the mean. The regression to the mean.<br />
<br />
J: That's very similar to the Droning On Fallacy where skeptical enthusiasts just keep talking about logical fallacies over and over again.<br />
<br />
S: Jay, I'm not familiar with that one.<br />
<br />
E: I'm not either. Hey, here's another logical fallacy.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:07)</small> ==<br />
<br />
*[http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:14:40)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.</blockquote> <!-- the quote as read by Jay was different, should see if we can find a source to find the real quote --><br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS Con <small>(1:18:11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro119}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_257&diff=5586SGU Episode 2572013-01-25T19:14:28Z<p>Geneocide: /* Magic Bee Juice (50:27) */ transcribed</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all |transcriber = Geneocide }}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 257<br />
|episodeDate = 14<sup>th</sup> June 2010<br />
|episodeIcon = File:amityvilledemoboy.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-06-14.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=257<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,28802.0.html<br />
|qowText = Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Monday, June 14<sup>th</sup>, 2010 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey everyone. How are you doing tonight?<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: Quite well.<br />
<br />
E: Good.<br />
<br />
S: No Rebecca tonight because we are on the lead up to TAM recording schedule. We going to have a little bit of a weird recording schedule the next few weeks and Rebecca was not available tonight and she has no internet access.<br />
<br />
J: That's because her and Sid bought a house.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: She hasn't been able to get internet and cable, I guess, to the house yet.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. But it's a big secret. Don't tell anyone, folks.<br />
<br />
S: They're moving into a new flat. Is it still a flat if it's a house?<br />
<br />
B: No. Wait wait, no, a flat's an apartment, isn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Are they moving into a house house, or is it like a condo or what is it?<br />
<br />
J: I think it's a house house.<br />
<br />
S: But no cable yet.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, if she has a house, that means she has a basement which means she could run a haunt in her house.<br />
<br />
B: Not necessarily. Florida houses don't have basements but that's because of the water table.<br />
<br />
J: Well, no. If she's in England she has a root cellar.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: Which is even creepier.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:19)</small> ==<br />
E: Well, on this day in 1648 Margaret Jones was hanged in Boston for witchcraft. The first such execution for the Massachusetts colony.<br />
<br />
S: How many people were killed?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they didn't stop with Margaret. It was 20 people.<br />
<br />
S: Were executed.<br />
<br />
E: We executed for witchcraft.<br />
<br />
J: Wow. And we got off lucky. Didn't&ndash;in Europe wasn't it a much bigger phenomenon in Europe?<br />
<br />
S: A conservative number is around 60,000 deaths directly attributable to the witch hunts.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Depending on how you count it. There were 20 people executed in Salem. 19 hung and that one guy, Giles Corey was crushed to death cause he refused to enter a plea.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Hayabusa Returns <small>(2:02)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100613/ts_afp/spacejapanaustraliaasteroidsreturn_20100613204620 <br />
<br />
possible replacement: [http://www.space.com/8592-japanese-asteroid-probe-historic-return-earth.html Space.com: Japanese Asteroid Probe Makes Historic Return to Earth]<br />
--><br />
S: Well Bob, tell us about Hayabusa returning to Earth.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this is pretty cool. I totally forgot about this guy but this is an interesting story. The Japanese space agency known as JAXA, Jay-Ay-Ex-Ay, completed a mission recently to bring a sample of an asteroid back to Earth. This is something that's never been accomplished before and regardless of what happens there has never been a spacecraft that touched down on an asteroid and then came back to Earth. So regardless if they even brought anything back with them this was a first. Like I said, the only real question that remains as of the taping of this podcast anyway is whether the canister they retrieved in Australia has any asteroid. If you remember back in 2003, JAXA's Hayabusa craft began a 2 year journey to an asteroid named Itokawa and I wish I could say the mission went swimmingly but I can't. The craft really experienced some nasty technical difficulties. It seems likes throughout the whole way, or at least through a lot of it. They just kept hitting problem after problem. They even had some&ndash;some solar flair even messed up with it's power source so the energy that it had was less than they had anticipated and some of the biggest failures, though, was they had this metal ball that they would shoot&ndash;or they planned on shooting at the asteroid to collect rock samples and that failed. And then there was another mechanism, which they were planning on using to stir up the dust around the lander on the asteroid and that failed as well to collect any samples. So you might think that it was a total bust but the real hope at this point is that they hope that the dust that stirred up during the landing kind of just was swirling around and entered the canister&ndash;the collection canister so that's really all their hope is on that.<br />
<br />
S: So they really don't know if there's going to be anything in that canister. <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, they have no idea at this point. It doesn't look good to me.<br />
<br />
J: Is it on it's way back to Earth or it can analyze it.<br />
<br />
B: It came back to Earth. The craft burned up in the atmosphere but it ejected this heat protected canister which landed at the Woomera Protected Area which is a restricted military zone in south Australian desert. Now some conspiracy hypothesists may say that in reality this whole 7 year mission was a subtle attempt to get access to this restricted military zone. But, ya know, I'm just saying.<br />
<br />
J: Look at that. It landed in Area 51. Could we go get it?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Yeah.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: But, being silly, but I want to congratulate JAXA, though. Even if there's no sample which would really be nasty, but even if there's no sample, it was a great effort that tested lots of new technologies, like, for example, sampling and retrieval, electrical propulsion, autonomous navigation. So lots of interesting new technologies and this really was a test bed. Problems like this are to be expected.<br />
<br />
J: At this point any kind of space exploration is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: In the time when we're worried that it's all gonna go away and dry up&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm really happy to hear about stuff like this.<br />
<br />
B: That's true. But you really got to hand it to JAXA, though, because they relentlessly attacked every difficulty that arose creatively solving problems, and according to some people it was Apollo 13 in scale in terms of how difficult these problems were.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: But granted, lives were not on the line, but still they had to go through a lot. On the way home they lost half of their engines kicked out and they had to figure out how to get home with only half the engines running so they did an amazing job.<br />
<br />
J: I don't like you comparing it to Apollo 13 because it being unmanned is one thing and the other thing was they got those people back to Earth safely with an enormous amount of effort. Nothing can match that.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I'm not comparing it and I did kind of say that not in terms of the lives but in terms of creative problem solving it was similar. Some people are comparing it.<br />
<br />
J: Well, if they make a movie about it I might believe it then.<br />
<br />
S: Cause it's not real unless Hollywood does a movie about it.<br />
<br />
B: As you can imagine this is a huge, huge news story in Japan. They're really playing it up. It's all over the place, cause this is&ndash;it's quite a feat. Regardless of what happens this is a first, so that's great. If they have a sample, even better, cause you learn lots of things about the solar system&ndash;because we don't have&ndash;think about it&ndash;the material we have from asteroids really is just meteorites, right, that have landed on the earth and they've gone through the atmosphere. They're not the same.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When you come through the atmosphere&ndash;they're not the same.<br />
<br />
E: Burn, yeah. Stuff burns away and, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: This will be pristine. This will be pristine rock and that will be invaluable.<br />
<br />
J: Do you guys think that one day we will park satellites in orbit and just mine them?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah. Mine asteroids?<br />
<br />
E: You mean bring them into a close orbit and then we send up vehicles and stuff to start plowing them for their platinum and all they're goodies?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. And how about&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
J: One thing that I remember thinking about when I was younger, why not put it in the same orbit that the earth is in, but just behind the earth. Would that mean that it would have to be the same size as the earth, though, in order to be in the same orbit?<br />
<br />
B: The velocity would be very different then. It couldn't have the same velocity because the mass would be so different, so, at some point, it would intersect with the earth. So I don't think that would work, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: You would need something to constantly regulate it's distance from the earth, right?<br />
<br />
S: You put it at a Lagrange point and it will sit there.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There ya go. Problem solved.<br />
<br />
S: A Lagrange point is a&ndash;if you have a map, a three dimensional map of the gravitational fields of the earth and the sun, for example, or any large body orbiting another large body, then those fields hit a pit, or they dip to a minimum. So anything that is at those points it's like being at the bottom of a hill, it's stuck there and it won't move away so it's actually fixed in position relative to the earth. So it would be perfect for something that we want to put someplace and have it stay there in terms of it's relationship to the earth.<br />
<br />
J: It's kind of like drafting, right?<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Come on, a little bit.<br />
<br />
S: But to complete that discussion there are a total of 5 Lagrangian points. One in the orbit of, lets say the earth, in front of it. One behind the earth in it's orbit. One on the opposite side of Earth's orbit. One between the earth and the sun and one outside the orbit on a line between the earth and the sun but farther than the earth. So five points total. A few of which would be pretty close. But also, there are asteroids that are said to quote unquote "stalk" the earth. For example, recently discovered the 2009 BD. It's not stationary with respect to the earth but it does&ndash;cause it interacts with the earth's gravity and it's not at a Lagrangian point, but it does get close to the earth and will sort of corkscrew around the earth's orbit and stay very close to use for a while and then maybe drift away and come back in it's orbit. It's got a very weird orbit but it does stay close to the earth.<br />
<br />
=== Einstein's Brain <small>(9:22)</small>===<br />
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305&ps=cprs NPR: Einstein's Brain Unlocks Some Mysteries Of The Mind]<br />
<br />
S: Jay, tell us about the amazing adventure of Einstein's brain.<br />
<br />
J: So this is a very interesting story. Before I get into the story let me just ask you guys a few questions. One, what makes you think Einstein was so smart? What was it about his brain that makes him smart? Some things that I'm sure most skeptics have heard was that, "Einstein used 10% of his brain where the regular person only uses 2 or 2.5%." You guys have heard of that, right?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, course.<br />
<br />
E: Or something similar to it, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's only be debunked about a million times on the internet and elsewhere, I believe, in our publication.<br />
<br />
E: Of course. That's what my phrenologist says.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: Here's one that is less common, but I've also heard and I believe I also used to think about this when I was younger and not knowing much about the brain but another thing that people think is that Einstein's brain had more hills and valleys on the exterior part of his brain.<br />
<br />
S: Sulci and gyri?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. So, that's basically the shape of the brain on the outside that makes it look like a brain. All those hills and valleys and little bumps and stuff that are on the outside of somebodies brain.<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: But, Steve, you said at one point that that does not mean you're smarter, correct?<br />
<br />
S: Well, not comparing one individual to another. There's too much variation to say that but that certainly is true when you compare species. The&ndash;what those do&ndash;what the gyri and sulci do&ndash;if you imagine the layers of the cortex and then fold it upon themselves like a ribbon that's what forms that structure and what the essentially does is it increases the surface area of the brain. So it's just a way of squeezing more computational surface area into a smaller three dimensional space which was obviously important to the evolution of our bigger, juicier brains. But you can't compare person A to person B and go, "Oh, he's got to be smarter because his brain looks smarter on an MRI scan. He's got more sulci." Doesn't work that way.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, why not also fill in the valleys between the hills? Between the gyri or the sulci or whatever they are?<br />
<br />
S: They're squished together. It's not significant.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
S: I mean, when you get old and your brain shrivels up and atrophies then you see expanded sulci and spaces but&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Your brain really shrivels up, huh?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, doesn't that suck?<br />
<br />
J: What the hell?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but Steve, I thought the idea, though, behind that was that they're not sure if the brain is really truly atrophying really, hugely, impacting cognition or is it just paring away the unessential parts of the brain that really aren't needed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, like motor skills and deep thinking.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: Barring, of course, dementia. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right Bob?<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's a complicated question. First of all those are not mutually exclusive cause both those things could be occurring at the same time. The pruning hypothesis where it's just cutting back neurons were sitting there waiting to be recruited but they haven't been, so they just go away at some point, but even still you imagine that there's fewer neurons around to be recruited so&ndash;after 50 or so we do start to lose our capacity to learn new things. We lose our flexibility. At least most of us. Some people really don't and they're brains don't atrophy as much, either.<br />
<br />
J: Bastards.<br />
<br />
S: So, some people genetically are built for more neurological longevity. But, yeah, you can't&ndash;I don't think it's accurate to say that there's no relationship between the atrophy of the brain as we age and the loss of cognitive ability. There absolutely is a relationship but it's complicated and we're not sure exactly what it is.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, it's not a black and white issue. It's more of a grey matter.<br />
<br />
B: Oh.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, wow, Evan, really?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright, so guys, let me continue. It's basically a story that I'm going to quickly tell everyone and then we'll discuss it.<br />
<br />
B: Alright.<br />
<br />
E: I love stories. Okay. I'm ready.<br />
<br />
J: So this man, named Thomas Harvey&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
E: Harvey.<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
J: and he&ndash;he actually performed the autopsy on Einstein at Princeton. Now this back in&ndash;Now this was when, '55 I believe Einstein died?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, around there.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. So, this is what the article said. The article said that during the autopsy routine the brain would be removed, examined, and then put back in the person's body for burial. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Which, by the way&ndash;we don't do that today. I don't know&ndash;that sounds odd. We don't put the brain back in the head. You take it out, you put it in a jar of formaldehyde and pickle it for 2 weeks, so that you can slice it up and look at it. Cause otherwise it's too much like jelly. You can't really slice into it. So that bit of that story certainly is not what's done today.<br />
<br />
J: Well maybe he took it out&ndash;cause it did say that he did put it in formaldehyde&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Well that's routine. That's routine.<br />
<br />
J: He was preparing it. He kept it out for the amount of time necessary and then instead of putting it back after the examination of the brain he kept it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, I think probably what happened is normally you would take it out, you pickle it for 2 weeks then you do what's called brain cutting. You slice it all the way through and you look for pathology and you look for the structures and whatnot and that's it. Then slides get filed away and the rest of it get thrown out, gets discarded as medical waste. Or, or, what can happen, sometimes the family may request that every last scrap of material gets returned and gets buried with the body.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. I'm sure that's&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: That happens sometimes, too. In fact, that happens even with&ndash;sometimes people will donate their body to science and their body will be dissected by medical students. Sometimes those bodies are just cremated. Other times everything's got to be put back&ndash;you don't put it back together but basically all bundled up and then sent back to the family to be buried or whatever they want to do with it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: That is a typical Jewish custom. I don't know how religious or close Einstein was to strict Jewish customs but I can tell you that that is Jewish customs. You bury as much of the remains as you possibly can.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So he probably&ndash;he held back the brain. He didn't do with it whatever was normally supposed to happen to it.<br />
<br />
J: No. He stole it. That's what happened.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. He stole it. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Brain thief.<br />
<br />
B: I'm going to donate my body to science fiction.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright. Continuing on&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: You stole that joke from somebody.<br />
<br />
J: So Thomas Harvey, because of what he did, because he kept Einstein's brain, he lost his job. Which seems to be the appropriate thing to take place.<br />
<br />
E: Bad trade.<br />
<br />
S: Cause that was unethical. What he did.<br />
<br />
J: And during that process he claimed that Einstein's son, Hans, gave him permission but that claim was denied by the family.<br />
<br />
S: What about Frans?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So, as I'm reading through this I realize, of course, hindsight being 20/20, I don't disagree with what the guy did. I think it was obvious to him at the time that there was something important about Einstein's brain and it should be studied further. Shouldn't just be thrown away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It kind of makes you wish that somebody at NASA thought that about the moon landing footage. <br />
<br />
B: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: "Ya know, I'm going to put this aside and not put it&ndash;file it with the rest of the tapes that are going to get erased and reused."<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Or, "Lets make a couple of backups, just in case. Or put it somewhere else. I don't know."<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Anyway.<br />
<br />
J: I've really gotta&ndash;let me sprint to the finish guys.<br />
<br />
B: Thanks for reminding me.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, go ahead.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. So I mentioned that I don't disagree. What Thomas Harvey wanted was he wanted neuro-anatomists to analyse Einstein's brain and see if they could find something out about it that we didn't know about the human brain before and that was his goal but as the story goes&ndash;so 40 years passes and then a writer named, Paterniti, he heard about all these events that we just went through and he decided that&ndash;I guess he wanted to write about what had taken place so he tracks down and finds Harvey. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Did he sue him?<br />
<br />
J: No. This guys an author.<br />
<br />
S: So he didn't give him a Paterniti suit?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god. You're on a roll tonight, Steve.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Any who, so, he tracks down Harvey, gets into a long conversation with him and, I guess, between the conversation and the two of them going back and forth they mutually decide the brain should be returned to Einstein's family and, I guess they new at the time that his granddaughter Evelyn was still alive so they wanted to return it to her. So Paterniti drives to Harvey's house, he described Harvey as bringing out Einstein's brain in a Tupperware jar. In a Tupperware container.<br />
<br />
E: Tupperware.<br />
<br />
J: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. That would seal in the freshness, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So the two of them planned to drive across the country from New Jersey all the way to California where the granddaughter lived. I guess they conversation had continued during this drive and Paterniti found out that Einstein had indeed&ndash;I'm sorry, that Harvey had indeed been sending out Einstein's brain when samples were requested he would take the samples and send them to neurologists across the globe. So, when saw the brain in the Tupperware container it had been cut up. It was sliced up. So, Harvey sent 3 different samples to a scientist named Marian Diamond and she had contacted Harvey years earlier and requested samples from 3 different parts of Einstein's brain and he did end up shipping them to her but he ended up shipping them to her in an old mayonnaise jar.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Okay? Not making this up.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: This was around 1980. She studied the samples. She found that Einstein's brain had normal amount of neurons but he had a higher than normal percentage of a different kind of brain cell and that cell was called a glial cell. That increase in glial cells was found especially in the parts of the brain that involved imagery and complex thinking, so that definitely made Diamond realize, "Well, this is very curious. Let me look into it." But first, Steve, why don't you tell us what a glial cell is.<br />
<br />
B: Support cells, aren't they?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's the other kinds of cells in the brain other than neurons and they are&ndash;yeah, for many years we thought they were basically support cells.<br />
<br />
B: Like structural cells.<br />
<br />
S: Not just structural but they create the friendly environment for the neurons. <br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right, they're there keeping the neurons alive and happy while the neurons are doing their job of remembering and calculating and stuff.<br />
<br />
B: Kind of like the Remora around sharks.<br />
<br />
S: I guess.<br />
<br />
J: So, at the time&ndash;<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Diamond was now asking questions like, "Well, why would there be more of these cells here if they're really just support cells? What's the significance of there being more of them here?" And it was a very odd idea at the time to think that glial cells had anything to do with Einstein's intelligence. Being that the cells were thought to be there for perhaps structural integrity perhaps there to just be, like Steve said, like more support cells than actual cells that were there for thinking. Alright, so now we go forward another 10 years and another researcher named Steven J. Smith published a paper that changed the perception of and understanding of the brain because what he did was&ndash;he was studying neurons and he was also studying these glial cells and he speculated that glial cells also were a part of the communication that happened within the cell and that also these cells weren't only communicating chemically but they were communicating with electricity in the manner that neurons communicate. And then he kept on fleshing out his idea and he also said that these glial cells could possibly be picking up communication between neurons&ndash;neurons are communicating with each other, glial cells would be listening in on this communication and then sending that data to other parts of the brain. So he came up with this idea that the brain&ndash;it's another way that the brain could be communicating internally. Which at the time was a profound idea. They though, at the time, that only neurons were doing the heavy lifting and that even though there was a ton of other cells in the brain that they didn't think really were doing anything. Neurons were it, but once they realized, "You know what? These glial cells might actually be doing complex things like be involved in learning and memory and ideas that we have of like what does it mean to be a genius. Glial cells might have something to do with high end thinking." So, once that started that started to really open up new ideas and that started a whole different school of thought. So then yet another scientist named, Doug Fields, he reproduced Smith's research and confirmed that it was actually valid. And, at one point, Doug Fields wrote, "Now we can see scores of ways in which astrocytes could be involved in many cognitive processes." And now it's not so crazy to find that there were abnormally high numbers of astrocytes in the parts of Einstein's brain involved in imagery and mathematical ability and that sort of thing. So, that was a pretty huge milestone and a huge leap forward in our understanding of the human brain. So in 2007, Harvey died. He really didn't know that him taking Einstein's brain, actually through these steps and through these different people actually lead to a move forward in our understanding of the riddle of the mind, but it seems that he actually did have something to do with it. And, Einstein's granddaughter didn't end up wanting her grandfather's brain so Harvey, before he died, he returned the brain back to the pathology department at Princeton, where it is today.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, can you only find out the number of astrocytes by cutting into a brain or is there a way to test it while you're still alive?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you can estimate it just by knowing what the density of astrocytes are and then calculating it by volume but if you want to look at an individuals astrocyte density, yeah, you gotta stain it. You gotta cut into it.<br />
<br />
J: So, Steve, could you just take a little&ndash;take a biopsy of somebody's brain and test it that way?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. You could.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think you could do&ndash;really?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Why not?<br />
<br />
E: Well, are you supposed to be biopsying the brain for this kind of testing purposes. It's really more for diseases.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you wouldn't do this. You wouldn't do that. You wouldn't biopsy a humans brain just out of curiosity but we do it for diagnostic purposes but it's got to be worth while to the person.<br />
<br />
E: Right. There's got to be something going on that you're looking for the answer for a cure or something.<br />
<br />
B: Risk benefit.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if they&ndash;I know it's not uncommon&ndash;brain surgery happens all the time. They open up people's skulls. They literally get in there with tools and go deep into the brain and remove tumors and do things like that. Cognitively if you did take someone's skull off, or a portion of the skull, and just cut out, say a jelly bean sized piece of the brain, under the idea that the person isn't going to bleed to death or whatever, just removing a piece of the brain then putting the skull piece back and letting the person heal. What would they lose from losing a portion of the brain that size?<br />
<br />
B: Depends. It depends on the portion.<br />
<br />
E: Lobotomi&ndash;You're lobotomizing a person at that point.<br />
<br />
B: It totally depends. My guess would be that either it's totally unnoticeable or you'd be completely debilitated.<br />
<br />
S: Bob's right. It completely depends on which jelly bean piece of brain you take out.<br />
<br />
B: Take the hypothalamus and you're f'd.<br />
<br />
S: For example, the right frontal lobe is largely redundant and you could do a lot of stuff to that without producing and noticeable deficits. <br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: And, in fact, when surgeons have to go into the brain they prefer to do the non-dominant frontal lobe because it's mostly redundant, but, you take out language cortex and you can make somebody completely lose their ability to speak, for example.<br />
<br />
B: It'd be like a stroke, Jay. It'd be like a stroke.<br />
<br />
J: But even a piece that small? <br />
<br />
S: If it's critical, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So there is one place in your brain that a certain type of functionality is happening and there's parts of your brains which is just storage for memory, there's parts of your brain that is doing something like processing what you see or what you hear. So you're better off losing a little portion of your memory than you are like a major piece of functionality, of course, but, I thought it was more evenly distributed.<br />
<br />
S: No. No no. It's not and it's also&ndash;memory's pretty evenly distributed but functions are localized and there's also&ndash;it's not just how localized it is it's how redundant it is. If something's really lateralized to one side you only have one piece of your brain that's doing that thing then you don't want to lose that. If you have bilateral redundancy then obviously you can afford to lose one cause the other side will make up for it. So, yeah, it depends on a lot of things. Interestingly, when reading through science news items this week&ndash;just this week was a study published by Swedish researchers from the University of Gothenburg and they were looking at astrocytes, which are a form of glial cells, and their effects on neuronal connections and function and essentially what they found is that the astrocytes are modulating the strength of the signalling between the neurons. Now, they basically are effecting how those synapses between neurons change over time. So what that means is is that the astrocytes might actually be directly involved in the formation of memories and plasticity of the brain and learning. Which, again, is just further evidence for their greatly enhanced role in actual memory function of the brain, not just, again, as support cells. So that research is ongoing and that was a huge shift in our thinking about the role of astrocytes.<br />
<br />
=== Largest Radio Telescope Array <small>(27:49)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.86c1ac9d54a51fd47b845663527a077d.1191&show_article=1 --><br />
<br />
S: Well lets go on. We have another bit of astronomy news, Bob, you're going to tell us about the largest radio telescope ever.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. This one's a quickie. This is the biggest radio telescope in the world and it was recently unveiled by scientists in the Netherlands. It's called LOFAR which stands Low Frequency Array. I think we touched upon this a while back. It consists of a whopping 25,000 small antennas and they're real tiny. They range in size from 50 centimeters to about 2 meters across. So they're not very big at all. And they're all spread out all over, not only the Netherlands, but also Germany, Sweden, France and Britain. And it's pretty cool. This thing is really going to do some amazing work I predict. Femke Beckhurst of the Netherlands Radio Astronomy Institute said, "Today we have launched the biggest radio telescope in the world. When you combine all the antennas you get a giant telescope with a diameter of about 1,000 kilometers," which is about 600 miles so that's pretty big. And it takes some nifty software to actually take all those separate signals and stitch them together. They're actually using a supercomputer to do some of that work. It's the Blue Gene P supercomputer which is a petaflop class supercomputer. So it's pretty fast. So with these observations that this radio telescope, or, I guess you can call it radio telescopes&ndash;So, the observations that they're going to be able to make with this&ndash;they're going to learn about the origin of the universe and some people are saying that they'll be able to go to the moment right after the big bang. Other&ndash;some other key science projects for LOFAR are what they call the epoch of re-ionization which is basically when the universe turned on. When things became. Also, things like ultra high energy cosmic rays which are a bit of a mystery, such as the one we mentioned&ndash;we mentioned one such cosmic ray a while back called the Oh My God Particle in 1991 which is probably the most energetic cosmic ray ever detected which was so powerful&ndash;imagine it was a subatomic particle with the energy of a baseball travelling at 60 miles an hour. Imagine, you get hit with one proton and it knocks you on your butt like it was a baseball travelling 60. So, amazingly fast. We're not sure what could have imparted so much energy to such a tiny thing. It was travelling so close to the speed of light it was essentially just a whisker&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But to clarify, it wouldn't really knock you on your butt, right? It would just go right through you.<br />
<br />
B: No. It's too tiny. Right. It is too tiny and it could do some damage, though, if it happened to hit the right, whatever in your body, DNA or something.<br />
<br />
E: Well, what if it hit a computer or something? It would really screw that up.<br />
<br />
B: That's a lot of kinetic energy. I don't know where&ndash;how all the kinetic energy would be transferred. Would it be transferred into heat. Would it fly right through? Probably&ndash;it might just fly right through.<br />
<br />
S: Or maybe it will smash through several particles on its way.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. It might hit&ndash;if hit's something squarely it could start a cascade so I think if it's just right it could actually&ndash;it could be noticeable. But there's other things&ndash;the solar science and space weather, cosmic magnetism, so I'm sure this thing is going to be used for a really long time and hopefully maybe even get even bigger.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob, what's the difference between the moment of the Big Bang and the moment of first illuminosity, I think is the word you used?<br />
<br />
B: Well, I believe it was 100,000 years or 1,000 years, it was a lot of time before things calmed down enough. Things were just so energetic that light&ndash;any photons that might have been generated were just bouncing around all over the place and they really couldn't settle down and just take a straight line any direction so there's nothing to see if you look back in visible light there's nothing to see cause all the photons are just kinda bouncing around. But also this epoch of re-ionization&ndash;that's kind of a different term than I'm used to. They refer to it as when things became luminous so I think it depends on&ndash;are they talking about the first stars, the first galaxies, the first quasars?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
B: If that's what they're talking about then that would actually be after what I'm talking&ndash;what I've just mentioned which is also called photon decoupling. So actually this epoch is a little bit different. I think it's later on.<br />
<br />
E: It's just amazing that they can make that distinction or make the determination that so much&ndash;however much time it is happened between the two.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: You think of the Big Bang&ndash;certainly in a visual display you're watching some show on TV that kinda of describes it and it's an intense white spot of light from the get go. At least that's how the depict it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But they always give you the impossible perspective of being outside the universe when the Big Bang happens.<br />
<br />
B: Space time, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But that's not a possible perspective. So it's kind of misleading.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A little.<br />
<br />
S: And a lot of that is&ndash;evidence is theoretical. They're just well what should have happened if you have the mass of the universe at a point and then what would happen over time? Based upon the temperatures and what things are like at those temperatures. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: But maybe this large radio telescope will help fill in those gaps.<br />
<br />
B: Some of them.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully.<br />
<br />
B: If it can actually get close to the moment after the Big Bang then absolutely it will be able to do&ndash;it will illuminate us in many ways.<br />
<br />
E: Very cool.<br />
<br />
J: I still don't get the concept that when the Big Bang took place&ndash;like, where it was specially in reality. You can't go to that space&ndash;that place in outer space because it doesn't really&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Sure you can. Wherever you go, there you are.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, geez. Really, Bob?<br />
<br />
E: It happened everywhere&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: It's true. It's true. It's everywhere. You can't point to it because it's not one specific spot. It's everywhere.<br />
<br />
J: Well, it didn't happen right here.<br />
<br />
E: It might have.<br />
<br />
S: Every part of the universe was at that point, Jay, at that time.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, so, meaning that the universe is growing in size.<br />
<br />
S: Of course. But it's like&ndash;if you do the two dimensional analogy, it's like blowing up a balloon. Where was it before you blew it up? Well it's&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: How&ndash;right. Try to explaining to a two dimensional creature on that balloon where&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: It was in the package.<br />
<br />
J: where the center is.<br />
<br />
S: You'd have to point into the 4th dimension.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
J: I can't picture it.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Amityville Horror House for Sale <small>(34:11)</small>===<br />
[http://www.theness.com/roguesgallery/?p=1676 Rogue's Gallery: Amityville Horror House for Sale]<br />
<br />
S: So, the Amityville Horror House is back in the news.<br />
<br />
E: And it's back in the news because its up for sale.<br />
<br />
S: Sale. That's right. For what? 1.5 million?<br />
<br />
E: 1.15 million dollars.<br />
<br />
B: In this market?<br />
<br />
J: I know. Isn't that crazy?<br />
<br />
S: You can own a piece of paranormal history.<br />
<br />
B: But, is that price kind of crazy for the neighborhood because the house is famous?<br />
<br />
E: I don't know. I imagine that has something to do with it. They said they'd done a lot of renovations recently on the house. So&mdash;Look, I imagine the main factor, like any other piece of property is&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Location.<br />
<br />
E: comparable&mdash;yeah, location and comparable houses for sale in the area.<br />
<br />
S: But here's my question. Now, typically, if a house is alleged to be haunted or if a murder took place there it's considered psychologically damaged and that actually reduces the value of the house. But in this case it's famous for being psychologically damaged, so does that increase the value of the house?<br />
<br />
E: Or do the two equal each other out?<br />
<br />
S: The balance out?<br />
<br />
E: The negative and positive balance out.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So, there were a series of murders there in 1974. Ronald DeFeo Sr., his wife, Louise, their two sons and two daughters were shot while they slept in the home and the one remaining family member alive, Ronald, nicknamed Butch DeFeo, he confessed to the murders and is serving a life sentence in prison. And then just a few weeks after the sentencing of Butch, George and Kathy Lutz and their three children moved into the home where a new round of supposed horrors began. Muwahaha. Well, not really.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about them.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, there was supposedly all sorts of things happening in this house. They reported sightings of&mdash;well, the kids reported sightings of animals, mostly a pig named Jody. A sculpted lion came to life and supposedly walked around the house.<br />
<br />
S: Cool.<br />
<br />
E: A demonic boy appeared. It was photographed and you can find that famous photograph online. Kind of looks like a regular boy but that's beside the point. And other strange things in the house. Oh, green slime oozed from the walls. Crucifix on the wall was constantly rotating until it left itself upside down and, needless to say, 28 days after they moved in&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: 28 days later.<br />
<br />
E: 28 days later. Good one Steve. The Lutz's fled.<br />
<br />
S: What about the&mdash;you forgot about the hell-mouth. It's a gaping mouth to hell in their basement.<br />
<br />
J: Wait. Wasn't that in Poltergeist.<br />
<br />
E: That was another movie, I think.<br />
<br />
B: No. No no no. <br />
<br />
E: You're right, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: It's the red room.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It was a red room, which in the movie they kind of made it seem like it was the road to hell or something.<br />
<br />
E: Now there was one small problem with all of these paranormal happenings. They never really happened. It was a story&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: It was fake.<br />
<br />
E: The whole thing was fake. However, that didn't stop famous demonologist and psychic investigator&mdash;paranormal investigator Ed Warren and his wife Loraine from investigating the matter and deeming that house to be one of the most haunted places in the world.<br />
<br />
S: Right. Right after their basement.<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Their basement in Monroe, Connecticut #1, Aminityville #2.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Right. It was fake. And now it's up for sale.<br />
<br />
E: It is. So&mdash;if you've got dollars burning a whole in your pocket&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: You might want to go get a piece of history.<br />
<br />
S: The people who bought the house after the Lutz's complained that they had to deal with the paranormal tourists bothering them day in and day out. Gawking at the house and everything. So&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So much so that they had to change the address of the house.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So it really was psychologically damaged for them, cause it came with all the tourists.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm looking at a picture of the demon boy.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: It's a little boy.<br />
<br />
S: With no eyes.<br />
<br />
J: Well, the eyes are whited out so it looks kind of creepy. Photo could have been doctored.<br />
<br />
E: Could have been a dozen things, right, other than a demonic boy from hell.<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:46)</small>==<br />
S: Well, thanks for that, Evan, and why don't we go on to Who's That Noisy?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. For those of you who forgot here is last week's Who's that Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: And then I began to study back&mdash;the relationships between the elements for plants and they are different as the elements for humans. Because Cali and Forswore are actually the friends of each other in the homeopathic material magica for humans, but in plants these two substances are each other's enemy.</blockquote><!-- The Cali and Forswore are just going phonetically. I couldn't understand what he said. --><br />
<br />
S: Mm hmm.<br />
<br />
E: Mm hmm. So, you learned a little bit about homeopathy in that clip.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Two substances&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or not.<br />
<br />
S: Two substances which are enemies in plants are friends in people. Or animals.<br />
<br />
E: Bet you didn't know that before.<br />
<br />
J: So who is that guy?<br />
<br />
E: That is V. D. Kaviraj. A homeopath of some repute and the reason I actually found this person is because I was watching a Youtube video of our&mdash;well, friend, Mr. Benneth&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Who had this fellow as part of an interview so I thought that would make a rather interesting Noisy, last week.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And, not only did someone get it correctly but they actually also went ahead and found the clip from which I clipped it so if you go onto our message boards and [[SGU_Episode 256 | Episode 256]] you can actually take a look and listen for yourself to the entire interview and bring some coffee cause you with otherwise fall asleep.<br />
<br />
S: You don't want your brain to explode. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Exactly. So, NoWoo, en-oh-double you-oh-oh, from the message boards guessed correctly. Congratulations. Well done.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. What have you got for this week, Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. And here is this weeks Who's That Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: Does the shade<!-- what? --> give you the authority you need to take dangerous products off the shelves? And the answers always yes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
E: That's a short one this week.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Thanks Evan.<br />
<br />
E: But I think there's enough information in there for someone to get it. So, be the first one to guess correctly. Good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Ev.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Soy <small>(41:02)</small>===<br />
S: We have time for a few e-mails this week. The first one comes from Michael Wilson from Prescott, Arizona and Michael writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Steve - You made the offhand comment that there are "serious concerns" that soy milk is producing an estrogen type hormonal effect. I am a vegan bodybuilder who drinks a quart of soy milk everyday. I am concerned your offhand comment will scare people away from switching to a healthier milk alternative with no saturated fat. I've looked in the past when people have made these claims, and all I can find is that there may be some very mild effect, but nothing that rises to the level of your "serious concern" comment. If there was, there would be serious estrogen related issues throughout Asian countries. Since you felt it necessary to scare people away from soy by telling them about the "serious concerns" science has with soy milk, I hope you will provide the research on you next show that proves soy milk causes serious estrogen like effects. I do love the show, and I thank everyone for the time and effort you guys put into it every week. Michael Wilson Prescott, AZ</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So, Michael's referring to two weeks ago when we had Pamela Gay and Frazier Cane on when&mdash;I can't remember what we were talking about but the notion of estro&mdash;the notion of&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Pamela said she drink soy milk and then we got onto the discussion.<br />
<br />
S: She drinks soy milk. Yeah, so I was razzing her a little bit about the fact that not everything is perfectly safe. You could find concerns about anything and in fact there are concerns about the estrogen like effects of soy milk. But it was an off hand comment, but I do think it's good for follow up to see what the evidence actually shows. The concerns are raised by the fact that soy contains isoflavones which have an estrogen effect. It's hormonally active and therefor that creates that plausibility that it could have some actual clinical effects in people and there are various populations in which it has been studied. So, one group are women who&mdash;are women in general, especially women who have had breast cancer. The question is do the estrogens increase the risk of breast cancer or if you have breast cancer does it worsen the outcome. The answer to that question appears to be no. So the evidence so far is pretty solid that there's no negative effect for women with breast cancer. In fact one review I read said that there may in fact be a small beneficial effect because it may competitively block the effects of women who have high estrogen levels. So there it's either no effect or maybe a small beneficial effect in a subset of women. The bigger concerns are with men, though, because obviously estrogen is a feminizing hormone and the question is does&mdash;do the estrogen effects of isoflavones in soy milk have a feminizing effect on men? So far the research does not show any such effect. What about the reproductive effects on men? Here, we have animal data which shows that there is a negative effect. This is where the biggest concerns are. And these concerns are that we haven't done enough research to really know what the net effects are in people. So we have animal data that shows some concern but not really sufficient human data to rule out that there may be a negative effect on the reproduction of men. The final group are infants, especially since there is a soy based infant formulas. And here there were several reviews in the last couple of years. Some saying there's really no proven effect. Other reviewers saying that, again, there is concern that there maybe some hormonal effects on infants and that&mdash;and essentially where the reviewers agree is that the research is not adequate to rule out a significant effect. Therefor if you want to be cautious you may avoid using soy based infant formulas until more research is done to show that there isn't any significant effect. Estrogen like effect. So that's where we are. I do think it's fair to say that there are concerns. Nothing is proven. And while some of those concerns have been ruled out by research there are others, specifically reproduction in men and in infants where we don't have enough research to really say that they're safe. My take is that it's probably a very weak effect. I would be surprised if the research ultimately showed that there was a strong effect, but those are the areas where the research is not yet sufficient to confidently say that there isn't a potential effect.<br />
<br />
B: But also&mdash;but this guy, Steve, if you're&mdash;if you're not an infant and you're beyond&mdash;you've already had your kids and you're done with kids, then it would be even less of a concern?<br />
<br />
S: That's right. And if you're a woman, there's basically no concern.<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Cursed Cell Phone Number <small>(45:50)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>The cursed cell phone number Thought you guys might like this story of truly stupid superstitious thinking that misses the glaringly obvious. <br />
<br><br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7763578/Mobile-phone-number-suspended-after-three-users-die-in-10-years.html Telegraph: Mobile phone number suspended after three users die in 10 years]<br />
<br>Danforth France Glendale, CA</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Jay, you're gonna tell us about the cursed cell phone number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. This is really silly to be honest with you.<br />
<br />
B: It's silly.<br />
<br />
E: Silly.<br />
<br />
J: It's just one of those story where there's a string of coincidences that could make certain people think certain things but, basically there was a phone number that was given out. And I don't know if this is the real number but it seems like it isn't because it's a seri&mdash;it's 0-888-888-888&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: So, that's the number. I mean, my understanding from reading is that's the number that they suspended.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. Could be. Now, isn't the number 8 unlucky somewhere?<br />
<br />
B: No. It's lucky in Asian cultures. Isn't 8&mdash;8 is lucky, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: 4 is unlucky.<br />
<br />
S: 4 is unlucky cause it sounds like death.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: 4 is unlucky. 8 is&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So, here's the quick one two. The first person who got it, he was the former CEO of a Bulgarian mobile phone company. His company issued him the number.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: He died of cancer in 2001 at 48 years old. After he died some rumors came out that his cancer had been caused by a business rival using radioactive poisoning. I find that unlikely, but, okay. Take that away. Let's just say that guy died. It's horrible. Died of cancer in 2001. 48 years old. That was horrible. The second that got the number was a Bulgarian mafia boss. There's a couple of things that mafia bosses do really well. They kill, and then they get killed.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
J: Right? So this guy was gunned down in 2003 by an assassin.<br />
<br />
B: What are the odds?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: A mafia killing? What?<br />
<br />
J: Then the number went to another guy who was described as a crooked business man and he was gunned down outside of an Indian restaurant in Bulgaria. So since then the number was retired because the police are investigating and all this stuff, but, there's the idea that the number is cursed or unlucky&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Or jinxed.<br />
<br />
E: It's your unlucky number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's been&mdash;the number has been touched by evil and anyone who gets it is gonna get killed. So I'm thinking&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Anyone mob related who touches it will get killed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's pretty clear to see&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or crime related.<br />
<br />
J: through this. It's not that big of a coincidence that a bunch of people that were involved in very dangerous and crazy criminal activity are getting killed. <br />
<br />
B: But if a number becomes available&mdash;is it more likely that the number became available because somebody dumped the number or because somebody died? Because I'm never gonna want to lose my number today.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I don't know. Now that people have personal phone numbers. Yeah. Probably people hold on to them for life. Even if you change carrier, right? You can take your number to another carrier.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Now you can. I don't know if you could in early 2000&mdash;2003. I don't know if you could during that time period. So, anyway, the reason why we bring up this story was not just because somebody wrote in about it but we thought it was a quick and easy example of a series of events strung together to make a story where there really isn't a story or a connection.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. There's a few ways you can look at this. One is it's not that big a coincidence that 3 people with the same number die in the short period of time. Just taking the number of phone numbers out there, I'm sure that happens a lot just by coincidence. Right? I mean it would be surprising if that never happened. This is a little different because these people were high profile and the number's unusual. It's&mdash;you could of it as a very desirable number because it's all 8's. It's the kind of number you get if you work for the phone company like the CEO or you're a mob boss, I guess. Right? They're not going to give it to just some guy. And these&mdash;two of these three people were at high risk for dying so that makes it even less of a coincidence that this kind of number is going to go to the kind of people who may be in risky businesses. But then you also think of it from the phone companies point of view. Obviously the notion that the number itself is jinxed is magical thinking and it's ridiculous but from a business marketing point of view, do they want to hand this number over to somebody else and then what if something happens to that person or even&mdash;they may just get upset if they find out that the phone company assigned them a quote unquote "jinxed" number. You know what I mean? Probably just fewer headaches for the phone company if they just get rid of it, even for a while. You know what I mean? You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. It's a numbers racket.<br />
<br />
J: That's a good job, boys. It's good work, boys.<br />
<br />
=== Magic Bee Juice <small>(50:27)</small>===<br />
S: The next one comes from David Gardner from Osaka, Japan. And David writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>One of the branches of the company I work for in Japan has started selling Propolis as a means to make more money in a bad economy. This branch has repeatedly tried to get me to buy some of this magic bee juice. Many of my Japanese co-workers have taken the bait. They are putting bee juice in their drinks and swallowing magic bee juice pills. When I ask them if they feel any better, they all say they aren’t sure. Hmm… I think the company I work for has a snake oill division. Do you know of any scientific evidence that shows any benefit to taking Propolis? All the information I found say that Propolis may contain lead and other garbage bees pick up while flying around the city. Thank you for your time. David Gardner Osaka, Japan </blockquote><!-- shouldn't we fix the "aren't" that's all messed up? --><br />
<br />
S: Well, do you guys now what Propolis is?<br />
<br />
B: Nope.<br />
<br />
J: No.<br />
<br />
E: It's the star in the sky that doesn't rotate.<br />
<br />
S: It's magic bee juice. This is&mdash;So, bees make a variety of things. This is the gooey, sticky stuff that bees use to hold together their nests. They largely pick it up&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Oh. The honey comb?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so, yeah. But it's not just wax. I guess this is even stronger structural stuff that they use&mdash;it's like the glue that they use to hold it together and its&mdash;they'll pick up the sap from coniferous trees. Resins. It sounds nasty. It doesn't sound like the kind of stuff you would want to eat. I mean the bees don't eat it. It contains phenolics, aromatic compounds, volatile oils and terpenes. But even worse that that, as the bees fly around our modern society they're not just picking up resins from pine trees. They're also picking up lead paint. They're picking up caulking.<br />
<br />
B: Yum.<br />
<br />
S: They're picking up road tar and other things.<br />
<br />
E: Fecal material.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. They're picking up all kinds of nasty stuff and mixing it all together with these resins and terpenes and they're using that to glue together their nests and then&mdash;and idiots are taking that stuff and eating it.<br />
<br />
E: Now, when you say idiot&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: It's glue like?<br />
<br />
S: It's sticky. If you get the sap off a pine tree&mdash;it's like that.<br />
<br />
E: That's awful.<br />
<br />
S: Now, of course, it contains a lot of chemicals, right? As you might imagine&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: It's all natural.<br />
<br />
S: Sure. And if you look at those chemicals those chemicals do stuff. The body's going to react to those chemicals. Actually, probably the most common reaction is an allergic dermatitis and when I looked up Propolis on PubMed most of the specific references to it and people were to&mdash;this allergic dermatitis.<br />
<br />
E: Is this the same allergic reaction people have when they get a bee sting?<br />
<br />
S: No. No. It's different. This is more just a contact dermatitis. The skin gets red and bee stings can have more of a systemic reaction. That's where it becomes a problem, as opposed to just a rash. So, there's no research in humans showing any beneficial effects. It's all extrapolating wildly from just nonspecific&mdash;or just reactions that happen to some chemical that you can find in this stuff. There some animal data that it does stuff, but there's nothing that really can be used to base any kind of medicinal claims. So this really is snake oil. And apparently it's been around for hundreds of years. This is nothing new. It's just an idea that crops up every now and then.<br />
<br />
E: Here. Eat this bee waste byproduct.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's bee waste. It is bee waste.<br />
<br />
E: Bee waste.<br />
<br />
S: Pretty much everything that bees make somebody has decided to sell as snake oil. Pollen, royal jelly, and even bee venom. You guys have heard&mdash;I've talked about bee venom therapy.<br />
<br />
E: Bee venom therapy, sure.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. For, multiple sclerosis and arthritis and things like that. Pretty much everything. The only thing that bees make that has real medicinal value is honey and only if you put it topically on your wound.<br />
<br />
E: Or on toast.<br />
<br />
J: I love honey.<br />
<br />
E: I love you too, honey.<br />
<br />
B: Never spoils.<br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Personality Tests <small>(54:41)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Steve, I'm trying to figure out the difference between the Incorrect Cause fallacy and the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy? Skepticwiki is telling me that Post Hoc is a type of Incorrect Cause Fallacy, but I'm just not getting the difference. They seem to be one and the same. Any help would be appreciated. I'm trying to complete a 5x5 recording we did a few months ago and I'm recording a missing part which was about the "Incorrect Cause" fallacy. The topic of the 5x5 was Chemtrails and it seems to me that the Post Hoc fallacy would work better here. Mike Lacelle Canada </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:07)</small> ==<br />
<br />
*[http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:14:40)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.</blockquote> <!-- the quote as read by Jay was different, should see if we can find a source to find the real quote --><br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS Con <small>(1:18:11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro119}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_257&diff=5583SGU Episode 2572013-01-25T00:08:10Z<p>Geneocide: /* Cursed Cell Phone Number (45:50) */ transcribed</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all |transcriber = Geneocide }}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 257<br />
|episodeDate = 14<sup>th</sup> June 2010<br />
|episodeIcon = File:amityvilledemoboy.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-06-14.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=257<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,28802.0.html<br />
|qowText = Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Monday, June 14<sup>th</sup>, 2010 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey everyone. How are you doing tonight?<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: Quite well.<br />
<br />
E: Good.<br />
<br />
S: No Rebecca tonight because we are on the lead up to TAM recording schedule. We going to have a little bit of a weird recording schedule the next few weeks and Rebecca was not available tonight and she has no internet access.<br />
<br />
J: That's because her and Sid bought a house.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: She hasn't been able to get internet and cable, I guess, to the house yet.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. But it's a big secret. Don't tell anyone, folks.<br />
<br />
S: They're moving into a new flat. Is it still a flat if it's a house?<br />
<br />
B: No. Wait wait, no, a flat's an apartment, isn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Are they moving into a house house, or is it like a condo or what is it?<br />
<br />
J: I think it's a house house.<br />
<br />
S: But no cable yet.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, if she has a house, that means she has a basement which means she could run a haunt in her house.<br />
<br />
B: Not necessarily. Florida houses don't have basements but that's because of the water table.<br />
<br />
J: Well, no. If she's in England she has a root cellar.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: Which is even creepier.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:19)</small> ==<br />
E: Well, on this day in 1648 Margaret Jones was hanged in Boston for witchcraft. The first such execution for the Massachusetts colony.<br />
<br />
S: How many people were killed?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they didn't stop with Margaret. It was 20 people.<br />
<br />
S: Were executed.<br />
<br />
E: We executed for witchcraft.<br />
<br />
J: Wow. And we got off lucky. Didn't&ndash;in Europe wasn't it a much bigger phenomenon in Europe?<br />
<br />
S: A conservative number is around 60,000 deaths directly attributable to the witch hunts.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Depending on how you count it. There were 20 people executed in Salem. 19 hung and that one guy, Giles Corey was crushed to death cause he refused to enter a plea.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Hayabusa Returns <small>(2:02)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100613/ts_afp/spacejapanaustraliaasteroidsreturn_20100613204620 <br />
<br />
possible replacement: [http://www.space.com/8592-japanese-asteroid-probe-historic-return-earth.html Space.com: Japanese Asteroid Probe Makes Historic Return to Earth]<br />
--><br />
S: Well Bob, tell us about Hayabusa returning to Earth.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this is pretty cool. I totally forgot about this guy but this is an interesting story. The Japanese space agency known as JAXA, Jay-Ay-Ex-Ay, completed a mission recently to bring a sample of an asteroid back to Earth. This is something that's never been accomplished before and regardless of what happens there has never been a spacecraft that touched down on an asteroid and then came back to Earth. So regardless if they even brought anything back with them this was a first. Like I said, the only real question that remains as of the taping of this podcast anyway is whether the canister they retrieved in Australia has any asteroid. If you remember back in 2003, JAXA's Hayabusa craft began a 2 year journey to an asteroid named Itokawa and I wish I could say the mission went swimmingly but I can't. The craft really experienced some nasty technical difficulties. It seems likes throughout the whole way, or at least through a lot of it. They just kept hitting problem after problem. They even had some&ndash;some solar flair even messed up with it's power source so the energy that it had was less than they had anticipated and some of the biggest failures, though, was they had this metal ball that they would shoot&ndash;or they planned on shooting at the asteroid to collect rock samples and that failed. And then there was another mechanism, which they were planning on using to stir up the dust around the lander on the asteroid and that failed as well to collect any samples. So you might think that it was a total bust but the real hope at this point is that they hope that the dust that stirred up during the landing kind of just was swirling around and entered the canister&ndash;the collection canister so that's really all their hope is on that.<br />
<br />
S: So they really don't know if there's going to be anything in that canister. <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, they have no idea at this point. It doesn't look good to me.<br />
<br />
J: Is it on it's way back to Earth or it can analyze it.<br />
<br />
B: It came back to Earth. The craft burned up in the atmosphere but it ejected this heat protected canister which landed at the Woomera Protected Area which is a restricted military zone in south Australian desert. Now some conspiracy hypothesists may say that in reality this whole 7 year mission was a subtle attempt to get access to this restricted military zone. But, ya know, I'm just saying.<br />
<br />
J: Look at that. It landed in Area 51. Could we go get it?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Yeah.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: But, being silly, but I want to congratulate JAXA, though. Even if there's no sample which would really be nasty, but even if there's no sample, it was a great effort that tested lots of new technologies, like, for example, sampling and retrieval, electrical propulsion, autonomous navigation. So lots of interesting new technologies and this really was a test bed. Problems like this are to be expected.<br />
<br />
J: At this point any kind of space exploration is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: In the time when we're worried that it's all gonna go away and dry up&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm really happy to hear about stuff like this.<br />
<br />
B: That's true. But you really got to hand it to JAXA, though, because they relentlessly attacked every difficulty that arose creatively solving problems, and according to some people it was Apollo 13 in scale in terms of how difficult these problems were.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: But granted, lives were not on the line, but still they had to go through a lot. On the way home they lost half of their engines kicked out and they had to figure out how to get home with only half the engines running so they did an amazing job.<br />
<br />
J: I don't like you comparing it to Apollo 13 because it being unmanned is one thing and the other thing was they got those people back to Earth safely with an enormous amount of effort. Nothing can match that.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I'm not comparing it and I did kind of say that not in terms of the lives but in terms of creative problem solving it was similar. Some people are comparing it.<br />
<br />
J: Well, if they make a movie about it I might believe it then.<br />
<br />
S: Cause it's not real unless Hollywood does a movie about it.<br />
<br />
B: As you can imagine this is a huge, huge news story in Japan. They're really playing it up. It's all over the place, cause this is&ndash;it's quite a feat. Regardless of what happens this is a first, so that's great. If they have a sample, even better, cause you learn lots of things about the solar system&ndash;because we don't have&ndash;think about it&ndash;the material we have from asteroids really is just meteorites, right, that have landed on the earth and they've gone through the atmosphere. They're not the same.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When you come through the atmosphere&ndash;they're not the same.<br />
<br />
E: Burn, yeah. Stuff burns away and, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: This will be pristine. This will be pristine rock and that will be invaluable.<br />
<br />
J: Do you guys think that one day we will park satellites in orbit and just mine them?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah. Mine asteroids?<br />
<br />
E: You mean bring them into a close orbit and then we send up vehicles and stuff to start plowing them for their platinum and all they're goodies?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. And how about&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
J: One thing that I remember thinking about when I was younger, why not put it in the same orbit that the earth is in, but just behind the earth. Would that mean that it would have to be the same size as the earth, though, in order to be in the same orbit?<br />
<br />
B: The velocity would be very different then. It couldn't have the same velocity because the mass would be so different, so, at some point, it would intersect with the earth. So I don't think that would work, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: You would need something to constantly regulate it's distance from the earth, right?<br />
<br />
S: You put it at a Lagrange point and it will sit there.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There ya go. Problem solved.<br />
<br />
S: A Lagrange point is a&ndash;if you have a map, a three dimensional map of the gravitational fields of the earth and the sun, for example, or any large body orbiting another large body, then those fields hit a pit, or they dip to a minimum. So anything that is at those points it's like being at the bottom of a hill, it's stuck there and it won't move away so it's actually fixed in position relative to the earth. So it would be perfect for something that we want to put someplace and have it stay there in terms of it's relationship to the earth.<br />
<br />
J: It's kind of like drafting, right?<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Come on, a little bit.<br />
<br />
S: But to complete that discussion there are a total of 5 Lagrangian points. One in the orbit of, lets say the earth, in front of it. One behind the earth in it's orbit. One on the opposite side of Earth's orbit. One between the earth and the sun and one outside the orbit on a line between the earth and the sun but farther than the earth. So five points total. A few of which would be pretty close. But also, there are asteroids that are said to quote unquote "stalk" the earth. For example, recently discovered the 2009 BD. It's not stationary with respect to the earth but it does&ndash;cause it interacts with the earth's gravity and it's not at a Lagrangian point, but it does get close to the earth and will sort of corkscrew around the earth's orbit and stay very close to use for a while and then maybe drift away and come back in it's orbit. It's got a very weird orbit but it does stay close to the earth.<br />
<br />
=== Einstein's Brain <small>(9:22)</small>===<br />
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305&ps=cprs NPR: Einstein's Brain Unlocks Some Mysteries Of The Mind]<br />
<br />
S: Jay, tell us about the amazing adventure of Einstein's brain.<br />
<br />
J: So this is a very interesting story. Before I get into the story let me just ask you guys a few questions. One, what makes you think Einstein was so smart? What was it about his brain that makes him smart? Some things that I'm sure most skeptics have heard was that, "Einstein used 10% of his brain where the regular person only uses 2 or 2.5%." You guys have heard of that, right?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, course.<br />
<br />
E: Or something similar to it, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's only be debunked about a million times on the internet and elsewhere, I believe, in our publication.<br />
<br />
E: Of course. That's what my phrenologist says.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: Here's one that is less common, but I've also heard and I believe I also used to think about this when I was younger and not knowing much about the brain but another thing that people think is that Einstein's brain had more hills and valleys on the exterior part of his brain.<br />
<br />
S: Sulci and gyri?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. So, that's basically the shape of the brain on the outside that makes it look like a brain. All those hills and valleys and little bumps and stuff that are on the outside of somebodies brain.<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: But, Steve, you said at one point that that does not mean you're smarter, correct?<br />
<br />
S: Well, not comparing one individual to another. There's too much variation to say that but that certainly is true when you compare species. The&ndash;what those do&ndash;what the gyri and sulci do&ndash;if you imagine the layers of the cortex and then fold it upon themselves like a ribbon that's what forms that structure and what the essentially does is it increases the surface area of the brain. So it's just a way of squeezing more computational surface area into a smaller three dimensional space which was obviously important to the evolution of our bigger, juicier brains. But you can't compare person A to person B and go, "Oh, he's got to be smarter because his brain looks smarter on an MRI scan. He's got more sulci." Doesn't work that way.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, why not also fill in the valleys between the hills? Between the gyri or the sulci or whatever they are?<br />
<br />
S: They're squished together. It's not significant.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
S: I mean, when you get old and your brain shrivels up and atrophies then you see expanded sulci and spaces but&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Your brain really shrivels up, huh?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, doesn't that suck?<br />
<br />
J: What the hell?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but Steve, I thought the idea, though, behind that was that they're not sure if the brain is really truly atrophying really, hugely, impacting cognition or is it just paring away the unessential parts of the brain that really aren't needed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, like motor skills and deep thinking.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: Barring, of course, dementia. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right Bob?<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's a complicated question. First of all those are not mutually exclusive cause both those things could be occurring at the same time. The pruning hypothesis where it's just cutting back neurons were sitting there waiting to be recruited but they haven't been, so they just go away at some point, but even still you imagine that there's fewer neurons around to be recruited so&ndash;after 50 or so we do start to lose our capacity to learn new things. We lose our flexibility. At least most of us. Some people really don't and they're brains don't atrophy as much, either.<br />
<br />
J: Bastards.<br />
<br />
S: So, some people genetically are built for more neurological longevity. But, yeah, you can't&ndash;I don't think it's accurate to say that there's no relationship between the atrophy of the brain as we age and the loss of cognitive ability. There absolutely is a relationship but it's complicated and we're not sure exactly what it is.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, it's not a black and white issue. It's more of a grey matter.<br />
<br />
B: Oh.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, wow, Evan, really?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright, so guys, let me continue. It's basically a story that I'm going to quickly tell everyone and then we'll discuss it.<br />
<br />
B: Alright.<br />
<br />
E: I love stories. Okay. I'm ready.<br />
<br />
J: So this man, named Thomas Harvey&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
E: Harvey.<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
J: and he&ndash;he actually performed the autopsy on Einstein at Princeton. Now this back in&ndash;Now this was when, '55 I believe Einstein died?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, around there.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. So, this is what the article said. The article said that during the autopsy routine the brain would be removed, examined, and then put back in the person's body for burial. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Which, by the way&ndash;we don't do that today. I don't know&ndash;that sounds odd. We don't put the brain back in the head. You take it out, you put it in a jar of formaldehyde and pickle it for 2 weeks, so that you can slice it up and look at it. Cause otherwise it's too much like jelly. You can't really slice into it. So that bit of that story certainly is not what's done today.<br />
<br />
J: Well maybe he took it out&ndash;cause it did say that he did put it in formaldehyde&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Well that's routine. That's routine.<br />
<br />
J: He was preparing it. He kept it out for the amount of time necessary and then instead of putting it back after the examination of the brain he kept it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, I think probably what happened is normally you would take it out, you pickle it for 2 weeks then you do what's called brain cutting. You slice it all the way through and you look for pathology and you look for the structures and whatnot and that's it. Then slides get filed away and the rest of it get thrown out, gets discarded as medical waste. Or, or, what can happen, sometimes the family may request that every last scrap of material gets returned and gets buried with the body.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. I'm sure that's&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: That happens sometimes, too. In fact, that happens even with&ndash;sometimes people will donate their body to science and their body will be dissected by medical students. Sometimes those bodies are just cremated. Other times everything's got to be put back&ndash;you don't put it back together but basically all bundled up and then sent back to the family to be buried or whatever they want to do with it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: That is a typical Jewish custom. I don't know how religious or close Einstein was to strict Jewish customs but I can tell you that that is Jewish customs. You bury as much of the remains as you possibly can.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So he probably&ndash;he held back the brain. He didn't do with it whatever was normally supposed to happen to it.<br />
<br />
J: No. He stole it. That's what happened.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. He stole it. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Brain thief.<br />
<br />
B: I'm going to donate my body to science fiction.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright. Continuing on&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: You stole that joke from somebody.<br />
<br />
J: So Thomas Harvey, because of what he did, because he kept Einstein's brain, he lost his job. Which seems to be the appropriate thing to take place.<br />
<br />
E: Bad trade.<br />
<br />
S: Cause that was unethical. What he did.<br />
<br />
J: And during that process he claimed that Einstein's son, Hans, gave him permission but that claim was denied by the family.<br />
<br />
S: What about Frans?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So, as I'm reading through this I realize, of course, hindsight being 20/20, I don't disagree with what the guy did. I think it was obvious to him at the time that there was something important about Einstein's brain and it should be studied further. Shouldn't just be thrown away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It kind of makes you wish that somebody at NASA thought that about the moon landing footage. <br />
<br />
B: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: "Ya know, I'm going to put this aside and not put it&ndash;file it with the rest of the tapes that are going to get erased and reused."<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Or, "Lets make a couple of backups, just in case. Or put it somewhere else. I don't know."<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Anyway.<br />
<br />
J: I've really gotta&ndash;let me sprint to the finish guys.<br />
<br />
B: Thanks for reminding me.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, go ahead.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. So I mentioned that I don't disagree. What Thomas Harvey wanted was he wanted neuro-anatomists to analyse Einstein's brain and see if they could find something out about it that we didn't know about the human brain before and that was his goal but as the story goes&ndash;so 40 years passes and then a writer named, Paterniti, he heard about all these events that we just went through and he decided that&ndash;I guess he wanted to write about what had taken place so he tracks down and finds Harvey. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Did he sue him?<br />
<br />
J: No. This guys an author.<br />
<br />
S: So he didn't give him a Paterniti suit?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god. You're on a roll tonight, Steve.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Any who, so, he tracks down Harvey, gets into a long conversation with him and, I guess, between the conversation and the two of them going back and forth they mutually decide the brain should be returned to Einstein's family and, I guess they new at the time that his granddaughter Evelyn was still alive so they wanted to return it to her. So Paterniti drives to Harvey's house, he described Harvey as bringing out Einstein's brain in a Tupperware jar. In a Tupperware container.<br />
<br />
E: Tupperware.<br />
<br />
J: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. That would seal in the freshness, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So the two of them planned to drive across the country from New Jersey all the way to California where the granddaughter lived. I guess they conversation had continued during this drive and Paterniti found out that Einstein had indeed&ndash;I'm sorry, that Harvey had indeed been sending out Einstein's brain when samples were requested he would take the samples and send them to neurologists across the globe. So, when saw the brain in the Tupperware container it had been cut up. It was sliced up. So, Harvey sent 3 different samples to a scientist named Marian Diamond and she had contacted Harvey years earlier and requested samples from 3 different parts of Einstein's brain and he did end up shipping them to her but he ended up shipping them to her in an old mayonnaise jar.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Okay? Not making this up.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: This was around 1980. She studied the samples. She found that Einstein's brain had normal amount of neurons but he had a higher than normal percentage of a different kind of brain cell and that cell was called a glial cell. That increase in glial cells was found especially in the parts of the brain that involved imagery and complex thinking, so that definitely made Diamond realize, "Well, this is very curious. Let me look into it." But first, Steve, why don't you tell us what a glial cell is.<br />
<br />
B: Support cells, aren't they?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's the other kinds of cells in the brain other than neurons and they are&ndash;yeah, for many years we thought they were basically support cells.<br />
<br />
B: Like structural cells.<br />
<br />
S: Not just structural but they create the friendly environment for the neurons. <br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right, they're there keeping the neurons alive and happy while the neurons are doing their job of remembering and calculating and stuff.<br />
<br />
B: Kind of like the Remora around sharks.<br />
<br />
S: I guess.<br />
<br />
J: So, at the time&ndash;<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Diamond was now asking questions like, "Well, why would there be more of these cells here if they're really just support cells? What's the significance of there being more of them here?" And it was a very odd idea at the time to think that glial cells had anything to do with Einstein's intelligence. Being that the cells were thought to be there for perhaps structural integrity perhaps there to just be, like Steve said, like more support cells than actual cells that were there for thinking. Alright, so now we go forward another 10 years and another researcher named Steven J. Smith published a paper that changed the perception of and understanding of the brain because what he did was&ndash;he was studying neurons and he was also studying these glial cells and he speculated that glial cells also were a part of the communication that happened within the cell and that also these cells weren't only communicating chemically but they were communicating with electricity in the manner that neurons communicate. And then he kept on fleshing out his idea and he also said that these glial cells could possibly be picking up communication between neurons&ndash;neurons are communicating with each other, glial cells would be listening in on this communication and then sending that data to other parts of the brain. So he came up with this idea that the brain&ndash;it's another way that the brain could be communicating internally. Which at the time was a profound idea. They though, at the time, that only neurons were doing the heavy lifting and that even though there was a ton of other cells in the brain that they didn't think really were doing anything. Neurons were it, but once they realized, "You know what? These glial cells might actually be doing complex things like be involved in learning and memory and ideas that we have of like what does it mean to be a genius. Glial cells might have something to do with high end thinking." So, once that started that started to really open up new ideas and that started a whole different school of thought. So then yet another scientist named, Doug Fields, he reproduced Smith's research and confirmed that it was actually valid. And, at one point, Doug Fields wrote, "Now we can see scores of ways in which astrocytes could be involved in many cognitive processes." And now it's not so crazy to find that there were abnormally high numbers of astrocytes in the parts of Einstein's brain involved in imagery and mathematical ability and that sort of thing. So, that was a pretty huge milestone and a huge leap forward in our understanding of the human brain. So in 2007, Harvey died. He really didn't know that him taking Einstein's brain, actually through these steps and through these different people actually lead to a move forward in our understanding of the riddle of the mind, but it seems that he actually did have something to do with it. And, Einstein's granddaughter didn't end up wanting her grandfather's brain so Harvey, before he died, he returned the brain back to the pathology department at Princeton, where it is today.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, can you only find out the number of astrocytes by cutting into a brain or is there a way to test it while you're still alive?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you can estimate it just by knowing what the density of astrocytes are and then calculating it by volume but if you want to look at an individuals astrocyte density, yeah, you gotta stain it. You gotta cut into it.<br />
<br />
J: So, Steve, could you just take a little&ndash;take a biopsy of somebody's brain and test it that way?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. You could.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think you could do&ndash;really?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Why not?<br />
<br />
E: Well, are you supposed to be biopsying the brain for this kind of testing purposes. It's really more for diseases.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you wouldn't do this. You wouldn't do that. You wouldn't biopsy a humans brain just out of curiosity but we do it for diagnostic purposes but it's got to be worth while to the person.<br />
<br />
E: Right. There's got to be something going on that you're looking for the answer for a cure or something.<br />
<br />
B: Risk benefit.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if they&ndash;I know it's not uncommon&ndash;brain surgery happens all the time. They open up people's skulls. They literally get in there with tools and go deep into the brain and remove tumors and do things like that. Cognitively if you did take someone's skull off, or a portion of the skull, and just cut out, say a jelly bean sized piece of the brain, under the idea that the person isn't going to bleed to death or whatever, just removing a piece of the brain then putting the skull piece back and letting the person heal. What would they lose from losing a portion of the brain that size?<br />
<br />
B: Depends. It depends on the portion.<br />
<br />
E: Lobotomi&ndash;You're lobotomizing a person at that point.<br />
<br />
B: It totally depends. My guess would be that either it's totally unnoticeable or you'd be completely debilitated.<br />
<br />
S: Bob's right. It completely depends on which jelly bean piece of brain you take out.<br />
<br />
B: Take the hypothalamus and you're f'd.<br />
<br />
S: For example, the right frontal lobe is largely redundant and you could do a lot of stuff to that without producing and noticeable deficits. <br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: And, in fact, when surgeons have to go into the brain they prefer to do the non-dominant frontal lobe because it's mostly redundant, but, you take out language cortex and you can make somebody completely lose their ability to speak, for example.<br />
<br />
B: It'd be like a stroke, Jay. It'd be like a stroke.<br />
<br />
J: But even a piece that small? <br />
<br />
S: If it's critical, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So there is one place in your brain that a certain type of functionality is happening and there's parts of your brains which is just storage for memory, there's parts of your brain that is doing something like processing what you see or what you hear. So you're better off losing a little portion of your memory than you are like a major piece of functionality, of course, but, I thought it was more evenly distributed.<br />
<br />
S: No. No no. It's not and it's also&ndash;memory's pretty evenly distributed but functions are localized and there's also&ndash;it's not just how localized it is it's how redundant it is. If something's really lateralized to one side you only have one piece of your brain that's doing that thing then you don't want to lose that. If you have bilateral redundancy then obviously you can afford to lose one cause the other side will make up for it. So, yeah, it depends on a lot of things. Interestingly, when reading through science news items this week&ndash;just this week was a study published by Swedish researchers from the University of Gothenburg and they were looking at astrocytes, which are a form of glial cells, and their effects on neuronal connections and function and essentially what they found is that the astrocytes are modulating the strength of the signalling between the neurons. Now, they basically are effecting how those synapses between neurons change over time. So what that means is is that the astrocytes might actually be directly involved in the formation of memories and plasticity of the brain and learning. Which, again, is just further evidence for their greatly enhanced role in actual memory function of the brain, not just, again, as support cells. So that research is ongoing and that was a huge shift in our thinking about the role of astrocytes.<br />
<br />
=== Largest Radio Telescope Array <small>(27:49)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.86c1ac9d54a51fd47b845663527a077d.1191&show_article=1 --><br />
<br />
S: Well lets go on. We have another bit of astronomy news, Bob, you're going to tell us about the largest radio telescope ever.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. This one's a quickie. This is the biggest radio telescope in the world and it was recently unveiled by scientists in the Netherlands. It's called LOFAR which stands Low Frequency Array. I think we touched upon this a while back. It consists of a whopping 25,000 small antennas and they're real tiny. They range in size from 50 centimeters to about 2 meters across. So they're not very big at all. And they're all spread out all over, not only the Netherlands, but also Germany, Sweden, France and Britain. And it's pretty cool. This thing is really going to do some amazing work I predict. Femke Beckhurst of the Netherlands Radio Astronomy Institute said, "Today we have launched the biggest radio telescope in the world. When you combine all the antennas you get a giant telescope with a diameter of about 1,000 kilometers," which is about 600 miles so that's pretty big. And it takes some nifty software to actually take all those separate signals and stitch them together. They're actually using a supercomputer to do some of that work. It's the Blue Gene P supercomputer which is a petaflop class supercomputer. So it's pretty fast. So with these observations that this radio telescope, or, I guess you can call it radio telescopes&ndash;So, the observations that they're going to be able to make with this&ndash;they're going to learn about the origin of the universe and some people are saying that they'll be able to go to the moment right after the big bang. Other&ndash;some other key science projects for LOFAR are what they call the epoch of re-ionization which is basically when the universe turned on. When things became. Also, things like ultra high energy cosmic rays which are a bit of a mystery, such as the one we mentioned&ndash;we mentioned one such cosmic ray a while back called the Oh My God Particle in 1991 which is probably the most energetic cosmic ray ever detected which was so powerful&ndash;imagine it was a subatomic particle with the energy of a baseball travelling at 60 miles an hour. Imagine, you get hit with one proton and it knocks you on your butt like it was a baseball travelling 60. So, amazingly fast. We're not sure what could have imparted so much energy to such a tiny thing. It was travelling so close to the speed of light it was essentially just a whisker&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But to clarify, it wouldn't really knock you on your butt, right? It would just go right through you.<br />
<br />
B: No. It's too tiny. Right. It is too tiny and it could do some damage, though, if it happened to hit the right, whatever in your body, DNA or something.<br />
<br />
E: Well, what if it hit a computer or something? It would really screw that up.<br />
<br />
B: That's a lot of kinetic energy. I don't know where&ndash;how all the kinetic energy would be transferred. Would it be transferred into heat. Would it fly right through? Probably&ndash;it might just fly right through.<br />
<br />
S: Or maybe it will smash through several particles on its way.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. It might hit&ndash;if hit's something squarely it could start a cascade so I think if it's just right it could actually&ndash;it could be noticeable. But there's other things&ndash;the solar science and space weather, cosmic magnetism, so I'm sure this thing is going to be used for a really long time and hopefully maybe even get even bigger.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob, what's the difference between the moment of the Big Bang and the moment of first illuminosity, I think is the word you used?<br />
<br />
B: Well, I believe it was 100,000 years or 1,000 years, it was a lot of time before things calmed down enough. Things were just so energetic that light&ndash;any photons that might have been generated were just bouncing around all over the place and they really couldn't settle down and just take a straight line any direction so there's nothing to see if you look back in visible light there's nothing to see cause all the photons are just kinda bouncing around. But also this epoch of re-ionization&ndash;that's kind of a different term than I'm used to. They refer to it as when things became luminous so I think it depends on&ndash;are they talking about the first stars, the first galaxies, the first quasars?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
B: If that's what they're talking about then that would actually be after what I'm talking&ndash;what I've just mentioned which is also called photon decoupling. So actually this epoch is a little bit different. I think it's later on.<br />
<br />
E: It's just amazing that they can make that distinction or make the determination that so much&ndash;however much time it is happened between the two.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: You think of the Big Bang&ndash;certainly in a visual display you're watching some show on TV that kinda of describes it and it's an intense white spot of light from the get go. At least that's how the depict it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But they always give you the impossible perspective of being outside the universe when the Big Bang happens.<br />
<br />
B: Space time, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But that's not a possible perspective. So it's kind of misleading.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A little.<br />
<br />
S: And a lot of that is&ndash;evidence is theoretical. They're just well what should have happened if you have the mass of the universe at a point and then what would happen over time? Based upon the temperatures and what things are like at those temperatures. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: But maybe this large radio telescope will help fill in those gaps.<br />
<br />
B: Some of them.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully.<br />
<br />
B: If it can actually get close to the moment after the Big Bang then absolutely it will be able to do&ndash;it will illuminate us in many ways.<br />
<br />
E: Very cool.<br />
<br />
J: I still don't get the concept that when the Big Bang took place&ndash;like, where it was specially in reality. You can't go to that space&ndash;that place in outer space because it doesn't really&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Sure you can. Wherever you go, there you are.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, geez. Really, Bob?<br />
<br />
E: It happened everywhere&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: It's true. It's true. It's everywhere. You can't point to it because it's not one specific spot. It's everywhere.<br />
<br />
J: Well, it didn't happen right here.<br />
<br />
E: It might have.<br />
<br />
S: Every part of the universe was at that point, Jay, at that time.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, so, meaning that the universe is growing in size.<br />
<br />
S: Of course. But it's like&ndash;if you do the two dimensional analogy, it's like blowing up a balloon. Where was it before you blew it up? Well it's&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: How&ndash;right. Try to explaining to a two dimensional creature on that balloon where&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: It was in the package.<br />
<br />
J: where the center is.<br />
<br />
S: You'd have to point into the 4th dimension.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
J: I can't picture it.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Amityville Horror House for Sale <small>(34:11)</small>===<br />
[http://www.theness.com/roguesgallery/?p=1676 Rogue's Gallery: Amityville Horror House for Sale]<br />
<br />
S: So, the Amityville Horror House is back in the news.<br />
<br />
E: And it's back in the news because its up for sale.<br />
<br />
S: Sale. That's right. For what? 1.5 million?<br />
<br />
E: 1.15 million dollars.<br />
<br />
B: In this market?<br />
<br />
J: I know. Isn't that crazy?<br />
<br />
S: You can own a piece of paranormal history.<br />
<br />
B: But, is that price kind of crazy for the neighborhood because the house is famous?<br />
<br />
E: I don't know. I imagine that has something to do with it. They said they'd done a lot of renovations recently on the house. So&mdash;Look, I imagine the main factor, like any other piece of property is&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Location.<br />
<br />
E: comparable&mdash;yeah, location and comparable houses for sale in the area.<br />
<br />
S: But here's my question. Now, typically, if a house is alleged to be haunted or if a murder took place there it's considered psychologically damaged and that actually reduces the value of the house. But in this case it's famous for being psychologically damaged, so does that increase the value of the house?<br />
<br />
E: Or do the two equal each other out?<br />
<br />
S: The balance out?<br />
<br />
E: The negative and positive balance out.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So, there were a series of murders there in 1974. Ronald DeFeo Sr., his wife, Louise, their two sons and two daughters were shot while they slept in the home and the one remaining family member alive, Ronald, nicknamed Butch DeFeo, he confessed to the murders and is serving a life sentence in prison. And then just a few weeks after the sentencing of Butch, George and Kathy Lutz and their three children moved into the home where a new round of supposed horrors began. Muwahaha. Well, not really.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about them.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, there was supposedly all sorts of things happening in this house. They reported sightings of&mdash;well, the kids reported sightings of animals, mostly a pig named Jody. A sculpted lion came to life and supposedly walked around the house.<br />
<br />
S: Cool.<br />
<br />
E: A demonic boy appeared. It was photographed and you can find that famous photograph online. Kind of looks like a regular boy but that's beside the point. And other strange things in the house. Oh, green slime oozed from the walls. Crucifix on the wall was constantly rotating until it left itself upside down and, needless to say, 28 days after they moved in&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: 28 days later.<br />
<br />
E: 28 days later. Good one Steve. The Lutz's fled.<br />
<br />
S: What about the&mdash;you forgot about the hell-mouth. It's a gaping mouth to hell in their basement.<br />
<br />
J: Wait. Wasn't that in Poltergeist.<br />
<br />
E: That was another movie, I think.<br />
<br />
B: No. No no no. <br />
<br />
E: You're right, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: It's the red room.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It was a red room, which in the movie they kind of made it seem like it was the road to hell or something.<br />
<br />
E: Now there was one small problem with all of these paranormal happenings. They never really happened. It was a story&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: It was fake.<br />
<br />
E: The whole thing was fake. However, that didn't stop famous demonologist and psychic investigator&mdash;paranormal investigator Ed Warren and his wife Loraine from investigating the matter and deeming that house to be one of the most haunted places in the world.<br />
<br />
S: Right. Right after their basement.<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Their basement in Monroe, Connecticut #1, Aminityville #2.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Right. It was fake. And now it's up for sale.<br />
<br />
E: It is. So&mdash;if you've got dollars burning a whole in your pocket&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: You might want to go get a piece of history.<br />
<br />
S: The people who bought the house after the Lutz's complained that they had to deal with the paranormal tourists bothering them day in and day out. Gawking at the house and everything. So&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So much so that they had to change the address of the house.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So it really was psychologically damaged for them, cause it came with all the tourists.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm looking at a picture of the demon boy.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: It's a little boy.<br />
<br />
S: With no eyes.<br />
<br />
J: Well, the eyes are whited out so it looks kind of creepy. Photo could have been doctored.<br />
<br />
E: Could have been a dozen things, right, other than a demonic boy from hell.<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:46)</small>==<br />
S: Well, thanks for that, Evan, and why don't we go on to Who's That Noisy?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. For those of you who forgot here is last week's Who's that Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: And then I began to study back&mdash;the relationships between the elements for plants and they are different as the elements for humans. Because Cali and Forswore are actually the friends of each other in the homeopathic material magica for humans, but in plants these two substances are each other's enemy.</blockquote><!-- The Cali and Forswore are just going phonetically. I couldn't understand what he said. --><br />
<br />
S: Mm hmm.<br />
<br />
E: Mm hmm. So, you learned a little bit about homeopathy in that clip.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Two substances&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or not.<br />
<br />
S: Two substances which are enemies in plants are friends in people. Or animals.<br />
<br />
E: Bet you didn't know that before.<br />
<br />
J: So who is that guy?<br />
<br />
E: That is V. D. Kaviraj. A homeopath of some repute and the reason I actually found this person is because I was watching a Youtube video of our&mdash;well, friend, Mr. Benneth&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Who had this fellow as part of an interview so I thought that would make a rather interesting Noisy, last week.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And, not only did someone get it correctly but they actually also went ahead and found the clip from which I clipped it so if you go onto our message boards and [[SGU_Episode 256 | Episode 256]] you can actually take a look and listen for yourself to the entire interview and bring some coffee cause you with otherwise fall asleep.<br />
<br />
S: You don't want your brain to explode. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Exactly. So, NoWoo, en-oh-double you-oh-oh, from the message boards guessed correctly. Congratulations. Well done.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. What have you got for this week, Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. And here is this weeks Who's That Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: Does the shade<!-- what? --> give you the authority you need to take dangerous products off the shelves? And the answers always yes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
E: That's a short one this week.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Thanks Evan.<br />
<br />
E: But I think there's enough information in there for someone to get it. So, be the first one to guess correctly. Good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Ev.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Soy <small>(41:02)</small>===<br />
S: We have time for a few e-mails this week. The first one comes from Michael Wilson from Prescott, Arizona and Michael writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Steve - You made the offhand comment that there are "serious concerns" that soy milk is producing an estrogen type hormonal effect. I am a vegan bodybuilder who drinks a quart of soy milk everyday. I am concerned your offhand comment will scare people away from switching to a healthier milk alternative with no saturated fat. I've looked in the past when people have made these claims, and all I can find is that there may be some very mild effect, but nothing that rises to the level of your "serious concern" comment. If there was, there would be serious estrogen related issues throughout Asian countries. Since you felt it necessary to scare people away from soy by telling them about the "serious concerns" science has with soy milk, I hope you will provide the research on you next show that proves soy milk causes serious estrogen like effects. I do love the show, and I thank everyone for the time and effort you guys put into it every week. Michael Wilson Prescott, AZ</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So, Michael's referring to two weeks ago when we had Pamela Gay and Frazier Cane on when&mdash;I can't remember what we were talking about but the notion of estro&mdash;the notion of&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Pamela said she drink soy milk and then we got onto the discussion.<br />
<br />
S: She drinks soy milk. Yeah, so I was razzing her a little bit about the fact that not everything is perfectly safe. You could find concerns about anything and in fact there are concerns about the estrogen like effects of soy milk. But it was an off hand comment, but I do think it's good for follow up to see what the evidence actually shows. The concerns are raised by the fact that soy contains isoflavones which have an estrogen effect. It's hormonally active and therefor that creates that plausibility that it could have some actual clinical effects in people and there are various populations in which it has been studied. So, one group are women who&mdash;are women in general, especially women who have had breast cancer. The question is do the estrogens increase the risk of breast cancer or if you have breast cancer does it worsen the outcome. The answer to that question appears to be no. So the evidence so far is pretty solid that there's no negative effect for women with breast cancer. In fact one review I read said that there may in fact be a small beneficial effect because it may competitively block the effects of women who have high estrogen levels. So there it's either no effect or maybe a small beneficial effect in a subset of women. The bigger concerns are with men, though, because obviously estrogen is a feminizing hormone and the question is does&mdash;do the estrogen effects of isoflavones in soy milk have a feminizing effect on men? So far the research does not show any such effect. What about the reproductive effects on men? Here, we have animal data which shows that there is a negative effect. This is where the biggest concerns are. And these concerns are that we haven't done enough research to really know what the net effects are in people. So we have animal data that shows some concern but not really sufficient human data to rule out that there may be a negative effect on the reproduction of men. The final group are infants, especially since there is a soy based infant formulas. And here there were several reviews in the last couple of years. Some saying there's really no proven effect. Other reviewers saying that, again, there is concern that there maybe some hormonal effects on infants and that&mdash;and essentially where the reviewers agree is that the research is not adequate to rule out a significant effect. Therefor if you want to be cautious you may avoid using soy based infant formulas until more research is done to show that there isn't any significant effect. Estrogen like effect. So that's where we are. I do think it's fair to say that there are concerns. Nothing is proven. And while some of those concerns have been ruled out by research there are others, specifically reproduction in men and in infants where we don't have enough research to really say that they're safe. My take is that it's probably a very weak effect. I would be surprised if the research ultimately showed that there was a strong effect, but those are the areas where the research is not yet sufficient to confidently say that there isn't a potential effect.<br />
<br />
B: But also&mdash;but this guy, Steve, if you're&mdash;if you're not an infant and you're beyond&mdash;you've already had your kids and you're done with kids, then it would be even less of a concern?<br />
<br />
S: That's right. And if you're a woman, there's basically no concern.<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Cursed Cell Phone Number <small>(45:50)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>The cursed cell phone number Thought you guys might like this story of truly stupid superstitious thinking that misses the glaringly obvious. <br />
<br><br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7763578/Mobile-phone-number-suspended-after-three-users-die-in-10-years.html Telegraph: Mobile phone number suspended after three users die in 10 years]<br />
<br>Danforth France Glendale, CA</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: Jay, you're gonna tell us about the cursed cell phone number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. This is really silly to be honest with you.<br />
<br />
B: It's silly.<br />
<br />
E: Silly.<br />
<br />
J: It's just one of those story where there's a string of coincidences that could make certain people think certain things but, basically there was a phone number that was given out. And I don't know if this is the real number but it seems like it isn't because it's a seri&mdash;it's 0-888-888-888&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: So, that's the number. I mean, my understanding from reading is that's the number that they suspended.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. Could be. Now, isn't the number 8 unlucky somewhere?<br />
<br />
B: No. It's lucky in Asian cultures. Isn't 8&mdash;8 is lucky, so&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: 4 is unlucky.<br />
<br />
S: 4 is unlucky cause it sounds like death.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: 4 is unlucky. 8 is&mdash;<br />
<br />
J: So, here's the quick one two. The first person who got it, he was the former CEO of a Bulgarian mobile phone company. His company issued him the number.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: He died of cancer in 2001 at 48 years old. After he died some rumors came out that his cancer had been caused by a business rival using radioactive poisoning. I find that unlikely, but, okay. Take that away. Let's just say that guy died. It's horrible. Died of cancer in 2001. 48 years old. That was horrible. The second that got the number was a Bulgarian mafia boss. There's a couple of things that mafia bosses do really well. They kill, and then they get killed.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
J: Right? So this guy was gunned down in 2003 by an assassin.<br />
<br />
B: What are the odds?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
E: A mafia killing? What?<br />
<br />
J: Then the number went to another guy who was described as a crooked business man and he was gunned down outside of an Indian restaurant in Bulgaria. So since then the number was retired because the police are investigating and all this stuff, but, there's the idea that the number is cursed or unlucky&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Or jinxed.<br />
<br />
E: It's your unlucky number.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's been&mdash;the number has been touched by evil and anyone who gets it is gonna get killed. So I'm thinking&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Anyone mob related who touches it will get killed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. It's pretty clear to see&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or crime related.<br />
<br />
J: through this. It's not that big of a coincidence that a bunch of people that were involved in very dangerous and crazy criminal activity are getting killed. <br />
<br />
B: But if a number becomes available&mdash;is it more likely that the number became available because somebody dumped the number or because somebody died? Because I'm never gonna want to lose my number today.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. I don't know. Now that people have personal phone numbers. Yeah. Probably people hold on to them for life. Even if you change carrier, right? You can take your number to another carrier.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. Now you can. I don't know if you could in early 2000&mdash;2003. I don't know if you could during that time period. So, anyway, the reason why we bring up this story was not just because somebody wrote in about it but we thought it was a quick and easy example of a series of events strung together to make a story where there really isn't a story or a connection.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. There's a few ways you can look at this. One is it's not that big a coincidence that 3 people with the same number die in the short period of time. Just taking the number of phone numbers out there, I'm sure that happens a lot just by coincidence. Right? I mean it would be surprising if that never happened. This is a little different because these people were high profile and the number's unusual. It's&mdash;you could of it as a very desirable number because it's all 8's. It's the kind of number you get if you work for the phone company like the CEO or you're a mob boss, I guess. Right? They're not going to give it to just some guy. And these&mdash;two of these three people were at high risk for dying so that makes it even less of a coincidence that this kind of number is going to go to the kind of people who may be in risky businesses. But then you also think of it from the phone companies point of view. Obviously the notion that the number itself is jinxed is magical thinking and it's ridiculous but from a business marketing point of view, do they want to hand this number over to somebody else and then what if something happens to that person or even&mdash;they may just get upset if they find out that the phone company assigned them a quote unquote "jinxed" number. You know what I mean? Probably just fewer headaches for the phone company if they just get rid of it, even for a while. You know what I mean? You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. It's a numbers racket.<br />
<br />
J: That's a good job, boys. It's good work, boys.<br />
<br />
=== Magic Bee Juice <small>(50:27)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>One of the branches of the company I work for in Japan has started selling Propolis as a means to make more money in a bad economy. This branch has repeatedly tried to get me to buy some of this magic bee juice. Many of my Japanese co-workers have taken the bait. They are putting bee juice in their drinks and swallowing magic bee juice pills. When I ask them if they feel any better, they all say they aren’t sure. Hmm… I think the company I work for has a snake oill division. Do you know of any scientific evidence that shows any benefit to taking Propolis? All the information I found say that Propolis may contain lead and other garbage bees pick up while flying around the city. Thank you for your time. David Gardner Osaka, Japan </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Personality Tests <small>(54:41)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Steve, I'm trying to figure out the difference between the Incorrect Cause fallacy and the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy? Skepticwiki is telling me that Post Hoc is a type of Incorrect Cause Fallacy, but I'm just not getting the difference. They seem to be one and the same. Any help would be appreciated. I'm trying to complete a 5x5 recording we did a few months ago and I'm recording a missing part which was about the "Incorrect Cause" fallacy. The topic of the 5x5 was Chemtrails and it seems to me that the Post Hoc fallacy would work better here. Mike Lacelle Canada </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:07)</small> ==<br />
<br />
*[http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:14:40)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.</blockquote> <!-- the quote as read by Jay was different, should see if we can find a source to find the real quote --><br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS Con <small>(1:18:11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro119}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=User:Geneocide&diff=5582User:Geneocide2013-01-24T23:48:55Z<p>Geneocide: </p>
<hr />
<div>Long time listener who is unemployed. Sorta feel obligated to at least try to contribute given my situation.<br />
<br />
===Useful Links stolen from [[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]]===<br />
*[[Template:SGU episode list]] &ndash; list of full episodes<br />
*[[Template:InfoBox]] &ndash; Full episode infobox; adds [[:Category:Full Episodes]]<br />
*[[Template:Editing required]] &ndash; Message box indicating aspects of page yet to complete<br />
----<br />
*[[Template:Outro1]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 301 onwards<br />
*[[Template:Outro291]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 291-300 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro119]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 119-288 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro61]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 61-118 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro39]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 39-60 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro30]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 30-38 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro18]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 18-29 (inclusive)<br />
----<br />
*[[Episode skeleton]] &ndash; Page with section formatting for use as "template" for full episodes<br />
<br />
===Also===<br />
<nowiki>{{transcribing all <br />
|transcriber = Geneocide<br />
}}</nowiki><br />
<br />
===Primary Contributor===<br />
*[[SGU Episode 6]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 7]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 8]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 9]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 10]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 11]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 12]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 15]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 49]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 127]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 232]]<br />
<br />
===Total Time===<br />
11 hours 51 minutes and 5 seconds<br />
<br />
===Things I've Learned===<br />
*Steve says "in fact" too much<br />
*Evan says "absolutely" too much</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_257&diff=5581SGU Episode 2572013-01-24T23:47:49Z<p>Geneocide: /* Soy (41:02) */ transcribed</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all |transcriber = Geneocide }}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 257<br />
|episodeDate = 14<sup>th</sup> June 2010<br />
|episodeIcon = File:amityvilledemoboy.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-06-14.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=257<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,28802.0.html<br />
|qowText = Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Monday, June 14<sup>th</sup>, 2010 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey everyone. How are you doing tonight?<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: Quite well.<br />
<br />
E: Good.<br />
<br />
S: No Rebecca tonight because we are on the lead up to TAM recording schedule. We going to have a little bit of a weird recording schedule the next few weeks and Rebecca was not available tonight and she has no internet access.<br />
<br />
J: That's because her and Sid bought a house.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: She hasn't been able to get internet and cable, I guess, to the house yet.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. But it's a big secret. Don't tell anyone, folks.<br />
<br />
S: They're moving into a new flat. Is it still a flat if it's a house?<br />
<br />
B: No. Wait wait, no, a flat's an apartment, isn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Are they moving into a house house, or is it like a condo or what is it?<br />
<br />
J: I think it's a house house.<br />
<br />
S: But no cable yet.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, if she has a house, that means she has a basement which means she could run a haunt in her house.<br />
<br />
B: Not necessarily. Florida houses don't have basements but that's because of the water table.<br />
<br />
J: Well, no. If she's in England she has a root cellar.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: Which is even creepier.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:19)</small> ==<br />
E: Well, on this day in 1648 Margaret Jones was hanged in Boston for witchcraft. The first such execution for the Massachusetts colony.<br />
<br />
S: How many people were killed?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they didn't stop with Margaret. It was 20 people.<br />
<br />
S: Were executed.<br />
<br />
E: We executed for witchcraft.<br />
<br />
J: Wow. And we got off lucky. Didn't&ndash;in Europe wasn't it a much bigger phenomenon in Europe?<br />
<br />
S: A conservative number is around 60,000 deaths directly attributable to the witch hunts.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Depending on how you count it. There were 20 people executed in Salem. 19 hung and that one guy, Giles Corey was crushed to death cause he refused to enter a plea.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Hayabusa Returns <small>(2:02)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100613/ts_afp/spacejapanaustraliaasteroidsreturn_20100613204620 <br />
<br />
possible replacement: [http://www.space.com/8592-japanese-asteroid-probe-historic-return-earth.html Space.com: Japanese Asteroid Probe Makes Historic Return to Earth]<br />
--><br />
S: Well Bob, tell us about Hayabusa returning to Earth.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this is pretty cool. I totally forgot about this guy but this is an interesting story. The Japanese space agency known as JAXA, Jay-Ay-Ex-Ay, completed a mission recently to bring a sample of an asteroid back to Earth. This is something that's never been accomplished before and regardless of what happens there has never been a spacecraft that touched down on an asteroid and then came back to Earth. So regardless if they even brought anything back with them this was a first. Like I said, the only real question that remains as of the taping of this podcast anyway is whether the canister they retrieved in Australia has any asteroid. If you remember back in 2003, JAXA's Hayabusa craft began a 2 year journey to an asteroid named Itokawa and I wish I could say the mission went swimmingly but I can't. The craft really experienced some nasty technical difficulties. It seems likes throughout the whole way, or at least through a lot of it. They just kept hitting problem after problem. They even had some&ndash;some solar flair even messed up with it's power source so the energy that it had was less than they had anticipated and some of the biggest failures, though, was they had this metal ball that they would shoot&ndash;or they planned on shooting at the asteroid to collect rock samples and that failed. And then there was another mechanism, which they were planning on using to stir up the dust around the lander on the asteroid and that failed as well to collect any samples. So you might think that it was a total bust but the real hope at this point is that they hope that the dust that stirred up during the landing kind of just was swirling around and entered the canister&ndash;the collection canister so that's really all their hope is on that.<br />
<br />
S: So they really don't know if there's going to be anything in that canister. <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, they have no idea at this point. It doesn't look good to me.<br />
<br />
J: Is it on it's way back to Earth or it can analyze it.<br />
<br />
B: It came back to Earth. The craft burned up in the atmosphere but it ejected this heat protected canister which landed at the Woomera Protected Area which is a restricted military zone in south Australian desert. Now some conspiracy hypothesists may say that in reality this whole 7 year mission was a subtle attempt to get access to this restricted military zone. But, ya know, I'm just saying.<br />
<br />
J: Look at that. It landed in Area 51. Could we go get it?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Yeah.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: But, being silly, but I want to congratulate JAXA, though. Even if there's no sample which would really be nasty, but even if there's no sample, it was a great effort that tested lots of new technologies, like, for example, sampling and retrieval, electrical propulsion, autonomous navigation. So lots of interesting new technologies and this really was a test bed. Problems like this are to be expected.<br />
<br />
J: At this point any kind of space exploration is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: In the time when we're worried that it's all gonna go away and dry up&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm really happy to hear about stuff like this.<br />
<br />
B: That's true. But you really got to hand it to JAXA, though, because they relentlessly attacked every difficulty that arose creatively solving problems, and according to some people it was Apollo 13 in scale in terms of how difficult these problems were.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: But granted, lives were not on the line, but still they had to go through a lot. On the way home they lost half of their engines kicked out and they had to figure out how to get home with only half the engines running so they did an amazing job.<br />
<br />
J: I don't like you comparing it to Apollo 13 because it being unmanned is one thing and the other thing was they got those people back to Earth safely with an enormous amount of effort. Nothing can match that.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I'm not comparing it and I did kind of say that not in terms of the lives but in terms of creative problem solving it was similar. Some people are comparing it.<br />
<br />
J: Well, if they make a movie about it I might believe it then.<br />
<br />
S: Cause it's not real unless Hollywood does a movie about it.<br />
<br />
B: As you can imagine this is a huge, huge news story in Japan. They're really playing it up. It's all over the place, cause this is&ndash;it's quite a feat. Regardless of what happens this is a first, so that's great. If they have a sample, even better, cause you learn lots of things about the solar system&ndash;because we don't have&ndash;think about it&ndash;the material we have from asteroids really is just meteorites, right, that have landed on the earth and they've gone through the atmosphere. They're not the same.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When you come through the atmosphere&ndash;they're not the same.<br />
<br />
E: Burn, yeah. Stuff burns away and, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: This will be pristine. This will be pristine rock and that will be invaluable.<br />
<br />
J: Do you guys think that one day we will park satellites in orbit and just mine them?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah. Mine asteroids?<br />
<br />
E: You mean bring them into a close orbit and then we send up vehicles and stuff to start plowing them for their platinum and all they're goodies?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. And how about&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
J: One thing that I remember thinking about when I was younger, why not put it in the same orbit that the earth is in, but just behind the earth. Would that mean that it would have to be the same size as the earth, though, in order to be in the same orbit?<br />
<br />
B: The velocity would be very different then. It couldn't have the same velocity because the mass would be so different, so, at some point, it would intersect with the earth. So I don't think that would work, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: You would need something to constantly regulate it's distance from the earth, right?<br />
<br />
S: You put it at a Lagrange point and it will sit there.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There ya go. Problem solved.<br />
<br />
S: A Lagrange point is a&ndash;if you have a map, a three dimensional map of the gravitational fields of the earth and the sun, for example, or any large body orbiting another large body, then those fields hit a pit, or they dip to a minimum. So anything that is at those points it's like being at the bottom of a hill, it's stuck there and it won't move away so it's actually fixed in position relative to the earth. So it would be perfect for something that we want to put someplace and have it stay there in terms of it's relationship to the earth.<br />
<br />
J: It's kind of like drafting, right?<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Come on, a little bit.<br />
<br />
S: But to complete that discussion there are a total of 5 Lagrangian points. One in the orbit of, lets say the earth, in front of it. One behind the earth in it's orbit. One on the opposite side of Earth's orbit. One between the earth and the sun and one outside the orbit on a line between the earth and the sun but farther than the earth. So five points total. A few of which would be pretty close. But also, there are asteroids that are said to quote unquote "stalk" the earth. For example, recently discovered the 2009 BD. It's not stationary with respect to the earth but it does&ndash;cause it interacts with the earth's gravity and it's not at a Lagrangian point, but it does get close to the earth and will sort of corkscrew around the earth's orbit and stay very close to use for a while and then maybe drift away and come back in it's orbit. It's got a very weird orbit but it does stay close to the earth.<br />
<br />
=== Einstein's Brain <small>(9:22)</small>===<br />
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305&ps=cprs NPR: Einstein's Brain Unlocks Some Mysteries Of The Mind]<br />
<br />
S: Jay, tell us about the amazing adventure of Einstein's brain.<br />
<br />
J: So this is a very interesting story. Before I get into the story let me just ask you guys a few questions. One, what makes you think Einstein was so smart? What was it about his brain that makes him smart? Some things that I'm sure most skeptics have heard was that, "Einstein used 10% of his brain where the regular person only uses 2 or 2.5%." You guys have heard of that, right?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, course.<br />
<br />
E: Or something similar to it, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's only be debunked about a million times on the internet and elsewhere, I believe, in our publication.<br />
<br />
E: Of course. That's what my phrenologist says.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: Here's one that is less common, but I've also heard and I believe I also used to think about this when I was younger and not knowing much about the brain but another thing that people think is that Einstein's brain had more hills and valleys on the exterior part of his brain.<br />
<br />
S: Sulci and gyri?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. So, that's basically the shape of the brain on the outside that makes it look like a brain. All those hills and valleys and little bumps and stuff that are on the outside of somebodies brain.<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: But, Steve, you said at one point that that does not mean you're smarter, correct?<br />
<br />
S: Well, not comparing one individual to another. There's too much variation to say that but that certainly is true when you compare species. The&ndash;what those do&ndash;what the gyri and sulci do&ndash;if you imagine the layers of the cortex and then fold it upon themselves like a ribbon that's what forms that structure and what the essentially does is it increases the surface area of the brain. So it's just a way of squeezing more computational surface area into a smaller three dimensional space which was obviously important to the evolution of our bigger, juicier brains. But you can't compare person A to person B and go, "Oh, he's got to be smarter because his brain looks smarter on an MRI scan. He's got more sulci." Doesn't work that way.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, why not also fill in the valleys between the hills? Between the gyri or the sulci or whatever they are?<br />
<br />
S: They're squished together. It's not significant.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
S: I mean, when you get old and your brain shrivels up and atrophies then you see expanded sulci and spaces but&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Your brain really shrivels up, huh?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, doesn't that suck?<br />
<br />
J: What the hell?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but Steve, I thought the idea, though, behind that was that they're not sure if the brain is really truly atrophying really, hugely, impacting cognition or is it just paring away the unessential parts of the brain that really aren't needed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, like motor skills and deep thinking.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: Barring, of course, dementia. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right Bob?<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's a complicated question. First of all those are not mutually exclusive cause both those things could be occurring at the same time. The pruning hypothesis where it's just cutting back neurons were sitting there waiting to be recruited but they haven't been, so they just go away at some point, but even still you imagine that there's fewer neurons around to be recruited so&ndash;after 50 or so we do start to lose our capacity to learn new things. We lose our flexibility. At least most of us. Some people really don't and they're brains don't atrophy as much, either.<br />
<br />
J: Bastards.<br />
<br />
S: So, some people genetically are built for more neurological longevity. But, yeah, you can't&ndash;I don't think it's accurate to say that there's no relationship between the atrophy of the brain as we age and the loss of cognitive ability. There absolutely is a relationship but it's complicated and we're not sure exactly what it is.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, it's not a black and white issue. It's more of a grey matter.<br />
<br />
B: Oh.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, wow, Evan, really?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright, so guys, let me continue. It's basically a story that I'm going to quickly tell everyone and then we'll discuss it.<br />
<br />
B: Alright.<br />
<br />
E: I love stories. Okay. I'm ready.<br />
<br />
J: So this man, named Thomas Harvey&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
E: Harvey.<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
J: and he&ndash;he actually performed the autopsy on Einstein at Princeton. Now this back in&ndash;Now this was when, '55 I believe Einstein died?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, around there.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. So, this is what the article said. The article said that during the autopsy routine the brain would be removed, examined, and then put back in the person's body for burial. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Which, by the way&ndash;we don't do that today. I don't know&ndash;that sounds odd. We don't put the brain back in the head. You take it out, you put it in a jar of formaldehyde and pickle it for 2 weeks, so that you can slice it up and look at it. Cause otherwise it's too much like jelly. You can't really slice into it. So that bit of that story certainly is not what's done today.<br />
<br />
J: Well maybe he took it out&ndash;cause it did say that he did put it in formaldehyde&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Well that's routine. That's routine.<br />
<br />
J: He was preparing it. He kept it out for the amount of time necessary and then instead of putting it back after the examination of the brain he kept it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, I think probably what happened is normally you would take it out, you pickle it for 2 weeks then you do what's called brain cutting. You slice it all the way through and you look for pathology and you look for the structures and whatnot and that's it. Then slides get filed away and the rest of it get thrown out, gets discarded as medical waste. Or, or, what can happen, sometimes the family may request that every last scrap of material gets returned and gets buried with the body.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. I'm sure that's&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: That happens sometimes, too. In fact, that happens even with&ndash;sometimes people will donate their body to science and their body will be dissected by medical students. Sometimes those bodies are just cremated. Other times everything's got to be put back&ndash;you don't put it back together but basically all bundled up and then sent back to the family to be buried or whatever they want to do with it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: That is a typical Jewish custom. I don't know how religious or close Einstein was to strict Jewish customs but I can tell you that that is Jewish customs. You bury as much of the remains as you possibly can.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So he probably&ndash;he held back the brain. He didn't do with it whatever was normally supposed to happen to it.<br />
<br />
J: No. He stole it. That's what happened.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. He stole it. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Brain thief.<br />
<br />
B: I'm going to donate my body to science fiction.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright. Continuing on&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: You stole that joke from somebody.<br />
<br />
J: So Thomas Harvey, because of what he did, because he kept Einstein's brain, he lost his job. Which seems to be the appropriate thing to take place.<br />
<br />
E: Bad trade.<br />
<br />
S: Cause that was unethical. What he did.<br />
<br />
J: And during that process he claimed that Einstein's son, Hans, gave him permission but that claim was denied by the family.<br />
<br />
S: What about Frans?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So, as I'm reading through this I realize, of course, hindsight being 20/20, I don't disagree with what the guy did. I think it was obvious to him at the time that there was something important about Einstein's brain and it should be studied further. Shouldn't just be thrown away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It kind of makes you wish that somebody at NASA thought that about the moon landing footage. <br />
<br />
B: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: "Ya know, I'm going to put this aside and not put it&ndash;file it with the rest of the tapes that are going to get erased and reused."<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Or, "Lets make a couple of backups, just in case. Or put it somewhere else. I don't know."<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Anyway.<br />
<br />
J: I've really gotta&ndash;let me sprint to the finish guys.<br />
<br />
B: Thanks for reminding me.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, go ahead.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. So I mentioned that I don't disagree. What Thomas Harvey wanted was he wanted neuro-anatomists to analyse Einstein's brain and see if they could find something out about it that we didn't know about the human brain before and that was his goal but as the story goes&ndash;so 40 years passes and then a writer named, Paterniti, he heard about all these events that we just went through and he decided that&ndash;I guess he wanted to write about what had taken place so he tracks down and finds Harvey. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Did he sue him?<br />
<br />
J: No. This guys an author.<br />
<br />
S: So he didn't give him a Paterniti suit?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god. You're on a roll tonight, Steve.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Any who, so, he tracks down Harvey, gets into a long conversation with him and, I guess, between the conversation and the two of them going back and forth they mutually decide the brain should be returned to Einstein's family and, I guess they new at the time that his granddaughter Evelyn was still alive so they wanted to return it to her. So Paterniti drives to Harvey's house, he described Harvey as bringing out Einstein's brain in a Tupperware jar. In a Tupperware container.<br />
<br />
E: Tupperware.<br />
<br />
J: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. That would seal in the freshness, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So the two of them planned to drive across the country from New Jersey all the way to California where the granddaughter lived. I guess they conversation had continued during this drive and Paterniti found out that Einstein had indeed&ndash;I'm sorry, that Harvey had indeed been sending out Einstein's brain when samples were requested he would take the samples and send them to neurologists across the globe. So, when saw the brain in the Tupperware container it had been cut up. It was sliced up. So, Harvey sent 3 different samples to a scientist named Marian Diamond and she had contacted Harvey years earlier and requested samples from 3 different parts of Einstein's brain and he did end up shipping them to her but he ended up shipping them to her in an old mayonnaise jar.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Okay? Not making this up.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: This was around 1980. She studied the samples. She found that Einstein's brain had normal amount of neurons but he had a higher than normal percentage of a different kind of brain cell and that cell was called a glial cell. That increase in glial cells was found especially in the parts of the brain that involved imagery and complex thinking, so that definitely made Diamond realize, "Well, this is very curious. Let me look into it." But first, Steve, why don't you tell us what a glial cell is.<br />
<br />
B: Support cells, aren't they?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's the other kinds of cells in the brain other than neurons and they are&ndash;yeah, for many years we thought they were basically support cells.<br />
<br />
B: Like structural cells.<br />
<br />
S: Not just structural but they create the friendly environment for the neurons. <br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right, they're there keeping the neurons alive and happy while the neurons are doing their job of remembering and calculating and stuff.<br />
<br />
B: Kind of like the Remora around sharks.<br />
<br />
S: I guess.<br />
<br />
J: So, at the time&ndash;<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Diamond was now asking questions like, "Well, why would there be more of these cells here if they're really just support cells? What's the significance of there being more of them here?" And it was a very odd idea at the time to think that glial cells had anything to do with Einstein's intelligence. Being that the cells were thought to be there for perhaps structural integrity perhaps there to just be, like Steve said, like more support cells than actual cells that were there for thinking. Alright, so now we go forward another 10 years and another researcher named Steven J. Smith published a paper that changed the perception of and understanding of the brain because what he did was&ndash;he was studying neurons and he was also studying these glial cells and he speculated that glial cells also were a part of the communication that happened within the cell and that also these cells weren't only communicating chemically but they were communicating with electricity in the manner that neurons communicate. And then he kept on fleshing out his idea and he also said that these glial cells could possibly be picking up communication between neurons&ndash;neurons are communicating with each other, glial cells would be listening in on this communication and then sending that data to other parts of the brain. So he came up with this idea that the brain&ndash;it's another way that the brain could be communicating internally. Which at the time was a profound idea. They though, at the time, that only neurons were doing the heavy lifting and that even though there was a ton of other cells in the brain that they didn't think really were doing anything. Neurons were it, but once they realized, "You know what? These glial cells might actually be doing complex things like be involved in learning and memory and ideas that we have of like what does it mean to be a genius. Glial cells might have something to do with high end thinking." So, once that started that started to really open up new ideas and that started a whole different school of thought. So then yet another scientist named, Doug Fields, he reproduced Smith's research and confirmed that it was actually valid. And, at one point, Doug Fields wrote, "Now we can see scores of ways in which astrocytes could be involved in many cognitive processes." And now it's not so crazy to find that there were abnormally high numbers of astrocytes in the parts of Einstein's brain involved in imagery and mathematical ability and that sort of thing. So, that was a pretty huge milestone and a huge leap forward in our understanding of the human brain. So in 2007, Harvey died. He really didn't know that him taking Einstein's brain, actually through these steps and through these different people actually lead to a move forward in our understanding of the riddle of the mind, but it seems that he actually did have something to do with it. And, Einstein's granddaughter didn't end up wanting her grandfather's brain so Harvey, before he died, he returned the brain back to the pathology department at Princeton, where it is today.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, can you only find out the number of astrocytes by cutting into a brain or is there a way to test it while you're still alive?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you can estimate it just by knowing what the density of astrocytes are and then calculating it by volume but if you want to look at an individuals astrocyte density, yeah, you gotta stain it. You gotta cut into it.<br />
<br />
J: So, Steve, could you just take a little&ndash;take a biopsy of somebody's brain and test it that way?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. You could.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think you could do&ndash;really?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Why not?<br />
<br />
E: Well, are you supposed to be biopsying the brain for this kind of testing purposes. It's really more for diseases.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you wouldn't do this. You wouldn't do that. You wouldn't biopsy a humans brain just out of curiosity but we do it for diagnostic purposes but it's got to be worth while to the person.<br />
<br />
E: Right. There's got to be something going on that you're looking for the answer for a cure or something.<br />
<br />
B: Risk benefit.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if they&ndash;I know it's not uncommon&ndash;brain surgery happens all the time. They open up people's skulls. They literally get in there with tools and go deep into the brain and remove tumors and do things like that. Cognitively if you did take someone's skull off, or a portion of the skull, and just cut out, say a jelly bean sized piece of the brain, under the idea that the person isn't going to bleed to death or whatever, just removing a piece of the brain then putting the skull piece back and letting the person heal. What would they lose from losing a portion of the brain that size?<br />
<br />
B: Depends. It depends on the portion.<br />
<br />
E: Lobotomi&ndash;You're lobotomizing a person at that point.<br />
<br />
B: It totally depends. My guess would be that either it's totally unnoticeable or you'd be completely debilitated.<br />
<br />
S: Bob's right. It completely depends on which jelly bean piece of brain you take out.<br />
<br />
B: Take the hypothalamus and you're f'd.<br />
<br />
S: For example, the right frontal lobe is largely redundant and you could do a lot of stuff to that without producing and noticeable deficits. <br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: And, in fact, when surgeons have to go into the brain they prefer to do the non-dominant frontal lobe because it's mostly redundant, but, you take out language cortex and you can make somebody completely lose their ability to speak, for example.<br />
<br />
B: It'd be like a stroke, Jay. It'd be like a stroke.<br />
<br />
J: But even a piece that small? <br />
<br />
S: If it's critical, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So there is one place in your brain that a certain type of functionality is happening and there's parts of your brains which is just storage for memory, there's parts of your brain that is doing something like processing what you see or what you hear. So you're better off losing a little portion of your memory than you are like a major piece of functionality, of course, but, I thought it was more evenly distributed.<br />
<br />
S: No. No no. It's not and it's also&ndash;memory's pretty evenly distributed but functions are localized and there's also&ndash;it's not just how localized it is it's how redundant it is. If something's really lateralized to one side you only have one piece of your brain that's doing that thing then you don't want to lose that. If you have bilateral redundancy then obviously you can afford to lose one cause the other side will make up for it. So, yeah, it depends on a lot of things. Interestingly, when reading through science news items this week&ndash;just this week was a study published by Swedish researchers from the University of Gothenburg and they were looking at astrocytes, which are a form of glial cells, and their effects on neuronal connections and function and essentially what they found is that the astrocytes are modulating the strength of the signalling between the neurons. Now, they basically are effecting how those synapses between neurons change over time. So what that means is is that the astrocytes might actually be directly involved in the formation of memories and plasticity of the brain and learning. Which, again, is just further evidence for their greatly enhanced role in actual memory function of the brain, not just, again, as support cells. So that research is ongoing and that was a huge shift in our thinking about the role of astrocytes.<br />
<br />
=== Largest Radio Telescope Array <small>(27:49)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.86c1ac9d54a51fd47b845663527a077d.1191&show_article=1 --><br />
<br />
S: Well lets go on. We have another bit of astronomy news, Bob, you're going to tell us about the largest radio telescope ever.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. This one's a quickie. This is the biggest radio telescope in the world and it was recently unveiled by scientists in the Netherlands. It's called LOFAR which stands Low Frequency Array. I think we touched upon this a while back. It consists of a whopping 25,000 small antennas and they're real tiny. They range in size from 50 centimeters to about 2 meters across. So they're not very big at all. And they're all spread out all over, not only the Netherlands, but also Germany, Sweden, France and Britain. And it's pretty cool. This thing is really going to do some amazing work I predict. Femke Beckhurst of the Netherlands Radio Astronomy Institute said, "Today we have launched the biggest radio telescope in the world. When you combine all the antennas you get a giant telescope with a diameter of about 1,000 kilometers," which is about 600 miles so that's pretty big. And it takes some nifty software to actually take all those separate signals and stitch them together. They're actually using a supercomputer to do some of that work. It's the Blue Gene P supercomputer which is a petaflop class supercomputer. So it's pretty fast. So with these observations that this radio telescope, or, I guess you can call it radio telescopes&ndash;So, the observations that they're going to be able to make with this&ndash;they're going to learn about the origin of the universe and some people are saying that they'll be able to go to the moment right after the big bang. Other&ndash;some other key science projects for LOFAR are what they call the epoch of re-ionization which is basically when the universe turned on. When things became. Also, things like ultra high energy cosmic rays which are a bit of a mystery, such as the one we mentioned&ndash;we mentioned one such cosmic ray a while back called the Oh My God Particle in 1991 which is probably the most energetic cosmic ray ever detected which was so powerful&ndash;imagine it was a subatomic particle with the energy of a baseball travelling at 60 miles an hour. Imagine, you get hit with one proton and it knocks you on your butt like it was a baseball travelling 60. So, amazingly fast. We're not sure what could have imparted so much energy to such a tiny thing. It was travelling so close to the speed of light it was essentially just a whisker&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But to clarify, it wouldn't really knock you on your butt, right? It would just go right through you.<br />
<br />
B: No. It's too tiny. Right. It is too tiny and it could do some damage, though, if it happened to hit the right, whatever in your body, DNA or something.<br />
<br />
E: Well, what if it hit a computer or something? It would really screw that up.<br />
<br />
B: That's a lot of kinetic energy. I don't know where&ndash;how all the kinetic energy would be transferred. Would it be transferred into heat. Would it fly right through? Probably&ndash;it might just fly right through.<br />
<br />
S: Or maybe it will smash through several particles on its way.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. It might hit&ndash;if hit's something squarely it could start a cascade so I think if it's just right it could actually&ndash;it could be noticeable. But there's other things&ndash;the solar science and space weather, cosmic magnetism, so I'm sure this thing is going to be used for a really long time and hopefully maybe even get even bigger.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob, what's the difference between the moment of the Big Bang and the moment of first illuminosity, I think is the word you used?<br />
<br />
B: Well, I believe it was 100,000 years or 1,000 years, it was a lot of time before things calmed down enough. Things were just so energetic that light&ndash;any photons that might have been generated were just bouncing around all over the place and they really couldn't settle down and just take a straight line any direction so there's nothing to see if you look back in visible light there's nothing to see cause all the photons are just kinda bouncing around. But also this epoch of re-ionization&ndash;that's kind of a different term than I'm used to. They refer to it as when things became luminous so I think it depends on&ndash;are they talking about the first stars, the first galaxies, the first quasars?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
B: If that's what they're talking about then that would actually be after what I'm talking&ndash;what I've just mentioned which is also called photon decoupling. So actually this epoch is a little bit different. I think it's later on.<br />
<br />
E: It's just amazing that they can make that distinction or make the determination that so much&ndash;however much time it is happened between the two.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: You think of the Big Bang&ndash;certainly in a visual display you're watching some show on TV that kinda of describes it and it's an intense white spot of light from the get go. At least that's how the depict it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But they always give you the impossible perspective of being outside the universe when the Big Bang happens.<br />
<br />
B: Space time, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But that's not a possible perspective. So it's kind of misleading.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A little.<br />
<br />
S: And a lot of that is&ndash;evidence is theoretical. They're just well what should have happened if you have the mass of the universe at a point and then what would happen over time? Based upon the temperatures and what things are like at those temperatures. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: But maybe this large radio telescope will help fill in those gaps.<br />
<br />
B: Some of them.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully.<br />
<br />
B: If it can actually get close to the moment after the Big Bang then absolutely it will be able to do&ndash;it will illuminate us in many ways.<br />
<br />
E: Very cool.<br />
<br />
J: I still don't get the concept that when the Big Bang took place&ndash;like, where it was specially in reality. You can't go to that space&ndash;that place in outer space because it doesn't really&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Sure you can. Wherever you go, there you are.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, geez. Really, Bob?<br />
<br />
E: It happened everywhere&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: It's true. It's true. It's everywhere. You can't point to it because it's not one specific spot. It's everywhere.<br />
<br />
J: Well, it didn't happen right here.<br />
<br />
E: It might have.<br />
<br />
S: Every part of the universe was at that point, Jay, at that time.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, so, meaning that the universe is growing in size.<br />
<br />
S: Of course. But it's like&ndash;if you do the two dimensional analogy, it's like blowing up a balloon. Where was it before you blew it up? Well it's&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: How&ndash;right. Try to explaining to a two dimensional creature on that balloon where&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: It was in the package.<br />
<br />
J: where the center is.<br />
<br />
S: You'd have to point into the 4th dimension.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
J: I can't picture it.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Amityville Horror House for Sale <small>(34:11)</small>===<br />
[http://www.theness.com/roguesgallery/?p=1676 Rogue's Gallery: Amityville Horror House for Sale]<br />
<br />
S: So, the Amityville Horror House is back in the news.<br />
<br />
E: And it's back in the news because its up for sale.<br />
<br />
S: Sale. That's right. For what? 1.5 million?<br />
<br />
E: 1.15 million dollars.<br />
<br />
B: In this market?<br />
<br />
J: I know. Isn't that crazy?<br />
<br />
S: You can own a piece of paranormal history.<br />
<br />
B: But, is that price kind of crazy for the neighborhood because the house is famous?<br />
<br />
E: I don't know. I imagine that has something to do with it. They said they'd done a lot of renovations recently on the house. So&mdash;Look, I imagine the main factor, like any other piece of property is&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Location.<br />
<br />
E: comparable&mdash;yeah, location and comparable houses for sale in the area.<br />
<br />
S: But here's my question. Now, typically, if a house is alleged to be haunted or if a murder took place there it's considered psychologically damaged and that actually reduces the value of the house. But in this case it's famous for being psychologically damaged, so does that increase the value of the house?<br />
<br />
E: Or do the two equal each other out?<br />
<br />
S: The balance out?<br />
<br />
E: The negative and positive balance out.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So, there were a series of murders there in 1974. Ronald DeFeo Sr., his wife, Louise, their two sons and two daughters were shot while they slept in the home and the one remaining family member alive, Ronald, nicknamed Butch DeFeo, he confessed to the murders and is serving a life sentence in prison. And then just a few weeks after the sentencing of Butch, George and Kathy Lutz and their three children moved into the home where a new round of supposed horrors began. Muwahaha. Well, not really.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about them.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, there was supposedly all sorts of things happening in this house. They reported sightings of&mdash;well, the kids reported sightings of animals, mostly a pig named Jody. A sculpted lion came to life and supposedly walked around the house.<br />
<br />
S: Cool.<br />
<br />
E: A demonic boy appeared. It was photographed and you can find that famous photograph online. Kind of looks like a regular boy but that's beside the point. And other strange things in the house. Oh, green slime oozed from the walls. Crucifix on the wall was constantly rotating until it left itself upside down and, needless to say, 28 days after they moved in&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: 28 days later.<br />
<br />
E: 28 days later. Good one Steve. The Lutz's fled.<br />
<br />
S: What about the&mdash;you forgot about the hell-mouth. It's a gaping mouth to hell in their basement.<br />
<br />
J: Wait. Wasn't that in Poltergeist.<br />
<br />
E: That was another movie, I think.<br />
<br />
B: No. No no no. <br />
<br />
E: You're right, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: It's the red room.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It was a red room, which in the movie they kind of made it seem like it was the road to hell or something.<br />
<br />
E: Now there was one small problem with all of these paranormal happenings. They never really happened. It was a story&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: It was fake.<br />
<br />
E: The whole thing was fake. However, that didn't stop famous demonologist and psychic investigator&mdash;paranormal investigator Ed Warren and his wife Loraine from investigating the matter and deeming that house to be one of the most haunted places in the world.<br />
<br />
S: Right. Right after their basement.<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Their basement in Monroe, Connecticut #1, Aminityville #2.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Right. It was fake. And now it's up for sale.<br />
<br />
E: It is. So&mdash;if you've got dollars burning a whole in your pocket&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: You might want to go get a piece of history.<br />
<br />
S: The people who bought the house after the Lutz's complained that they had to deal with the paranormal tourists bothering them day in and day out. Gawking at the house and everything. So&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So much so that they had to change the address of the house.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So it really was psychologically damaged for them, cause it came with all the tourists.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm looking at a picture of the demon boy.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: It's a little boy.<br />
<br />
S: With no eyes.<br />
<br />
J: Well, the eyes are whited out so it looks kind of creepy. Photo could have been doctored.<br />
<br />
E: Could have been a dozen things, right, other than a demonic boy from hell.<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:46)</small>==<br />
S: Well, thanks for that, Evan, and why don't we go on to Who's That Noisy?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. For those of you who forgot here is last week's Who's that Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: And then I began to study back&mdash;the relationships between the elements for plants and they are different as the elements for humans. Because Cali and Forswore are actually the friends of each other in the homeopathic material magica for humans, but in plants these two substances are each other's enemy.</blockquote><!-- The Cali and Forswore are just going phonetically. I couldn't understand what he said. --><br />
<br />
S: Mm hmm.<br />
<br />
E: Mm hmm. So, you learned a little bit about homeopathy in that clip.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Two substances&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or not.<br />
<br />
S: Two substances which are enemies in plants are friends in people. Or animals.<br />
<br />
E: Bet you didn't know that before.<br />
<br />
J: So who is that guy?<br />
<br />
E: That is V. D. Kaviraj. A homeopath of some repute and the reason I actually found this person is because I was watching a Youtube video of our&mdash;well, friend, Mr. Benneth&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Who had this fellow as part of an interview so I thought that would make a rather interesting Noisy, last week.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And, not only did someone get it correctly but they actually also went ahead and found the clip from which I clipped it so if you go onto our message boards and [[SGU_Episode 256 | Episode 256]] you can actually take a look and listen for yourself to the entire interview and bring some coffee cause you with otherwise fall asleep.<br />
<br />
S: You don't want your brain to explode. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Exactly. So, NoWoo, en-oh-double you-oh-oh, from the message boards guessed correctly. Congratulations. Well done.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. What have you got for this week, Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. And here is this weeks Who's That Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: Does the shade<!-- what? --> give you the authority you need to take dangerous products off the shelves? And the answers always yes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
E: That's a short one this week.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Thanks Evan.<br />
<br />
E: But I think there's enough information in there for someone to get it. So, be the first one to guess correctly. Good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Ev.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Soy <small>(41:02)</small>===<br />
S: We have time for a few e-mails this week. The first one comes from Michael Wilson from Prescott, Arizona and Michael writes, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Steve - You made the offhand comment that there are "serious concerns" that soy milk is producing an estrogen type hormonal effect. I am a vegan bodybuilder who drinks a quart of soy milk everyday. I am concerned your offhand comment will scare people away from switching to a healthier milk alternative with no saturated fat. I've looked in the past when people have made these claims, and all I can find is that there may be some very mild effect, but nothing that rises to the level of your "serious concern" comment. If there was, there would be serious estrogen related issues throughout Asian countries. Since you felt it necessary to scare people away from soy by telling them about the "serious concerns" science has with soy milk, I hope you will provide the research on you next show that proves soy milk causes serious estrogen like effects. I do love the show, and I thank everyone for the time and effort you guys put into it every week. Michael Wilson Prescott, AZ</blockquote><br />
<br />
S: So, Michael's referring to two weeks ago when we had Pamela Gay and Frazier Cane on when&mdash;I can't remember what we were talking about but the notion of estro&mdash;the notion of&mdash;<br />
<br />
B: Pamela said she drink soy milk and then we got onto the discussion.<br />
<br />
S: She drinks soy milk. Yeah, so I was razzing her a little bit about the fact that not everything is perfectly safe. You could find concerns about anything and in fact there are concerns about the estrogen like effects of soy milk. But it was an off hand comment, but I do think it's good for follow up to see what the evidence actually shows. The concerns are raised by the fact that soy contains isoflavones which have an estrogen effect. It's hormonally active and therefor that creates that plausibility that it could have some actual clinical effects in people and there are various populations in which it has been studied. So, one group are women who&mdash;are women in general, especially women who have had breast cancer. The question is do the estrogens increase the risk of breast cancer or if you have breast cancer does it worsen the outcome. The answer to that question appears to be no. So the evidence so far is pretty solid that there's no negative effect for women with breast cancer. In fact one review I read said that there may in fact be a small beneficial effect because it may competitively block the effects of women who have high estrogen levels. So there it's either no effect or maybe a small beneficial effect in a subset of women. The bigger concerns are with men, though, because obviously estrogen is a feminizing hormone and the question is does&mdash;do the estrogen effects of isoflavones in soy milk have a feminizing effect on men? So far the research does not show any such effect. What about the reproductive effects on men? Here, we have animal data which shows that there is a negative effect. This is where the biggest concerns are. And these concerns are that we haven't done enough research to really know what the net effects are in people. So we have animal data that shows some concern but not really sufficient human data to rule out that there may be a negative effect on the reproduction of men. The final group are infants, especially since there is a soy based infant formulas. And here there were several reviews in the last couple of years. Some saying there's really no proven effect. Other reviewers saying that, again, there is concern that there maybe some hormonal effects on infants and that&mdash;and essentially where the reviewers agree is that the research is not adequate to rule out a significant effect. Therefor if you want to be cautious you may avoid using soy based infant formulas until more research is done to show that there isn't any significant effect. Estrogen like effect. So that's where we are. I do think it's fair to say that there are concerns. Nothing is proven. And while some of those concerns have been ruled out by research there are others, specifically reproduction in men and in infants where we don't have enough research to really say that they're safe. My take is that it's probably a very weak effect. I would be surprised if the research ultimately showed that there was a strong effect, but those are the areas where the research is not yet sufficient to confidently say that there isn't a potential effect.<br />
<br />
B: But also&mdash;but this guy, Steve, if you're&mdash;if you're not an infant and you're beyond&mdash;you've already had your kids and you're done with kids, then it would be even less of a concern?<br />
<br />
S: That's right. And if you're a woman, there's basically no concern.<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Cursed Cell Phone Number <small>(45:50)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>The cursed cell phone number Thought you guys might like this story of truly stupid superstitious thinking that misses the glaringly obvious. <br />
<br><br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7763578/Mobile-phone-number-suspended-after-three-users-die-in-10-years.html Telegraph: Mobile phone number suspended after three users die in 10 years]<br />
<br>Danforth France Glendale, CA</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Magic Bee Juice <small>(50:27)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>One of the branches of the company I work for in Japan has started selling Propolis as a means to make more money in a bad economy. This branch has repeatedly tried to get me to buy some of this magic bee juice. Many of my Japanese co-workers have taken the bait. They are putting bee juice in their drinks and swallowing magic bee juice pills. When I ask them if they feel any better, they all say they aren’t sure. Hmm… I think the company I work for has a snake oill division. Do you know of any scientific evidence that shows any benefit to taking Propolis? All the information I found say that Propolis may contain lead and other garbage bees pick up while flying around the city. Thank you for your time. David Gardner Osaka, Japan </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Personality Tests <small>(54:41)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Steve, I'm trying to figure out the difference between the Incorrect Cause fallacy and the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy? Skepticwiki is telling me that Post Hoc is a type of Incorrect Cause Fallacy, but I'm just not getting the difference. They seem to be one and the same. Any help would be appreciated. I'm trying to complete a 5x5 recording we did a few months ago and I'm recording a missing part which was about the "Incorrect Cause" fallacy. The topic of the 5x5 was Chemtrails and it seems to me that the Post Hoc fallacy would work better here. Mike Lacelle Canada </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:07)</small> ==<br />
<br />
*[http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:14:40)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.</blockquote> <!-- the quote as read by Jay was different, should see if we can find a source to find the real quote --><br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS Con <small>(1:18:11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro119}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_257&diff=5580SGU Episode 2572013-01-24T23:34:41Z<p>Geneocide: /* Who's That Noisy? (38:46) */ transcribed</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all |transcriber = Geneocide }}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 257<br />
|episodeDate = 14<sup>th</sup> June 2010<br />
|episodeIcon = File:amityvilledemoboy.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-06-14.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=257<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,28802.0.html<br />
|qowText = Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Monday, June 14<sup>th</sup>, 2010 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey everyone. How are you doing tonight?<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: Quite well.<br />
<br />
E: Good.<br />
<br />
S: No Rebecca tonight because we are on the lead up to TAM recording schedule. We going to have a little bit of a weird recording schedule the next few weeks and Rebecca was not available tonight and she has no internet access.<br />
<br />
J: That's because her and Sid bought a house.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: She hasn't been able to get internet and cable, I guess, to the house yet.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. But it's a big secret. Don't tell anyone, folks.<br />
<br />
S: They're moving into a new flat. Is it still a flat if it's a house?<br />
<br />
B: No. Wait wait, no, a flat's an apartment, isn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Are they moving into a house house, or is it like a condo or what is it?<br />
<br />
J: I think it's a house house.<br />
<br />
S: But no cable yet.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, if she has a house, that means she has a basement which means she could run a haunt in her house.<br />
<br />
B: Not necessarily. Florida houses don't have basements but that's because of the water table.<br />
<br />
J: Well, no. If she's in England she has a root cellar.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: Which is even creepier.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:19)</small> ==<br />
E: Well, on this day in 1648 Margaret Jones was hanged in Boston for witchcraft. The first such execution for the Massachusetts colony.<br />
<br />
S: How many people were killed?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they didn't stop with Margaret. It was 20 people.<br />
<br />
S: Were executed.<br />
<br />
E: We executed for witchcraft.<br />
<br />
J: Wow. And we got off lucky. Didn't&ndash;in Europe wasn't it a much bigger phenomenon in Europe?<br />
<br />
S: A conservative number is around 60,000 deaths directly attributable to the witch hunts.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Depending on how you count it. There were 20 people executed in Salem. 19 hung and that one guy, Giles Corey was crushed to death cause he refused to enter a plea.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Hayabusa Returns <small>(2:02)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100613/ts_afp/spacejapanaustraliaasteroidsreturn_20100613204620 <br />
<br />
possible replacement: [http://www.space.com/8592-japanese-asteroid-probe-historic-return-earth.html Space.com: Japanese Asteroid Probe Makes Historic Return to Earth]<br />
--><br />
S: Well Bob, tell us about Hayabusa returning to Earth.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this is pretty cool. I totally forgot about this guy but this is an interesting story. The Japanese space agency known as JAXA, Jay-Ay-Ex-Ay, completed a mission recently to bring a sample of an asteroid back to Earth. This is something that's never been accomplished before and regardless of what happens there has never been a spacecraft that touched down on an asteroid and then came back to Earth. So regardless if they even brought anything back with them this was a first. Like I said, the only real question that remains as of the taping of this podcast anyway is whether the canister they retrieved in Australia has any asteroid. If you remember back in 2003, JAXA's Hayabusa craft began a 2 year journey to an asteroid named Itokawa and I wish I could say the mission went swimmingly but I can't. The craft really experienced some nasty technical difficulties. It seems likes throughout the whole way, or at least through a lot of it. They just kept hitting problem after problem. They even had some&ndash;some solar flair even messed up with it's power source so the energy that it had was less than they had anticipated and some of the biggest failures, though, was they had this metal ball that they would shoot&ndash;or they planned on shooting at the asteroid to collect rock samples and that failed. And then there was another mechanism, which they were planning on using to stir up the dust around the lander on the asteroid and that failed as well to collect any samples. So you might think that it was a total bust but the real hope at this point is that they hope that the dust that stirred up during the landing kind of just was swirling around and entered the canister&ndash;the collection canister so that's really all their hope is on that.<br />
<br />
S: So they really don't know if there's going to be anything in that canister. <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, they have no idea at this point. It doesn't look good to me.<br />
<br />
J: Is it on it's way back to Earth or it can analyze it.<br />
<br />
B: It came back to Earth. The craft burned up in the atmosphere but it ejected this heat protected canister which landed at the Woomera Protected Area which is a restricted military zone in south Australian desert. Now some conspiracy hypothesists may say that in reality this whole 7 year mission was a subtle attempt to get access to this restricted military zone. But, ya know, I'm just saying.<br />
<br />
J: Look at that. It landed in Area 51. Could we go get it?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Yeah.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: But, being silly, but I want to congratulate JAXA, though. Even if there's no sample which would really be nasty, but even if there's no sample, it was a great effort that tested lots of new technologies, like, for example, sampling and retrieval, electrical propulsion, autonomous navigation. So lots of interesting new technologies and this really was a test bed. Problems like this are to be expected.<br />
<br />
J: At this point any kind of space exploration is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: In the time when we're worried that it's all gonna go away and dry up&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm really happy to hear about stuff like this.<br />
<br />
B: That's true. But you really got to hand it to JAXA, though, because they relentlessly attacked every difficulty that arose creatively solving problems, and according to some people it was Apollo 13 in scale in terms of how difficult these problems were.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: But granted, lives were not on the line, but still they had to go through a lot. On the way home they lost half of their engines kicked out and they had to figure out how to get home with only half the engines running so they did an amazing job.<br />
<br />
J: I don't like you comparing it to Apollo 13 because it being unmanned is one thing and the other thing was they got those people back to Earth safely with an enormous amount of effort. Nothing can match that.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I'm not comparing it and I did kind of say that not in terms of the lives but in terms of creative problem solving it was similar. Some people are comparing it.<br />
<br />
J: Well, if they make a movie about it I might believe it then.<br />
<br />
S: Cause it's not real unless Hollywood does a movie about it.<br />
<br />
B: As you can imagine this is a huge, huge news story in Japan. They're really playing it up. It's all over the place, cause this is&ndash;it's quite a feat. Regardless of what happens this is a first, so that's great. If they have a sample, even better, cause you learn lots of things about the solar system&ndash;because we don't have&ndash;think about it&ndash;the material we have from asteroids really is just meteorites, right, that have landed on the earth and they've gone through the atmosphere. They're not the same.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When you come through the atmosphere&ndash;they're not the same.<br />
<br />
E: Burn, yeah. Stuff burns away and, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: This will be pristine. This will be pristine rock and that will be invaluable.<br />
<br />
J: Do you guys think that one day we will park satellites in orbit and just mine them?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah. Mine asteroids?<br />
<br />
E: You mean bring them into a close orbit and then we send up vehicles and stuff to start plowing them for their platinum and all they're goodies?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. And how about&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
J: One thing that I remember thinking about when I was younger, why not put it in the same orbit that the earth is in, but just behind the earth. Would that mean that it would have to be the same size as the earth, though, in order to be in the same orbit?<br />
<br />
B: The velocity would be very different then. It couldn't have the same velocity because the mass would be so different, so, at some point, it would intersect with the earth. So I don't think that would work, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: You would need something to constantly regulate it's distance from the earth, right?<br />
<br />
S: You put it at a Lagrange point and it will sit there.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There ya go. Problem solved.<br />
<br />
S: A Lagrange point is a&ndash;if you have a map, a three dimensional map of the gravitational fields of the earth and the sun, for example, or any large body orbiting another large body, then those fields hit a pit, or they dip to a minimum. So anything that is at those points it's like being at the bottom of a hill, it's stuck there and it won't move away so it's actually fixed in position relative to the earth. So it would be perfect for something that we want to put someplace and have it stay there in terms of it's relationship to the earth.<br />
<br />
J: It's kind of like drafting, right?<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Come on, a little bit.<br />
<br />
S: But to complete that discussion there are a total of 5 Lagrangian points. One in the orbit of, lets say the earth, in front of it. One behind the earth in it's orbit. One on the opposite side of Earth's orbit. One between the earth and the sun and one outside the orbit on a line between the earth and the sun but farther than the earth. So five points total. A few of which would be pretty close. But also, there are asteroids that are said to quote unquote "stalk" the earth. For example, recently discovered the 2009 BD. It's not stationary with respect to the earth but it does&ndash;cause it interacts with the earth's gravity and it's not at a Lagrangian point, but it does get close to the earth and will sort of corkscrew around the earth's orbit and stay very close to use for a while and then maybe drift away and come back in it's orbit. It's got a very weird orbit but it does stay close to the earth.<br />
<br />
=== Einstein's Brain <small>(9:22)</small>===<br />
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305&ps=cprs NPR: Einstein's Brain Unlocks Some Mysteries Of The Mind]<br />
<br />
S: Jay, tell us about the amazing adventure of Einstein's brain.<br />
<br />
J: So this is a very interesting story. Before I get into the story let me just ask you guys a few questions. One, what makes you think Einstein was so smart? What was it about his brain that makes him smart? Some things that I'm sure most skeptics have heard was that, "Einstein used 10% of his brain where the regular person only uses 2 or 2.5%." You guys have heard of that, right?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, course.<br />
<br />
E: Or something similar to it, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's only be debunked about a million times on the internet and elsewhere, I believe, in our publication.<br />
<br />
E: Of course. That's what my phrenologist says.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: Here's one that is less common, but I've also heard and I believe I also used to think about this when I was younger and not knowing much about the brain but another thing that people think is that Einstein's brain had more hills and valleys on the exterior part of his brain.<br />
<br />
S: Sulci and gyri?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. So, that's basically the shape of the brain on the outside that makes it look like a brain. All those hills and valleys and little bumps and stuff that are on the outside of somebodies brain.<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: But, Steve, you said at one point that that does not mean you're smarter, correct?<br />
<br />
S: Well, not comparing one individual to another. There's too much variation to say that but that certainly is true when you compare species. The&ndash;what those do&ndash;what the gyri and sulci do&ndash;if you imagine the layers of the cortex and then fold it upon themselves like a ribbon that's what forms that structure and what the essentially does is it increases the surface area of the brain. So it's just a way of squeezing more computational surface area into a smaller three dimensional space which was obviously important to the evolution of our bigger, juicier brains. But you can't compare person A to person B and go, "Oh, he's got to be smarter because his brain looks smarter on an MRI scan. He's got more sulci." Doesn't work that way.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, why not also fill in the valleys between the hills? Between the gyri or the sulci or whatever they are?<br />
<br />
S: They're squished together. It's not significant.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
S: I mean, when you get old and your brain shrivels up and atrophies then you see expanded sulci and spaces but&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Your brain really shrivels up, huh?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, doesn't that suck?<br />
<br />
J: What the hell?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but Steve, I thought the idea, though, behind that was that they're not sure if the brain is really truly atrophying really, hugely, impacting cognition or is it just paring away the unessential parts of the brain that really aren't needed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, like motor skills and deep thinking.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: Barring, of course, dementia. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right Bob?<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's a complicated question. First of all those are not mutually exclusive cause both those things could be occurring at the same time. The pruning hypothesis where it's just cutting back neurons were sitting there waiting to be recruited but they haven't been, so they just go away at some point, but even still you imagine that there's fewer neurons around to be recruited so&ndash;after 50 or so we do start to lose our capacity to learn new things. We lose our flexibility. At least most of us. Some people really don't and they're brains don't atrophy as much, either.<br />
<br />
J: Bastards.<br />
<br />
S: So, some people genetically are built for more neurological longevity. But, yeah, you can't&ndash;I don't think it's accurate to say that there's no relationship between the atrophy of the brain as we age and the loss of cognitive ability. There absolutely is a relationship but it's complicated and we're not sure exactly what it is.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, it's not a black and white issue. It's more of a grey matter.<br />
<br />
B: Oh.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, wow, Evan, really?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright, so guys, let me continue. It's basically a story that I'm going to quickly tell everyone and then we'll discuss it.<br />
<br />
B: Alright.<br />
<br />
E: I love stories. Okay. I'm ready.<br />
<br />
J: So this man, named Thomas Harvey&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
E: Harvey.<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
J: and he&ndash;he actually performed the autopsy on Einstein at Princeton. Now this back in&ndash;Now this was when, '55 I believe Einstein died?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, around there.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. So, this is what the article said. The article said that during the autopsy routine the brain would be removed, examined, and then put back in the person's body for burial. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Which, by the way&ndash;we don't do that today. I don't know&ndash;that sounds odd. We don't put the brain back in the head. You take it out, you put it in a jar of formaldehyde and pickle it for 2 weeks, so that you can slice it up and look at it. Cause otherwise it's too much like jelly. You can't really slice into it. So that bit of that story certainly is not what's done today.<br />
<br />
J: Well maybe he took it out&ndash;cause it did say that he did put it in formaldehyde&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Well that's routine. That's routine.<br />
<br />
J: He was preparing it. He kept it out for the amount of time necessary and then instead of putting it back after the examination of the brain he kept it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, I think probably what happened is normally you would take it out, you pickle it for 2 weeks then you do what's called brain cutting. You slice it all the way through and you look for pathology and you look for the structures and whatnot and that's it. Then slides get filed away and the rest of it get thrown out, gets discarded as medical waste. Or, or, what can happen, sometimes the family may request that every last scrap of material gets returned and gets buried with the body.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. I'm sure that's&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: That happens sometimes, too. In fact, that happens even with&ndash;sometimes people will donate their body to science and their body will be dissected by medical students. Sometimes those bodies are just cremated. Other times everything's got to be put back&ndash;you don't put it back together but basically all bundled up and then sent back to the family to be buried or whatever they want to do with it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: That is a typical Jewish custom. I don't know how religious or close Einstein was to strict Jewish customs but I can tell you that that is Jewish customs. You bury as much of the remains as you possibly can.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So he probably&ndash;he held back the brain. He didn't do with it whatever was normally supposed to happen to it.<br />
<br />
J: No. He stole it. That's what happened.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. He stole it. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Brain thief.<br />
<br />
B: I'm going to donate my body to science fiction.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright. Continuing on&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: You stole that joke from somebody.<br />
<br />
J: So Thomas Harvey, because of what he did, because he kept Einstein's brain, he lost his job. Which seems to be the appropriate thing to take place.<br />
<br />
E: Bad trade.<br />
<br />
S: Cause that was unethical. What he did.<br />
<br />
J: And during that process he claimed that Einstein's son, Hans, gave him permission but that claim was denied by the family.<br />
<br />
S: What about Frans?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So, as I'm reading through this I realize, of course, hindsight being 20/20, I don't disagree with what the guy did. I think it was obvious to him at the time that there was something important about Einstein's brain and it should be studied further. Shouldn't just be thrown away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It kind of makes you wish that somebody at NASA thought that about the moon landing footage. <br />
<br />
B: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: "Ya know, I'm going to put this aside and not put it&ndash;file it with the rest of the tapes that are going to get erased and reused."<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Or, "Lets make a couple of backups, just in case. Or put it somewhere else. I don't know."<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Anyway.<br />
<br />
J: I've really gotta&ndash;let me sprint to the finish guys.<br />
<br />
B: Thanks for reminding me.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, go ahead.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. So I mentioned that I don't disagree. What Thomas Harvey wanted was he wanted neuro-anatomists to analyse Einstein's brain and see if they could find something out about it that we didn't know about the human brain before and that was his goal but as the story goes&ndash;so 40 years passes and then a writer named, Paterniti, he heard about all these events that we just went through and he decided that&ndash;I guess he wanted to write about what had taken place so he tracks down and finds Harvey. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Did he sue him?<br />
<br />
J: No. This guys an author.<br />
<br />
S: So he didn't give him a Paterniti suit?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god. You're on a roll tonight, Steve.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Any who, so, he tracks down Harvey, gets into a long conversation with him and, I guess, between the conversation and the two of them going back and forth they mutually decide the brain should be returned to Einstein's family and, I guess they new at the time that his granddaughter Evelyn was still alive so they wanted to return it to her. So Paterniti drives to Harvey's house, he described Harvey as bringing out Einstein's brain in a Tupperware jar. In a Tupperware container.<br />
<br />
E: Tupperware.<br />
<br />
J: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. That would seal in the freshness, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So the two of them planned to drive across the country from New Jersey all the way to California where the granddaughter lived. I guess they conversation had continued during this drive and Paterniti found out that Einstein had indeed&ndash;I'm sorry, that Harvey had indeed been sending out Einstein's brain when samples were requested he would take the samples and send them to neurologists across the globe. So, when saw the brain in the Tupperware container it had been cut up. It was sliced up. So, Harvey sent 3 different samples to a scientist named Marian Diamond and she had contacted Harvey years earlier and requested samples from 3 different parts of Einstein's brain and he did end up shipping them to her but he ended up shipping them to her in an old mayonnaise jar.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Okay? Not making this up.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: This was around 1980. She studied the samples. She found that Einstein's brain had normal amount of neurons but he had a higher than normal percentage of a different kind of brain cell and that cell was called a glial cell. That increase in glial cells was found especially in the parts of the brain that involved imagery and complex thinking, so that definitely made Diamond realize, "Well, this is very curious. Let me look into it." But first, Steve, why don't you tell us what a glial cell is.<br />
<br />
B: Support cells, aren't they?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's the other kinds of cells in the brain other than neurons and they are&ndash;yeah, for many years we thought they were basically support cells.<br />
<br />
B: Like structural cells.<br />
<br />
S: Not just structural but they create the friendly environment for the neurons. <br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right, they're there keeping the neurons alive and happy while the neurons are doing their job of remembering and calculating and stuff.<br />
<br />
B: Kind of like the Remora around sharks.<br />
<br />
S: I guess.<br />
<br />
J: So, at the time&ndash;<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Diamond was now asking questions like, "Well, why would there be more of these cells here if they're really just support cells? What's the significance of there being more of them here?" And it was a very odd idea at the time to think that glial cells had anything to do with Einstein's intelligence. Being that the cells were thought to be there for perhaps structural integrity perhaps there to just be, like Steve said, like more support cells than actual cells that were there for thinking. Alright, so now we go forward another 10 years and another researcher named Steven J. Smith published a paper that changed the perception of and understanding of the brain because what he did was&ndash;he was studying neurons and he was also studying these glial cells and he speculated that glial cells also were a part of the communication that happened within the cell and that also these cells weren't only communicating chemically but they were communicating with electricity in the manner that neurons communicate. And then he kept on fleshing out his idea and he also said that these glial cells could possibly be picking up communication between neurons&ndash;neurons are communicating with each other, glial cells would be listening in on this communication and then sending that data to other parts of the brain. So he came up with this idea that the brain&ndash;it's another way that the brain could be communicating internally. Which at the time was a profound idea. They though, at the time, that only neurons were doing the heavy lifting and that even though there was a ton of other cells in the brain that they didn't think really were doing anything. Neurons were it, but once they realized, "You know what? These glial cells might actually be doing complex things like be involved in learning and memory and ideas that we have of like what does it mean to be a genius. Glial cells might have something to do with high end thinking." So, once that started that started to really open up new ideas and that started a whole different school of thought. So then yet another scientist named, Doug Fields, he reproduced Smith's research and confirmed that it was actually valid. And, at one point, Doug Fields wrote, "Now we can see scores of ways in which astrocytes could be involved in many cognitive processes." And now it's not so crazy to find that there were abnormally high numbers of astrocytes in the parts of Einstein's brain involved in imagery and mathematical ability and that sort of thing. So, that was a pretty huge milestone and a huge leap forward in our understanding of the human brain. So in 2007, Harvey died. He really didn't know that him taking Einstein's brain, actually through these steps and through these different people actually lead to a move forward in our understanding of the riddle of the mind, but it seems that he actually did have something to do with it. And, Einstein's granddaughter didn't end up wanting her grandfather's brain so Harvey, before he died, he returned the brain back to the pathology department at Princeton, where it is today.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, can you only find out the number of astrocytes by cutting into a brain or is there a way to test it while you're still alive?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you can estimate it just by knowing what the density of astrocytes are and then calculating it by volume but if you want to look at an individuals astrocyte density, yeah, you gotta stain it. You gotta cut into it.<br />
<br />
J: So, Steve, could you just take a little&ndash;take a biopsy of somebody's brain and test it that way?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. You could.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think you could do&ndash;really?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Why not?<br />
<br />
E: Well, are you supposed to be biopsying the brain for this kind of testing purposes. It's really more for diseases.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you wouldn't do this. You wouldn't do that. You wouldn't biopsy a humans brain just out of curiosity but we do it for diagnostic purposes but it's got to be worth while to the person.<br />
<br />
E: Right. There's got to be something going on that you're looking for the answer for a cure or something.<br />
<br />
B: Risk benefit.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if they&ndash;I know it's not uncommon&ndash;brain surgery happens all the time. They open up people's skulls. They literally get in there with tools and go deep into the brain and remove tumors and do things like that. Cognitively if you did take someone's skull off, or a portion of the skull, and just cut out, say a jelly bean sized piece of the brain, under the idea that the person isn't going to bleed to death or whatever, just removing a piece of the brain then putting the skull piece back and letting the person heal. What would they lose from losing a portion of the brain that size?<br />
<br />
B: Depends. It depends on the portion.<br />
<br />
E: Lobotomi&ndash;You're lobotomizing a person at that point.<br />
<br />
B: It totally depends. My guess would be that either it's totally unnoticeable or you'd be completely debilitated.<br />
<br />
S: Bob's right. It completely depends on which jelly bean piece of brain you take out.<br />
<br />
B: Take the hypothalamus and you're f'd.<br />
<br />
S: For example, the right frontal lobe is largely redundant and you could do a lot of stuff to that without producing and noticeable deficits. <br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: And, in fact, when surgeons have to go into the brain they prefer to do the non-dominant frontal lobe because it's mostly redundant, but, you take out language cortex and you can make somebody completely lose their ability to speak, for example.<br />
<br />
B: It'd be like a stroke, Jay. It'd be like a stroke.<br />
<br />
J: But even a piece that small? <br />
<br />
S: If it's critical, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So there is one place in your brain that a certain type of functionality is happening and there's parts of your brains which is just storage for memory, there's parts of your brain that is doing something like processing what you see or what you hear. So you're better off losing a little portion of your memory than you are like a major piece of functionality, of course, but, I thought it was more evenly distributed.<br />
<br />
S: No. No no. It's not and it's also&ndash;memory's pretty evenly distributed but functions are localized and there's also&ndash;it's not just how localized it is it's how redundant it is. If something's really lateralized to one side you only have one piece of your brain that's doing that thing then you don't want to lose that. If you have bilateral redundancy then obviously you can afford to lose one cause the other side will make up for it. So, yeah, it depends on a lot of things. Interestingly, when reading through science news items this week&ndash;just this week was a study published by Swedish researchers from the University of Gothenburg and they were looking at astrocytes, which are a form of glial cells, and their effects on neuronal connections and function and essentially what they found is that the astrocytes are modulating the strength of the signalling between the neurons. Now, they basically are effecting how those synapses between neurons change over time. So what that means is is that the astrocytes might actually be directly involved in the formation of memories and plasticity of the brain and learning. Which, again, is just further evidence for their greatly enhanced role in actual memory function of the brain, not just, again, as support cells. So that research is ongoing and that was a huge shift in our thinking about the role of astrocytes.<br />
<br />
=== Largest Radio Telescope Array <small>(27:49)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.86c1ac9d54a51fd47b845663527a077d.1191&show_article=1 --><br />
<br />
S: Well lets go on. We have another bit of astronomy news, Bob, you're going to tell us about the largest radio telescope ever.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. This one's a quickie. This is the biggest radio telescope in the world and it was recently unveiled by scientists in the Netherlands. It's called LOFAR which stands Low Frequency Array. I think we touched upon this a while back. It consists of a whopping 25,000 small antennas and they're real tiny. They range in size from 50 centimeters to about 2 meters across. So they're not very big at all. And they're all spread out all over, not only the Netherlands, but also Germany, Sweden, France and Britain. And it's pretty cool. This thing is really going to do some amazing work I predict. Femke Beckhurst of the Netherlands Radio Astronomy Institute said, "Today we have launched the biggest radio telescope in the world. When you combine all the antennas you get a giant telescope with a diameter of about 1,000 kilometers," which is about 600 miles so that's pretty big. And it takes some nifty software to actually take all those separate signals and stitch them together. They're actually using a supercomputer to do some of that work. It's the Blue Gene P supercomputer which is a petaflop class supercomputer. So it's pretty fast. So with these observations that this radio telescope, or, I guess you can call it radio telescopes&ndash;So, the observations that they're going to be able to make with this&ndash;they're going to learn about the origin of the universe and some people are saying that they'll be able to go to the moment right after the big bang. Other&ndash;some other key science projects for LOFAR are what they call the epoch of re-ionization which is basically when the universe turned on. When things became. Also, things like ultra high energy cosmic rays which are a bit of a mystery, such as the one we mentioned&ndash;we mentioned one such cosmic ray a while back called the Oh My God Particle in 1991 which is probably the most energetic cosmic ray ever detected which was so powerful&ndash;imagine it was a subatomic particle with the energy of a baseball travelling at 60 miles an hour. Imagine, you get hit with one proton and it knocks you on your butt like it was a baseball travelling 60. So, amazingly fast. We're not sure what could have imparted so much energy to such a tiny thing. It was travelling so close to the speed of light it was essentially just a whisker&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But to clarify, it wouldn't really knock you on your butt, right? It would just go right through you.<br />
<br />
B: No. It's too tiny. Right. It is too tiny and it could do some damage, though, if it happened to hit the right, whatever in your body, DNA or something.<br />
<br />
E: Well, what if it hit a computer or something? It would really screw that up.<br />
<br />
B: That's a lot of kinetic energy. I don't know where&ndash;how all the kinetic energy would be transferred. Would it be transferred into heat. Would it fly right through? Probably&ndash;it might just fly right through.<br />
<br />
S: Or maybe it will smash through several particles on its way.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. It might hit&ndash;if hit's something squarely it could start a cascade so I think if it's just right it could actually&ndash;it could be noticeable. But there's other things&ndash;the solar science and space weather, cosmic magnetism, so I'm sure this thing is going to be used for a really long time and hopefully maybe even get even bigger.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob, what's the difference between the moment of the Big Bang and the moment of first illuminosity, I think is the word you used?<br />
<br />
B: Well, I believe it was 100,000 years or 1,000 years, it was a lot of time before things calmed down enough. Things were just so energetic that light&ndash;any photons that might have been generated were just bouncing around all over the place and they really couldn't settle down and just take a straight line any direction so there's nothing to see if you look back in visible light there's nothing to see cause all the photons are just kinda bouncing around. But also this epoch of re-ionization&ndash;that's kind of a different term than I'm used to. They refer to it as when things became luminous so I think it depends on&ndash;are they talking about the first stars, the first galaxies, the first quasars?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
B: If that's what they're talking about then that would actually be after what I'm talking&ndash;what I've just mentioned which is also called photon decoupling. So actually this epoch is a little bit different. I think it's later on.<br />
<br />
E: It's just amazing that they can make that distinction or make the determination that so much&ndash;however much time it is happened between the two.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: You think of the Big Bang&ndash;certainly in a visual display you're watching some show on TV that kinda of describes it and it's an intense white spot of light from the get go. At least that's how the depict it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But they always give you the impossible perspective of being outside the universe when the Big Bang happens.<br />
<br />
B: Space time, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But that's not a possible perspective. So it's kind of misleading.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A little.<br />
<br />
S: And a lot of that is&ndash;evidence is theoretical. They're just well what should have happened if you have the mass of the universe at a point and then what would happen over time? Based upon the temperatures and what things are like at those temperatures. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: But maybe this large radio telescope will help fill in those gaps.<br />
<br />
B: Some of them.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully.<br />
<br />
B: If it can actually get close to the moment after the Big Bang then absolutely it will be able to do&ndash;it will illuminate us in many ways.<br />
<br />
E: Very cool.<br />
<br />
J: I still don't get the concept that when the Big Bang took place&ndash;like, where it was specially in reality. You can't go to that space&ndash;that place in outer space because it doesn't really&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Sure you can. Wherever you go, there you are.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, geez. Really, Bob?<br />
<br />
E: It happened everywhere&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: It's true. It's true. It's everywhere. You can't point to it because it's not one specific spot. It's everywhere.<br />
<br />
J: Well, it didn't happen right here.<br />
<br />
E: It might have.<br />
<br />
S: Every part of the universe was at that point, Jay, at that time.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, so, meaning that the universe is growing in size.<br />
<br />
S: Of course. But it's like&ndash;if you do the two dimensional analogy, it's like blowing up a balloon. Where was it before you blew it up? Well it's&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: How&ndash;right. Try to explaining to a two dimensional creature on that balloon where&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: It was in the package.<br />
<br />
J: where the center is.<br />
<br />
S: You'd have to point into the 4th dimension.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
J: I can't picture it.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Amityville Horror House for Sale <small>(34:11)</small>===<br />
[http://www.theness.com/roguesgallery/?p=1676 Rogue's Gallery: Amityville Horror House for Sale]<br />
<br />
S: So, the Amityville Horror House is back in the news.<br />
<br />
E: And it's back in the news because its up for sale.<br />
<br />
S: Sale. That's right. For what? 1.5 million?<br />
<br />
E: 1.15 million dollars.<br />
<br />
B: In this market?<br />
<br />
J: I know. Isn't that crazy?<br />
<br />
S: You can own a piece of paranormal history.<br />
<br />
B: But, is that price kind of crazy for the neighborhood because the house is famous?<br />
<br />
E: I don't know. I imagine that has something to do with it. They said they'd done a lot of renovations recently on the house. So&mdash;Look, I imagine the main factor, like any other piece of property is&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Location.<br />
<br />
E: comparable&mdash;yeah, location and comparable houses for sale in the area.<br />
<br />
S: But here's my question. Now, typically, if a house is alleged to be haunted or if a murder took place there it's considered psychologically damaged and that actually reduces the value of the house. But in this case it's famous for being psychologically damaged, so does that increase the value of the house?<br />
<br />
E: Or do the two equal each other out?<br />
<br />
S: The balance out?<br />
<br />
E: The negative and positive balance out.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So, there were a series of murders there in 1974. Ronald DeFeo Sr., his wife, Louise, their two sons and two daughters were shot while they slept in the home and the one remaining family member alive, Ronald, nicknamed Butch DeFeo, he confessed to the murders and is serving a life sentence in prison. And then just a few weeks after the sentencing of Butch, George and Kathy Lutz and their three children moved into the home where a new round of supposed horrors began. Muwahaha. Well, not really.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about them.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, there was supposedly all sorts of things happening in this house. They reported sightings of&mdash;well, the kids reported sightings of animals, mostly a pig named Jody. A sculpted lion came to life and supposedly walked around the house.<br />
<br />
S: Cool.<br />
<br />
E: A demonic boy appeared. It was photographed and you can find that famous photograph online. Kind of looks like a regular boy but that's beside the point. And other strange things in the house. Oh, green slime oozed from the walls. Crucifix on the wall was constantly rotating until it left itself upside down and, needless to say, 28 days after they moved in&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: 28 days later.<br />
<br />
E: 28 days later. Good one Steve. The Lutz's fled.<br />
<br />
S: What about the&mdash;you forgot about the hell-mouth. It's a gaping mouth to hell in their basement.<br />
<br />
J: Wait. Wasn't that in Poltergeist.<br />
<br />
E: That was another movie, I think.<br />
<br />
B: No. No no no. <br />
<br />
E: You're right, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: It's the red room.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It was a red room, which in the movie they kind of made it seem like it was the road to hell or something.<br />
<br />
E: Now there was one small problem with all of these paranormal happenings. They never really happened. It was a story&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: It was fake.<br />
<br />
E: The whole thing was fake. However, that didn't stop famous demonologist and psychic investigator&mdash;paranormal investigator Ed Warren and his wife Loraine from investigating the matter and deeming that house to be one of the most haunted places in the world.<br />
<br />
S: Right. Right after their basement.<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Their basement in Monroe, Connecticut #1, Aminityville #2.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Right. It was fake. And now it's up for sale.<br />
<br />
E: It is. So&mdash;if you've got dollars burning a whole in your pocket&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: You might want to go get a piece of history.<br />
<br />
S: The people who bought the house after the Lutz's complained that they had to deal with the paranormal tourists bothering them day in and day out. Gawking at the house and everything. So&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So much so that they had to change the address of the house.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So it really was psychologically damaged for them, cause it came with all the tourists.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm looking at a picture of the demon boy.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: It's a little boy.<br />
<br />
S: With no eyes.<br />
<br />
J: Well, the eyes are whited out so it looks kind of creepy. Photo could have been doctored.<br />
<br />
E: Could have been a dozen things, right, other than a demonic boy from hell.<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:46)</small>==<br />
S: Well, thanks for that, Evan, and why don't we go on to Who's That Noisy?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. For those of you who forgot here is last week's Who's that Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: And then I began to study back&mdash;the relationships between the elements for plants and they are different as the elements for humans. Because Cali and Forswore are actually the friends of each other in the homeopathic material magica for humans, but in plants these two substances are each other's enemy.</blockquote><!-- The Cali and Forswore are just going phonetically. I couldn't understand what he said. --><br />
<br />
S: Mm hmm.<br />
<br />
E: Mm hmm. So, you learned a little bit about homeopathy in that clip.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Two substances&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Or not.<br />
<br />
S: Two substances which are enemies in plants are friends in people. Or animals.<br />
<br />
E: Bet you didn't know that before.<br />
<br />
J: So who is that guy?<br />
<br />
E: That is V. D. Kaviraj. A homeopath of some repute and the reason I actually found this person is because I was watching a Youtube video of our&mdash;well, friend, Mr. Benneth&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Who had this fellow as part of an interview so I thought that would make a rather interesting Noisy, last week.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: And, not only did someone get it correctly but they actually also went ahead and found the clip from which I clipped it so if you go onto our message boards and [[SGU_Episode 256 | Episode 256]] you can actually take a look and listen for yourself to the entire interview and bring some coffee cause you with otherwise fall asleep.<br />
<br />
S: You don't want your brain to explode. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Exactly. So, NoWoo, en-oh-double you-oh-oh, from the message boards guessed correctly. Congratulations. Well done.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. What have you got for this week, Evan?<br />
<br />
E: Okay. And here is this weeks Who's That Noisy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>?: Does the shade<!-- what? --> give you the authority you need to take dangerous products off the shelves? And the answers always yes.</blockquote><br />
<br />
E: That's a short one this week.<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Thanks Evan.<br />
<br />
E: But I think there's enough information in there for someone to get it. So, be the first one to guess correctly. Good luck everyone.<br />
<br />
S: Thanks, Ev.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Soy <small>(41:02)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>Steve - You made the offhand comment that there are "serious concerns" that soy milk is producing an estrogen type hormonal effect. I am a vegan bodybuilder who drinks a quart of soy milk everyday. I am concerned your offhand comment will scare people away from switching to a healthier milk alternative with no saturated fat. I've looked in the past when people have made these claims, and all I can find is that there may be some very mild effect, but nothing that rises to the level of your "serious concern" comment. If there was, there would be serious estrogen related issues throughout Asian countries. Since you felt it necessary to scare people away from soy by telling them about the "serious concerns" science has with soy milk, I hope you will provide the research on you next show that proves soy milk causes serious estrogen like effects. I do love the show, and I thank everyone for the time and effort you guys put into it every week. Michael Wilson Prescott, AZ</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Cursed Cell Phone Number <small>(45:50)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>The cursed cell phone number Thought you guys might like this story of truly stupid superstitious thinking that misses the glaringly obvious. <br />
<br><br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7763578/Mobile-phone-number-suspended-after-three-users-die-in-10-years.html Telegraph: Mobile phone number suspended after three users die in 10 years]<br />
<br>Danforth France Glendale, CA</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Magic Bee Juice <small>(50:27)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>One of the branches of the company I work for in Japan has started selling Propolis as a means to make more money in a bad economy. This branch has repeatedly tried to get me to buy some of this magic bee juice. Many of my Japanese co-workers have taken the bait. They are putting bee juice in their drinks and swallowing magic bee juice pills. When I ask them if they feel any better, they all say they aren’t sure. Hmm… I think the company I work for has a snake oill division. Do you know of any scientific evidence that shows any benefit to taking Propolis? All the information I found say that Propolis may contain lead and other garbage bees pick up while flying around the city. Thank you for your time. David Gardner Osaka, Japan </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Personality Tests <small>(54:41)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Steve, I'm trying to figure out the difference between the Incorrect Cause fallacy and the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy? Skepticwiki is telling me that Post Hoc is a type of Incorrect Cause Fallacy, but I'm just not getting the difference. They seem to be one and the same. Any help would be appreciated. I'm trying to complete a 5x5 recording we did a few months ago and I'm recording a missing part which was about the "Incorrect Cause" fallacy. The topic of the 5x5 was Chemtrails and it seems to me that the Post Hoc fallacy would work better here. Mike Lacelle Canada </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:07)</small> ==<br />
<br />
*[http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:14:40)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.</blockquote> <!-- the quote as read by Jay was different, should see if we can find a source to find the real quote --><br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS Con <small>(1:18:11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro119}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGUTranscripts:Community_portal&diff=5579SGUTranscripts:Community portal2013-01-24T23:17:34Z<p>Geneocide: </p>
<hr />
<div>Hi guys like others I've often thought about this as a project but put off by the amount of time that it would have taken one person, the main reason I thought about doing this was to be able to search the transcripts when needed, example: if someone asked me a question on Homoeopathy I would be able to use my smartphone to give an answer based on what the SGU have talked about in the past, as I generally take what the guys say as fact.<br />
<br />
Do you think that what I'm taking about would be possible using this WIKI project??<br />
<br />
Looking forward to starting and completing my first SGU Transcript :-)<br />
<br />
--[[User:Manontop|Manontop]] 09:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hi Manontop.<br />
:<br />
:Sure, I think that would be one of the most important uses of these transcripts. My ideas for having transcripts of the SGU episodes are to facilitate linking, searching and accessibility:<br />
:<br />
:* Linking. We have headings throughout the podcasts so that it's possible to link directly to a specific segment, for example [[SGU_Episode_352#Aristolochia_Nephropathy|Aristolochia Nephropathy]] (internal wiki link) or [http://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_352#Aristolochia_Nephropathy Aristolochia Nephropathy] (external link).<br />
:* Searching. Currently there are (at least) two ways to search. Either using Google or the built-in search box in the top right. If you want to use Google to search only this site, you can do so by using the "site:" term in your query. E.g. your Google query would be [https://www.google.com/search?q=site:sgutranscripts.org+titanic+disaster "site:sgutranscripts.org titanic disaster"]. Google is the king of them all, so I have installed proper semantic web (SEO) support. When a transcript is completed I go through and insert tags to important concepts that are covered in the podcast. This helps Google (and other search engines) know what is important about that page. You can see these by opening a transcript and viewing the source of the page. Then look for the <meta name="keywords" content="..."> tag. There are two components to this, tags that are site-wide such as "skeptics, sceptics, scepticism" etc. followed by tags that are local to a particular page such as "titanic, tragedy, ss, californian, space, junk" etc. Of course, Google also uses the page content when indexing.<br />
:* Accessibility. Quite simple really; people who can't listen to the podcast for any reason (deafness etc.) can now read the transcripts instead.<br />
:<br />
:Great to have you on board! :)<br />
:<br />
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 11:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hi guys,<br />
<br />
I'm guessing this is the best place to put project discussions, let me know if there's another way - I'm new to Wiki editing.<br />
<br />
Regarding time stamps for the sections, I've entered them into the headings of [[SGU_Episode_348]] using < small > tags. This shows them smaller in the actual headings, but the same size in the contents list.<br />
What do you guys think?<br />
<br />
I've also been thinking of ways to make these transcript pages as useful as poss without causing ourselves too much extra work. One way might be to include a kind of bullet-point list of facts from the episode, as they often have throw-away comments that are interesting. E.g. in ep.348, they talk about nut allergies, and that cashew nuts contain the same allergy-inducing resin as poison-ivy. We could lift these from the main text as we go and build a list at the end. It wouldn't make much difference if someone's reading the whole transcript, but it might make a nice feature for flicking through them.<br />
Just a thought, I figured it would be better said earlier than later. What do you think?<br />
<br>Cheers,<br />
<br />
--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 04:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I like the idea of compiling a fact list at the end of the transcription for each episode. It's just up to the individual transcriber I suppose. Regarding the < small > tags, I definitely think it would help to have the timestamps in these transcriptions, and having it in the section title makes it visible in the table of contents. The other option is to use the wikibox on your user page, which I think is very nice, containing the image, quote, times and links in one place. It just depends on whether or not other people like it too.<br />
:--[[User:Jay One|Jay One]] 20:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, I have no experience making wikibox templates, so if someone else knows more about these, mb they'd like to build one? (although I'm happy to try) we should probably come to some agreement about whether we want them and what they should contain.<br />
::--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 20:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Has anyone explored the idea of hiring a professional transcriptionist to do the work? This could be much faster, but there would be a cost involved. Perhaps a donation fund could be set up for SGU listeners to pay for it. Another podcast that goes this route is the "Security Now" podcast from Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte.<br />
<br>-- [[User:128.200.139.53|128.200.139.53]] ([[User talk:128.200.139.53|talk]]) 17:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
:I'm a professional trascriber and I would love to contribute towards this project. VLC is good but not optimized for transcription purpose. I would suggest NCH's ExpressScribe software and it's free. Also if you are spending a lot of time on this project, I would recommend investing on a foot pedal. It shouldn't cost you more than $25. With these two things, I am sure you can double your productivity.<br />
:--[[User:Eupraxsophic|Eupraxsophic]] ([[User talk:Eupraxsophic|talk]]) 02:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I'd like to help, but I ''cannot'' tell Jay and Bob's voices apart. Am I useless?<br />
<br>--[[User:Jenpohl|Jenpohl]] 20:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I often find this difficult, and it's quite likely I've already made mistakes based on this, but mb you'll get better as you're listening closely. I find Bob more nasal. Another good indicator is whether they're referencing nanotechnology or porn. :)<br />
:--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 21:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
:That may be a problem, but all it took for me to tell their voices apart was a little time.<br />
:--[[User:Jay One|Jay One]] 21:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Just a thought: if you want to put up a <ins>transcription page including</ins> timestamps in comments (using "< !--" and "-->" without spaces in them) for the points you're unsure about, you could flag the pages up here for me (or whoever) to see if we can help out. <ins>This way we can easily search for problem points.</ins><br />
:--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 06:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC) [edited:16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)]<br />
<br />
:You're definitely not useless! The most important thing is to get a first pass of the transcription done, corrections are then much quicker/easier. How about you put a question mark after the letter if you can't work out who's speaking? So like:<br />
:<br />
:B?: Stuff that Bob or Jay said<br />
:<br />
:Then someone else can go fix them later, should be pretty quick to do.<br />
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I've inserted a rough draft of a fact list at the bottom of [[SGU_Episode_348]]. What do you guys think? It was easy to put together, but I didn't know what to call it.<br />
<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 05:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
:I originally thought it was a bad idea until I went and looked at your example. Now I think it's ''awesome'', I love it! :) Currently you've called it "Today I Learned..." which I think is good, but can anyone think of a title that's better? Like maybe "Interesting ideas from the podcast" except not that as it sounds terrible. ;)<br />
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Yay! Thanks. For the name, the only thing I thought, was I wanted to be careful not to assert them as hard facts. Also, we should mb point out that they are not part of the transcript, but taken from it after.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hi guys, and thanks for starting this project! I don't have a lot of time to devote to doing whole transcripts, but I'd like to start categorizing the wiki pages, like "SGU Transcripts", "Live Episodes", etc. I think it would also be helpful to have next/previous episode links on each page, either at the bottom or in the infobox. Any opinions?<br>--[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 15:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hi Av8rmike, thanks for your interest, any help is always appreciated, big or small. We were thinking of using the categories from the [http://theness.com/roguesgallery/ Rogues gallery], plus others more specific to the podcast, e.g. guests. I think adding a category for live episodes is a great idea. We're also considering using redirect pages for categorizing podcast sections separately. <br />
:I agree, previous/next buttons would be good (in fact I was just playing with some graphics for them). However, I'm not sure how to get a wiki template to recognise the episode number and add/subtract automatically, do you have any ideas about that? Otherwise we can just input them manually.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 16:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I took a stab at adding some categories to [[SGU_Episode_354]] to give an idea of how that would work. I don't know offhand how to do the auto-numbering in wiki templates, but from looking at the help pages for templates, you can do almost anything with them. I could probably do some experimenting and see how far I get.<br />
::[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 18:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hi guys, I've noticed we've used 2 different time-stamp formats. When it gets past the hour mark, I use the h:mm:ss format, but some pages use mm:ss, e.g. 78:12. As the time-stamps form the links for sections, I figure this is pretty important. My argument for using h:mm:ss is that, in my experience, that's what the majority of audio software and mp3 players use, plus I think it's more natural for us to think of time this way. What do you guys think?<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 17:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Kitty, the only reason I was using mm:ss was because that's what was already in use on the existing pages. =P I agree that h:mm:ss makes more intuitive sense and is used in more places, so I'm all in favor of switching over.<br>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 13:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks for responding. Rwh86's away this week, so I'm gonna be cheeky, assume he's cool with it and change them over. We can always change them back if anyone comes up with a good argument for the mm:ss format.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hi guys...First time transcriber here! I was inspired by Tim Farley's presentation at TAM 2012 to see where I could help out - and figured I could at least try this. I just transcribed and posted [[5X5_Episode_4]], but I'm not familiar enough with the Rogues to distinguish voice identities. The only voice IDs I'm somewhat sure of are Steve's and Rebecca's (the others I guessed at). If anyone can help with voice IDs in Ep. 4, that would be great. (Maybe I'll get better at the voices in the future -grin-) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 03:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Hi Skepticat, and (as Av8rmike said) welcome to the team! I proof-read [[5X5 Episode 4]] and added the speakers. The page is great, took me no time to add them. In future, if there's a lot of lines you can't attribute, don't worry about adding times to each, just the first in a cluster. Hopefully that will save you a bit of time too :)<br>I often find Bob and Jay hard to distinguish, but I think Bob's just a little more nasal, and it sounds like Jay might use a desktop mic instead of one close by his mouth. I don't know if that's any help.<br>Thanks for your help, I'm very jealous you got to go to Tam, if you have any feedback for the site, do let us know.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for the proof-read! Care to take a whack at [[5X5 Episode 5]], which I just posted? I don't think I'm going to have much luck with voice IDs (other than S & R) unless someone specifically says who's who, so I'll leave that to much more experienced folks, such as yourself, for now. Heck, I ended up riding down in the same elevator with the SGU crew at TAM (I think it was the first morning?) and I didn't fully realize who they were until later. As I was a "first TAMMER", that happened to me a few times with other skeptic notables there. :) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 04:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Done! And just for the record, I definitely don't get the voices right ''all'' the time. That's just one of the reasons to have subsequent contributors as proof-readers :) <br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 12:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Skepticat: Some things that may help you get more familiar with the voices:<br />
::* Listen to an episode and follow along with the transcript (assuming it's been verified), paying attention to who's speaking when.<br />
::* Transcribe some of the earlier episodes. Perry is easy to distinguish, and Jay (and sometimes Bob) aren't in all the early ones because of software limitations.<br>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 14:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC) <br />
<br />
Hi guys, there's a few things I could do with getting some feedback on:<br />
# Using [[User:Teleuteskitty/Draft_main_layout|this page]] for the main page. (Av8rmike, I know you're pro)<br />
# Adding explanatory footnotes with the [[Template:Link needed]] (I explain this in more detail on the [[Template_talk:Link_needed|talk page]])<br />
# [[Help:How to Contribute]] page. Does this make sense to everyone?<br />
Could you please leave any feedback (positive/constructively critical/short/long) on the talk pages for these?<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 12:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The [[5X5 Episode 6]] transcript has just gone up and is begging for a proof-read and voice check. Any takers? :) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 04:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
:I got it covered. Thanks, Skepticat!<br>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 02:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
You may have noticed a few changes in the site layout, including restriction of the [[Main Page]] editing to admin only. To add/amend transcript page links on the new main page and the dedicated [[SGU Episodes]] and [[5X5 Episodes]] pages, use [[Template:SGU episode list]] and [[Template:5X5 episode list]]. Links to these templates and the skeleton pages are on the [[Help:Contents]] page, and instructions on [[Help:Getting Started]] have been updated accordingly.<br />
<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 10:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hi all. I think it would be a good idea to pick an episode that is the canonical one. One where whatever the current agreed upon standard is implemented that can be pointed to or referenced whenever needed. Just a thought. Oo... also, we should be careful about links. We need to use nofollow when appropriate so quacks don't get any google juice from our work.<br><br />
--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 03:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Good idea on the example episode, we're trying to figure out which one would be best. Suggestions welcome!<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
::It might be that we'll have to splice together a few episodes to get all the various elements in one place.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:::Hi, Geneocide! I think that the transcripts from episodes 350-365 (even the unverified ones) are probably as close to canonical as we're going to get. Those were done in the time when TK, RWH, and I had a little bit more time to devote to the pages and before we started to fall behind. (I'm particular to [[SGU_Episode_365|365]], since that's one I did almost entirely myself. =)<br/>--[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 02:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I've posted the transcript for [[5X5 Episode 30]] so it's ready for a proof. Any takers? Tried my best to keep to US spelling. Mostly wiki links but some external, any preference? [[User:tnewsome|tnewsome]] ([[User talk:tnewsome|talk]]) 23:19, 18 October 2012 (EST)<br />
:We've mostly used wiki links, as it keeps a general standard of reference, they're often updated and they reference out to other sites. It's also very handy when you've got lots of linkable points, and it would take forever to find the ''best'' website for each. If readers are interested, it's generally a good place for them to start. Thanks for your help!<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Had an idea for a project we could work on in conjunction with the transcription. We should keep track of places where the rogues explain a core concept in detail (a lot of 5x5 episodes I imagine) and link to that explanation from other places in the transcription. Paradolia, Occam's razor, selection bias, things like that. We could centralize them into a single page, as well. Within the canonical rogue explanation we can link out to wikipedia or other sources.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
: Sounds like a great idea, somewhat compatible with the TIL (Today I Learned) sections. I think centralising them into a single page would make them much easier to find... I know that when I'm transcribing and I hear someone say "we discussed that on a previous podcast" it'd be nice to have a place to go to find that, though perhaps searching would be sufficient.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is it possible to have certain text automatically become a link? Like 'Skeptic's Guide to the Universe' or 'New England Skeptic's Society' or the rogues' names for example?<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Not that I know of, other than perhaps using a template<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Question regarding interviews. When an interview is incorporated into a segment, such as Dr Rachie's interview in SGU 366, does that make her a guest? It doesn't seem like a black and white distinction. [[User:Zambuck|Zambuck]] ([[User talk:Zambuck|talk]]) 22:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Hi Zambuck, we use the 'Guest' section in the infobox as a key for non-Rogue speakers, so you're right to add her in there. Thanks for your help!--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 10:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is there a way to get <nowiki><blockquote></nowiki> formatted a little bit. Maybe a light background color and/or some automatic large quote marks? Right now it's not necessarily worth using, imho.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Yep, we could probably change the CSS. I'll see what I can do. Do you have a site in mind that I could use as a basis (i.e. to steal the css from)?--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
::It looks like something has changed to add a light beige background, which achieves the goal. Personally I think it could be a little more distinct, by my aesthetic tastes are poorly defined and not widely popular. I didn't have any examples in mind, but the first one on [http://css-tricks.com/examples/Blockquotes/ this] site looks good to me. It shows an example of what I meant by the "large quote marks". I am okay with having issues I bring up be un-addressed. I just write down things I think of. I leave the risk/reward analysis to those with better information on the subject. Still, I think the better looking the site is the more likely people are to use it.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 21:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hey, guys! I'm new here (heard about the project on the recent episode) and today added two sections in episode 349: [[SGU Episode 349#Nuclear Clock (34:53)|Nuclear Clock]] and [[SGU Episode 349#NDE and Lucid Dreaming (40:44)|NDE and Lucid Dreaming]]. Let me know how they look! It's my first time transcribing anything on this scale, and I think I'm getting the hang of it, but I have to admit that I'm a bit of a perfectionist and I feel strange not having ''more'' direction as far as formatting (I realize it would probably be very difficult/time-consuming to enforce super-specific standards at this stage). I looked at some of the completed transcripts to get an idea of what others were doing and tried to use my best judgment from there. I think I'm ready to attack a full episode, but it might take me a while to get through it. There are still some things I'm not entirely clear on, including exactly how the categories/redirects work, so I'm sure I'll ask for some help once I've finished transcribing a full episode (and probably while I'm in the middle of it). Also, I wanted to say that I usually don't have any trouble distinguishing voices (including Jay's and Bob's), so if there are any episodes/sections that need a second pair of ears for that specifically, I can definitely help out. Going forward, is this page the best way to communicate with other members? Thanks!<br />
--[[User:Jacquie o|Jacquie o]] ([[User talk:Jacquie o|talk]]) 11:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Hi Jacquie! Those transcripts you've done look absolutely fantastic! In terms of direction, we're just feeling our way though here. :) I suppose the most important thing is to get as much of the content done, and so long as the meaning is accurate, that's the most important thing. I also try to think "what if someone was running this through google translate?", i.e. would it translate well? That's leading me to leave out "you know" and "um" and those types of things to make the transcript flow better.<p>Great to hear you can tell Jay and Bob apart, if you have time and want some lighter work, doing some proof reading might be right up your alley then. Some people do transcripts and leave, say B?: or J?: if they're not sure, so you could possibly go through and fix those.</p><p>Going forward, we're trying to work on a place to help members communicate. The best I've got so far is this: [[Special:WikiForum]], but it's a bit bare bones, so when I get some time I'm going to try to integrate something a little more sophisticated.</p>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hello everyone! I heard Rob on the SGU and it sounded like a fantastic idea to contribute here. I transcribed a 5x5 episode to start (#39), and I'll probably do a few more before I go whole hog and tackle a full SGU episode. If anyone wants to proof-read that episode I did, that would be fantastic. I know the punctuation is way off there. Thanks in advance, and If you need my help specifically, don't be afraid to message me. Have fun! [[User:Thevipermike|Thevipermike]] ([[User talk:Thevipermike|talk]]) 05:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Great, thanks! I'll take a look when I get a chance. :)<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hey everyone. Was thinking we should maybe try to do something in honor of Mike Lacelle. The only thing I came up with was marking episodes in which he appears as priority and getting them transcribed as soon as we can. If someone found the episodes and marked them I know I personally would work on them before other episodes. Any other ideas?<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 07:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
: That sounds good to me. How about I put a highlight on the front page to replace the t-shirt competition, seeing as that's been won now ;) <br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 17:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
:As far as I can tell, he was mostly on around the year-in-review episodes, so I went through them:<br />
:* 2011 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-31.mp3 337 - Dec 31 2011] - Mike is on this.<br />
:* 2010 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-12-29.mp3 285 - Dec 29 2010] - Mike is on this.<br />
:* 2009 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-01-01.mp3 232 - Jan 1 2010] - Mike is on this.<br />
:* 2008 in review: 180 - Dec 30 2008 - Mike is NOT on this.<br />
:* 2007 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-12-26.mp3 127 - Dec 26 2007] - Mike is on this.<br />
:* 2006 in review: 75 - Dec 27 2006 - Mike is NOT on this.<br />
<br />
::Hiya, I've started listing the episodes Mike was on here: [[Mike Lacelle - In memoriam]]. I don't think that's all of them though. I've also created pages for some of the episodes, I agree it would be good to prioritise these.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 19:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hello all. I just joined. Jumped in and proofread [[SGU Episode 3]], some very minor copy edits, added a fair number of links, and subdivided a particularly long interview. I also added some "dead links" to pages I was figuring we should have locally: NESS and JREF. Or should I go back and change them to external links to THE Wikipedia?<br />
<br />
--[[User:Bshirley|Bshirley]] ([[User talk:Bshirley|talk]]) 03:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
: Hi Bshirley. Thanks for the proof reading, it's very appreciated. It's always fun to add links during the proof reading process, I find I do that a lot too. I really like the subdivisions within the interview breaking it into its topics, that's something I might try to do in future; it would really help with deep linking to a particular subject of discussion. As for the dead links, I'm not so sure. I guess I see our site as not so much providing pages on particular topics à la Wikipedia, and am more inclined to link off to Wikipedia for those kinds of things. We can always improve them on Wikipedia if need be. Just my opinion tho.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 15:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Did the way the diffs display change? They look good.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 02:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
: They ''do'' look good. :) I didn't intentionally change them, but perhaps they changed with the new 1.20 mediawiki version (along with user registration briefly being broken). <br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 13:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Call for volunteers''': I've posted a framework for [[SGU_Episode_49|episode 49]] and did the first segments, then marked it as "open" to try to attract some more help. This one is The Steve Novella Show, as in the one he did all by himself, including Science or Fiction and Name That Logical Fallacy. It should be very easy to do, especially for someone who has trouble telling different voices apart. Sorry I can't offer any T-shirts. =)<br />
: What exactly needs doing on this episode? I don't want to listen to everything if I don't have to. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
::Oops, I just now noticed I never signed my comment. D= You don't have to transcribe the entire thing if you don't want to; you can do just a segment here or there.<br/>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 22:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
:::Well, maybe it's more trouble than it's worth but if you know that there's nothing missing up until some point, what that point is would be nice. It's a little unclear just looking at the transcript so far... at least to me.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 00:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
::::It's been transcribed up to the [[SGU_Episode_49#Agnosticism_.289:03.29|Agnosticism]] e-mail. The rest has just been copied over from the show notes page. I haven't even formatted the text to break it into paragraphs, which may be what made it unclear to you.<br/>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 16:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Quoted from [[Talk:SGU_Episode_127]] for general discussion:<br />
<blockquote>If we just put in dead links to episodes that don't exist, wouldn't that create a list of the most referenced yet to be made episode pages? Wouldn't that possibly be good?<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 02:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
</blockquote><br />
:True, it would add them to [[Special:WantedPages]], although the numbers there are bumped up by having consecutive episodes transcribed with automatic navigation links etc. . I like the idea of noting the most needed episodes, but I personally think it's best to avoid dead links in text where possible, even though these would automatically update when the page becomes available. I proposed a slightly different way on [[Template talk:Link needed]] a while back - we could use that method to add a reference with the dead link, bumping them up the 'Wanted' list, whilst keeping an eye on [[:Category:Needs internal links]]. Which isn't perfect. Alternatively, we could:<br />
#create the referenced pages and add a 'priority pages'category<br />
#make a page listing all episodes to be transcribed, marking which are referenced<br />
:What do you think?<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 02:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
::I'm a big fan of whatever is easiest. Am I right in thinking that this would be the broken (red) link approach? <br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I think so, yep. And just for the record, if that's what you guys think is best, I'm more than happy to go back through pages switching 'link needed' templates to dead links &ndash; I'm more motivated to take a uniform approach than to get any of my over-complicated ideas in place :)<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 22:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'll offer my reasoning on the "Link needed" template, since I'm the one that created it. My idea for it was just as a "placeholder" for when I was transcribing/proof-reading and one of the rogues makes reference to something from a previous episode, but I ''didn't'' know which episode it is, indicating for someone to find it at a subsequent date. If you know what episode is being referenced and there isn't a page created already, I'd say by all means go ahead and put in the dead link to save another person the trouble of figuring out which episode it should be.<br/>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 04:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Ah, I see! That makes sense. Looks like that's the probably the consensus, so I'll start switching them over tonight<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 07:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hello everyone, <br>HNY and thanks for all the great work you're doing here. I'm new to transcribing and to this whole Wiki editing stuff but hope I won't make too much of a mess. <br>I posted a [[5X5_Episode_37|5x5 Episode 37]] for a start so I guess it's ready for proof-reading. I didn't go through the whole Help section yet, just copied the formatting from another verified episode. So if anyone can take a look and check what I got wrong, I'd appreciate it. <br>I'm not an English native speaker, so: (a) Though I tried to stick to the American spelling, there may be some impurities; (b) I'm never sure about punctuation. Guess I tend to abuse/misuse/misplace it. <br>One more thing: I wasn't sure what to do with all the "likes", "you knows"' etc. so I left them in. Don't know what the best practice is. Oh, and I didn't have too much trouble telling Jay and Bob apart. Beginner's luck? ;) <br>Keep up the good work! <br>--[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 00:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Great stuff! Welcome on board. I've proof read 5x5 #37 for you and I must say, I take my hat off to you. As someone who has some familiarity with a foreign language (having lived in France for a year), I must say you did an amazingly good job. I'd say your error rate is pretty much the same as transcripts done by native speakers. :)<br />
:* Re: American/British spelling: I don't really care, but I'm a bit more laissez faire than most other people on here. :) <br />
:* Re: likes/you knows: I tend to leave them out unless they modify the meaning of the sentence. <br />
:* Re: Bob/Jay: I'm beginning to suspect that this is a talent, as well as a skill. <br />
:One thing that might help is the [[Help:Contents#Useful_pages|skeleton pages]]. These are blank templates you can use when starting a new transcript. Cheers for your help! <br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 12:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Wow! Appreciate the thumbs up. That's very encouraging. And thanks for the proof read. Apart from obvious misspellings, you corrected the very bits I was least sure of and that's a good sign, I guess :) Care to look at [[5X5_Episode_41|5x5 #41]]? Hope it's not worse than the first one. Cheers! <br>--[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 13:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yep, done. That was even better than the first one, just one change really: [http://www.future-perfect.co.uk/grammartips/grammar-tip-practise-practice.asp practise vs practice]. I'm a native speaker and I still get those mixed up. :) <br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 15:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Thanks :) And now [[5X5_Episode_42|#42]] is up for grabs. This is fun ;)<br>--[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 18:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hey. I've seen the [[Special:Statistics|Statistics]] page, but I've also noticed that when I search, it tells me the word count of pages. Is it possible to get some sort of Total word/character count? I personally would like to see.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 01:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: There's also [[Special:ContributionScores]] but I think it has a tendency to massively overvalue small changes over larger ones, so people who do a lot of small corrections get higher scores than those who have transcribed a lot of text which is obviously not what we want. I haven't been able to find an extension that gives a total word count, but a while back I did do it manually by dumping all of the pages to text using some bodgy scripts on my linux box, then doing a word count on those text pages. It was on 2012-11-28 and we had transcribed 910,050 words, 5,128,984 characters, and we had completed 57 of 384 (15%) full SGU episodes and 78 of 113 (69%) 5x5 episodes. I'll do a refresh of these stats when I get a chance, but it's quite laborious.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 10:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Just casting my eye down the episode lists, I get 65 SGU (17%) and 83 5x5 (73%) episodes complete right now.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 10:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: OK, I just did another run: 1,055,851 words, 5,937,159 characters.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 12:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Design request: make the left pane logo and links float down the page when scrolling. Just another idea I'm throwing out there.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 21:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hello everyone. I have an idea that is not completely relevant to SGU Transcripts, but I thought this would be the best place to ask this question. For a while now I have been wanting to have a little more fun with the results of Science or Fiction, beyond the simple annual tabulation of scores. Most importantly, I would like to measure the GWB Effect! Specifically, I would like to begin tabulating data on each Science or Fiction, and making it available to anyone who wants to perform an analysis on it. Things we could measure are: result for each player (right/wrong), order of answers given, number of "science" options, existence of theme, etc. There are other things as well. I think it would be a fun project for SGU fans who are also stats geeks. Anyone else interested?<br /><br />
--[[User:Manyou07|Manyou07]] ([[User talk:Manyou07|talk]]) 08:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Sounds great! I know that [[User:Teleuteskitty]] has done some stuff. Would it be possible to do something cool with google docs? It'd be nice to do some graphs too.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 14:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Could we use the YouTube API and auto captions to get a rough draft? <br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 23:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_257&diff=5572SGU Episode 2572013-01-23T23:44:40Z<p>Geneocide: /* Amityville Horror House for Sale (34:11) */ transcribed</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all |transcriber = Geneocide }}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 257<br />
|episodeDate = 14<sup>th</sup> June 2010<br />
|episodeIcon = File:amityvilledemoboy.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-06-14.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=257<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,28802.0.html<br />
|qowText = Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Monday, June 14<sup>th</sup>, 2010 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey everyone. How are you doing tonight?<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: Quite well.<br />
<br />
E: Good.<br />
<br />
S: No Rebecca tonight because we are on the lead up to TAM recording schedule. We going to have a little bit of a weird recording schedule the next few weeks and Rebecca was not available tonight and she has no internet access.<br />
<br />
J: That's because her and Sid bought a house.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: She hasn't been able to get internet and cable, I guess, to the house yet.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. But it's a big secret. Don't tell anyone, folks.<br />
<br />
S: They're moving into a new flat. Is it still a flat if it's a house?<br />
<br />
B: No. Wait wait, no, a flat's an apartment, isn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Are they moving into a house house, or is it like a condo or what is it?<br />
<br />
J: I think it's a house house.<br />
<br />
S: But no cable yet.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, if she has a house, that means she has a basement which means she could run a haunt in her house.<br />
<br />
B: Not necessarily. Florida houses don't have basements but that's because of the water table.<br />
<br />
J: Well, no. If she's in England she has a root cellar.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: Which is even creepier.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:19)</small> ==<br />
E: Well, on this day in 1648 Margaret Jones was hanged in Boston for witchcraft. The first such execution for the Massachusetts colony.<br />
<br />
S: How many people were killed?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they didn't stop with Margaret. It was 20 people.<br />
<br />
S: Were executed.<br />
<br />
E: We executed for witchcraft.<br />
<br />
J: Wow. And we got off lucky. Didn't&ndash;in Europe wasn't it a much bigger phenomenon in Europe?<br />
<br />
S: A conservative number is around 60,000 deaths directly attributable to the witch hunts.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Depending on how you count it. There were 20 people executed in Salem. 19 hung and that one guy, Giles Corey was crushed to death cause he refused to enter a plea.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Hayabusa Returns <small>(2:02)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100613/ts_afp/spacejapanaustraliaasteroidsreturn_20100613204620 <br />
<br />
possible replacement: [http://www.space.com/8592-japanese-asteroid-probe-historic-return-earth.html Space.com: Japanese Asteroid Probe Makes Historic Return to Earth]<br />
--><br />
S: Well Bob, tell us about Hayabusa returning to Earth.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this is pretty cool. I totally forgot about this guy but this is an interesting story. The Japanese space agency known as JAXA, Jay-Ay-Ex-Ay, completed a mission recently to bring a sample of an asteroid back to Earth. This is something that's never been accomplished before and regardless of what happens there has never been a spacecraft that touched down on an asteroid and then came back to Earth. So regardless if they even brought anything back with them this was a first. Like I said, the only real question that remains as of the taping of this podcast anyway is whether the canister they retrieved in Australia has any asteroid. If you remember back in 2003, JAXA's Hayabusa craft began a 2 year journey to an asteroid named Itokawa and I wish I could say the mission went swimmingly but I can't. The craft really experienced some nasty technical difficulties. It seems likes throughout the whole way, or at least through a lot of it. They just kept hitting problem after problem. They even had some&ndash;some solar flair even messed up with it's power source so the energy that it had was less than they had anticipated and some of the biggest failures, though, was they had this metal ball that they would shoot&ndash;or they planned on shooting at the asteroid to collect rock samples and that failed. And then there was another mechanism, which they were planning on using to stir up the dust around the lander on the asteroid and that failed as well to collect any samples. So you might think that it was a total bust but the real hope at this point is that they hope that the dust that stirred up during the landing kind of just was swirling around and entered the canister&ndash;the collection canister so that's really all their hope is on that.<br />
<br />
S: So they really don't know if there's going to be anything in that canister. <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, they have no idea at this point. It doesn't look good to me.<br />
<br />
J: Is it on it's way back to Earth or it can analyze it.<br />
<br />
B: It came back to Earth. The craft burned up in the atmosphere but it ejected this heat protected canister which landed at the Woomera Protected Area which is a restricted military zone in south Australian desert. Now some conspiracy hypothesists may say that in reality this whole 7 year mission was a subtle attempt to get access to this restricted military zone. But, ya know, I'm just saying.<br />
<br />
J: Look at that. It landed in Area 51. Could we go get it?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Yeah.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: But, being silly, but I want to congratulate JAXA, though. Even if there's no sample which would really be nasty, but even if there's no sample, it was a great effort that tested lots of new technologies, like, for example, sampling and retrieval, electrical propulsion, autonomous navigation. So lots of interesting new technologies and this really was a test bed. Problems like this are to be expected.<br />
<br />
J: At this point any kind of space exploration is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: In the time when we're worried that it's all gonna go away and dry up&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm really happy to hear about stuff like this.<br />
<br />
B: That's true. But you really got to hand it to JAXA, though, because they relentlessly attacked every difficulty that arose creatively solving problems, and according to some people it was Apollo 13 in scale in terms of how difficult these problems were.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: But granted, lives were not on the line, but still they had to go through a lot. On the way home they lost half of their engines kicked out and they had to figure out how to get home with only half the engines running so they did an amazing job.<br />
<br />
J: I don't like you comparing it to Apollo 13 because it being unmanned is one thing and the other thing was they got those people back to Earth safely with an enormous amount of effort. Nothing can match that.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I'm not comparing it and I did kind of say that not in terms of the lives but in terms of creative problem solving it was similar. Some people are comparing it.<br />
<br />
J: Well, if they make a movie about it I might believe it then.<br />
<br />
S: Cause it's not real unless Hollywood does a movie about it.<br />
<br />
B: As you can imagine this is a huge, huge news story in Japan. They're really playing it up. It's all over the place, cause this is&ndash;it's quite a feat. Regardless of what happens this is a first, so that's great. If they have a sample, even better, cause you learn lots of things about the solar system&ndash;because we don't have&ndash;think about it&ndash;the material we have from asteroids really is just meteorites, right, that have landed on the earth and they've gone through the atmosphere. They're not the same.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When you come through the atmosphere&ndash;they're not the same.<br />
<br />
E: Burn, yeah. Stuff burns away and, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: This will be pristine. This will be pristine rock and that will be invaluable.<br />
<br />
J: Do you guys think that one day we will park satellites in orbit and just mine them?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah. Mine asteroids?<br />
<br />
E: You mean bring them into a close orbit and then we send up vehicles and stuff to start plowing them for their platinum and all they're goodies?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. And how about&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
J: One thing that I remember thinking about when I was younger, why not put it in the same orbit that the earth is in, but just behind the earth. Would that mean that it would have to be the same size as the earth, though, in order to be in the same orbit?<br />
<br />
B: The velocity would be very different then. It couldn't have the same velocity because the mass would be so different, so, at some point, it would intersect with the earth. So I don't think that would work, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: You would need something to constantly regulate it's distance from the earth, right?<br />
<br />
S: You put it at a Lagrange point and it will sit there.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There ya go. Problem solved.<br />
<br />
S: A Lagrange point is a&ndash;if you have a map, a three dimensional map of the gravitational fields of the earth and the sun, for example, or any large body orbiting another large body, then those fields hit a pit, or they dip to a minimum. So anything that is at those points it's like being at the bottom of a hill, it's stuck there and it won't move away so it's actually fixed in position relative to the earth. So it would be perfect for something that we want to put someplace and have it stay there in terms of it's relationship to the earth.<br />
<br />
J: It's kind of like drafting, right?<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Come on, a little bit.<br />
<br />
S: But to complete that discussion there are a total of 5 Lagrangian points. One in the orbit of, lets say the earth, in front of it. One behind the earth in it's orbit. One on the opposite side of Earth's orbit. One between the earth and the sun and one outside the orbit on a line between the earth and the sun but farther than the earth. So five points total. A few of which would be pretty close. But also, there are asteroids that are said to quote unquote "stalk" the earth. For example, recently discovered the 2009 BD. It's not stationary with respect to the earth but it does&ndash;cause it interacts with the earth's gravity and it's not at a Lagrangian point, but it does get close to the earth and will sort of corkscrew around the earth's orbit and stay very close to use for a while and then maybe drift away and come back in it's orbit. It's got a very weird orbit but it does stay close to the earth.<br />
<br />
=== Einstein's Brain <small>(9:22)</small>===<br />
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305&ps=cprs NPR: Einstein's Brain Unlocks Some Mysteries Of The Mind]<br />
<br />
S: Jay, tell us about the amazing adventure of Einstein's brain.<br />
<br />
J: So this is a very interesting story. Before I get into the story let me just ask you guys a few questions. One, what makes you think Einstein was so smart? What was it about his brain that makes him smart? Some things that I'm sure most skeptics have heard was that, "Einstein used 10% of his brain where the regular person only uses 2 or 2.5%." You guys have heard of that, right?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, course.<br />
<br />
E: Or something similar to it, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's only be debunked about a million times on the internet and elsewhere, I believe, in our publication.<br />
<br />
E: Of course. That's what my phrenologist says.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: Here's one that is less common, but I've also heard and I believe I also used to think about this when I was younger and not knowing much about the brain but another thing that people think is that Einstein's brain had more hills and valleys on the exterior part of his brain.<br />
<br />
S: Sulci and gyri?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. So, that's basically the shape of the brain on the outside that makes it look like a brain. All those hills and valleys and little bumps and stuff that are on the outside of somebodies brain.<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: But, Steve, you said at one point that that does not mean you're smarter, correct?<br />
<br />
S: Well, not comparing one individual to another. There's too much variation to say that but that certainly is true when you compare species. The&ndash;what those do&ndash;what the gyri and sulci do&ndash;if you imagine the layers of the cortex and then fold it upon themselves like a ribbon that's what forms that structure and what the essentially does is it increases the surface area of the brain. So it's just a way of squeezing more computational surface area into a smaller three dimensional space which was obviously important to the evolution of our bigger, juicier brains. But you can't compare person A to person B and go, "Oh, he's got to be smarter because his brain looks smarter on an MRI scan. He's got more sulci." Doesn't work that way.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, why not also fill in the valleys between the hills? Between the gyri or the sulci or whatever they are?<br />
<br />
S: They're squished together. It's not significant.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
S: I mean, when you get old and your brain shrivels up and atrophies then you see expanded sulci and spaces but&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Your brain really shrivels up, huh?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, doesn't that suck?<br />
<br />
J: What the hell?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but Steve, I thought the idea, though, behind that was that they're not sure if the brain is really truly atrophying really, hugely, impacting cognition or is it just paring away the unessential parts of the brain that really aren't needed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, like motor skills and deep thinking.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: Barring, of course, dementia. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right Bob?<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's a complicated question. First of all those are not mutually exclusive cause both those things could be occurring at the same time. The pruning hypothesis where it's just cutting back neurons were sitting there waiting to be recruited but they haven't been, so they just go away at some point, but even still you imagine that there's fewer neurons around to be recruited so&ndash;after 50 or so we do start to lose our capacity to learn new things. We lose our flexibility. At least most of us. Some people really don't and they're brains don't atrophy as much, either.<br />
<br />
J: Bastards.<br />
<br />
S: So, some people genetically are built for more neurological longevity. But, yeah, you can't&ndash;I don't think it's accurate to say that there's no relationship between the atrophy of the brain as we age and the loss of cognitive ability. There absolutely is a relationship but it's complicated and we're not sure exactly what it is.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, it's not a black and white issue. It's more of a grey matter.<br />
<br />
B: Oh.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, wow, Evan, really?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright, so guys, let me continue. It's basically a story that I'm going to quickly tell everyone and then we'll discuss it.<br />
<br />
B: Alright.<br />
<br />
E: I love stories. Okay. I'm ready.<br />
<br />
J: So this man, named Thomas Harvey&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
E: Harvey.<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
J: and he&ndash;he actually performed the autopsy on Einstein at Princeton. Now this back in&ndash;Now this was when, '55 I believe Einstein died?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, around there.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. So, this is what the article said. The article said that during the autopsy routine the brain would be removed, examined, and then put back in the person's body for burial. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Which, by the way&ndash;we don't do that today. I don't know&ndash;that sounds odd. We don't put the brain back in the head. You take it out, you put it in a jar of formaldehyde and pickle it for 2 weeks, so that you can slice it up and look at it. Cause otherwise it's too much like jelly. You can't really slice into it. So that bit of that story certainly is not what's done today.<br />
<br />
J: Well maybe he took it out&ndash;cause it did say that he did put it in formaldehyde&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Well that's routine. That's routine.<br />
<br />
J: He was preparing it. He kept it out for the amount of time necessary and then instead of putting it back after the examination of the brain he kept it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, I think probably what happened is normally you would take it out, you pickle it for 2 weeks then you do what's called brain cutting. You slice it all the way through and you look for pathology and you look for the structures and whatnot and that's it. Then slides get filed away and the rest of it get thrown out, gets discarded as medical waste. Or, or, what can happen, sometimes the family may request that every last scrap of material gets returned and gets buried with the body.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. I'm sure that's&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: That happens sometimes, too. In fact, that happens even with&ndash;sometimes people will donate their body to science and their body will be dissected by medical students. Sometimes those bodies are just cremated. Other times everything's got to be put back&ndash;you don't put it back together but basically all bundled up and then sent back to the family to be buried or whatever they want to do with it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: That is a typical Jewish custom. I don't know how religious or close Einstein was to strict Jewish customs but I can tell you that that is Jewish customs. You bury as much of the remains as you possibly can.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So he probably&ndash;he held back the brain. He didn't do with it whatever was normally supposed to happen to it.<br />
<br />
J: No. He stole it. That's what happened.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. He stole it. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Brain thief.<br />
<br />
B: I'm going to donate my body to science fiction.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright. Continuing on&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: You stole that joke from somebody.<br />
<br />
J: So Thomas Harvey, because of what he did, because he kept Einstein's brain, he lost his job. Which seems to be the appropriate thing to take place.<br />
<br />
E: Bad trade.<br />
<br />
S: Cause that was unethical. What he did.<br />
<br />
J: And during that process he claimed that Einstein's son, Hans, gave him permission but that claim was denied by the family.<br />
<br />
S: What about Frans?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So, as I'm reading through this I realize, of course, hindsight being 20/20, I don't disagree with what the guy did. I think it was obvious to him at the time that there was something important about Einstein's brain and it should be studied further. Shouldn't just be thrown away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It kind of makes you wish that somebody at NASA thought that about the moon landing footage. <br />
<br />
B: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: "Ya know, I'm going to put this aside and not put it&ndash;file it with the rest of the tapes that are going to get erased and reused."<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Or, "Lets make a couple of backups, just in case. Or put it somewhere else. I don't know."<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Anyway.<br />
<br />
J: I've really gotta&ndash;let me sprint to the finish guys.<br />
<br />
B: Thanks for reminding me.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, go ahead.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. So I mentioned that I don't disagree. What Thomas Harvey wanted was he wanted neuro-anatomists to analyse Einstein's brain and see if they could find something out about it that we didn't know about the human brain before and that was his goal but as the story goes&ndash;so 40 years passes and then a writer named, Paterniti, he heard about all these events that we just went through and he decided that&ndash;I guess he wanted to write about what had taken place so he tracks down and finds Harvey. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Did he sue him?<br />
<br />
J: No. This guys an author.<br />
<br />
S: So he didn't give him a Paterniti suit?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god. You're on a roll tonight, Steve.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Any who, so, he tracks down Harvey, gets into a long conversation with him and, I guess, between the conversation and the two of them going back and forth they mutually decide the brain should be returned to Einstein's family and, I guess they new at the time that his granddaughter Evelyn was still alive so they wanted to return it to her. So Paterniti drives to Harvey's house, he described Harvey as bringing out Einstein's brain in a Tupperware jar. In a Tupperware container.<br />
<br />
E: Tupperware.<br />
<br />
J: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. That would seal in the freshness, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So the two of them planned to drive across the country from New Jersey all the way to California where the granddaughter lived. I guess they conversation had continued during this drive and Paterniti found out that Einstein had indeed&ndash;I'm sorry, that Harvey had indeed been sending out Einstein's brain when samples were requested he would take the samples and send them to neurologists across the globe. So, when saw the brain in the Tupperware container it had been cut up. It was sliced up. So, Harvey sent 3 different samples to a scientist named Marian Diamond and she had contacted Harvey years earlier and requested samples from 3 different parts of Einstein's brain and he did end up shipping them to her but he ended up shipping them to her in an old mayonnaise jar.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Okay? Not making this up.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: This was around 1980. She studied the samples. She found that Einstein's brain had normal amount of neurons but he had a higher than normal percentage of a different kind of brain cell and that cell was called a glial cell. That increase in glial cells was found especially in the parts of the brain that involved imagery and complex thinking, so that definitely made Diamond realize, "Well, this is very curious. Let me look into it." But first, Steve, why don't you tell us what a glial cell is.<br />
<br />
B: Support cells, aren't they?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's the other kinds of cells in the brain other than neurons and they are&ndash;yeah, for many years we thought they were basically support cells.<br />
<br />
B: Like structural cells.<br />
<br />
S: Not just structural but they create the friendly environment for the neurons. <br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right, they're there keeping the neurons alive and happy while the neurons are doing their job of remembering and calculating and stuff.<br />
<br />
B: Kind of like the Remora around sharks.<br />
<br />
S: I guess.<br />
<br />
J: So, at the time&ndash;<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Diamond was now asking questions like, "Well, why would there be more of these cells here if they're really just support cells? What's the significance of there being more of them here?" And it was a very odd idea at the time to think that glial cells had anything to do with Einstein's intelligence. Being that the cells were thought to be there for perhaps structural integrity perhaps there to just be, like Steve said, like more support cells than actual cells that were there for thinking. Alright, so now we go forward another 10 years and another researcher named Steven J. Smith published a paper that changed the perception of and understanding of the brain because what he did was&ndash;he was studying neurons and he was also studying these glial cells and he speculated that glial cells also were a part of the communication that happened within the cell and that also these cells weren't only communicating chemically but they were communicating with electricity in the manner that neurons communicate. And then he kept on fleshing out his idea and he also said that these glial cells could possibly be picking up communication between neurons&ndash;neurons are communicating with each other, glial cells would be listening in on this communication and then sending that data to other parts of the brain. So he came up with this idea that the brain&ndash;it's another way that the brain could be communicating internally. Which at the time was a profound idea. They though, at the time, that only neurons were doing the heavy lifting and that even though there was a ton of other cells in the brain that they didn't think really were doing anything. Neurons were it, but once they realized, "You know what? These glial cells might actually be doing complex things like be involved in learning and memory and ideas that we have of like what does it mean to be a genius. Glial cells might have something to do with high end thinking." So, once that started that started to really open up new ideas and that started a whole different school of thought. So then yet another scientist named, Doug Fields, he reproduced Smith's research and confirmed that it was actually valid. And, at one point, Doug Fields wrote, "Now we can see scores of ways in which astrocytes could be involved in many cognitive processes." And now it's not so crazy to find that there were abnormally high numbers of astrocytes in the parts of Einstein's brain involved in imagery and mathematical ability and that sort of thing. So, that was a pretty huge milestone and a huge leap forward in our understanding of the human brain. So in 2007, Harvey died. He really didn't know that him taking Einstein's brain, actually through these steps and through these different people actually lead to a move forward in our understanding of the riddle of the mind, but it seems that he actually did have something to do with it. And, Einstein's granddaughter didn't end up wanting her grandfather's brain so Harvey, before he died, he returned the brain back to the pathology department at Princeton, where it is today.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, can you only find out the number of astrocytes by cutting into a brain or is there a way to test it while you're still alive?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you can estimate it just by knowing what the density of astrocytes are and then calculating it by volume but if you want to look at an individuals astrocyte density, yeah, you gotta stain it. You gotta cut into it.<br />
<br />
J: So, Steve, could you just take a little&ndash;take a biopsy of somebody's brain and test it that way?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. You could.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think you could do&ndash;really?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Why not?<br />
<br />
E: Well, are you supposed to be biopsying the brain for this kind of testing purposes. It's really more for diseases.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you wouldn't do this. You wouldn't do that. You wouldn't biopsy a humans brain just out of curiosity but we do it for diagnostic purposes but it's got to be worth while to the person.<br />
<br />
E: Right. There's got to be something going on that you're looking for the answer for a cure or something.<br />
<br />
B: Risk benefit.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if they&ndash;I know it's not uncommon&ndash;brain surgery happens all the time. They open up people's skulls. They literally get in there with tools and go deep into the brain and remove tumors and do things like that. Cognitively if you did take someone's skull off, or a portion of the skull, and just cut out, say a jelly bean sized piece of the brain, under the idea that the person isn't going to bleed to death or whatever, just removing a piece of the brain then putting the skull piece back and letting the person heal. What would they lose from losing a portion of the brain that size?<br />
<br />
B: Depends. It depends on the portion.<br />
<br />
E: Lobotomi&ndash;You're lobotomizing a person at that point.<br />
<br />
B: It totally depends. My guess would be that either it's totally unnoticeable or you'd be completely debilitated.<br />
<br />
S: Bob's right. It completely depends on which jelly bean piece of brain you take out.<br />
<br />
B: Take the hypothalamus and you're f'd.<br />
<br />
S: For example, the right frontal lobe is largely redundant and you could do a lot of stuff to that without producing and noticeable deficits. <br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: And, in fact, when surgeons have to go into the brain they prefer to do the non-dominant frontal lobe because it's mostly redundant, but, you take out language cortex and you can make somebody completely lose their ability to speak, for example.<br />
<br />
B: It'd be like a stroke, Jay. It'd be like a stroke.<br />
<br />
J: But even a piece that small? <br />
<br />
S: If it's critical, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So there is one place in your brain that a certain type of functionality is happening and there's parts of your brains which is just storage for memory, there's parts of your brain that is doing something like processing what you see or what you hear. So you're better off losing a little portion of your memory than you are like a major piece of functionality, of course, but, I thought it was more evenly distributed.<br />
<br />
S: No. No no. It's not and it's also&ndash;memory's pretty evenly distributed but functions are localized and there's also&ndash;it's not just how localized it is it's how redundant it is. If something's really lateralized to one side you only have one piece of your brain that's doing that thing then you don't want to lose that. If you have bilateral redundancy then obviously you can afford to lose one cause the other side will make up for it. So, yeah, it depends on a lot of things. Interestingly, when reading through science news items this week&ndash;just this week was a study published by Swedish researchers from the University of Gothenburg and they were looking at astrocytes, which are a form of glial cells, and their effects on neuronal connections and function and essentially what they found is that the astrocytes are modulating the strength of the signalling between the neurons. Now, they basically are effecting how those synapses between neurons change over time. So what that means is is that the astrocytes might actually be directly involved in the formation of memories and plasticity of the brain and learning. Which, again, is just further evidence for their greatly enhanced role in actual memory function of the brain, not just, again, as support cells. So that research is ongoing and that was a huge shift in our thinking about the role of astrocytes.<br />
<br />
=== Largest Radio Telescope Array <small>(27:49)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.86c1ac9d54a51fd47b845663527a077d.1191&show_article=1 --><br />
<br />
S: Well lets go on. We have another bit of astronomy news, Bob, you're going to tell us about the largest radio telescope ever.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. This one's a quickie. This is the biggest radio telescope in the world and it was recently unveiled by scientists in the Netherlands. It's called LOFAR which stands Low Frequency Array. I think we touched upon this a while back. It consists of a whopping 25,000 small antennas and they're real tiny. They range in size from 50 centimeters to about 2 meters across. So they're not very big at all. And they're all spread out all over, not only the Netherlands, but also Germany, Sweden, France and Britain. And it's pretty cool. This thing is really going to do some amazing work I predict. Femke Beckhurst of the Netherlands Radio Astronomy Institute said, "Today we have launched the biggest radio telescope in the world. When you combine all the antennas you get a giant telescope with a diameter of about 1,000 kilometers," which is about 600 miles so that's pretty big. And it takes some nifty software to actually take all those separate signals and stitch them together. They're actually using a supercomputer to do some of that work. It's the Blue Gene P supercomputer which is a petaflop class supercomputer. So it's pretty fast. So with these observations that this radio telescope, or, I guess you can call it radio telescopes&ndash;So, the observations that they're going to be able to make with this&ndash;they're going to learn about the origin of the universe and some people are saying that they'll be able to go to the moment right after the big bang. Other&ndash;some other key science projects for LOFAR are what they call the epoch of re-ionization which is basically when the universe turned on. When things became. Also, things like ultra high energy cosmic rays which are a bit of a mystery, such as the one we mentioned&ndash;we mentioned one such cosmic ray a while back called the Oh My God Particle in 1991 which is probably the most energetic cosmic ray ever detected which was so powerful&ndash;imagine it was a subatomic particle with the energy of a baseball travelling at 60 miles an hour. Imagine, you get hit with one proton and it knocks you on your butt like it was a baseball travelling 60. So, amazingly fast. We're not sure what could have imparted so much energy to such a tiny thing. It was travelling so close to the speed of light it was essentially just a whisker&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But to clarify, it wouldn't really knock you on your butt, right? It would just go right through you.<br />
<br />
B: No. It's too tiny. Right. It is too tiny and it could do some damage, though, if it happened to hit the right, whatever in your body, DNA or something.<br />
<br />
E: Well, what if it hit a computer or something? It would really screw that up.<br />
<br />
B: That's a lot of kinetic energy. I don't know where&ndash;how all the kinetic energy would be transferred. Would it be transferred into heat. Would it fly right through? Probably&ndash;it might just fly right through.<br />
<br />
S: Or maybe it will smash through several particles on its way.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. It might hit&ndash;if hit's something squarely it could start a cascade so I think if it's just right it could actually&ndash;it could be noticeable. But there's other things&ndash;the solar science and space weather, cosmic magnetism, so I'm sure this thing is going to be used for a really long time and hopefully maybe even get even bigger.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob, what's the difference between the moment of the Big Bang and the moment of first illuminosity, I think is the word you used?<br />
<br />
B: Well, I believe it was 100,000 years or 1,000 years, it was a lot of time before things calmed down enough. Things were just so energetic that light&ndash;any photons that might have been generated were just bouncing around all over the place and they really couldn't settle down and just take a straight line any direction so there's nothing to see if you look back in visible light there's nothing to see cause all the photons are just kinda bouncing around. But also this epoch of re-ionization&ndash;that's kind of a different term than I'm used to. They refer to it as when things became luminous so I think it depends on&ndash;are they talking about the first stars, the first galaxies, the first quasars?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
B: If that's what they're talking about then that would actually be after what I'm talking&ndash;what I've just mentioned which is also called photon decoupling. So actually this epoch is a little bit different. I think it's later on.<br />
<br />
E: It's just amazing that they can make that distinction or make the determination that so much&ndash;however much time it is happened between the two.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: You think of the Big Bang&ndash;certainly in a visual display you're watching some show on TV that kinda of describes it and it's an intense white spot of light from the get go. At least that's how the depict it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But they always give you the impossible perspective of being outside the universe when the Big Bang happens.<br />
<br />
B: Space time, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But that's not a possible perspective. So it's kind of misleading.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A little.<br />
<br />
S: And a lot of that is&ndash;evidence is theoretical. They're just well what should have happened if you have the mass of the universe at a point and then what would happen over time? Based upon the temperatures and what things are like at those temperatures. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: But maybe this large radio telescope will help fill in those gaps.<br />
<br />
B: Some of them.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully.<br />
<br />
B: If it can actually get close to the moment after the Big Bang then absolutely it will be able to do&ndash;it will illuminate us in many ways.<br />
<br />
E: Very cool.<br />
<br />
J: I still don't get the concept that when the Big Bang took place&ndash;like, where it was specially in reality. You can't go to that space&ndash;that place in outer space because it doesn't really&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Sure you can. Wherever you go, there you are.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, geez. Really, Bob?<br />
<br />
E: It happened everywhere&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: It's true. It's true. It's everywhere. You can't point to it because it's not one specific spot. It's everywhere.<br />
<br />
J: Well, it didn't happen right here.<br />
<br />
E: It might have.<br />
<br />
S: Every part of the universe was at that point, Jay, at that time.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, so, meaning that the universe is growing in size.<br />
<br />
S: Of course. But it's like&ndash;if you do the two dimensional analogy, it's like blowing up a balloon. Where was it before you blew it up? Well it's&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: How&ndash;right. Try to explaining to a two dimensional creature on that balloon where&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: It was in the package.<br />
<br />
J: where the center is.<br />
<br />
S: You'd have to point into the 4th dimension.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
J: I can't picture it.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Amityville Horror House for Sale <small>(34:11)</small>===<br />
[http://www.theness.com/roguesgallery/?p=1676 Rogue's Gallery: Amityville Horror House for Sale]<br />
<br />
S: So, the Amityville Horror House is back in the news.<br />
<br />
E: And it's back in the news because its up for sale.<br />
<br />
S: Sale. That's right. For what? 1.5 million?<br />
<br />
E: 1.15 million dollars.<br />
<br />
B: In this market?<br />
<br />
J: I know. Isn't that crazy?<br />
<br />
S: You can own a piece of paranormal history.<br />
<br />
B: But, is that price kind of crazy for the neighborhood because the house is famous?<br />
<br />
E: I don't know. I imagine that has something to do with it. They said they'd done a lot of renovations recently on the house. So&mdash;Look, I imagine the main factor, like any other piece of property is&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Location.<br />
<br />
E: comparable&mdash;yeah, location and comparable houses for sale in the area.<br />
<br />
S: But here's my question. Now, typically, if a house is alleged to be haunted or if a murder took place there it's considered psychologically damaged and that actually reduces the value of the house. But in this case it's famous for being psychologically damaged, so does that increase the value of the house?<br />
<br />
E: Or do the two equal each other out?<br />
<br />
S: The balance out?<br />
<br />
E: The negative and positive balance out.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So, there were a series of murders there in 1974. Ronald DeFeo Sr., his wife, Louise, their two sons and two daughters were shot while they slept in the home and the one remaining family member alive, Ronald, nicknamed Butch DeFeo, he confessed to the murders and is serving a life sentence in prison. And then just a few weeks after the sentencing of Butch, George and Kathy Lutz and their three children moved into the home where a new round of supposed horrors began. Muwahaha. Well, not really.<br />
<br />
S: Tell us about them.<br />
<br />
E: Oh, there was supposedly all sorts of things happening in this house. They reported sightings of&mdash;well, the kids reported sightings of animals, mostly a pig named Jody. A sculpted lion came to life and supposedly walked around the house.<br />
<br />
S: Cool.<br />
<br />
E: A demonic boy appeared. It was photographed and you can find that famous photograph online. Kind of looks like a regular boy but that's beside the point. And other strange things in the house. Oh, green slime oozed from the walls. Crucifix on the wall was constantly rotating until it left itself upside down and, needless to say, 28 days after they moved in&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: 28 days later.<br />
<br />
E: 28 days later. Good one Steve. The Lutz's fled.<br />
<br />
S: What about the&mdash;you forgot about the hell-mouth. It's a gaping mouth to hell in their basement.<br />
<br />
J: Wait. Wasn't that in Poltergeist.<br />
<br />
E: That was another movie, I think.<br />
<br />
B: No. No no no. <br />
<br />
E: You're right, Steve.<br />
<br />
J: It's the red room.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It was a red room, which in the movie they kind of made it seem like it was the road to hell or something.<br />
<br />
E: Now there was one small problem with all of these paranormal happenings. They never really happened. It was a story&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: It was fake.<br />
<br />
E: The whole thing was fake. However, that didn't stop famous demonologist and psychic investigator&mdash;paranormal investigator Ed Warren and his wife Loraine from investigating the matter and deeming that house to be one of the most haunted places in the world.<br />
<br />
S: Right. Right after their basement.<br />
<br />
E: That's right. Their basement in Monroe, Connecticut #1, Aminityville #2.<br />
<br />
S: That's right. Right. It was fake. And now it's up for sale.<br />
<br />
E: It is. So&mdash;if you've got dollars burning a whole in your pocket&mdash;<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
E: You might want to go get a piece of history.<br />
<br />
S: The people who bought the house after the Lutz's complained that they had to deal with the paranormal tourists bothering them day in and day out. Gawking at the house and everything. So&mdash;<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. So much so that they had to change the address of the house.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So it really was psychologically damaged for them, cause it came with all the tourists.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: So, I'm looking at a picture of the demon boy.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: It's a little boy.<br />
<br />
S: With no eyes.<br />
<br />
J: Well, the eyes are whited out so it looks kind of creepy. Photo could have been doctored.<br />
<br />
E: Could have been a dozen things, right, other than a demonic boy from hell.<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:46)</small>==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Soy <small>(41:02)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>Steve - You made the offhand comment that there are "serious concerns" that soy milk is producing an estrogen type hormonal effect. I am a vegan bodybuilder who drinks a quart of soy milk everyday. I am concerned your offhand comment will scare people away from switching to a healthier milk alternative with no saturated fat. I've looked in the past when people have made these claims, and all I can find is that there may be some very mild effect, but nothing that rises to the level of your "serious concern" comment. If there was, there would be serious estrogen related issues throughout Asian countries. Since you felt it necessary to scare people away from soy by telling them about the "serious concerns" science has with soy milk, I hope you will provide the research on you next show that proves soy milk causes serious estrogen like effects. I do love the show, and I thank everyone for the time and effort you guys put into it every week. Michael Wilson Prescott, AZ</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Cursed Cell Phone Number <small>(45:50)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>The cursed cell phone number Thought you guys might like this story of truly stupid superstitious thinking that misses the glaringly obvious. <br />
<br><br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7763578/Mobile-phone-number-suspended-after-three-users-die-in-10-years.html Telegraph: Mobile phone number suspended after three users die in 10 years]<br />
<br>Danforth France Glendale, CA</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Magic Bee Juice <small>(50:27)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>One of the branches of the company I work for in Japan has started selling Propolis as a means to make more money in a bad economy. This branch has repeatedly tried to get me to buy some of this magic bee juice. Many of my Japanese co-workers have taken the bait. They are putting bee juice in their drinks and swallowing magic bee juice pills. When I ask them if they feel any better, they all say they aren’t sure. Hmm… I think the company I work for has a snake oill division. Do you know of any scientific evidence that shows any benefit to taking Propolis? All the information I found say that Propolis may contain lead and other garbage bees pick up while flying around the city. Thank you for your time. David Gardner Osaka, Japan </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Personality Tests <small>(54:41)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Steve, I'm trying to figure out the difference between the Incorrect Cause fallacy and the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy? Skepticwiki is telling me that Post Hoc is a type of Incorrect Cause Fallacy, but I'm just not getting the difference. They seem to be one and the same. Any help would be appreciated. I'm trying to complete a 5x5 recording we did a few months ago and I'm recording a missing part which was about the "Incorrect Cause" fallacy. The topic of the 5x5 was Chemtrails and it seems to me that the Post Hoc fallacy would work better here. Mike Lacelle Canada </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:07)</small> ==<br />
<br />
*[http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:14:40)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.</blockquote> <!-- the quote as read by Jay was different, should see if we can find a source to find the real quote --><br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS Con <small>(1:18:11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro119}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SGU_Episode_10&diff=5568Talk:SGU Episode 102013-01-23T02:42:42Z<p>Geneocide: </p>
<hr />
<div>So... I'm supposed to use mdash, not ndash, huh?<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 05:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I dunno... I don't use any HTML entities at all in my transcripts. I just use comma or dash when there's a pause or discontinuity. Woe be me! ;) --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 09:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: You can pin that one on me, Gene. I've been following the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dashes Wikipedia Manual of Style] section on dashes and opted for the unspaced em dash. I think it makes it easier to differentiate from a regular hyphen, but it's really just a matter of taste.<br/>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 02:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: That's coo. I'll try to remember in the future, in the mean time find replace will fix it fairly painlessly.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 02:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SGU_Episode_10&diff=5567Talk:SGU Episode 102013-01-23T02:42:22Z<p>Geneocide: </p>
<hr />
<div>So... I'm supposed to use mdash, not ndash, huh?<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 05:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: I dunno... I don't use any HTML entities at all in my transcripts. I just use comma or dash when there's a pause or discontinuity. Woe be me! ;) --[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 09:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: You can pin that one on me, Gene. I've been following the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dashes Wikipedia Manual of Style] section on dashes and opted for the unspaced em dash. I think it makes it easier to differentiate from a regular hyphen, but it's really just a matter of taste.<br/>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 02:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: That's coo. I'll try to remember in the future, in the mean time find replace will fix it fairly painlessly.</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGUTranscripts:Community_portal&diff=5565SGUTranscripts:Community portal2013-01-22T21:56:11Z<p>Geneocide: feature request</p>
<hr />
<div>Hi guys like others I've often thought about this as a project but put off by the amount of time that it would have taken one person, the main reason I thought about doing this was to be able to search the transcripts when needed, example: if someone asked me a question on Homoeopathy I would be able to use my smartphone to give an answer based on what the SGU have talked about in the past, as I generally take what the guys say as fact.<br />
<br />
Do you think that what I'm taking about would be possible using this WIKI project??<br />
<br />
Looking forward to starting and completing my first SGU Transcript :-)<br />
<br />
--[[User:Manontop|Manontop]] 09:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hi Manontop.<br />
:<br />
:Sure, I think that would be one of the most important uses of these transcripts. My ideas for having transcripts of the SGU episodes are to facilitate linking, searching and accessibility:<br />
:<br />
:* Linking. We have headings throughout the podcasts so that it's possible to link directly to a specific segment, for example [[SGU_Episode_352#Aristolochia_Nephropathy|Aristolochia Nephropathy]] (internal wiki link) or [http://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_352#Aristolochia_Nephropathy Aristolochia Nephropathy] (external link).<br />
:* Searching. Currently there are (at least) two ways to search. Either using Google or the built-in search box in the top right. If you want to use Google to search only this site, you can do so by using the "site:" term in your query. E.g. your Google query would be [https://www.google.com/search?q=site:sgutranscripts.org+titanic+disaster "site:sgutranscripts.org titanic disaster"]. Google is the king of them all, so I have installed proper semantic web (SEO) support. When a transcript is completed I go through and insert tags to important concepts that are covered in the podcast. This helps Google (and other search engines) know what is important about that page. You can see these by opening a transcript and viewing the source of the page. Then look for the <meta name="keywords" content="..."> tag. There are two components to this, tags that are site-wide such as "skeptics, sceptics, scepticism" etc. followed by tags that are local to a particular page such as "titanic, tragedy, ss, californian, space, junk" etc. Of course, Google also uses the page content when indexing.<br />
:* Accessibility. Quite simple really; people who can't listen to the podcast for any reason (deafness etc.) can now read the transcripts instead.<br />
:<br />
:Great to have you on board! :)<br />
:<br />
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 11:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hi guys,<br />
<br />
I'm guessing this is the best place to put project discussions, let me know if there's another way - I'm new to Wiki editing.<br />
<br />
Regarding time stamps for the sections, I've entered them into the headings of [[SGU_Episode_348]] using < small > tags. This shows them smaller in the actual headings, but the same size in the contents list.<br />
What do you guys think?<br />
<br />
I've also been thinking of ways to make these transcript pages as useful as poss without causing ourselves too much extra work. One way might be to include a kind of bullet-point list of facts from the episode, as they often have throw-away comments that are interesting. E.g. in ep.348, they talk about nut allergies, and that cashew nuts contain the same allergy-inducing resin as poison-ivy. We could lift these from the main text as we go and build a list at the end. It wouldn't make much difference if someone's reading the whole transcript, but it might make a nice feature for flicking through them.<br />
Just a thought, I figured it would be better said earlier than later. What do you think?<br />
<br>Cheers,<br />
<br />
--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 04:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I like the idea of compiling a fact list at the end of the transcription for each episode. It's just up to the individual transcriber I suppose. Regarding the < small > tags, I definitely think it would help to have the timestamps in these transcriptions, and having it in the section title makes it visible in the table of contents. The other option is to use the wikibox on your user page, which I think is very nice, containing the image, quote, times and links in one place. It just depends on whether or not other people like it too.<br />
:--[[User:Jay One|Jay One]] 20:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, I have no experience making wikibox templates, so if someone else knows more about these, mb they'd like to build one? (although I'm happy to try) we should probably come to some agreement about whether we want them and what they should contain.<br />
::--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 20:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Has anyone explored the idea of hiring a professional transcriptionist to do the work? This could be much faster, but there would be a cost involved. Perhaps a donation fund could be set up for SGU listeners to pay for it. Another podcast that goes this route is the "Security Now" podcast from Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte.<br />
<br>-- [[User:128.200.139.53|128.200.139.53]] ([[User talk:128.200.139.53|talk]]) 17:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
:I'm a professional trascriber and I would love to contribute towards this project. VLC is good but not optimized for transcription purpose. I would suggest NCH's ExpressScribe software and it's free. Also if you are spending a lot of time on this project, I would recommend investing on a foot pedal. It shouldn't cost you more than $25. With these two things, I am sure you can double your productivity.<br />
:--[[User:Eupraxsophic|Eupraxsophic]] ([[User talk:Eupraxsophic|talk]]) 02:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I'd like to help, but I ''cannot'' tell Jay and Bob's voices apart. Am I useless?<br />
<br>--[[User:Jenpohl|Jenpohl]] 20:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I often find this difficult, and it's quite likely I've already made mistakes based on this, but mb you'll get better as you're listening closely. I find Bob more nasal. Another good indicator is whether they're referencing nanotechnology or porn. :)<br />
:--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 21:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
:That may be a problem, but all it took for me to tell their voices apart was a little time.<br />
:--[[User:Jay One|Jay One]] 21:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Just a thought: if you want to put up a <ins>transcription page including</ins> timestamps in comments (using "< !--" and "-->" without spaces in them) for the points you're unsure about, you could flag the pages up here for me (or whoever) to see if we can help out. <ins>This way we can easily search for problem points.</ins><br />
:--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 06:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC) [edited:16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)]<br />
<br />
:You're definitely not useless! The most important thing is to get a first pass of the transcription done, corrections are then much quicker/easier. How about you put a question mark after the letter if you can't work out who's speaking? So like:<br />
:<br />
:B?: Stuff that Bob or Jay said<br />
:<br />
:Then someone else can go fix them later, should be pretty quick to do.<br />
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I've inserted a rough draft of a fact list at the bottom of [[SGU_Episode_348]]. What do you guys think? It was easy to put together, but I didn't know what to call it.<br />
<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 05:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
:I originally thought it was a bad idea until I went and looked at your example. Now I think it's ''awesome'', I love it! :) Currently you've called it "Today I Learned..." which I think is good, but can anyone think of a title that's better? Like maybe "Interesting ideas from the podcast" except not that as it sounds terrible. ;)<br />
:--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Yay! Thanks. For the name, the only thing I thought, was I wanted to be careful not to assert them as hard facts. Also, we should mb point out that they are not part of the transcript, but taken from it after.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] 16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hi guys, and thanks for starting this project! I don't have a lot of time to devote to doing whole transcripts, but I'd like to start categorizing the wiki pages, like "SGU Transcripts", "Live Episodes", etc. I think it would also be helpful to have next/previous episode links on each page, either at the bottom or in the infobox. Any opinions?<br>--[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 15:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Hi Av8rmike, thanks for your interest, any help is always appreciated, big or small. We were thinking of using the categories from the [http://theness.com/roguesgallery/ Rogues gallery], plus others more specific to the podcast, e.g. guests. I think adding a category for live episodes is a great idea. We're also considering using redirect pages for categorizing podcast sections separately. <br />
:I agree, previous/next buttons would be good (in fact I was just playing with some graphics for them). However, I'm not sure how to get a wiki template to recognise the episode number and add/subtract automatically, do you have any ideas about that? Otherwise we can just input them manually.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 16:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I took a stab at adding some categories to [[SGU_Episode_354]] to give an idea of how that would work. I don't know offhand how to do the auto-numbering in wiki templates, but from looking at the help pages for templates, you can do almost anything with them. I could probably do some experimenting and see how far I get.<br />
::[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 18:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hi guys, I've noticed we've used 2 different time-stamp formats. When it gets past the hour mark, I use the h:mm:ss format, but some pages use mm:ss, e.g. 78:12. As the time-stamps form the links for sections, I figure this is pretty important. My argument for using h:mm:ss is that, in my experience, that's what the majority of audio software and mp3 players use, plus I think it's more natural for us to think of time this way. What do you guys think?<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 17:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Kitty, the only reason I was using mm:ss was because that's what was already in use on the existing pages. =P I agree that h:mm:ss makes more intuitive sense and is used in more places, so I'm all in favor of switching over.<br>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 13:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks for responding. Rwh86's away this week, so I'm gonna be cheeky, assume he's cool with it and change them over. We can always change them back if anyone comes up with a good argument for the mm:ss format.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hi guys...First time transcriber here! I was inspired by Tim Farley's presentation at TAM 2012 to see where I could help out - and figured I could at least try this. I just transcribed and posted [[5X5_Episode_4]], but I'm not familiar enough with the Rogues to distinguish voice identities. The only voice IDs I'm somewhat sure of are Steve's and Rebecca's (the others I guessed at). If anyone can help with voice IDs in Ep. 4, that would be great. (Maybe I'll get better at the voices in the future -grin-) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 03:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Hi Skepticat, and (as Av8rmike said) welcome to the team! I proof-read [[5X5 Episode 4]] and added the speakers. The page is great, took me no time to add them. In future, if there's a lot of lines you can't attribute, don't worry about adding times to each, just the first in a cluster. Hopefully that will save you a bit of time too :)<br>I often find Bob and Jay hard to distinguish, but I think Bob's just a little more nasal, and it sounds like Jay might use a desktop mic instead of one close by his mouth. I don't know if that's any help.<br>Thanks for your help, I'm very jealous you got to go to Tam, if you have any feedback for the site, do let us know.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for the proof-read! Care to take a whack at [[5X5 Episode 5]], which I just posted? I don't think I'm going to have much luck with voice IDs (other than S & R) unless someone specifically says who's who, so I'll leave that to much more experienced folks, such as yourself, for now. Heck, I ended up riding down in the same elevator with the SGU crew at TAM (I think it was the first morning?) and I didn't fully realize who they were until later. As I was a "first TAMMER", that happened to me a few times with other skeptic notables there. :) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 04:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Done! And just for the record, I definitely don't get the voices right ''all'' the time. That's just one of the reasons to have subsequent contributors as proof-readers :) <br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 12:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Skepticat: Some things that may help you get more familiar with the voices:<br />
::* Listen to an episode and follow along with the transcript (assuming it's been verified), paying attention to who's speaking when.<br />
::* Transcribe some of the earlier episodes. Perry is easy to distinguish, and Jay (and sometimes Bob) aren't in all the early ones because of software limitations.<br>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 14:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC) <br />
<br />
Hi guys, there's a few things I could do with getting some feedback on:<br />
# Using [[User:Teleuteskitty/Draft_main_layout|this page]] for the main page. (Av8rmike, I know you're pro)<br />
# Adding explanatory footnotes with the [[Template:Link needed]] (I explain this in more detail on the [[Template_talk:Link_needed|talk page]])<br />
# [[Help:How to Contribute]] page. Does this make sense to everyone?<br />
Could you please leave any feedback (positive/constructively critical/short/long) on the talk pages for these?<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 12:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The [[5X5 Episode 6]] transcript has just gone up and is begging for a proof-read and voice check. Any takers? :) [[User:Skepticat|Skepticat]] ([[User talk:Skepticat|talk]]) 04:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
:I got it covered. Thanks, Skepticat!<br>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 02:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
You may have noticed a few changes in the site layout, including restriction of the [[Main Page]] editing to admin only. To add/amend transcript page links on the new main page and the dedicated [[SGU Episodes]] and [[5X5 Episodes]] pages, use [[Template:SGU episode list]] and [[Template:5X5 episode list]]. Links to these templates and the skeleton pages are on the [[Help:Contents]] page, and instructions on [[Help:Getting Started]] have been updated accordingly.<br />
<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 10:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hi all. I think it would be a good idea to pick an episode that is the canonical one. One where whatever the current agreed upon standard is implemented that can be pointed to or referenced whenever needed. Just a thought. Oo... also, we should be careful about links. We need to use nofollow when appropriate so quacks don't get any google juice from our work.<br><br />
--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 03:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Good idea on the example episode, we're trying to figure out which one would be best. Suggestions welcome!<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
::It might be that we'll have to splice together a few episodes to get all the various elements in one place.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:::Hi, Geneocide! I think that the transcripts from episodes 350-365 (even the unverified ones) are probably as close to canonical as we're going to get. Those were done in the time when TK, RWH, and I had a little bit more time to devote to the pages and before we started to fall behind. (I'm particular to [[SGU_Episode_365|365]], since that's one I did almost entirely myself. =)<br/>--[[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 02:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I've posted the transcript for [[5X5 Episode 30]] so it's ready for a proof. Any takers? Tried my best to keep to US spelling. Mostly wiki links but some external, any preference? [[User:tnewsome|tnewsome]] ([[User talk:tnewsome|talk]]) 23:19, 18 October 2012 (EST)<br />
:We've mostly used wiki links, as it keeps a general standard of reference, they're often updated and they reference out to other sites. It's also very handy when you've got lots of linkable points, and it would take forever to find the ''best'' website for each. If readers are interested, it's generally a good place for them to start. Thanks for your help!<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Had an idea for a project we could work on in conjunction with the transcription. We should keep track of places where the rogues explain a core concept in detail (a lot of 5x5 episodes I imagine) and link to that explanation from other places in the transcription. Paradolia, Occam's razor, selection bias, things like that. We could centralize them into a single page, as well. Within the canonical rogue explanation we can link out to wikipedia or other sources.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
: Sounds like a great idea, somewhat compatible with the TIL (Today I Learned) sections. I think centralising them into a single page would make them much easier to find... I know that when I'm transcribing and I hear someone say "we discussed that on a previous podcast" it'd be nice to have a place to go to find that, though perhaps searching would be sufficient.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is it possible to have certain text automatically become a link? Like 'Skeptic's Guide to the Universe' or 'New England Skeptic's Society' or the rogues' names for example?<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Not that I know of, other than perhaps using a template<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Question regarding interviews. When an interview is incorporated into a segment, such as Dr Rachie's interview in SGU 366, does that make her a guest? It doesn't seem like a black and white distinction. [[User:Zambuck|Zambuck]] ([[User talk:Zambuck|talk]]) 22:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Hi Zambuck, we use the 'Guest' section in the infobox as a key for non-Rogue speakers, so you're right to add her in there. Thanks for your help!--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 10:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is there a way to get <nowiki><blockquote></nowiki> formatted a little bit. Maybe a light background color and/or some automatic large quote marks? Right now it's not necessarily worth using, imho.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Yep, we could probably change the CSS. I'll see what I can do. Do you have a site in mind that I could use as a basis (i.e. to steal the css from)?--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
::It looks like something has changed to add a light beige background, which achieves the goal. Personally I think it could be a little more distinct, by my aesthetic tastes are poorly defined and not widely popular. I didn't have any examples in mind, but the first one on [http://css-tricks.com/examples/Blockquotes/ this] site looks good to me. It shows an example of what I meant by the "large quote marks". I am okay with having issues I bring up be un-addressed. I just write down things I think of. I leave the risk/reward analysis to those with better information on the subject. Still, I think the better looking the site is the more likely people are to use it.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 21:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hey, guys! I'm new here (heard about the project on the recent episode) and today added two sections in episode 349: [[SGU Episode 349#Nuclear Clock (34:53)|Nuclear Clock]] and [[SGU Episode 349#NDE and Lucid Dreaming (40:44)|NDE and Lucid Dreaming]]. Let me know how they look! It's my first time transcribing anything on this scale, and I think I'm getting the hang of it, but I have to admit that I'm a bit of a perfectionist and I feel strange not having ''more'' direction as far as formatting (I realize it would probably be very difficult/time-consuming to enforce super-specific standards at this stage). I looked at some of the completed transcripts to get an idea of what others were doing and tried to use my best judgment from there. I think I'm ready to attack a full episode, but it might take me a while to get through it. There are still some things I'm not entirely clear on, including exactly how the categories/redirects work, so I'm sure I'll ask for some help once I've finished transcribing a full episode (and probably while I'm in the middle of it). Also, I wanted to say that I usually don't have any trouble distinguishing voices (including Jay's and Bob's), so if there are any episodes/sections that need a second pair of ears for that specifically, I can definitely help out. Going forward, is this page the best way to communicate with other members? Thanks!<br />
--[[User:Jacquie o|Jacquie o]] ([[User talk:Jacquie o|talk]]) 11:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Hi Jacquie! Those transcripts you've done look absolutely fantastic! In terms of direction, we're just feeling our way though here. :) I suppose the most important thing is to get as much of the content done, and so long as the meaning is accurate, that's the most important thing. I also try to think "what if someone was running this through google translate?", i.e. would it translate well? That's leading me to leave out "you know" and "um" and those types of things to make the transcript flow better.<p>Great to hear you can tell Jay and Bob apart, if you have time and want some lighter work, doing some proof reading might be right up your alley then. Some people do transcripts and leave, say B?: or J?: if they're not sure, so you could possibly go through and fix those.</p><p>Going forward, we're trying to work on a place to help members communicate. The best I've got so far is this: [[Special:WikiForum]], but it's a bit bare bones, so when I get some time I'm going to try to integrate something a little more sophisticated.</p>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hello everyone! I heard Rob on the SGU and it sounded like a fantastic idea to contribute here. I transcribed a 5x5 episode to start (#39), and I'll probably do a few more before I go whole hog and tackle a full SGU episode. If anyone wants to proof-read that episode I did, that would be fantastic. I know the punctuation is way off there. Thanks in advance, and If you need my help specifically, don't be afraid to message me. Have fun! [[User:Thevipermike|Thevipermike]] ([[User talk:Thevipermike|talk]]) 05:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
:Great, thanks! I'll take a look when I get a chance. :)<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 19:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hey everyone. Was thinking we should maybe try to do something in honor of Mike Lacelle. The only thing I came up with was marking episodes in which he appears as priority and getting them transcribed as soon as we can. If someone found the episodes and marked them I know I personally would work on them before other episodes. Any other ideas?<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 07:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
: That sounds good to me. How about I put a highlight on the front page to replace the t-shirt competition, seeing as that's been won now ;) <br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 17:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
:As far as I can tell, he was mostly on around the year-in-review episodes, so I went through them:<br />
:* 2011 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2011-12-31.mp3 337 - Dec 31 2011] - Mike is on this.<br />
:* 2010 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-12-29.mp3 285 - Dec 29 2010] - Mike is on this.<br />
:* 2009 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-01-01.mp3 232 - Jan 1 2010] - Mike is on this.<br />
:* 2008 in review: 180 - Dec 30 2008 - Mike is NOT on this.<br />
:* 2007 in review: [http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2007-12-26.mp3 127 - Dec 26 2007] - Mike is on this.<br />
:* 2006 in review: 75 - Dec 27 2006 - Mike is NOT on this.<br />
<br />
::Hiya, I've started listing the episodes Mike was on here: [[Mike Lacelle - In memoriam]]. I don't think that's all of them though. I've also created pages for some of the episodes, I agree it would be good to prioritise these.<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 19:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hello all. I just joined. Jumped in and proofread [[SGU Episode 3]], some very minor copy edits, added a fair number of links, and subdivided a particularly long interview. I also added some "dead links" to pages I was figuring we should have locally: NESS and JREF. Or should I go back and change them to external links to THE Wikipedia?<br />
<br />
--[[User:Bshirley|Bshirley]] ([[User talk:Bshirley|talk]]) 03:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
: Hi Bshirley. Thanks for the proof reading, it's very appreciated. It's always fun to add links during the proof reading process, I find I do that a lot too. I really like the subdivisions within the interview breaking it into its topics, that's something I might try to do in future; it would really help with deep linking to a particular subject of discussion. As for the dead links, I'm not so sure. I guess I see our site as not so much providing pages on particular topics à la Wikipedia, and am more inclined to link off to Wikipedia for those kinds of things. We can always improve them on Wikipedia if need be. Just my opinion tho.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 15:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Did the way the diffs display change? They look good.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 02:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
: They ''do'' look good. :) I didn't intentionally change them, but perhaps they changed with the new 1.20 mediawiki version (along with user registration briefly being broken). <br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 13:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Call for volunteers''': I've posted a framework for [[SGU_Episode_49|episode 49]] and did the first segments, then marked it as "open" to try to attract some more help. This one is The Steve Novella Show, as in the one he did all by himself, including Science or Fiction and Name That Logical Fallacy. It should be very easy to do, especially for someone who has trouble telling different voices apart. Sorry I can't offer any T-shirts. =)<br />
: What exactly needs doing on this episode? I don't want to listen to everything if I don't have to. --[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
::Oops, I just now noticed I never signed my comment. D= You don't have to transcribe the entire thing if you don't want to; you can do just a segment here or there.<br/>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 22:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
:::Well, maybe it's more trouble than it's worth but if you know that there's nothing missing up until some point, what that point is would be nice. It's a little unclear just looking at the transcript so far... at least to me.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 00:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
::::It's been transcribed up to the [[SGU_Episode_49#Agnosticism_.289:03.29|Agnosticism]] e-mail. The rest has just been copied over from the show notes page. I haven't even formatted the text to break it into paragraphs, which may be what made it unclear to you.<br/>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 16:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Quoted from [[Talk:SGU_Episode_127]] for general discussion:<br />
<blockquote>If we just put in dead links to episodes that don't exist, wouldn't that create a list of the most referenced yet to be made episode pages? Wouldn't that possibly be good?<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 02:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
</blockquote><br />
:True, it would add them to [[Special:WantedPages]], although the numbers there are bumped up by having consecutive episodes transcribed with automatic navigation links etc. . I like the idea of noting the most needed episodes, but I personally think it's best to avoid dead links in text where possible, even though these would automatically update when the page becomes available. I proposed a slightly different way on [[Template talk:Link needed]] a while back - we could use that method to add a reference with the dead link, bumping them up the 'Wanted' list, whilst keeping an eye on [[:Category:Needs internal links]]. Which isn't perfect. Alternatively, we could:<br />
#create the referenced pages and add a 'priority pages'category<br />
#make a page listing all episodes to be transcribed, marking which are referenced<br />
:What do you think?<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 02:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
::I'm a big fan of whatever is easiest. Am I right in thinking that this would be the broken (red) link approach? <br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I think so, yep. And just for the record, if that's what you guys think is best, I'm more than happy to go back through pages switching 'link needed' templates to dead links &ndash; I'm more motivated to take a uniform approach than to get any of my over-complicated ideas in place :)<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 22:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'll offer my reasoning on the "Link needed" template, since I'm the one that created it. My idea for it was just as a "placeholder" for when I was transcribing/proof-reading and one of the rogues makes reference to something from a previous episode, but I ''didn't'' know which episode it is, indicating for someone to find it at a subsequent date. If you know what episode is being referenced and there isn't a page created already, I'd say by all means go ahead and put in the dead link to save another person the trouble of figuring out which episode it should be.<br/>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 04:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::Ah, I see! That makes sense. Looks like that's the probably the consensus, so I'll start switching them over tonight<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 07:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hello everyone, <br>HNY and thanks for all the great work you're doing here. I'm new to transcribing and to this whole Wiki editing stuff but hope I won't make too much of a mess. <br>I posted a [[5X5_Episode_37|5x5 Episode 37]] for a start so I guess it's ready for proof-reading. I didn't go through the whole Help section yet, just copied the formatting from another verified episode. So if anyone can take a look and check what I got wrong, I'd appreciate it. <br>I'm not an English native speaker, so: (a) Though I tried to stick to the American spelling, there may be some impurities; (b) I'm never sure about punctuation. Guess I tend to abuse/misuse/misplace it. <br>One more thing: I wasn't sure what to do with all the "likes", "you knows"' etc. so I left them in. Don't know what the best practice is. Oh, and I didn't have too much trouble telling Jay and Bob apart. Beginner's luck? ;) <br>Keep up the good work! <br>--[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 00:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Great stuff! Welcome on board. I've proof read 5x5 #37 for you and I must say, I take my hat off to you. As someone who has some familiarity with a foreign language (having lived in France for a year), I must say you did an amazingly good job. I'd say your error rate is pretty much the same as transcripts done by native speakers. :)<br />
:* Re: American/British spelling: I don't really care, but I'm a bit more laissez faire than most other people on here. :) <br />
:* Re: likes/you knows: I tend to leave them out unless they modify the meaning of the sentence. <br />
:* Re: Bob/Jay: I'm beginning to suspect that this is a talent, as well as a skill. <br />
:One thing that might help is the [[Help:Contents#Useful_pages|skeleton pages]]. These are blank templates you can use when starting a new transcript. Cheers for your help! <br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 12:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Wow! Appreciate the thumbs up. That's very encouraging. And thanks for the proof read. Apart from obvious misspellings, you corrected the very bits I was least sure of and that's a good sign, I guess :) Care to look at [[5X5_Episode_41|5x5 #41]]? Hope it's not worse than the first one. Cheers! <br>--[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 13:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Yep, done. That was even better than the first one, just one change really: [http://www.future-perfect.co.uk/grammartips/grammar-tip-practise-practice.asp practise vs practice]. I'm a native speaker and I still get those mixed up. :) <br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 15:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Thanks :) And now [[5X5_Episode_42|#42]] is up for grabs. This is fun ;)<br>--[[User:Lvovo|Lvovo]] ([[User talk:Lvovo|talk]]) 18:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hey. I've seen the [[Special:Statistics|Statistics]] page, but I've also noticed that when I search, it tells me the word count of pages. Is it possible to get some sort of Total word/character count? I personally would like to see.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 01:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: There's also [[Special:ContributionScores]] but I think it has a tendency to massively overvalue small changes over larger ones, so people who do a lot of small corrections get higher scores than those who have transcribed a lot of text which is obviously not what we want. I haven't been able to find an extension that gives a total word count, but a while back I did do it manually by dumping all of the pages to text using some bodgy scripts on my linux box, then doing a word count on those text pages. It was on 2012-11-28 and we had transcribed 910,050 words, 5,128,984 characters, and we had completed 57 of 384 (15%) full SGU episodes and 78 of 113 (69%) 5x5 episodes. I'll do a refresh of these stats when I get a chance, but it's quite laborious.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 10:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Just casting my eye down the episode lists, I get 65 SGU (17%) and 83 5x5 (73%) episodes complete right now.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 10:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: OK, I just did another run: 1,055,851 words, 5,937,159 characters.<br>--[[User:Rwh86|Rwh86]] ([[User talk:Rwh86|talk]]) 12:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Design request: make the left pane logo and links float down the page when scrolling. Just another idea I'm throwing out there.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 21:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_257&diff=5564SGU Episode 2572013-01-22T21:53:04Z<p>Geneocide: /* Largest Radio Telescope Array (27:49) */ transcribed</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all |transcriber = Geneocide }}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 257<br />
|episodeDate = 14<sup>th</sup> June 2010<br />
|episodeIcon = File:amityvilledemoboy.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-06-14.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=257<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,28802.0.html<br />
|qowText = Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Monday, June 14<sup>th</sup>, 2010 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey everyone. How are you doing tonight?<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: Quite well.<br />
<br />
E: Good.<br />
<br />
S: No Rebecca tonight because we are on the lead up to TAM recording schedule. We going to have a little bit of a weird recording schedule the next few weeks and Rebecca was not available tonight and she has no internet access.<br />
<br />
J: That's because her and Sid bought a house.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: She hasn't been able to get internet and cable, I guess, to the house yet.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. But it's a big secret. Don't tell anyone, folks.<br />
<br />
S: They're moving into a new flat. Is it still a flat if it's a house?<br />
<br />
B: No. Wait wait, no, a flat's an apartment, isn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Are they moving into a house house, or is it like a condo or what is it?<br />
<br />
J: I think it's a house house.<br />
<br />
S: But no cable yet.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, if she has a house, that means she has a basement which means she could run a haunt in her house.<br />
<br />
B: Not necessarily. Florida houses don't have basements but that's because of the water table.<br />
<br />
J: Well, no. If she's in England she has a root cellar.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: Which is even creepier.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:19)</small> ==<br />
E: Well, on this day in 1648 Margaret Jones was hanged in Boston for witchcraft. The first such execution for the Massachusetts colony.<br />
<br />
S: How many people were killed?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they didn't stop with Margaret. It was 20 people.<br />
<br />
S: Were executed.<br />
<br />
E: We executed for witchcraft.<br />
<br />
J: Wow. And we got off lucky. Didn't&ndash;in Europe wasn't it a much bigger phenomenon in Europe?<br />
<br />
S: A conservative number is around 60,000 deaths directly attributable to the witch hunts.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Depending on how you count it. There were 20 people executed in Salem. 19 hung and that one guy, Giles Corey was crushed to death cause he refused to enter a plea.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Hayabusa Returns <small>(2:02)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100613/ts_afp/spacejapanaustraliaasteroidsreturn_20100613204620 <br />
<br />
possible replacement: [http://www.space.com/8592-japanese-asteroid-probe-historic-return-earth.html Space.com: Japanese Asteroid Probe Makes Historic Return to Earth]<br />
--><br />
S: Well Bob, tell us about Hayabusa returning to Earth.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this is pretty cool. I totally forgot about this guy but this is an interesting story. The Japanese space agency known as JAXA, Jay-Ay-Ex-Ay, completed a mission recently to bring a sample of an asteroid back to Earth. This is something that's never been accomplished before and regardless of what happens there has never been a spacecraft that touched down on an asteroid and then came back to Earth. So regardless if they even brought anything back with them this was a first. Like I said, the only real question that remains as of the taping of this podcast anyway is whether the canister they retrieved in Australia has any asteroid. If you remember back in 2003, JAXA's Hayabusa craft began a 2 year journey to an asteroid named Itokawa and I wish I could say the mission went swimmingly but I can't. The craft really experienced some nasty technical difficulties. It seems likes throughout the whole way, or at least through a lot of it. They just kept hitting problem after problem. They even had some&ndash;some solar flair even messed up with it's power source so the energy that it had was less than they had anticipated and some of the biggest failures, though, was they had this metal ball that they would shoot&ndash;or they planned on shooting at the asteroid to collect rock samples and that failed. And then there was another mechanism, which they were planning on using to stir up the dust around the lander on the asteroid and that failed as well to collect any samples. So you might think that it was a total bust but the real hope at this point is that they hope that the dust that stirred up during the landing kind of just was swirling around and entered the canister&ndash;the collection canister so that's really all their hope is on that.<br />
<br />
S: So they really don't know if there's going to be anything in that canister. <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, they have no idea at this point. It doesn't look good to me.<br />
<br />
J: Is it on it's way back to Earth or it can analyze it.<br />
<br />
B: It came back to Earth. The craft burned up in the atmosphere but it ejected this heat protected canister which landed at the Woomera Protected Area which is a restricted military zone in south Australian desert. Now some conspiracy hypothesists may say that in reality this whole 7 year mission was a subtle attempt to get access to this restricted military zone. But, ya know, I'm just saying.<br />
<br />
J: Look at that. It landed in Area 51. Could we go get it?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Yeah.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: But, being silly, but I want to congratulate JAXA, though. Even if there's no sample which would really be nasty, but even if there's no sample, it was a great effort that tested lots of new technologies, like, for example, sampling and retrieval, electrical propulsion, autonomous navigation. So lots of interesting new technologies and this really was a test bed. Problems like this are to be expected.<br />
<br />
J: At this point any kind of space exploration is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: In the time when we're worried that it's all gonna go away and dry up&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm really happy to hear about stuff like this.<br />
<br />
B: That's true. But you really got to hand it to JAXA, though, because they relentlessly attacked every difficulty that arose creatively solving problems, and according to some people it was Apollo 13 in scale in terms of how difficult these problems were.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: But granted, lives were not on the line, but still they had to go through a lot. On the way home they lost half of their engines kicked out and they had to figure out how to get home with only half the engines running so they did an amazing job.<br />
<br />
J: I don't like you comparing it to Apollo 13 because it being unmanned is one thing and the other thing was they got those people back to Earth safely with an enormous amount of effort. Nothing can match that.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I'm not comparing it and I did kind of say that not in terms of the lives but in terms of creative problem solving it was similar. Some people are comparing it.<br />
<br />
J: Well, if they make a movie about it I might believe it then.<br />
<br />
S: Cause it's not real unless Hollywood does a movie about it.<br />
<br />
B: As you can imagine this is a huge, huge news story in Japan. They're really playing it up. It's all over the place, cause this is&ndash;it's quite a feat. Regardless of what happens this is a first, so that's great. If they have a sample, even better, cause you learn lots of things about the solar system&ndash;because we don't have&ndash;think about it&ndash;the material we have from asteroids really is just meteorites, right, that have landed on the earth and they've gone through the atmosphere. They're not the same.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When you come through the atmosphere&ndash;they're not the same.<br />
<br />
E: Burn, yeah. Stuff burns away and, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: This will be pristine. This will be pristine rock and that will be invaluable.<br />
<br />
J: Do you guys think that one day we will park satellites in orbit and just mine them?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah. Mine asteroids?<br />
<br />
E: You mean bring them into a close orbit and then we send up vehicles and stuff to start plowing them for their platinum and all they're goodies?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. And how about&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
J: One thing that I remember thinking about when I was younger, why not put it in the same orbit that the earth is in, but just behind the earth. Would that mean that it would have to be the same size as the earth, though, in order to be in the same orbit?<br />
<br />
B: The velocity would be very different then. It couldn't have the same velocity because the mass would be so different, so, at some point, it would intersect with the earth. So I don't think that would work, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: You would need something to constantly regulate it's distance from the earth, right?<br />
<br />
S: You put it at a Lagrange point and it will sit there.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There ya go. Problem solved.<br />
<br />
S: A Lagrange point is a&ndash;if you have a map, a three dimensional map of the gravitational fields of the earth and the sun, for example, or any large body orbiting another large body, then those fields hit a pit, or they dip to a minimum. So anything that is at those points it's like being at the bottom of a hill, it's stuck there and it won't move away so it's actually fixed in position relative to the earth. So it would be perfect for something that we want to put someplace and have it stay there in terms of it's relationship to the earth.<br />
<br />
J: It's kind of like drafting, right?<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Come on, a little bit.<br />
<br />
S: But to complete that discussion there are a total of 5 Lagrangian points. One in the orbit of, lets say the earth, in front of it. One behind the earth in it's orbit. One on the opposite side of Earth's orbit. One between the earth and the sun and one outside the orbit on a line between the earth and the sun but farther than the earth. So five points total. A few of which would be pretty close. But also, there are asteroids that are said to quote unquote "stalk" the earth. For example, recently discovered the 2009 BD. It's not stationary with respect to the earth but it does&ndash;cause it interacts with the earth's gravity and it's not at a Lagrangian point, but it does get close to the earth and will sort of corkscrew around the earth's orbit and stay very close to use for a while and then maybe drift away and come back in it's orbit. It's got a very weird orbit but it does stay close to the earth.<br />
<br />
=== Einstein's Brain <small>(9:22)</small>===<br />
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305&ps=cprs NPR: Einstein's Brain Unlocks Some Mysteries Of The Mind]<br />
<br />
S: Jay, tell us about the amazing adventure of Einstein's brain.<br />
<br />
J: So this is a very interesting story. Before I get into the story let me just ask you guys a few questions. One, what makes you think Einstein was so smart? What was it about his brain that makes him smart? Some things that I'm sure most skeptics have heard was that, "Einstein used 10% of his brain where the regular person only uses 2 or 2.5%." You guys have heard of that, right?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, course.<br />
<br />
E: Or something similar to it, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's only be debunked about a million times on the internet and elsewhere, I believe, in our publication.<br />
<br />
E: Of course. That's what my phrenologist says.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: Here's one that is less common, but I've also heard and I believe I also used to think about this when I was younger and not knowing much about the brain but another thing that people think is that Einstein's brain had more hills and valleys on the exterior part of his brain.<br />
<br />
S: Sulci and gyri?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. So, that's basically the shape of the brain on the outside that makes it look like a brain. All those hills and valleys and little bumps and stuff that are on the outside of somebodies brain.<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: But, Steve, you said at one point that that does not mean you're smarter, correct?<br />
<br />
S: Well, not comparing one individual to another. There's too much variation to say that but that certainly is true when you compare species. The&ndash;what those do&ndash;what the gyri and sulci do&ndash;if you imagine the layers of the cortex and then fold it upon themselves like a ribbon that's what forms that structure and what the essentially does is it increases the surface area of the brain. So it's just a way of squeezing more computational surface area into a smaller three dimensional space which was obviously important to the evolution of our bigger, juicier brains. But you can't compare person A to person B and go, "Oh, he's got to be smarter because his brain looks smarter on an MRI scan. He's got more sulci." Doesn't work that way.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, why not also fill in the valleys between the hills? Between the gyri or the sulci or whatever they are?<br />
<br />
S: They're squished together. It's not significant.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
S: I mean, when you get old and your brain shrivels up and atrophies then you see expanded sulci and spaces but&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Your brain really shrivels up, huh?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, doesn't that suck?<br />
<br />
J: What the hell?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but Steve, I thought the idea, though, behind that was that they're not sure if the brain is really truly atrophying really, hugely, impacting cognition or is it just paring away the unessential parts of the brain that really aren't needed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, like motor skills and deep thinking.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: Barring, of course, dementia. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right Bob?<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's a complicated question. First of all those are not mutually exclusive cause both those things could be occurring at the same time. The pruning hypothesis where it's just cutting back neurons were sitting there waiting to be recruited but they haven't been, so they just go away at some point, but even still you imagine that there's fewer neurons around to be recruited so&ndash;after 50 or so we do start to lose our capacity to learn new things. We lose our flexibility. At least most of us. Some people really don't and they're brains don't atrophy as much, either.<br />
<br />
J: Bastards.<br />
<br />
S: So, some people genetically are built for more neurological longevity. But, yeah, you can't&ndash;I don't think it's accurate to say that there's no relationship between the atrophy of the brain as we age and the loss of cognitive ability. There absolutely is a relationship but it's complicated and we're not sure exactly what it is.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, it's not a black and white issue. It's more of a grey matter.<br />
<br />
B: Oh.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, wow, Evan, really?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright, so guys, let me continue. It's basically a story that I'm going to quickly tell everyone and then we'll discuss it.<br />
<br />
B: Alright.<br />
<br />
E: I love stories. Okay. I'm ready.<br />
<br />
J: So this man, named Thomas Harvey&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
E: Harvey.<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
J: and he&ndash;he actually performed the autopsy on Einstein at Princeton. Now this back in&ndash;Now this was when, '55 I believe Einstein died?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, around there.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. So, this is what the article said. The article said that during the autopsy routine the brain would be removed, examined, and then put back in the person's body for burial. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Which, by the way&ndash;we don't do that today. I don't know&ndash;that sounds odd. We don't put the brain back in the head. You take it out, you put it in a jar of formaldehyde and pickle it for 2 weeks, so that you can slice it up and look at it. Cause otherwise it's too much like jelly. You can't really slice into it. So that bit of that story certainly is not what's done today.<br />
<br />
J: Well maybe he took it out&ndash;cause it did say that he did put it in formaldehyde&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Well that's routine. That's routine.<br />
<br />
J: He was preparing it. He kept it out for the amount of time necessary and then instead of putting it back after the examination of the brain he kept it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, I think probably what happened is normally you would take it out, you pickle it for 2 weeks then you do what's called brain cutting. You slice it all the way through and you look for pathology and you look for the structures and whatnot and that's it. Then slides get filed away and the rest of it get thrown out, gets discarded as medical waste. Or, or, what can happen, sometimes the family may request that every last scrap of material gets returned and gets buried with the body.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. I'm sure that's&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: That happens sometimes, too. In fact, that happens even with&ndash;sometimes people will donate their body to science and their body will be dissected by medical students. Sometimes those bodies are just cremated. Other times everything's got to be put back&ndash;you don't put it back together but basically all bundled up and then sent back to the family to be buried or whatever they want to do with it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: That is a typical Jewish custom. I don't know how religious or close Einstein was to strict Jewish customs but I can tell you that that is Jewish customs. You bury as much of the remains as you possibly can.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So he probably&ndash;he held back the brain. He didn't do with it whatever was normally supposed to happen to it.<br />
<br />
J: No. He stole it. That's what happened.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. He stole it. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Brain thief.<br />
<br />
B: I'm going to donate my body to science fiction.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright. Continuing on&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: You stole that joke from somebody.<br />
<br />
J: So Thomas Harvey, because of what he did, because he kept Einstein's brain, he lost his job. Which seems to be the appropriate thing to take place.<br />
<br />
E: Bad trade.<br />
<br />
S: Cause that was unethical. What he did.<br />
<br />
J: And during that process he claimed that Einstein's son, Hans, gave him permission but that claim was denied by the family.<br />
<br />
S: What about Frans?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So, as I'm reading through this I realize, of course, hindsight being 20/20, I don't disagree with what the guy did. I think it was obvious to him at the time that there was something important about Einstein's brain and it should be studied further. Shouldn't just be thrown away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It kind of makes you wish that somebody at NASA thought that about the moon landing footage. <br />
<br />
B: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: "Ya know, I'm going to put this aside and not put it&ndash;file it with the rest of the tapes that are going to get erased and reused."<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Or, "Lets make a couple of backups, just in case. Or put it somewhere else. I don't know."<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Anyway.<br />
<br />
J: I've really gotta&ndash;let me sprint to the finish guys.<br />
<br />
B: Thanks for reminding me.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, go ahead.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. So I mentioned that I don't disagree. What Thomas Harvey wanted was he wanted neuro-anatomists to analyse Einstein's brain and see if they could find something out about it that we didn't know about the human brain before and that was his goal but as the story goes&ndash;so 40 years passes and then a writer named, Paterniti, he heard about all these events that we just went through and he decided that&ndash;I guess he wanted to write about what had taken place so he tracks down and finds Harvey. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Did he sue him?<br />
<br />
J: No. This guys an author.<br />
<br />
S: So he didn't give him a Paterniti suit?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god. You're on a roll tonight, Steve.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Any who, so, he tracks down Harvey, gets into a long conversation with him and, I guess, between the conversation and the two of them going back and forth they mutually decide the brain should be returned to Einstein's family and, I guess they new at the time that his granddaughter Evelyn was still alive so they wanted to return it to her. So Paterniti drives to Harvey's house, he described Harvey as bringing out Einstein's brain in a Tupperware jar. In a Tupperware container.<br />
<br />
E: Tupperware.<br />
<br />
J: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. That would seal in the freshness, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So the two of them planned to drive across the country from New Jersey all the way to California where the granddaughter lived. I guess they conversation had continued during this drive and Paterniti found out that Einstein had indeed&ndash;I'm sorry, that Harvey had indeed been sending out Einstein's brain when samples were requested he would take the samples and send them to neurologists across the globe. So, when saw the brain in the Tupperware container it had been cut up. It was sliced up. So, Harvey sent 3 different samples to a scientist named Marian Diamond and she had contacted Harvey years earlier and requested samples from 3 different parts of Einstein's brain and he did end up shipping them to her but he ended up shipping them to her in an old mayonnaise jar.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Okay? Not making this up.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: This was around 1980. She studied the samples. She found that Einstein's brain had normal amount of neurons but he had a higher than normal percentage of a different kind of brain cell and that cell was called a glial cell. That increase in glial cells was found especially in the parts of the brain that involved imagery and complex thinking, so that definitely made Diamond realize, "Well, this is very curious. Let me look into it." But first, Steve, why don't you tell us what a glial cell is.<br />
<br />
B: Support cells, aren't they?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's the other kinds of cells in the brain other than neurons and they are&ndash;yeah, for many years we thought they were basically support cells.<br />
<br />
B: Like structural cells.<br />
<br />
S: Not just structural but they create the friendly environment for the neurons. <br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right, they're there keeping the neurons alive and happy while the neurons are doing their job of remembering and calculating and stuff.<br />
<br />
B: Kind of like the Remora around sharks.<br />
<br />
S: I guess.<br />
<br />
J: So, at the time&ndash;<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Diamond was now asking questions like, "Well, why would there be more of these cells here if they're really just support cells? What's the significance of there being more of them here?" And it was a very odd idea at the time to think that glial cells had anything to do with Einstein's intelligence. Being that the cells were thought to be there for perhaps structural integrity perhaps there to just be, like Steve said, like more support cells than actual cells that were there for thinking. Alright, so now we go forward another 10 years and another researcher named Steven J. Smith published a paper that changed the perception of and understanding of the brain because what he did was&ndash;he was studying neurons and he was also studying these glial cells and he speculated that glial cells also were a part of the communication that happened within the cell and that also these cells weren't only communicating chemically but they were communicating with electricity in the manner that neurons communicate. And then he kept on fleshing out his idea and he also said that these glial cells could possibly be picking up communication between neurons&ndash;neurons are communicating with each other, glial cells would be listening in on this communication and then sending that data to other parts of the brain. So he came up with this idea that the brain&ndash;it's another way that the brain could be communicating internally. Which at the time was a profound idea. They though, at the time, that only neurons were doing the heavy lifting and that even though there was a ton of other cells in the brain that they didn't think really were doing anything. Neurons were it, but once they realized, "You know what? These glial cells might actually be doing complex things like be involved in learning and memory and ideas that we have of like what does it mean to be a genius. Glial cells might have something to do with high end thinking." So, once that started that started to really open up new ideas and that started a whole different school of thought. So then yet another scientist named, Doug Fields, he reproduced Smith's research and confirmed that it was actually valid. And, at one point, Doug Fields wrote, "Now we can see scores of ways in which astrocytes could be involved in many cognitive processes." And now it's not so crazy to find that there were abnormally high numbers of astrocytes in the parts of Einstein's brain involved in imagery and mathematical ability and that sort of thing. So, that was a pretty huge milestone and a huge leap forward in our understanding of the human brain. So in 2007, Harvey died. He really didn't know that him taking Einstein's brain, actually through these steps and through these different people actually lead to a move forward in our understanding of the riddle of the mind, but it seems that he actually did have something to do with it. And, Einstein's granddaughter didn't end up wanting her grandfather's brain so Harvey, before he died, he returned the brain back to the pathology department at Princeton, where it is today.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, can you only find out the number of astrocytes by cutting into a brain or is there a way to test it while you're still alive?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you can estimate it just by knowing what the density of astrocytes are and then calculating it by volume but if you want to look at an individuals astrocyte density, yeah, you gotta stain it. You gotta cut into it.<br />
<br />
J: So, Steve, could you just take a little&ndash;take a biopsy of somebody's brain and test it that way?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. You could.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think you could do&ndash;really?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Why not?<br />
<br />
E: Well, are you supposed to be biopsying the brain for this kind of testing purposes. It's really more for diseases.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you wouldn't do this. You wouldn't do that. You wouldn't biopsy a humans brain just out of curiosity but we do it for diagnostic purposes but it's got to be worth while to the person.<br />
<br />
E: Right. There's got to be something going on that you're looking for the answer for a cure or something.<br />
<br />
B: Risk benefit.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if they&ndash;I know it's not uncommon&ndash;brain surgery happens all the time. They open up people's skulls. They literally get in there with tools and go deep into the brain and remove tumors and do things like that. Cognitively if you did take someone's skull off, or a portion of the skull, and just cut out, say a jelly bean sized piece of the brain, under the idea that the person isn't going to bleed to death or whatever, just removing a piece of the brain then putting the skull piece back and letting the person heal. What would they lose from losing a portion of the brain that size?<br />
<br />
B: Depends. It depends on the portion.<br />
<br />
E: Lobotomi&ndash;You're lobotomizing a person at that point.<br />
<br />
B: It totally depends. My guess would be that either it's totally unnoticeable or you'd be completely debilitated.<br />
<br />
S: Bob's right. It completely depends on which jelly bean piece of brain you take out.<br />
<br />
B: Take the hypothalamus and you're f'd.<br />
<br />
S: For example, the right frontal lobe is largely redundant and you could do a lot of stuff to that without producing and noticeable deficits. <br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: And, in fact, when surgeons have to go into the brain they prefer to do the non-dominant frontal lobe because it's mostly redundant, but, you take out language cortex and you can make somebody completely lose their ability to speak, for example.<br />
<br />
B: It'd be like a stroke, Jay. It'd be like a stroke.<br />
<br />
J: But even a piece that small? <br />
<br />
S: If it's critical, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So there is one place in your brain that a certain type of functionality is happening and there's parts of your brains which is just storage for memory, there's parts of your brain that is doing something like processing what you see or what you hear. So you're better off losing a little portion of your memory than you are like a major piece of functionality, of course, but, I thought it was more evenly distributed.<br />
<br />
S: No. No no. It's not and it's also&ndash;memory's pretty evenly distributed but functions are localized and there's also&ndash;it's not just how localized it is it's how redundant it is. If something's really lateralized to one side you only have one piece of your brain that's doing that thing then you don't want to lose that. If you have bilateral redundancy then obviously you can afford to lose one cause the other side will make up for it. So, yeah, it depends on a lot of things. Interestingly, when reading through science news items this week&ndash;just this week was a study published by Swedish researchers from the University of Gothenburg and they were looking at astrocytes, which are a form of glial cells, and their effects on neuronal connections and function and essentially what they found is that the astrocytes are modulating the strength of the signalling between the neurons. Now, they basically are effecting how those synapses between neurons change over time. So what that means is is that the astrocytes might actually be directly involved in the formation of memories and plasticity of the brain and learning. Which, again, is just further evidence for their greatly enhanced role in actual memory function of the brain, not just, again, as support cells. So that research is ongoing and that was a huge shift in our thinking about the role of astrocytes.<br />
<br />
=== Largest Radio Telescope Array <small>(27:49)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.86c1ac9d54a51fd47b845663527a077d.1191&show_article=1 --><br />
<br />
S: Well lets go on. We have another bit of astronomy news, Bob, you're going to tell us about the largest radio telescope ever.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. This one's a quickie. This is the biggest radio telescope in the world and it was recently unveiled by scientists in the Netherlands. It's called LOFAR which stands Low Frequency Array. I think we touched upon this a while back. It consists of a whopping 25,000 small antennas and they're real tiny. They range in size from 50 centimeters to about 2 meters across. So they're not very big at all. And they're all spread out all over, not only the Netherlands, but also Germany, Sweden, France and Britain. And it's pretty cool. This thing is really going to do some amazing work I predict. Femke Beckhurst of the Netherlands Radio Astronomy Institute said, "Today we have launched the biggest radio telescope in the world. When you combine all the antennas you get a giant telescope with a diameter of about 1,000 kilometers," which is about 600 miles so that's pretty big. And it takes some nifty software to actually take all those separate signals and stitch them together. They're actually using a supercomputer to do some of that work. It's the Blue Gene P supercomputer which is a petaflop class supercomputer. So it's pretty fast. So with these observations that this radio telescope, or, I guess you can call it radio telescopes&ndash;So, the observations that they're going to be able to make with this&ndash;they're going to learn about the origin of the universe and some people are saying that they'll be able to go to the moment right after the big bang. Other&ndash;some other key science projects for LOFAR are what they call the epoch of re-ionization which is basically when the universe turned on. When things became. Also, things like ultra high energy cosmic rays which are a bit of a mystery, such as the one we mentioned&ndash;we mentioned one such cosmic ray a while back called the Oh My God Particle in 1991 which is probably the most energetic cosmic ray ever detected which was so powerful&ndash;imagine it was a subatomic particle with the energy of a baseball travelling at 60 miles an hour. Imagine, you get hit with one proton and it knocks you on your butt like it was a baseball travelling 60. So, amazingly fast. We're not sure what could have imparted so much energy to such a tiny thing. It was travelling so close to the speed of light it was essentially just a whisker&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But to clarify, it wouldn't really knock you on your butt, right? It would just go right through you.<br />
<br />
B: No. It's too tiny. Right. It is too tiny and it could do some damage, though, if it happened to hit the right, whatever in your body, DNA or something.<br />
<br />
E: Well, what if it hit a computer or something? It would really screw that up.<br />
<br />
B: That's a lot of kinetic energy. I don't know where&ndash;how all the kinetic energy would be transferred. Would it be transferred into heat. Would it fly right through? Probably&ndash;it might just fly right through.<br />
<br />
S: Or maybe it will smash through several particles on its way.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. It might hit&ndash;if hit's something squarely it could start a cascade so I think if it's just right it could actually&ndash;it could be noticeable. But there's other things&ndash;the solar science and space weather, cosmic magnetism, so I'm sure this thing is going to be used for a really long time and hopefully maybe even get even bigger.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, Bob, what's the difference between the moment of the Big Bang and the moment of first illuminosity, I think is the word you used?<br />
<br />
B: Well, I believe it was 100,000 years or 1,000 years, it was a lot of time before things calmed down enough. Things were just so energetic that light&ndash;any photons that might have been generated were just bouncing around all over the place and they really couldn't settle down and just take a straight line any direction so there's nothing to see if you look back in visible light there's nothing to see cause all the photons are just kinda bouncing around. But also this epoch of re-ionization&ndash;that's kind of a different term than I'm used to. They refer to it as when things became luminous so I think it depends on&ndash;are they talking about the first stars, the first galaxies, the first quasars?<br />
<br />
S: I guess so.<br />
<br />
B: If that's what they're talking about then that would actually be after what I'm talking&ndash;what I've just mentioned which is also called photon decoupling. So actually this epoch is a little bit different. I think it's later on.<br />
<br />
E: It's just amazing that they can make that distinction or make the determination that so much&ndash;however much time it is happened between the two.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: You think of the Big Bang&ndash;certainly in a visual display you're watching some show on TV that kinda of describes it and it's an intense white spot of light from the get go. At least that's how the depict it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. But they always give you the impossible perspective of being outside the universe when the Big Bang happens.<br />
<br />
B: Space time, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: But that's not a possible perspective. So it's kind of misleading.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. A little.<br />
<br />
S: And a lot of that is&ndash;evidence is theoretical. They're just well what should have happened if you have the mass of the universe at a point and then what would happen over time? Based upon the temperatures and what things are like at those temperatures. You know what I mean?<br />
<br />
E: But maybe this large radio telescope will help fill in those gaps.<br />
<br />
B: Some of them.<br />
<br />
S: Hopefully.<br />
<br />
B: If it can actually get close to the moment after the Big Bang then absolutely it will be able to do&ndash;it will illuminate us in many ways.<br />
<br />
E: Very cool.<br />
<br />
J: I still don't get the concept that when the Big Bang took place&ndash;like, where it was specially in reality. You can't go to that space&ndash;that place in outer space because it doesn't really&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: Sure you can. Wherever you go, there you are.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, geez. Really, Bob?<br />
<br />
E: It happened everywhere&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: It's true. It's true. It's everywhere. You can't point to it because it's not one specific spot. It's everywhere.<br />
<br />
J: Well, it didn't happen right here.<br />
<br />
E: It might have.<br />
<br />
S: Every part of the universe was at that point, Jay, at that time.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, so, meaning that the universe is growing in size.<br />
<br />
S: Of course. But it's like&ndash;if you do the two dimensional analogy, it's like blowing up a balloon. Where was it before you blew it up? Well it's&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: How&ndash;right. Try to explaining to a two dimensional creature on that balloon where&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: It was in the package.<br />
<br />
J: where the center is.<br />
<br />
S: You'd have to point into the 4th dimension.<br />
<br />
B: Exactly.<br />
<br />
J: I can't picture it.<br />
<br />
S: Right.<br />
<br />
=== Amityville Horror House for Sale <small>(34:11)</small>===<br />
[http://www.theness.com/roguesgallery/?p=1676 Rogue's Gallery: Amityville Horror House for Sale]<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:46)</small>==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Soy <small>(41:02)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>Steve - You made the offhand comment that there are "serious concerns" that soy milk is producing an estrogen type hormonal effect. I am a vegan bodybuilder who drinks a quart of soy milk everyday. I am concerned your offhand comment will scare people away from switching to a healthier milk alternative with no saturated fat. I've looked in the past when people have made these claims, and all I can find is that there may be some very mild effect, but nothing that rises to the level of your "serious concern" comment. If there was, there would be serious estrogen related issues throughout Asian countries. Since you felt it necessary to scare people away from soy by telling them about the "serious concerns" science has with soy milk, I hope you will provide the research on you next show that proves soy milk causes serious estrogen like effects. I do love the show, and I thank everyone for the time and effort you guys put into it every week. Michael Wilson Prescott, AZ</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Cursed Cell Phone Number <small>(45:50)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>The cursed cell phone number Thought you guys might like this story of truly stupid superstitious thinking that misses the glaringly obvious. <br />
<br><br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7763578/Mobile-phone-number-suspended-after-three-users-die-in-10-years.html Telegraph: Mobile phone number suspended after three users die in 10 years]<br />
<br>Danforth France Glendale, CA</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Magic Bee Juice <small>(50:27)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>One of the branches of the company I work for in Japan has started selling Propolis as a means to make more money in a bad economy. This branch has repeatedly tried to get me to buy some of this magic bee juice. Many of my Japanese co-workers have taken the bait. They are putting bee juice in their drinks and swallowing magic bee juice pills. When I ask them if they feel any better, they all say they aren’t sure. Hmm… I think the company I work for has a snake oill division. Do you know of any scientific evidence that shows any benefit to taking Propolis? All the information I found say that Propolis may contain lead and other garbage bees pick up while flying around the city. Thank you for your time. David Gardner Osaka, Japan </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Personality Tests <small>(54:41)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Steve, I'm trying to figure out the difference between the Incorrect Cause fallacy and the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy? Skepticwiki is telling me that Post Hoc is a type of Incorrect Cause Fallacy, but I'm just not getting the difference. They seem to be one and the same. Any help would be appreciated. I'm trying to complete a 5x5 recording we did a few months ago and I'm recording a missing part which was about the "Incorrect Cause" fallacy. The topic of the 5x5 was Chemtrails and it seems to me that the Post Hoc fallacy would work better here. Mike Lacelle Canada </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:07)</small> ==<br />
<br />
*[http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:14:40)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.</blockquote> <!-- the quote as read by Jay was different, should see if we can find a source to find the real quote --><br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS Con <small>(1:18:11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro119}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_257&diff=5563SGU Episode 2572013-01-22T03:28:09Z<p>Geneocide: /* Einstein's Brain (9:22) */ transcribed</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all |transcriber = Geneocide }}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 257<br />
|episodeDate = 14<sup>th</sup> June 2010<br />
|episodeIcon = File:amityvilledemoboy.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-06-14.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=257<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,28802.0.html<br />
|qowText = Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Monday, June 14<sup>th</sup>, 2010 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey everyone. How are you doing tonight?<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: Quite well.<br />
<br />
E: Good.<br />
<br />
S: No Rebecca tonight because we are on the lead up to TAM recording schedule. We going to have a little bit of a weird recording schedule the next few weeks and Rebecca was not available tonight and she has no internet access.<br />
<br />
J: That's because her and Sid bought a house.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: She hasn't been able to get internet and cable, I guess, to the house yet.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. But it's a big secret. Don't tell anyone, folks.<br />
<br />
S: They're moving into a new flat. Is it still a flat if it's a house?<br />
<br />
B: No. Wait wait, no, a flat's an apartment, isn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Are they moving into a house house, or is it like a condo or what is it?<br />
<br />
J: I think it's a house house.<br />
<br />
S: But no cable yet.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, if she has a house, that means she has a basement which means she could run a haunt in her house.<br />
<br />
B: Not necessarily. Florida houses don't have basements but that's because of the water table.<br />
<br />
J: Well, no. If she's in England she has a root cellar.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: Which is even creepier.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:19)</small> ==<br />
E: Well, on this day in 1648 Margaret Jones was hanged in Boston for witchcraft. The first such execution for the Massachusetts colony.<br />
<br />
S: How many people were killed?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they didn't stop with Margaret. It was 20 people.<br />
<br />
S: Were executed.<br />
<br />
E: We executed for witchcraft.<br />
<br />
J: Wow. And we got off lucky. Didn't&ndash;in Europe wasn't it a much bigger phenomenon in Europe?<br />
<br />
S: A conservative number is around 60,000 deaths directly attributable to the witch hunts.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Depending on how you count it. There were 20 people executed in Salem. 19 hung and that one guy, Giles Corey was crushed to death cause he refused to enter a plea.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Hayabusa Returns <small>(2:02)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100613/ts_afp/spacejapanaustraliaasteroidsreturn_20100613204620 <br />
<br />
possible replacement: [http://www.space.com/8592-japanese-asteroid-probe-historic-return-earth.html Space.com: Japanese Asteroid Probe Makes Historic Return to Earth]<br />
--><br />
S: Well Bob, tell us about Hayabusa returning to Earth.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this is pretty cool. I totally forgot about this guy but this is an interesting story. The Japanese space agency known as JAXA, Jay-Ay-Ex-Ay, completed a mission recently to bring a sample of an asteroid back to Earth. This is something that's never been accomplished before and regardless of what happens there has never been a spacecraft that touched down on an asteroid and then came back to Earth. So regardless if they even brought anything back with them this was a first. Like I said, the only real question that remains as of the taping of this podcast anyway is whether the canister they retrieved in Australia has any asteroid. If you remember back in 2003, JAXA's Hayabusa craft began a 2 year journey to an asteroid named Itokawa and I wish I could say the mission went swimmingly but I can't. The craft really experienced some nasty technical difficulties. It seems likes throughout the whole way, or at least through a lot of it. They just kept hitting problem after problem. They even had some&ndash;some solar flair even messed up with it's power source so the energy that it had was less than they had anticipated and some of the biggest failures, though, was they had this metal ball that they would shoot&ndash;or they planned on shooting at the asteroid to collect rock samples and that failed. And then there was another mechanism, which they were planning on using to stir up the dust around the lander on the asteroid and that failed as well to collect any samples. So you might think that it was a total bust but the real hope at this point is that they hope that the dust that stirred up during the landing kind of just was swirling around and entered the canister&ndash;the collection canister so that's really all their hope is on that.<br />
<br />
S: So they really don't know if there's going to be anything in that canister. <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, they have no idea at this point. It doesn't look good to me.<br />
<br />
J: Is it on it's way back to Earth or it can analyze it.<br />
<br />
B: It came back to Earth. The craft burned up in the atmosphere but it ejected this heat protected canister which landed at the Woomera Protected Area which is a restricted military zone in south Australian desert. Now some conspiracy hypothesists may say that in reality this whole 7 year mission was a subtle attempt to get access to this restricted military zone. But, ya know, I'm just saying.<br />
<br />
J: Look at that. It landed in Area 51. Could we go get it?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Yeah.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: But, being silly, but I want to congratulate JAXA, though. Even if there's no sample which would really be nasty, but even if there's no sample, it was a great effort that tested lots of new technologies, like, for example, sampling and retrieval, electrical propulsion, autonomous navigation. So lots of interesting new technologies and this really was a test bed. Problems like this are to be expected.<br />
<br />
J: At this point any kind of space exploration is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: In the time when we're worried that it's all gonna go away and dry up&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm really happy to hear about stuff like this.<br />
<br />
B: That's true. But you really got to hand it to JAXA, though, because they relentlessly attacked every difficulty that arose creatively solving problems, and according to some people it was Apollo 13 in scale in terms of how difficult these problems were.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: But granted, lives were not on the line, but still they had to go through a lot. On the way home they lost half of their engines kicked out and they had to figure out how to get home with only half the engines running so they did an amazing job.<br />
<br />
J: I don't like you comparing it to Apollo 13 because it being unmanned is one thing and the other thing was they got those people back to Earth safely with an enormous amount of effort. Nothing can match that.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I'm not comparing it and I did kind of say that not in terms of the lives but in terms of creative problem solving it was similar. Some people are comparing it.<br />
<br />
J: Well, if they make a movie about it I might believe it then.<br />
<br />
S: Cause it's not real unless Hollywood does a movie about it.<br />
<br />
B: As you can imagine this is a huge, huge news story in Japan. They're really playing it up. It's all over the place, cause this is&ndash;it's quite a feat. Regardless of what happens this is a first, so that's great. If they have a sample, even better, cause you learn lots of things about the solar system&ndash;because we don't have&ndash;think about it&ndash;the material we have from asteroids really is just meteorites, right, that have landed on the earth and they've gone through the atmosphere. They're not the same.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When you come through the atmosphere&ndash;they're not the same.<br />
<br />
E: Burn, yeah. Stuff burns away and, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: This will be pristine. This will be pristine rock and that will be invaluable.<br />
<br />
J: Do you guys think that one day we will park satellites in orbit and just mine them?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah. Mine asteroids?<br />
<br />
E: You mean bring them into a close orbit and then we send up vehicles and stuff to start plowing them for their platinum and all they're goodies?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. And how about&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
J: One thing that I remember thinking about when I was younger, why not put it in the same orbit that the earth is in, but just behind the earth. Would that mean that it would have to be the same size as the earth, though, in order to be in the same orbit?<br />
<br />
B: The velocity would be very different then. It couldn't have the same velocity because the mass would be so different, so, at some point, it would intersect with the earth. So I don't think that would work, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: You would need something to constantly regulate it's distance from the earth, right?<br />
<br />
S: You put it at a Lagrange point and it will sit there.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There ya go. Problem solved.<br />
<br />
S: A Lagrange point is a&ndash;if you have a map, a three dimensional map of the gravitational fields of the earth and the sun, for example, or any large body orbiting another large body, then those fields hit a pit, or they dip to a minimum. So anything that is at those points it's like being at the bottom of a hill, it's stuck there and it won't move away so it's actually fixed in position relative to the earth. So it would be perfect for something that we want to put someplace and have it stay there in terms of it's relationship to the earth.<br />
<br />
J: It's kind of like drafting, right?<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Come on, a little bit.<br />
<br />
S: But to complete that discussion there are a total of 5 Lagrangian points. One in the orbit of, lets say the earth, in front of it. One behind the earth in it's orbit. One on the opposite side of Earth's orbit. One between the earth and the sun and one outside the orbit on a line between the earth and the sun but farther than the earth. So five points total. A few of which would be pretty close. But also, there are asteroids that are said to quote unquote "stalk" the earth. For example, recently discovered the 2009 BD. It's not stationary with respect to the earth but it does&ndash;cause it interacts with the earth's gravity and it's not at a Lagrangian point, but it does get close to the earth and will sort of corkscrew around the earth's orbit and stay very close to use for a while and then maybe drift away and come back in it's orbit. It's got a very weird orbit but it does stay close to the earth.<br />
<br />
=== Einstein's Brain <small>(9:22)</small>===<br />
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305&ps=cprs NPR: Einstein's Brain Unlocks Some Mysteries Of The Mind]<br />
<br />
S: Jay, tell us about the amazing adventure of Einstein's brain.<br />
<br />
J: So this is a very interesting story. Before I get into the story let me just ask you guys a few questions. One, what makes you think Einstein was so smart? What was it about his brain that makes him smart? Some things that I'm sure most skeptics have heard was that, "Einstein used 10% of his brain where the regular person only uses 2 or 2.5%." You guys have heard of that, right?<br />
<br />
B: Oh, course.<br />
<br />
E: Or something similar to it, yeah.<br />
<br />
S: That's only be debunked about a million times on the internet and elsewhere, I believe, in our publication.<br />
<br />
E: Of course. That's what my phrenologist says.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: Here's one that is less common, but I've also heard and I believe I also used to think about this when I was younger and not knowing much about the brain but another thing that people think is that Einstein's brain had more hills and valleys on the exterior part of his brain.<br />
<br />
S: Sulci and gyri?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. So, that's basically the shape of the brain on the outside that makes it look like a brain. All those hills and valleys and little bumps and stuff that are on the outside of somebodies brain.<br />
<br />
S: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: But, Steve, you said at one point that that does not mean you're smarter, correct?<br />
<br />
S: Well, not comparing one individual to another. There's too much variation to say that but that certainly is true when you compare species. The&ndash;what those do&ndash;what the gyri and sulci do&ndash;if you imagine the layers of the cortex and then fold it upon themselves like a ribbon that's what forms that structure and what the essentially does is it increases the surface area of the brain. So it's just a way of squeezing more computational surface area into a smaller three dimensional space which was obviously important to the evolution of our bigger, juicier brains. But you can't compare person A to person B and go, "Oh, he's got to be smarter because his brain looks smarter on an MRI scan. He's got more sulci." Doesn't work that way.<br />
<br />
B: Steve, why not also fill in the valleys between the hills? Between the gyri or the sulci or whatever they are?<br />
<br />
S: They're squished together. It's not significant.<br />
<br />
B: Oh, okay.<br />
<br />
S: I mean, when you get old and your brain shrivels up and atrophies then you see expanded sulci and spaces but&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Your brain really shrivels up, huh?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, doesn't that suck?<br />
<br />
J: What the hell?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, but Steve, I thought the idea, though, behind that was that they're not sure if the brain is really truly atrophying really, hugely, impacting cognition or is it just paring away the unessential parts of the brain that really aren't needed.<br />
<br />
J: Yeah, like motor skills and deep thinking.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: Barring, of course, dementia. <br />
<br />
J: Yeah, right Bob?<br />
<br />
S: Well, that's a complicated question. First of all those are not mutually exclusive cause both those things could be occurring at the same time. The pruning hypothesis where it's just cutting back neurons were sitting there waiting to be recruited but they haven't been, so they just go away at some point, but even still you imagine that there's fewer neurons around to be recruited so&ndash;after 50 or so we do start to lose our capacity to learn new things. We lose our flexibility. At least most of us. Some people really don't and they're brains don't atrophy as much, either.<br />
<br />
J: Bastards.<br />
<br />
S: So, some people genetically are built for more neurological longevity. But, yeah, you can't&ndash;I don't think it's accurate to say that there's no relationship between the atrophy of the brain as we age and the loss of cognitive ability. There absolutely is a relationship but it's complicated and we're not sure exactly what it is.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, it's not a black and white issue. It's more of a grey matter.<br />
<br />
B: Oh.<br />
<br />
J: Oh, wow, Evan, really?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright, so guys, let me continue. It's basically a story that I'm going to quickly tell everyone and then we'll discuss it.<br />
<br />
B: Alright.<br />
<br />
E: I love stories. Okay. I'm ready.<br />
<br />
J: So this man, named Thomas Harvey&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
E: Harvey.<br />
<br />
B: Harvey.<br />
<br />
J: and he&ndash;he actually performed the autopsy on Einstein at Princeton. Now this back in&ndash;Now this was when, '55 I believe Einstein died?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, around there.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Okay. So, this is what the article said. The article said that during the autopsy routine the brain would be removed, examined, and then put back in the person's body for burial. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Which, by the way&ndash;we don't do that today. I don't know&ndash;that sounds odd. We don't put the brain back in the head. You take it out, you put it in a jar of formaldehyde and pickle it for 2 weeks, so that you can slice it up and look at it. Cause otherwise it's too much like jelly. You can't really slice into it. So that bit of that story certainly is not what's done today.<br />
<br />
J: Well maybe he took it out&ndash;cause it did say that he did put it in formaldehyde&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: Well that's routine. That's routine.<br />
<br />
J: He was preparing it. He kept it out for the amount of time necessary and then instead of putting it back after the examination of the brain he kept it.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Well, I think probably what happened is normally you would take it out, you pickle it for 2 weeks then you do what's called brain cutting. You slice it all the way through and you look for pathology and you look for the structures and whatnot and that's it. Then slides get filed away and the rest of it get thrown out, gets discarded as medical waste. Or, or, what can happen, sometimes the family may request that every last scrap of material gets returned and gets buried with the body.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. I'm sure that's&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: That happens sometimes, too. In fact, that happens even with&ndash;sometimes people will donate their body to science and their body will be dissected by medical students. Sometimes those bodies are just cremated. Other times everything's got to be put back&ndash;you don't put it back together but basically all bundled up and then sent back to the family to be buried or whatever they want to do with it. So&ndash;<br />
<br />
E: That is a typical Jewish custom. I don't know how religious or close Einstein was to strict Jewish customs but I can tell you that that is Jewish customs. You bury as much of the remains as you possibly can.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. So he probably&ndash;he held back the brain. He didn't do with it whatever was normally supposed to happen to it.<br />
<br />
J: No. He stole it. That's what happened.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. He stole it. Yeah.<br />
<br />
E: Brain thief.<br />
<br />
B: I'm going to donate my body to science fiction.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Alright. Continuing on&ndash;<br />
<br />
S: You stole that joke from somebody.<br />
<br />
J: So Thomas Harvey, because of what he did, because he kept Einstein's brain, he lost his job. Which seems to be the appropriate thing to take place.<br />
<br />
E: Bad trade.<br />
<br />
S: Cause that was unethical. What he did.<br />
<br />
J: And during that process he claimed that Einstein's son, Hans, gave him permission but that claim was denied by the family.<br />
<br />
S: What about Frans?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: So, as I'm reading through this I realize, of course, hindsight being 20/20, I don't disagree with what the guy did. I think it was obvious to him at the time that there was something important about Einstein's brain and it should be studied further. Shouldn't just be thrown away.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It kind of makes you wish that somebody at NASA thought that about the moon landing footage. <br />
<br />
B: Oh my God.<br />
<br />
S: "Ya know, I'm going to put this aside and not put it&ndash;file it with the rest of the tapes that are going to get erased and reused."<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Or, "Lets make a couple of backups, just in case. Or put it somewhere else. I don't know."<br />
<br />
S: Alright. Anyway.<br />
<br />
J: I've really gotta&ndash;let me sprint to the finish guys.<br />
<br />
B: Thanks for reminding me.<br />
<br />
S: Alright, go ahead.<br />
<br />
E: Yes.<br />
<br />
J: Alright. So I mentioned that I don't disagree. What Thomas Harvey wanted was he wanted neuro-anatomists to analyse Einstein's brain and see if they could find something out about it that we didn't know about the human brain before and that was his goal but as the story goes&ndash;so 40 years passes and then a writer named, Paterniti, he heard about all these events that we just went through and he decided that&ndash;I guess he wanted to write about what had taken place so he tracks down and finds Harvey. Okay?<br />
<br />
S: Did he sue him?<br />
<br />
J: No. This guys an author.<br />
<br />
S: So he didn't give him a Paterniti suit?<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Oh my god. You're on a roll tonight, Steve.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Any who, so, he tracks down Harvey, gets into a long conversation with him and, I guess, between the conversation and the two of them going back and forth they mutually decide the brain should be returned to Einstein's family and, I guess they new at the time that his granddaughter Evelyn was still alive so they wanted to return it to her. So Paterniti drives to Harvey's house, he described Harvey as bringing out Einstein's brain in a Tupperware jar. In a Tupperware container.<br />
<br />
E: Tupperware.<br />
<br />
J: Okay.<br />
<br />
E: Ah. That would seal in the freshness, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So the two of them planned to drive across the country from New Jersey all the way to California where the granddaughter lived. I guess they conversation had continued during this drive and Paterniti found out that Einstein had indeed&ndash;I'm sorry, that Harvey had indeed been sending out Einstein's brain when samples were requested he would take the samples and send them to neurologists across the globe. So, when saw the brain in the Tupperware container it had been cut up. It was sliced up. So, Harvey sent 3 different samples to a scientist named Marian Diamond and she had contacted Harvey years earlier and requested samples from 3 different parts of Einstein's brain and he did end up shipping them to her but he ended up shipping them to her in an old mayonnaise jar.<br />
<br />
B: Oh my god.<br />
<br />
J: Okay? Not making this up.<br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
J: This was around 1980. She studied the samples. She found that Einstein's brain had normal amount of neurons but he had a higher than normal percentage of a different kind of brain cell and that cell was called a glial cell. That increase in glial cells was found especially in the parts of the brain that involved imagery and complex thinking, so that definitely made Diamond realize, "Well, this is very curious. Let me look into it." But first, Steve, why don't you tell us what a glial cell is.<br />
<br />
B: Support cells, aren't they?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. It's the other kinds of cells in the brain other than neurons and they are&ndash;yeah, for many years we thought they were basically support cells.<br />
<br />
B: Like structural cells.<br />
<br />
S: Not just structural but they create the friendly environment for the neurons. <br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
S: Right, they're there keeping the neurons alive and happy while the neurons are doing their job of remembering and calculating and stuff.<br />
<br />
B: Kind of like the Remora around sharks.<br />
<br />
S: I guess.<br />
<br />
J: So, at the time&ndash;<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Diamond was now asking questions like, "Well, why would there be more of these cells here if they're really just support cells? What's the significance of there being more of them here?" And it was a very odd idea at the time to think that glial cells had anything to do with Einstein's intelligence. Being that the cells were thought to be there for perhaps structural integrity perhaps there to just be, like Steve said, like more support cells than actual cells that were there for thinking. Alright, so now we go forward another 10 years and another researcher named Steven J. Smith published a paper that changed the perception of and understanding of the brain because what he did was&ndash;he was studying neurons and he was also studying these glial cells and he speculated that glial cells also were a part of the communication that happened within the cell and that also these cells weren't only communicating chemically but they were communicating with electricity in the manner that neurons communicate. And then he kept on fleshing out his idea and he also said that these glial cells could possibly be picking up communication between neurons&ndash;neurons are communicating with each other, glial cells would be listening in on this communication and then sending that data to other parts of the brain. So he came up with this idea that the brain&ndash;it's another way that the brain could be communicating internally. Which at the time was a profound idea. They though, at the time, that only neurons were doing the heavy lifting and that even though there was a ton of other cells in the brain that they didn't think really were doing anything. Neurons were it, but once they realized, "You know what? These glial cells might actually be doing complex things like be involved in learning and memory and ideas that we have of like what does it mean to be a genius. Glial cells might have something to do with high end thinking." So, once that started that started to really open up new ideas and that started a whole different school of thought. So then yet another scientist named, Doug Fields, he reproduced Smith's research and confirmed that it was actually valid. And, at one point, Doug Fields wrote, "Now we can see scores of ways in which astrocytes could be involved in many cognitive processes." And now it's not so crazy to find that there were abnormally high numbers of astrocytes in the parts of Einstein's brain involved in imagery and mathematical ability and that sort of thing. So, that was a pretty huge milestone and a huge leap forward in our understanding of the human brain. So in 2007, Harvey died. He really didn't know that him taking Einstein's brain, actually through these steps and through these different people actually lead to a move forward in our understanding of the riddle of the mind, but it seems that he actually did have something to do with it. And, Einstein's granddaughter didn't end up wanting her grandfather's brain so Harvey, before he died, he returned the brain back to the pathology department at Princeton, where it is today.<br />
<br />
E: Hey, can you only find out the number of astrocytes by cutting into a brain or is there a way to test it while you're still alive?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah, you can estimate it just by knowing what the density of astrocytes are and then calculating it by volume but if you want to look at an individuals astrocyte density, yeah, you gotta stain it. You gotta cut into it.<br />
<br />
J: So, Steve, could you just take a little&ndash;take a biopsy of somebody's brain and test it that way?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. You could.<br />
<br />
E: I don't think you could do&ndash;really?<br />
<br />
S: Yeah. Why not?<br />
<br />
E: Well, are you supposed to be biopsying the brain for this kind of testing purposes. It's really more for diseases.<br />
<br />
S: Well, you wouldn't do this. You wouldn't do that. You wouldn't biopsy a humans brain just out of curiosity but we do it for diagnostic purposes but it's got to be worth while to the person.<br />
<br />
E: Right. There's got to be something going on that you're looking for the answer for a cure or something.<br />
<br />
B: Risk benefit.<br />
<br />
J: Steve, if they&ndash;I know it's not uncommon&ndash;brain surgery happens all the time. They open up people's skulls. They literally get in there with tools and go deep into the brain and remove tumors and do things like that. Cognitively if you did take someone's skull off, or a portion of the skull, and just cut out, say a jelly bean sized piece of the brain, under the idea that the person isn't going to bleed to death or whatever, just removing a piece of the brain then putting the skull piece back and letting the person heal. What would they lose from losing a portion of the brain that size?<br />
<br />
B: Depends. It depends on the portion.<br />
<br />
E: Lobotomi&ndash;You're lobotomizing a person at that point.<br />
<br />
B: It totally depends. My guess would be that either it's totally unnoticeable or you'd be completely debilitated.<br />
<br />
S: Bob's right. It completely depends on which jelly bean piece of brain you take out.<br />
<br />
B: Take the hypothalamus and you're f'd.<br />
<br />
S: For example, the right frontal lobe is largely redundant and you could do a lot of stuff to that without producing and noticeable deficits. <br />
<br />
E: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: And, in fact, when surgeons have to go into the brain they prefer to do the non-dominant frontal lobe because it's mostly redundant, but, you take out language cortex and you can make somebody completely lose their ability to speak, for example.<br />
<br />
B: It'd be like a stroke, Jay. It'd be like a stroke.<br />
<br />
J: But even a piece that small? <br />
<br />
S: If it's critical, yeah.<br />
<br />
J: So there is one place in your brain that a certain type of functionality is happening and there's parts of your brains which is just storage for memory, there's parts of your brain that is doing something like processing what you see or what you hear. So you're better off losing a little portion of your memory than you are like a major piece of functionality, of course, but, I thought it was more evenly distributed.<br />
<br />
S: No. No no. It's not and it's also&ndash;memory's pretty evenly distributed but functions are localized and there's also&ndash;it's not just how localized it is it's how redundant it is. If something's really lateralized to one side you only have one piece of your brain that's doing that thing then you don't want to lose that. If you have bilateral redundancy then obviously you can afford to lose one cause the other side will make up for it. So, yeah, it depends on a lot of things. Interestingly, when reading through science news items this week&ndash;just this week was a study published by Swedish researchers from the University of Gothenburg and they were looking at astrocytes, which are a form of glial cells, and their effects on neuronal connections and function and essentially what they found is that the astrocytes are modulating the strength of the signalling between the neurons. Now, they basically are effecting how those synapses between neurons change over time. So what that means is is that the astrocytes might actually be directly involved in the formation of memories and plasticity of the brain and learning. Which, again, is just further evidence for their greatly enhanced role in actual memory function of the brain, not just, again, as support cells. So that research is ongoing and that was a huge shift in our thinking about the role of astrocytes.<br />
<br />
=== Largest Radio Telescope Array <small>(27:49)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.86c1ac9d54a51fd47b845663527a077d.1191&show_article=1 --><br />
<br />
=== Amityville Horror House for Sale <small>(34:11)</small>===<br />
[http://www.theness.com/roguesgallery/?p=1676 Rogue's Gallery: Amityville Horror House for Sale]<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:46)</small>==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Soy <small>(41:02)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>Steve - You made the offhand comment that there are "serious concerns" that soy milk is producing an estrogen type hormonal effect. I am a vegan bodybuilder who drinks a quart of soy milk everyday. I am concerned your offhand comment will scare people away from switching to a healthier milk alternative with no saturated fat. I've looked in the past when people have made these claims, and all I can find is that there may be some very mild effect, but nothing that rises to the level of your "serious concern" comment. If there was, there would be serious estrogen related issues throughout Asian countries. Since you felt it necessary to scare people away from soy by telling them about the "serious concerns" science has with soy milk, I hope you will provide the research on you next show that proves soy milk causes serious estrogen like effects. I do love the show, and I thank everyone for the time and effort you guys put into it every week. Michael Wilson Prescott, AZ</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Cursed Cell Phone Number <small>(45:50)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>The cursed cell phone number Thought you guys might like this story of truly stupid superstitious thinking that misses the glaringly obvious. <br />
<br><br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7763578/Mobile-phone-number-suspended-after-three-users-die-in-10-years.html Telegraph: Mobile phone number suspended after three users die in 10 years]<br />
<br>Danforth France Glendale, CA</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Magic Bee Juice <small>(50:27)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>One of the branches of the company I work for in Japan has started selling Propolis as a means to make more money in a bad economy. This branch has repeatedly tried to get me to buy some of this magic bee juice. Many of my Japanese co-workers have taken the bait. They are putting bee juice in their drinks and swallowing magic bee juice pills. When I ask them if they feel any better, they all say they aren’t sure. Hmm… I think the company I work for has a snake oill division. Do you know of any scientific evidence that shows any benefit to taking Propolis? All the information I found say that Propolis may contain lead and other garbage bees pick up while flying around the city. Thank you for your time. David Gardner Osaka, Japan </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Personality Tests <small>(54:41)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Steve, I'm trying to figure out the difference between the Incorrect Cause fallacy and the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy? Skepticwiki is telling me that Post Hoc is a type of Incorrect Cause Fallacy, but I'm just not getting the difference. They seem to be one and the same. Any help would be appreciated. I'm trying to complete a 5x5 recording we did a few months ago and I'm recording a missing part which was about the "Incorrect Cause" fallacy. The topic of the 5x5 was Chemtrails and it seems to me that the Post Hoc fallacy would work better here. Mike Lacelle Canada </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:07)</small> ==<br />
<br />
*[http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:14:40)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.</blockquote> <!-- the quote as read by Jay was different, should see if we can find a source to find the real quote --><br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS Con <small>(1:18:11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro119}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SGU_Episode_10&diff=5560Talk:SGU Episode 102013-01-21T05:23:32Z<p>Geneocide: Created page with "So... I'm supposed to use mdash, not ndash, huh?<br>--~~~~"</p>
<hr />
<div>So... I'm supposed to use mdash, not ndash, huh?<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 05:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_257&diff=5534SGU Episode 2572013-01-18T20:32:27Z<p>Geneocide: /* Hayabusa Returns (2:02) */ transcribed</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all |transcriber = Geneocide }}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 257<br />
|episodeDate = 14<sup>th</sup> June 2010<br />
|episodeIcon = File:amityvilledemoboy.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-06-14.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=257<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,28802.0.html<br />
|qowText = Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Monday, June 14<sup>th</sup>, 2010 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey everyone. How are you doing tonight?<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: Quite well.<br />
<br />
E: Good.<br />
<br />
S: No Rebecca tonight because we are on the lead up to TAM recording schedule. We going to have a little bit of a weird recording schedule the next few weeks and Rebecca was not available tonight and she has no internet access.<br />
<br />
J: That's because her and Sid bought a house.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: She hasn't been able to get internet and cable, I guess, to the house yet.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. But it's a big secret. Don't tell anyone, folks.<br />
<br />
S: They're moving into a new flat. Is it still a flat if it's a house?<br />
<br />
B: No. Wait wait, no, a flat's an apartment, isn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Are they moving into a house house, or is it like a condo or what is it?<br />
<br />
J: I think it's a house house.<br />
<br />
S: But no cable yet.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, if she has a house, that means she has a basement which means she could run a haunt in her house.<br />
<br />
B: Not necessarily. Florida houses don't have basements but that's because of the water table.<br />
<br />
J: Well, no. If she's in England she has a root cellar.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: Which is even creepier.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:19)</small> ==<br />
E: Well, on this day in 1648 Margaret Jones was hanged in Boston for witchcraft. The first such execution for the Massachusetts colony.<br />
<br />
S: How many people were killed?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they didn't stop with Margaret. It was 20 people.<br />
<br />
S: Were executed.<br />
<br />
E: We executed for witchcraft.<br />
<br />
J: Wow. And we got off lucky. Didn't&ndash;in Europe wasn't it a much bigger phenomenon in Europe?<br />
<br />
S: A conservative number is around 60,000 deaths directly attributable to the witch hunts.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Depending on how you count it. There were 20 people executed in Salem. 19 hung and that one guy, Giles Corey was crushed to death cause he refused to enter a plea.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Hayabusa Returns <small>(2:02)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100613/ts_afp/spacejapanaustraliaasteroidsreturn_20100613204620 <br />
<br />
possible replacement: [http://www.space.com/8592-japanese-asteroid-probe-historic-return-earth.html Space.com: Japanese Asteroid Probe Makes Historic Return to Earth]<br />
--><br />
S: Well Bob, tell us about Hayabusa returning to Earth.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, this is pretty cool. I totally forgot about this guy but this is an interesting story. The Japanese space agency known as JAXA, Jay-Ay-Ex-Ay, completed a mission recently to bring a sample of an asteroid back to Earth. This is something that's never been accomplished before and regardless of what happens there has never been a spacecraft that touched down on an asteroid and then came back to Earth. So regardless if they even brought anything back with them this was a first. Like I said, the only real question that remains as of the taping of this podcast anyway is whether the canister they retrieved in Australia has any asteroid. If you remember back in 2003, JAXA's Hayabusa craft began a 2 year journey to an asteroid named Itokawa and I wish I could say the mission went swimmingly but I can't. The craft really experienced some nasty technical difficulties. It seems likes throughout the whole way, or at least through a lot of it. They just kept hitting problem after problem. They even had some&ndash;some solar flair even messed up with it's power source so the energy that it had was less than they had anticipated and some of the biggest failures, though, was they had this metal ball that they would shoot&ndash;or they planned on shooting at the asteroid to collect rock samples and that failed. And then there was another mechanism, which they were planning on using to stir up the dust around the lander on the asteroid and that failed as well to collect any samples. So you might think that it was a total bust but the real hope at this point is that they hope that the dust that stirred up during the landing kind of just was swirling around and entered the canister&ndash;the collection canister so that's really all their hope is on that.<br />
<br />
S: So they really don't know if there's going to be anything in that canister. <br />
<br />
B: Oh, yeah, they have no idea at this point. It doesn't look good to me.<br />
<br />
J: Is it on it's way back to Earth or it can analyze it.<br />
<br />
B: It came back to Earth. The craft burned up in the atmosphere but it ejected this heat protected canister which landed at the Woomera Protected Area which is a restricted military zone in south Australian desert. Now some conspiracy hypothesists may say that in reality this whole 7 year mission was a subtle attempt to get access to this restricted military zone. But, ya know, I'm just saying.<br />
<br />
J: Look at that. It landed in Area 51. Could we go get it?<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. Yeah.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
B: But, being silly, but I want to congratulate JAXA, though. Even if there's no sample which would really be nasty, but even if there's no sample, it was a great effort that tested lots of new technologies, like, for example, sampling and retrieval, electrical propulsion, autonomous navigation. So lots of interesting new technologies and this really was a test bed. Problems like this are to be expected.<br />
<br />
J: At this point any kind of space exploration is awesome.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: In the time when we're worried that it's all gonna go away and dry up&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Yeah.<br />
<br />
J: I'm really happy to hear about stuff like this.<br />
<br />
B: That's true. But you really got to hand it to JAXA, though, because they relentlessly attacked every difficulty that arose creatively solving problems, and according to some people it was Apollo 13 in scale in terms of how difficult these problems were.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
B: But granted, lives were not on the line, but still they had to go through a lot. On the way home they lost half of their engines kicked out and they had to figure out how to get home with only half the engines running so they did an amazing job.<br />
<br />
J: I don't like you comparing it to Apollo 13 because it being unmanned is one thing and the other thing was they got those people back to Earth safely with an enormous amount of effort. Nothing can match that.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, I'm not comparing it and I did kind of say that not in terms of the lives but in terms of creative problem solving it was similar. Some people are comparing it.<br />
<br />
J: Well, if they make a movie about it I might believe it then.<br />
<br />
S: Cause it's not real unless Hollywood does a movie about it.<br />
<br />
B: As you can imagine this is a huge, huge news story in Japan. They're really playing it up. It's all over the place, cause this is&ndash;it's quite a feat. Regardless of what happens this is a first, so that's great. If they have a sample, even better, cause you learn lots of things about the solar system&ndash;because we don't have&ndash;think about it&ndash;the material we have from asteroids really is just meteorites, right, that have landed on the earth and they've gone through the atmosphere. They're not the same.<br />
<br />
S: Yeah.<br />
<br />
B: When you come through the atmosphere&ndash;they're not the same.<br />
<br />
E: Burn, yeah. Stuff burns away and, yeah.<br />
<br />
B: This will be pristine. This will be pristine rock and that will be invaluable.<br />
<br />
J: Do you guys think that one day we will park satellites in orbit and just mine them?<br />
<br />
S: Oh yeah. Mine asteroids?<br />
<br />
E: You mean bring them into a close orbit and then we send up vehicles and stuff to start plowing them for their platinum and all they're goodies?<br />
<br />
J: Yeah. And how about&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Absolutely.<br />
<br />
J: One thing that I remember thinking about when I was younger, why not put it in the same orbit that the earth is in, but just behind the earth. Would that mean that it would have to be the same size as the earth, though, in order to be in the same orbit?<br />
<br />
B: The velocity would be very different then. It couldn't have the same velocity because the mass would be so different, so, at some point, it would intersect with the earth. So I don't think that would work, Jay.<br />
<br />
E: You would need something to constantly regulate it's distance from the earth, right?<br />
<br />
S: You put it at a Lagrange point and it will sit there.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah. There ya go. Problem solved.<br />
<br />
S: A Lagrange point is a&ndash;if you have a map, a three dimensional map of the gravitational fields of the earth and the sun, for example, or any large body orbiting another large body, then those fields hit a pit, or they dip to a minimum. So anything that is at those points it's like being at the bottom of a hill, it's stuck there and it won't move away so it's actually fixed in position relative to the earth. So it would be perfect for something that we want to put someplace and have it stay there in terms of it's relationship to the earth.<br />
<br />
J: It's kind of like drafting, right?<br />
<br />
S: No.<br />
<br />
(laughter)<br />
<br />
J: Come on, a little bit.<br />
<br />
S: But to complete that discussion there are a total of 5 Lagrangian points. One in the orbit of, lets say the earth, in front of it. One behind the earth in it's orbit. One on the opposite side of Earth's orbit. One between the earth and the sun and one outside the orbit on a line between the earth and the sun but farther than the earth. So five points total. A few of which would be pretty close. But also, there are asteroids that are said to quote unquote "stalk" the earth. For example, recently discovered the 2009 BD. It's not stationary with respect to the earth but it does&ndash;cause it interacts with the earth's gravity and it's not at a Lagrangian point, but it does get close to the earth and will sort of corkscrew around the earth's orbit and stay very close to use for a while and then maybe drift away and come back in it's orbit. It's got a very weird orbit but it does stay close to the earth.<br />
<br />
=== Einstein's Brain <small>(9:22)</small>===<br />
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305&ps=cprs NPR: Einstein's Brain Unlocks Some Mysteries Of The Mind]<br />
<br />
=== Largest Radio Telescope Array <small>(27:49)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.86c1ac9d54a51fd47b845663527a077d.1191&show_article=1 --><br />
<br />
=== Amityville Horror House for Sale <small>(34:11)</small>===<br />
[http://www.theness.com/roguesgallery/?p=1676 Rogue's Gallery: Amityville Horror House for Sale]<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:46)</small>==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Soy <small>(41:02)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>Steve - You made the offhand comment that there are "serious concerns" that soy milk is producing an estrogen type hormonal effect. I am a vegan bodybuilder who drinks a quart of soy milk everyday. I am concerned your offhand comment will scare people away from switching to a healthier milk alternative with no saturated fat. I've looked in the past when people have made these claims, and all I can find is that there may be some very mild effect, but nothing that rises to the level of your "serious concern" comment. If there was, there would be serious estrogen related issues throughout Asian countries. Since you felt it necessary to scare people away from soy by telling them about the "serious concerns" science has with soy milk, I hope you will provide the research on you next show that proves soy milk causes serious estrogen like effects. I do love the show, and I thank everyone for the time and effort you guys put into it every week. Michael Wilson Prescott, AZ</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Cursed Cell Phone Number <small>(45:50)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>The cursed cell phone number Thought you guys might like this story of truly stupid superstitious thinking that misses the glaringly obvious. <br />
<br><br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7763578/Mobile-phone-number-suspended-after-three-users-die-in-10-years.html Telegraph: Mobile phone number suspended after three users die in 10 years]<br />
<br>Danforth France Glendale, CA</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Magic Bee Juice <small>(50:27)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>One of the branches of the company I work for in Japan has started selling Propolis as a means to make more money in a bad economy. This branch has repeatedly tried to get me to buy some of this magic bee juice. Many of my Japanese co-workers have taken the bait. They are putting bee juice in their drinks and swallowing magic bee juice pills. When I ask them if they feel any better, they all say they aren’t sure. Hmm… I think the company I work for has a snake oill division. Do you know of any scientific evidence that shows any benefit to taking Propolis? All the information I found say that Propolis may contain lead and other garbage bees pick up while flying around the city. Thank you for your time. David Gardner Osaka, Japan </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Personality Tests <small>(54:41)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Steve, I'm trying to figure out the difference between the Incorrect Cause fallacy and the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy? Skepticwiki is telling me that Post Hoc is a type of Incorrect Cause Fallacy, but I'm just not getting the difference. They seem to be one and the same. Any help would be appreciated. I'm trying to complete a 5x5 recording we did a few months ago and I'm recording a missing part which was about the "Incorrect Cause" fallacy. The topic of the 5x5 was Chemtrails and it seems to me that the Post Hoc fallacy would work better here. Mike Lacelle Canada </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:07)</small> ==<br />
<br />
*[http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:14:40)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.</blockquote> <!-- the quote as read by Jay was different, should see if we can find a source to find the real quote --><br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS Con <small>(1:18:11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro119}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_257&diff=5533SGU Episode 2572013-01-18T20:05:11Z<p>Geneocide: transcription</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all |transcriber = Geneocide }}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 257<br />
|episodeDate = 14<sup>th</sup> June 2010<br />
|episodeIcon = File:amityvilledemoboy.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-06-14.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=257<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,28802.0.html<br />
|qowText = Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Monday, June 14<sup>th</sup>, 2010 and this is your host Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
B: Hey everybody.<br />
<br />
S: Jay Novella&ndash;<br />
<br />
J: Hey guys.<br />
<br />
S: and Evan Bernstein.<br />
<br />
E: Hey everyone. How are you doing tonight?<br />
<br />
B: Okay.<br />
<br />
J: Quite well.<br />
<br />
E: Good.<br />
<br />
S: No Rebecca tonight because we are on the lead up to TAM recording schedule. We going to have a little bit of a weird recording schedule the next few weeks and Rebecca was not available tonight and she has no internet access.<br />
<br />
J: That's because her and Sid bought a house.<br />
<br />
S: That's right.<br />
<br />
J: She hasn't been able to get internet and cable, I guess, to the house yet.<br />
<br />
E: Yeah. But it's a big secret. Don't tell anyone, folks.<br />
<br />
S: They're moving into a new flat. Is it still a flat if it's a house?<br />
<br />
B: No. Wait wait, no, a flat's an apartment, isn't it?<br />
<br />
S: Are they moving into a house house, or is it like a condo or what is it?<br />
<br />
J: I think it's a house house.<br />
<br />
S: But no cable yet.<br />
<br />
J: Bob, if she has a house, that means she has a basement which means she could run a haunt in her house.<br />
<br />
B: Not necessarily. Florida houses don't have basements but that's because of the water table.<br />
<br />
J: Well, no. If she's in England she has a root cellar.<br />
<br />
B: Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
J: Which is even creepier.<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:19)</small> ==<br />
E: Well, on this day in 1648 Margaret Jones was hanged in Boston for witchcraft. The first such execution for the Massachusetts colony.<br />
<br />
S: How many people were killed?<br />
<br />
E: Yeah, they didn't stop with Margaret. It was 20 people.<br />
<br />
S: Were executed.<br />
<br />
E: We executed for witchcraft.<br />
<br />
J: Wow. And we got off lucky. Didn't&ndash;in Europe wasn't it a much bigger phenomenon in Europe?<br />
<br />
S: A conservative number is around 60,000 deaths directly attributable to the witch hunts.<br />
<br />
J: Wow.<br />
<br />
S: Depending on how you count it. There were 20 people executed in Salem. 19 hung and that one guy, Giles Corey was crushed to death cause he refused to enter a plea.<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Hayabusa Returns <small>(2:02)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100613/ts_afp/spacejapanaustraliaasteroidsreturn_20100613204620 <br />
<br />
possible replacement: [http://www.space.com/8592-japanese-asteroid-probe-historic-return-earth.html Space.com: Japanese Asteroid Probe Makes Historic Return to Earth]<br />
--><br />
<br />
=== Einstein's Brain <small>(9:22)</small>===<br />
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305&ps=cprs NPR: Einstein's Brain Unlocks Some Mysteries Of The Mind]<br />
<br />
=== Largest Radio Telescope Array <small>(27:49)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.86c1ac9d54a51fd47b845663527a077d.1191&show_article=1 --><br />
<br />
=== Amityville Horror House for Sale <small>(34:11)</small>===<br />
[http://www.theness.com/roguesgallery/?p=1676 Rogue's Gallery: Amityville Horror House for Sale]<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:46)</small>==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Soy <small>(41:02)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>Steve - You made the offhand comment that there are "serious concerns" that soy milk is producing an estrogen type hormonal effect. I am a vegan bodybuilder who drinks a quart of soy milk everyday. I am concerned your offhand comment will scare people away from switching to a healthier milk alternative with no saturated fat. I've looked in the past when people have made these claims, and all I can find is that there may be some very mild effect, but nothing that rises to the level of your "serious concern" comment. If there was, there would be serious estrogen related issues throughout Asian countries. Since you felt it necessary to scare people away from soy by telling them about the "serious concerns" science has with soy milk, I hope you will provide the research on you next show that proves soy milk causes serious estrogen like effects. I do love the show, and I thank everyone for the time and effort you guys put into it every week. Michael Wilson Prescott, AZ</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Cursed Cell Phone Number <small>(45:50)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>The cursed cell phone number Thought you guys might like this story of truly stupid superstitious thinking that misses the glaringly obvious. <br />
<br><br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7763578/Mobile-phone-number-suspended-after-three-users-die-in-10-years.html Telegraph: Mobile phone number suspended after three users die in 10 years]<br />
<br>Danforth France Glendale, CA</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Magic Bee Juice <small>(50:27)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>One of the branches of the company I work for in Japan has started selling Propolis as a means to make more money in a bad economy. This branch has repeatedly tried to get me to buy some of this magic bee juice. Many of my Japanese co-workers have taken the bait. They are putting bee juice in their drinks and swallowing magic bee juice pills. When I ask them if they feel any better, they all say they aren’t sure. Hmm… I think the company I work for has a snake oill division. Do you know of any scientific evidence that shows any benefit to taking Propolis? All the information I found say that Propolis may contain lead and other garbage bees pick up while flying around the city. Thank you for your time. David Gardner Osaka, Japan </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Personality Tests <small>(54:41)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Steve, I'm trying to figure out the difference between the Incorrect Cause fallacy and the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy? Skepticwiki is telling me that Post Hoc is a type of Incorrect Cause Fallacy, but I'm just not getting the difference. They seem to be one and the same. Any help would be appreciated. I'm trying to complete a 5x5 recording we did a few months ago and I'm recording a missing part which was about the "Incorrect Cause" fallacy. The topic of the 5x5 was Chemtrails and it seems to me that the Post Hoc fallacy would work better here. Mike Lacelle Canada </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:07)</small> ==<br />
<br />
*[http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:14:40)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.</blockquote> <!-- the quote as read by Jay was different, should see if we can find a source to find the real quote --><br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS Con <small>(1:18:11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro119}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SGU_episode_list&diff=5532Template:SGU episode list2013-01-18T19:54:21Z<p>Geneocide: changed 257 mark from open</p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude>This template is used to display the list of full-length episodes on the [[Main Page]] and the [[SGU Episodes]] page. Additions and amendments to this template will be reflected on those pages.<br />
<br />
Pages currently in progress should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{i}}</nowiki></code> to add the pencil icon, and pages that have sections open to other contributors to transcribe should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{Open}}</nowiki></code> to include the green arrow icon. <br />
<br />
Pages that have been proof-read and verified by a contributor other than the author should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{tick}}</nowiki></code> to include the green tick icon.</noinclude><br />
{|style="margin:1em 3em"<br />
|style="padding-right: 6em;white-space:nowrap" valign="top"|<span id="2013"><big>'''2013'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 391]], Jan 12 2013 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 390]], Jan 5 2013<br />
<br />
<span id="2012"><big>'''2012'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 389]], Dec 29 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 388]], Dec 22 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 387]], Dec 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 386]], Dec 8 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 385]], Dec 1 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 384]], Nov 24 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 383]], Nov 17 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 382]], Nov 10 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 381]], Nov 3 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 380]], Oct 27 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 379]], Oct 20 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 378]], Oct 13 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 377]], Oct 6 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 376]], Sep 29 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 375]], Sep 22 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 374]], Sep 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 373]], Sep 8 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 372]], Sep 1 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 371]], Aug 25 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 370]], Aug 18 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 369]], Aug 11 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 368]], Aug 4 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 367]], Jul 28 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 366]], Jul 21 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 365]], Jul 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 364]], Jul 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 363]], Jun 30 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 362]], Jun 23 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 361]], Jun 16 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 360]], Jun 9 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 359]], Jun 2 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 358]], May 26 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 357]], May 19 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 356]], May 12 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 355]], May 5 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 354]], Apr 28 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 353]], Apr 21 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 352]], Apr 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 351]], Apr 7 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 350]], Mar 31 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 349]], Mar 24 2012 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 348]], Mar 17 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 347]], Mar 10 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 346]], Mar 3 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 345]], Feb 25 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 340]], Jan 21 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 339]], Jan 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 338]], Jan 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2011"><big>'''2011'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 337]], Dec 31 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 335]], Dec 17 2011 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 331]], Nov 19 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 330]], Nov 11 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 328]], Oct 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU 24hr]], Sep 23-24 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 320]], Aug 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 312]], Jul 5 2011 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 308]], Jun 08 2011 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 287]], Jan 12 2011 {{Open}}<br />
|valign="top" style=white-space:nowrap|<span id="2010"><big>'''2010'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 285]], Dec 29 2010 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 271]], Sep 22 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 260]], Jun 30 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 257]], Jun 14 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 252]], May 12 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 247]], Apr 7 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 245]], Mar 25 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 232]], Jan 1 2010<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2009"><big>'''2009'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 220]], Oct 7 2009 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 216]], Sep 9 2009 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 185]], Feb 4 2009<br />
* [[SGU Episode 184]], Jan 28 2009<br />
* [[SGU Episode 183]], Jan 21 2009 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2008"><big>'''2008'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 165]], Sep 17 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 156]], Jul 16 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 152]], Jun 11 2008 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 146]], May 7 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 144]], Apr 23 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 140]], Mar 26 2008 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2007"><big>'''2007'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 127]], Dec 26, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 116]], Oct 10, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 113]], Sep 19, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 110]], Aug 28, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 105]], Jul 25, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 103]], Jul 11, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 102]], Jul 3, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 100]], June 19, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 98]], June 6, 2007{{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 97]], May 30 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 89]], Apr 4, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24, 2007<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2006"><big>'''2006'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 73]], Dec 13 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 68]], Nov 8 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 62]], Sep 27 2006<br />
* [[SGU Episode 61]], Sep 20 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 49]], Jun 28 2006<br />
* [[SGU Episode 47]], Jun 14 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 46]], Jun 7 2006 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 38]], Apr 12 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 31]], Feb 22 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 27]], Jan 25 2006 {{Open}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2005"><big>'''2005'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 17]], Oct 26 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 16]], Oct 12 2005 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 15]], Oct 6 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 14]], Sep 28 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 13]], Sep 14 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 12]], Sep 7 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 11]], Aug 31 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 10]], Aug 23 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 9]], Aug 10 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 8]], Aug 2 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 7]], Jul 20 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 6]], Jul 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 5]], Jun 29 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 4]], Jun 15 2005 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 3]], Jun 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 2]], Jun 1 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 1]], May 4 2005 {{tick}}<br />
|}</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_257&diff=5531SGU Episode 2572013-01-18T19:53:42Z<p>Geneocide: marked as mine</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all |transcriber = Geneocide }}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 257<br />
|episodeDate = 14<sup>th</sup> June 2010<br />
|episodeIcon = File:amityvilledemoboy.jpg<br />
|rebecca = <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|bob = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|jay = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|evan = y <!-- leave blank if absent --><br />
|guest1 = <br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2010-06-14.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=257<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,28802.0.html<br />
|qowText = Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.<br />
|qowAuthor = [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
== This Day in Skepticism <small>(1:19)</small> ==<br />
<br />
== News Items ==<br />
=== Hayabusa Returns <small>(2:02)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100613/ts_afp/spacejapanaustraliaasteroidsreturn_20100613204620 <br />
<br />
possible replacement: [http://www.space.com/8592-japanese-asteroid-probe-historic-return-earth.html Space.com: Japanese Asteroid Probe Makes Historic Return to Earth]<br />
--><br />
<br />
=== Einstein's Brain <small>(9:22)</small>===<br />
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305&ps=cprs NPR: Einstein's Brain Unlocks Some Mysteries Of The Mind]<br />
<br />
=== Largest Radio Telescope Array <small>(27:49)</small>===<br />
<!-- broken link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.86c1ac9d54a51fd47b845663527a077d.1191&show_article=1 --><br />
<br />
=== Amityville Horror House for Sale <small>(34:11)</small>===<br />
[http://www.theness.com/roguesgallery/?p=1676 Rogue's Gallery: Amityville Horror House for Sale]<br />
<br />
== Who's That Noisy? <small>(38:46)</small>==<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails ==<br />
=== Soy <small>(41:02)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>Steve - You made the offhand comment that there are "serious concerns" that soy milk is producing an estrogen type hormonal effect. I am a vegan bodybuilder who drinks a quart of soy milk everyday. I am concerned your offhand comment will scare people away from switching to a healthier milk alternative with no saturated fat. I've looked in the past when people have made these claims, and all I can find is that there may be some very mild effect, but nothing that rises to the level of your "serious concern" comment. If there was, there would be serious estrogen related issues throughout Asian countries. Since you felt it necessary to scare people away from soy by telling them about the "serious concerns" science has with soy milk, I hope you will provide the research on you next show that proves soy milk causes serious estrogen like effects. I do love the show, and I thank everyone for the time and effort you guys put into it every week. Michael Wilson Prescott, AZ</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Cursed Cell Phone Number <small>(45:50)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>The cursed cell phone number Thought you guys might like this story of truly stupid superstitious thinking that misses the glaringly obvious. <br />
<br><br />
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7763578/Mobile-phone-number-suspended-after-three-users-die-in-10-years.html Telegraph: Mobile phone number suspended after three users die in 10 years]<br />
<br>Danforth France Glendale, CA</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Magic Bee Juice <small>(50:27)</small>===<br />
<blockquote>One of the branches of the company I work for in Japan has started selling Propolis as a means to make more money in a bad economy. This branch has repeatedly tried to get me to buy some of this magic bee juice. Many of my Japanese co-workers have taken the bait. They are putting bee juice in their drinks and swallowing magic bee juice pills. When I ask them if they feel any better, they all say they aren’t sure. Hmm… I think the company I work for has a snake oill division. Do you know of any scientific evidence that shows any benefit to taking Propolis? All the information I found say that Propolis may contain lead and other garbage bees pick up while flying around the city. Thank you for your time. David Gardner Osaka, Japan </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Name That Logical Fallacy: Personality Tests <small>(54:41)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Steve, I'm trying to figure out the difference between the Incorrect Cause fallacy and the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy? Skepticwiki is telling me that Post Hoc is a type of Incorrect Cause Fallacy, but I'm just not getting the difference. They seem to be one and the same. Any help would be appreciated. I'm trying to complete a 5x5 recording we did a few months ago and I'm recording a missing part which was about the "Incorrect Cause" fallacy. The topic of the 5x5 was Chemtrails and it seems to me that the Post Hoc fallacy would work better here. Mike Lacelle Canada </blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(1:00:07)</small> ==<br />
<br />
*[http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/NIST-JILA-Research-demonstrates-dark-pulse-laser-technology-578743 Item number one]: NIST scientists have developed a "dark laser" that is endothermic - it takes heat away from an object on which it is focused.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9932 Item number two]: A new analysis suggests that many comets, including well-known comets like Halley's and Hale Bopp, originated from other solar systems.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100610125619.htm Item number three]: Scientists report a 5-fold increase in the growth of rice plants from manipulating the genetics of a fungus that grows on its roots.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Quote of the Week <small>(1:14:40)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.</blockquote> <!-- the quote as read by Jay was different, should see if we can find a source to find the real quote --><br />
<br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Sir Winston Churchill]<br />
<br />
== Announcements ==<br />
=== NECSS Con <small>(1:18:11)</small> ===<br />
<br />
{{Outro119}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}} <!-- inserts images that link to the previous and next episode pages --></div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Lacelle_-_In_memoriam&diff=5530Talk:Mike Lacelle - In memoriam2013-01-18T19:22:40Z<p>Geneocide: </p>
<hr />
<div>Oops. Nevermind. I see it now. Delete this or something please.</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Lacelle_-_In_memoriam&diff=5529Talk:Mike Lacelle - In memoriam2013-01-18T19:21:09Z<p>Geneocide: Created page with "Which episode was it that they discuss Mike's passing? Perhaps we should include a link to that somewhere on Mike's page.<br>--~~~~"</p>
<hr />
<div>Which episode was it that they discuss Mike's passing? Perhaps we should include a link to that somewhere on Mike's page.<br>--[[User:Geneocide|Geneocide]] ([[User talk:Geneocide|talk]]) 19:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SGU_episode_list&diff=5527Template:SGU episode list2013-01-18T01:17:35Z<p>Geneocide: removed open from episode 49</p>
<hr />
<div><noinclude>This template is used to display the list of full-length episodes on the [[Main Page]] and the [[SGU Episodes]] page. Additions and amendments to this template will be reflected on those pages.<br />
<br />
Pages currently in progress should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{i}}</nowiki></code> to add the pencil icon, and pages that have sections open to other contributors to transcribe should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{Open}}</nowiki></code> to include the green arrow icon. <br />
<br />
Pages that have been proof-read and verified by a contributor other than the author should be followed by <code><nowiki>{{tick}}</nowiki></code> to include the green tick icon.</noinclude><br />
{|style="margin:1em 3em"<br />
|style="padding-right: 6em;white-space:nowrap" valign="top"|<span id="2013"><big>'''2013'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 391]], Jan 12 2013 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 390]], Jan 5 2013<br />
<br />
<span id="2012"><big>'''2012'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 389]], Dec 29 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 388]], Dec 22 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 387]], Dec 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 386]], Dec 8 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 385]], Dec 1 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 384]], Nov 24 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 383]], Nov 17 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 382]], Nov 10 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 381]], Nov 3 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 380]], Oct 27 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 379]], Oct 20 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 378]], Oct 13 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 377]], Oct 6 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 376]], Sep 29 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 375]], Sep 22 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 374]], Sep 15 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 373]], Sep 8 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 372]], Sep 1 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 371]], Aug 25 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 370]], Aug 18 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 369]], Aug 11 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 368]], Aug 4 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 367]], Jul 28 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 366]], Jul 21 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 365]], Jul 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 364]], Jul 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 363]], Jun 30 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 362]], Jun 23 2012 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 361]], Jun 16 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 360]], Jun 9 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 359]], Jun 2 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 358]], May 26 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 357]], May 19 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 356]], May 12 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 355]], May 5 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 354]], Apr 28 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 353]], Apr 21 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 352]], Apr 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 351]], Apr 7 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 350]], Mar 31 2012 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 349]], Mar 24 2012 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 348]], Mar 17 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 347]], Mar 10 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 346]], Mar 3 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 345]], Feb 25 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 340]], Jan 21 2012 <br />
* [[SGU Episode 339]], Jan 14 2012<br />
* [[SGU Episode 338]], Jan 7 2012 {{tick}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2011"><big>'''2011'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 337]], Dec 31 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 335]], Dec 17 2011 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 331]], Nov 19 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 330]], Nov 11 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 328]], Oct 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU 24hr]], Sep 23-24 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 320]], Aug 29 2011<br />
* [[SGU Episode 312]], Jul 5 2011 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 308]], Jun 08 2011 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 287]], Jan 12 2011 {{Open}}<br />
|valign="top" style=white-space:nowrap|<span id="2010"><big>'''2010'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 285]], Dec 29 2010 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 271]], Sep 22 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 260]], Jun 30 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 257]], Jun 14 2010 {{open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 252]], May 12 2010<br />
* [[SGU Episode 247]], Apr 7 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 245]], Mar 25 2010 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 232]], Jan 1 2010<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2009"><big>'''2009'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 220]], Oct 7 2009 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 216]], Sep 9 2009 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 185]], Feb 4 2009<br />
* [[SGU Episode 184]], Jan 28 2009<br />
* [[SGU Episode 183]], Jan 21 2009 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2008"><big>'''2008'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 165]], Sep 17 2008<br />
* [[SGU Episode 156]], Jul 16 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 152]], Jun 11 2008 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 146]], May 7 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 144]], Apr 23 2008 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 140]], Mar 26 2008 {{i}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2007"><big>'''2007'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 127]], Dec 26, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 123]], Nov 28, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 116]], Oct 10, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 113]], Sep 19, 2007 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 110]], Aug 28, 2007 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 109]], Aug 24, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 105]], Jul 25, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 103]], Jul 11, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 102]], Jul 3, 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 100]], June 19, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 98]], June 6, 2007{{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 97]], May 30 2007<br />
* [[SGU Episode 89]], Apr 4, 2007 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 79]], Jan 24, 2007<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2006"><big>'''2006'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 73]], Dec 13 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 68]], Nov 8 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 62]], Sep 27 2006<br />
* [[SGU Episode 61]], Sep 20 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 49]], Jun 28 2006<br />
* [[SGU Episode 47]], Jun 14 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 46]], Jun 7 2006 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 38]], Apr 12 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 31]], Feb 22 2006 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 27]], Jan 25 2006 {{Open}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<span id="2005"><big>'''2005'''</big></span><br />
----<br />
* [[SGU Episode 17]], Oct 26 2005 {{i}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 16]], Oct 12 2005 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 15]], Oct 6 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 14]], Sep 28 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 13]], Sep 14 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 12]], Sep 7 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 11]], Aug 31 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 10]], Aug 23 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 9]], Aug 10 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 8]], Aug 2 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 7]], Jul 20 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 6]], Jul 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 5]], Jun 29 2005<br />
* [[SGU Episode 4]], Jun 15 2005 {{Open}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 3]], Jun 7 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 2]], Jun 1 2005 {{tick}}<br />
* [[SGU Episode 1]], May 4 2005 {{tick}}<br />
|}</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=User:Geneocide&diff=5526User:Geneocide2013-01-18T01:16:20Z<p>Geneocide: </p>
<hr />
<div>Long time listener who is unemployed. Sorta feel obligated to at least try to contribute given my situation.<br />
<br />
===Useful Links stolen from [[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]]===<br />
*[[Template:SGU episode list]] &ndash; list of full episodes<br />
*[[Template:InfoBox]] &ndash; Full episode infobox; adds [[:Category:Full Episodes]]<br />
*[[Template:Editing required]] &ndash; Message box indicating aspects of page yet to complete<br />
----<br />
*[[Template:Outro1]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 301 onwards<br />
*[[Template:Outro291]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 291-300 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro119]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 119-288 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro61]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 61-118 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro39]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 39-60 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro30]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 30-38 (inclusive)<br />
*[[Template:Outro18]] &ndash; Outro voice-over, episodes 18-29 (inclusive)<br />
----<br />
*[[Episode skeleton]] &ndash; Page with section formatting for use as "template" for full episodes<br />
<br />
===Also===<br />
<nowiki>{{transcribing all <br />
|transcriber = Geneocide<br />
}}</nowiki><br />
<br />
===Primary Contributor===<br />
*[[SGU Episode 6]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 7]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 8]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 9]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 10]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 11]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 12]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 15]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 49]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 127]]<br />
*[[SGU Episode 232]]<br />
<br />
===Total Time===<br />
11 hours 51 minutes and 5 seconds</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_49&diff=5525SGU Episode 492013-01-18T01:13:26Z<p>Geneocide: added some categories</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
|proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present <br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 49<br />
|episodeDate = 28<sup>th</sup> Jun 2006<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Franklin.jpg<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2006-06-28.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=49<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,128.0.html<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. This is your host, Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Today is Wednesday, June 28, 2006. We are having a special episode this week; the skeptical rogues are on vacation. Now, don't worry; they'll be back next week. The&mdash;actually, the only reason they are out this week is because I'm out of town, actually vacationing in the wilds of Cumberland, Maryland, which means I do not have access to broadband. Now, many of you may not realize this, but we record our show each week completely over the Internet, using Voice over IP applications. In fact, each of us, myself and all of the skeptical rogues, the entire panel of skeptics are in different cities at the time that we record. Rebecca Watson is in Boston and the rest of us are in different cities in Connecticut. So, without access to broadband, I've no way of conferencing with the other members of the show. We decided rather than skipping a week that I would do a solo show just so that we have something to hold over our loyal fans until next week. Now, the format of the show this week will be pretty similar to other shows; we have no guest and obviously no group discussion. I will still do a Science or Fiction at the end of the program. Although, of course, the panel of skeptics will not be here to offer their thoughts, but this one will be just for you. I'll also do a Name that Logical Fallacy. In addition, I will also give the answer to last week's skeptical puzzle and give a new skeptical puzzle.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(2:02)</small> ==<br />
But the bulk of this show, I decided to get caught up on all of the great emails that we get. I'll take this opportunity to thank our listeners once again for sending in so many great questions and emails. We certainly do appreciate the feedback, the constructive criticism which helps us improve our show. And the questions are great topics for discussion. In fact, we have so many good emails now that we can only touch on a small percentage of them on the show. So I figured this week I would get caught on some of our better email questions. So let's get right to them.<br />
<br />
=== Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution. <small>(2:40)</small>===<br />
The first email comes from Curt Nelson from Minneapolis, Minnesota. Curt writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Dear Skeptics,<br />
<br/><br />
Im an avid listener. Thanks for your show. In listening to your recent podcast on evolution 101, I heard you (Steve)</blockquote><br />
&mdash;that's me, the host&mdash;<br />
<blockquote><br />
say something I think really confuses people who want to understand evolution. You referred to the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution, and I know what you meant by that, but I'm sure its confusing to a lot of people. Maybe it even sounds wishy-washy to those who tend to be sympathetic to creationism. When anyone discusses Darwins theory of evolution, a couple of things should be defined up-front:<br/><br />
1) Evolution is a fact things do evolve (but without changing into a new species, as far as has been observed).<br/><br />
2) Darwin's theory is that evolution causes speciation, and is the mechanism that produced all the magnificent life we know, starting from bacteria. This is a huge leap from the fact of evolution. (For what its worth, I believe this.) Keep up the good work.<br/><br />
Sincerely yours,<br/><br />
Curt</blockquote><br />
Well, Curt, this is a topic that does come up quite frequently when discussing evolution, especially in the context of creationism. Creationists are wont to say that evolution is quote-unquote "only a theory", although I'm usually fairly careful in referring to the fact versus the theory of evolution, and I do take exception to the way that Curt defines it in his email. Now, this has been pointed out in many venues before, but I will take time to go over this briefly. The word "theory" as used by scientists is different than the way it is used colloquially by the public at large. Typically the word "theory" is used to refer to a guess or a speculation or assumption, but scientists use it to refer to an explanatory system; an idea or a unifying concept that brings together multiple lines of evidence, multiple phenomenon into one ex&mdash; one cohesive explanatory system. It doesn't really say anything about how much evidence there is for or against the theory. A theory can, in fact, range the spectrum from discredited to highly speculative to established beyond all reasonable doubt. I would characterize the theory of evolution as being established sufficiently to be considered a scientific fact, meaning over a very long period of time&mdash;150 years, about&mdash;it has withstood any attempt at falsifying it, and there have been many potential ways in which evolutionary theory could have been falsified. There have been numerous independent lines of evidence all validating the theory of evolution to such a high degree, and we have reviewed many of them on this show before. For example, fossil evidence, transitional fossils, morphological pattern of species occurring in an evolutionary pattern of relatedness, the molecular is, I think, the most profound and is irrefutably shows all life on Earth is not only related to each other but is related to each other in a branching evolutionary pattern. So, evolutionary theory deserves the label of established scientific fact, which means it's the best explanation we have for now. I will also further point that within the over-arching theory of evolution, there are several sub-theories that are worth mentioning, and often we talk theories within evolution, we're talking about one of three kinds of theories. 1, there are theories of mechanism, meaning how does evolution come about? Now, Darwin's theory is&mdash;refers specifically to the mechanism of survival of the fittest, or differential survival based up adaptive characteristics. Or, you can also state it as natural selection acting upon variation within populations. That's Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest, which is, again, just one ''kind'' of theory within evolution. The other kind of theory are theories that refer to the tempo and pace of evolution. For example, how do species, populations, and ecosystems change over geological time? Darwin's theory of tempo is known as Darwinian Gradualism, which is the idea that all species pretty much are changing slowly and imperceptably all the time. This idea, this sort of Darwinian Gradualism still has its adherents, but there are competing newer theories such as the theory of puncuated equilibrium first proposed by Stephen Gould and Niles Eldrige. This competing theory says that species are stable most of the time and that this equilibrium, this stability is punctuated by brief, geologically brief, meaning five to fifty thousand years, episodes of rapid evolution and speciation. So, and in fact, creationists have exploited disagreements about these subsets of theories of evolution to&mdash;and misinterpreted them as doubt about the overall theory of whether or not things in fact evolved or not. The third type of theory is theories of relation; what's related to what; what evolved from what? For example, the notion that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, which fit under this category. And again, that is perhaps the most speculative part of evolution at this point in time. We have a very incomplete puzzle of the history of the tree of life, of evolutionary life or phylogenetic relationships. And again, the ideas about what evolved into what are changing all the time, almost every time we pull a new, previously unknown fossil out of the ground, it's changing our picture of this pattern that, in fact, occurred. That's kind of a long answer, but that essentially, in a nutshell, is&mdash;are the fact of evolution versus the theories of evolution.<br />
<br />
=== Agnosticism <small>(9:03)</small>===<br />
E-mail #2 discusses a very different issue. This one comes from Donald Flood who gives his location only as the USA. Donald writes,<br />
<blockquote>If the empirical evidence for the existence of God is no greater than the empirical evidence for Invisible Pink Unicorns, is it logical to be agnostic with respect to the existence of God yet "atheistic" towards the existence of IPUs?<br />
<br><br><br />
Donald Flood<br><br />
USA</blockquote><br />
Well, Donald, the short answer to your question is yes. It would be illogical to be agnostic towards god and atheistic towards invisible pink unicorns and that is not, in fact, my position nor have I ever heard anyone specifically espouse that position so I think that's a bit of a straw man but it's based upon a very common misunderstanding that I get all the time. I do advocate personally an agnostic position towards claims which are not falsifiable. Claims which lie outside of the realm of science. So, and again, we have covered some of this ground before but again let me encapsulate the position that I take with regards to agnosticism. What that basically mean&ndash;and this is the sense that T. H. Huxley who actually invented, or coined, the term agnosticism to refer to his own beliefs&ndash;Agnosticism means that there are certain questions which cannot by their very nature ever be known or they cannot be explored scientifically. There is no way you could possibly validate or falsify them, therefore they are forever outside the realm of knowledge in the scientific sense and Huxley concluded that they're therefore outside the realm of anything that can meaningfully be considered knowledge. So, one can only say about that, if one were taking a consistent, logical, scientific approach, that it's unknowable. You can't know that it is true but neither can you know that it isn't true. Further, extrapolating from this you could say that there's no point in believing in any proposition which is unknowable because there are an infinite number of unknowable propositions. It's limited really only by your creativity but you could sit around and weave un-falsifiable notions all day long. None of them will ever be known and that's all that really you can say about them. Any belief in un-falsifiable notions is by definition faith and faith is therefor, by definition, outside of the realm of science and personally I choose not to have a arbitrary belief either for or against such notions and to me it's sufficient to say they're unknowable and unknowable notions are of not value to human knowledge. So that is where it reasonably ends. So therefor I would say I am agnostic toward the existence of invisible pink unicorns or any other fantastical notion that you want to come up with such as, to paraphrase a recent book, flying spaghetti monsters.<br />
<br />
=== Gerald Schroeder on God <small>(12:05)</small>===<br />
Let's go on to e-mail #3. This one also is about belief in God. This one comes from Luke from Indiana. Luke writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Skeptics,<br />
<br />
I have just recently found your podcast after listening to quite a few "paranormal/ufo/etc" podcasts for quite a while. I would consider myself, probably much like most people who are interested in these subject matters, an interested skeptic--I love considering the possibilities of these unusual subjects, but am not about to agree to something without<br />
proof.<br />
<br />
On your most recent podcast, one of the major discussions was about evolution versus intelligent design. I have read several books by Gerald L. Schroeder, a MIT graduate with a Ph.D. in Physics and a Talmudic scholar. His books have, in my limited opinion, the most well thought out argument for the possibility of a God. I was wondering if any if any of the podcast members were familiar or had read any of his books on the<br />
subject?<br />
<br />
In my personal experience, most real-life disagreements and arguements are not as simple as: one person or side is right and the other is wrong. His approach to the ID vs. big bang theories is not to show fallacies of one or the other, but instead to look for similarities and convergences of them. Regardless of one's particular disposition to either "side," I<br />
think his material is well-thought out, interesting, and worth considering.<br />
<br />
I would love to hear something about these books on your podcast and your, skeptical, opinions about the subject.<br />
<br />
Thanks and keep up the interesting podcast,<br />
<br><br><br />
Luke<br><br />
Indiana, USA</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, Luke, I confess I have not read the entire book. The most recent one is called <u>The Science of God</u> by Gerald Schroeder, although I have read significant excerpts from it and several reviews of it. The most, I think, complete review was written by Frank Sonnleitner who is Professor in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma and we'll have the link to his review on our notes page. <!-- link not found -->Basically, I think the problem with Schroeder's approach, and other's have taken a similar approach is that it begins with the assumption that there's no conflict between faith and science, specifically faith in God, in the Judeo-Christian God in this particular instance, and science and then proceeds from there. However, it never really justifies or establishes that assumption in the first place and therefor if that becomes a false major premise everything that follows from that is invalid. And I think that's the pitfall that he is falling into. You did state, I think, quite reasonably that in most real life disagreements or arguments it's not as simple as one person or side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong and I agree with that in that. In most situations that is true. I think that the most reasonable position usually lies between two extremes and there's usually both valid and invalid points on both sides in any argument or disagreement. However, that's not always the case. There are some times when side is making a profound systematic error in their approach or is following or proceeding from a invalid premise and therefor everything on that side is wrong and I think that the creationism evolution debate is one such issue. Evolution is a science and unbiased scientists I think are largely correct in their approach to evolution&ndash;in their approach and their evaluation of the evidence and the conclusions that they draw from that. Creationists, whether that's intelligent design or classic creationism are following from a very biased premise that evolution must be wrong because of their faith in creation and everything&ndash;every argument that flows from that point that they make is invalid and I have read extensively of the creationist literature, we've discussed much of it on this podcast over the months and they are a textbook of logical fallacies. They really don't have a single valid argument to make. So, it is one of those rare situations where I feel very strongly that one side, the creationist side, is in fact completely wrong. If there is a valid argument to be made on that side I have yet to hear it despite exposing myself very avidly to the arguments from the creationist side. Regarding some of the specifics of <u>The Science of God</u> by Gerald Schroeder again I'll refer back to the very good review written by Frank Sonnleitner&ndash;and he starts by saying that basically that this is an elaboration of Schroeder's prior book <u>Genesis and the Big Bang</u>. Basically, Schroeder is not being fair with the scientific evidence. He, in fact&ndash;He accepts the standard geological and paleontological history of the earth but rejects evolution. He draws the line at evolutionary connections between the higher categories. For example, different classes or different phyla. Therefor&ndash;So he allows for some evolution to occur at a local level but disagrees with connections between major forms which, of course, means that God had to, or something, some force had to create the basic forms of life and then evolution occurred within those basic forms. This is the old micro macro evolution argument that creationists have put forward. The problem with that is that there's no operational definition of what is micro versus macro evolution or why evolution would be able to create some degree of morphological change but not a greater degree. Why could allow for variations within classes but not the origin of the different classes of types of animals. He also makes a very classic creationist argument of rejecting evolution because he considers that the mechanism, natural selection, to be the result of pure chance. And again he commits the creationist logical fallacy of saying that life on earth is so complex what's the change&ndash;the probability of it occurring by chance alone is too remote and therefor we must invoke some kind of willful force. But this is looking at probability the wrong way. We, in fact, have another question on this so I'm going to come back to this a little bit later in the show. So, basically, I am not very fond of Schroeder's arguments. I think that he commits a lot of the core logical fallacies of creationists. I think he's trying to force a fit between science and Christian faith, Judeo-Christian faith, when in fact to the extent that that faith contradicts the findings of science, I think, that they just directly conflict and there is no way to resolve them. The only way to resolve them is to keep faith in it's proper realm which means dealing with the unknowables, and not to violate anything which is within the realm of science. Anything that could be investigated scientifically.<br />
<br />
=== Magnets for Migraines <small>(19:30)</small>===<br />
Okay we're going to shift gears a little bit here and take a couple of e-mails dealing with&ndash;in the medical realm. E-mail #4 comes from Anthony Petruccione. That could be pronounced Petruchioni, would be the more Italian pronunciation, from Texas. Anthony writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>While looking over today's news articles I spotted this article about a new magnet based device for the treatment of migraines.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure at all of the scientific vorasity of using magnets to treat pain, but I can add that my father did have some success using a magnetic bracelet to treat arthritis.<br />
<br />
Mostly i'm linking to the article to spark a discussion. Since you have people on hand with some real knowledge of medicine it would be interesting to hear what you've read from the medical literature.<br />
<br />
Though the linked article dosen't go into great detail the price seems rather staggering for a large magnet. 1000 pounds could buy quite a stack of rare earth magnets.<br />
<br />
To the truest definition of the term, i'm skeptical. I'd love to hear everyone discuss this and hope some good information is drawn out of the discussion.<br><br><br />
<br />
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=391915&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source=<br><br> <!-- this link now goes to some different article --><br />
Anthony Petruccione<br><br />
Texas<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, Anthony, unfortunately you won't get a full panel discussion of this issue but this is something about which I am personally very familiar so I will tackle it myself. First, I want to back up just a little bit and give some background information on what we mean by scientific research within the medical context. There are different levels of evidence within medicine. In fact, in the last 10 to 20 years there has been a movement known as evidence based medicine which has sought, basically, to standardize the evaluation of the degree of evidence for different clinical decisions and to put in the hands of clinicians, people making medical decisions, a objective assessment of the level of evidence that there is to support any particular claim. It's an excellent movement. There are some weaknesses to it. In fact I think the big weakness is that they rely exclusively on evidence and they specifically do not consider scientific plausibility and I think that that's a mistake, but as far as it goes it is extremely helpful. I'll review very quickly some basic different levels of evidence. Typically, when any new concept comes about, a new claim, whether it's based on anecdote or extrapolating from basic science research et cetera or someone just says, "Hey. Maybe A will or cure B. Let's check it out." Initially, what will be done are preliminary, or so called pilot studies. Pilot studies are very small usually involving less than 100 patients, even maybe as few as 10 subjects. They're often open label, meaning that there's no placebo control group, there's no blinding, and they're basically given to a number of patients just to get a basic feel for how they respond. Are there any major obvious side effects? Do they seem to have a positive response? The point of pilot studies is not to base definitive claims. They are purely to see whether or not this will be a productive avenue for further research. I think using these levels of evidence in order to support a clinical claim is misguided almost to the point of fraud. But, be that as it may, it is useful as a preliminary type of evidence. The second level of evidence is when you start to do some placebo control. You will compare people taking the treatment to people taking a placebo. It may or may not be open label or there may be some blinded and the numbers are usually more than in pilot study. Here we may have dozens of patients, maybe a couple of hundred patients depending on how rare the disease is and follow for a significant period of time. At least weeks if not months, longer depending&ndash;again, depending on what is being studied. Here we get to start to get some real idea about whether or not a treatment has any significant side effects. Whether or not all things considered people on the treatment do better than placebo, but still this data should not be considered definitive or conclusive. Again, the point of this really is just to see if it's worth while to go on to the next stage which is the more definite stage of research and this is when you have a large study, multi-center, prospective, meaning that you separate people into control and treatment groups before they get their treatments. You're not looking back at what people did. You're splitting them up and then either putting them on the placebo or on the treatment. That's important because that allows you to control for a lot of variables that might be interfering with the results. These studies are typically double blinded, meaning that the subjects do not know if their getting the placebo or the treatment and that the people running the study, especially those who are evaluating the subjects to see what their outcome is, also do not know if their getting the placebo or the treatment. These can be, if they're large multi-center trials, they can be fairly definitive, but even with these types of trials usually the medical community would like to see 2 or 3 of them. Some replication before saying, "Yep. This is pretty well established that this is a safe and effective treatment for this indication." That's considered the highest level of evidence. In fact, in this country in the United States, if you apply for&ndash;to the FDA to try to get a new drug on the market you have to apply for what's called an IND, an Investigational New Drug permit and then&ndash;before you can subject people to this drug you need to do preliminary basic science research and animal research to show basically that this is safe and the chance that it's going to kill people is at least relatively small. Then you break the clinical trials, or human trials, into phases. Phase 1 trials are small studies usually in healthy volunteers just looking at how the drug handles the body and how the body handles the drugs and screening for basic side effects. Then there are phase 2 trials where you're getting more safety data, you're starting for the first time look at actual outcomes to see if people are getting better. And then if all of that is positive and no problems are cropping up then you can do the phase 3 definitive trials. There's actually, in fact, phase 4 trials which are post marketing research to see if there are any less common safety issues come up now that hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of people are being exposed to the drug. Things may crop up that were missed in the trials. But even&ndash;not in the context of FDA trials, basically those same phases are followed in doing research. Now doing all of this research takes about a decade, at least. At least a decade. But when you're not within the context of regulations, for example with supplements in this country, or with things like magnets that aren't drugs&ndash;people can sell magnets, then often what we see are preliminary studies which are not definitive, should not be used to base claims, they almost always show some positive result because if it's an open label trial there's no placebo control even a pure placebo effect will seem positive so it's very common for these&ndash;the smaller initial trials to have a significant bias towards positive results. Also there's a huge file drawer effect where we just tend not to hear about the negative studies. We only tend to hear about the positive studies. So taking all that into consideration we're likely to get some preliminary positive results that's not reliable and yet those get conveyed to the public and often marketers will use those preliminary studies to say, "See this supplement or device works for these symptoms." And it will take 10 years to really proceed to the more definitive trials and do the analysis of phase 3 data and it may later be found that those&ndash;that the device or the supplements do not work but by that time companies marketing the devices have had years to develop a customer base and often people don't hear about the definitive phase 3 trials. For example, a lot of people believe the <i>Echinacea</i> is useful for colds and the initial, positive, small pilot studies were very aggressively marketed to the public. But then the large, phase 3, definitive trials were done and <i>Echinacea</i> is absolutely worthless for treating the symptoms of any infectious disease, of the common cold in particular. But most people don't know about that and when I, in fact, inform patients of that, for example, they've never heard of it. They've never heard that the data shows it doesn't work. The same is true of <i>Ginkgo biloba</i> and cognitive function or St. John's wort and depression. All have large, definitive trials that were completely negative and that made very little impact on the public consciousness. Magnets, it's basically the same thing but we're in the earlier stage of research. The phase 1 type of studies with magnets. First of all with magnet therapy there have been a number of speculative mechanisms put forward as to how magnets might work. The most common one that I hear is that the magnetic field improves blood flow and that the improved blood flow to the tissue increases healing and relieves symptoms. That mechanism, as well as every other proposed mechanism by which magnets&ndash;it's been proposed that magnets might work, has been shown to be false. Magnetic fields do not improve blood flow. Some people say, "Well, it's attracting the iron in the blood." Well, the iron in the blood is non-ferromagnetic. It does not respond to a magnetic field. Most of the magnets that are on the market have a very weak magnetic field or they may use alternating magnetic currents in order to get a stronger field but at the same time they get a much shallower magnetic field. Many do not penetrate, significantly, the wrappings around the magnet nor do they get through the skin. To date there is no compelling, carefully conducted evidence that magnets are useful for the treatment of arthritis or of pain. There is no evidence to show that they are useful for the treatment of migraines, nor is there any plausible mechanism that has been proposed by which they might work for the treatment of migraines. I think most magnetic devices come wrapped in bandages and if you put a bandage around you tennis elbow that has a magnet in it, it's probably the bandage that's helping the tennis elbow and the magnets are incidental. In addition to that there is, of course, the placebo effect which has numerous psychological factors including risk justification and then the simple desire to get better that all tend make people believe that such interventions work. So, bottom line, there's no evidence nor plausible mechanism by which to argue that magnets are useful for treating any symptom or disease and certainly not for migraines.<br />
<br />
=== Regulating Supplements <small>(30:20)</small> ===<br />
The next e-mail is a somewhat related question. This one is about regulating supplements. This comes from Sir Mildred Pierce who gives his location as Antarctica. I did, in fact, e-mail back Sir Pierce to ask if he really is in Antarctica. He has not responded, yet, but if he is truly from Antarctica that would mean that we have listeners in all 7 continents and Sir Mildred, of course, would be the first one to e-mail us from Antarctica, so thank you. He writes,<br />
<blockquote>On your most recent podcast you mentioned the US has the worst regulations when it comes to herbs and "suppliments". I would argue, as a skeptic, that perhaps the US has the best regultions, since that nation has the most unregulated rules. I think skeptics should eschew government intervention and regulation. Don't you feel that if the government is always jumping in and saying what is and what isn't safe that people in the long run will become less skeptical about these things on their own and will pretty much trust that everything on the market is safe, since everything on the market is regulated?<br><br><br />
<br />
Sir Mildred Pierce<br><br />
Antarctica<br />
</blockquote><br />
Well, that is an excellent question that deserves a very thoughtful answer. For background, I think it's worth noting, that there is a significant overlap between the libertarian, anti-regulation community and the skeptical and there certainly is a lot to be said for some libertarian ideals from a skeptical point of view. I know we've commented before on this show that Penn & Teller, for example, on their show&ndash;their Showtime show Bullshit! sometimes espouse libertarian political opinions and I think that that gets intermixed with their skeptical opinions. And most of the time, in fact, I agree with them, although, I do think that the extreme libertarian position is not logical and not justified and this is why. First of all, when you say that a market should be unregulated that assumes that market forces will produce a better outcome than government regulation. I would agree that logic and evidence, especially historical evidence, strongly favors that&ndash;the opinion that most markets in fact do better when they are unregulated by the government. When you in fact let market forces allow a natural equilibrium emerge from a bottom up type of self regulation and that most markets are too complex for a government to regulate from the top down. I think, in my personal opinion history would support that and I do think that the evidence, to that extent, favors leaving markets unregulated. But I don't think that you can say, "Therefor that is true in every single market" and that government regulation is always bad. I think that that is an argument ad absurdum in a way. With respect to medicine in particular we have the say, "What would market forces produce?" And what are those market forces and are they superior to some common sensical regulations that could be imposed. In fact, in this country, in the United States, since the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 which deregulated supplements we have now have 12 years of experience to compare drugs, which are very highly regulated by the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, and supplements which are completely unregulated. And we can say, "Let's compare these two markets and see what government regulation has wrought compared to the free market system." What we have in the free market system&ndash;the unregulated supplements in the last 12 years has been an absolute explosion of marketing of these things. Now, normally when you have a vast increase the marketing of any product that leads to competition and better products and better things for the consumer. Greater efficiency, more choices, better quality. But is that really true in medicine? That would imply that consumers are choosing their supplements based upon the quality of the supplements. For example, whether or not they really work. However, I would argue, that the evidence strongly shows that anecdotal evidence, which means the individual experience of people taking supplements, is completely unreliable. That that personal experience&ndash;except for extreme immediate side effects&ndash;that for the most part our personal experience with medical interventions is anecdotal and therefor highly misleading. In fact, I think the evidence strongly shows that anecdotes lead us to conclusions we wish to be true, not conclusions which are true. So that means that the consumer really has no way of driving an increase in quality. They have no way of choosing which supplements are better than others because all they have is their own personal anecdotal experience to go upon. Maybe the anecdotal experience of other people that they know, but that is completely misleading. Only very carefully accumulated statistical evidence really has way of discerning supplements that work from supplements that do not work. Therefor I would argue that market forces would not drive quality within a market such as supplements. Further, what people do tend to gravitate to are claims which meet their hopes and expectations, which means, if anything, market forces are encouraging greater and greater and more sensationalistic and more hopeful claims on the part of supplement marketers and that is in fact what we have seen. More supplements with more fantastical claims without any quality control. Without any, arguably, any actual beneficial effect to the consumer. In fact what we have seen is the marketing of specific supplements completely explode based upon the claims that are made for those supplements, such as ones that I've mentioned at the previous e-mail, <i>Echinacea</i>, <i>Ginkgo biloba</i>, St. John's Wort, to name a few, and yet when studies were done, and these were studies which were done by the government, done by the NIH, the National Institutes of Health, to look at whether or not these supplements actually work, it found out that they don't work. And that didn't really significantly impact the market that much because the market has been pretty much totally cut off from the scientific evidence. So therefor&ndash;the other argument that I've heard, the other sort of libertarian anti-regulation argument made is that, "Well, a Consumer Reports or other agencies, whether it's the government or academics or private investigating agencies will look at these products, will in form the consumers which ones have better quality than the others and that will drive quality within the market." But we've seen that that's not the true. That's not what happens. In fact, marketing of these things which don't work happily continues despite&ndash;in the face of negative evidence. So, my position, based upon the experience with these various markets is that companies should be given the burden of proving that their products are safe and effect prior to marketing. In fact the other factor here is that doing biomedical research is hard work. It takes a lot of money. Companies in a deregulated market have absolutely zero incentive to do the research. In fact research is a lose lose proposition for companies in a deregulated market. They have to spend the money to do the research. The research has the potential to show that the product is either unsafe or doesn't work which can only have the effect of decreasing sales, decreasing the marketing of that product. Again, it may not have a dramatic impact on it, but it certainly is not going to help. And if the research shows that it does work it probably won't help because the company's already marketing it with the claims that it does work. So, if you can basically make claims that a product works without doing the research, doing research is a lose lose proposition. So deregulation has completely removed any incentive from the private sector to do any kind of research in these supplements. It's only being done in government funded or academically initiated studies. Even if you take the basic libertarian anti-regulation view, you have to apply it to specific markets and make an individualized decision based upon the market forces that actually exist in that market and based upon our real life experience with what happens with deregulation versus regulation. Also, we can't assume that all regulation is bad. There is rational regulation, like, what I think exists in Australia, for example, and irrational regulation which is like what I think exists in the United States. It's not&ndash;you shouldn't make the false dichotomy of bad regulation versus no regulation. It's possible that there's a third alternative and that is actually rational and effective regulation. But that must be done very, very carefully.<br />
<br />
=== Neuroethics <small>(39:17)</small> ===<br />
Let's do one more e-mail and then I will go on to Name That Logical Fallacy. The last e-mail comes from Elias Luna from the Bronx, New York. Elias writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys this question is mainly for Steve since Neurology is right up his alley. What do you know about this new field called "Neuroethics" that I continully hear about. A great quote defining what is Neuroethics by Michael Gazzaniga author of "The Ethical Brain" is "the examination of how we want to deal with the social issues of disaease, normality, mortality, lifestyle, and the philosophy of living informed by our understanding of underlying brain mechanisms" In his opinion "It is-or should be-an effort to come up with a brain-based philosophy of life. They also bring up questions such as "When is a fetus considered a person?" and "When is it moral to end a braindead person's life?" They also question "What truely is "Free Will"? He argues that we are not a ghost in the machine per se. But that we are our brains and that me, self, and I are simply illusions. That The illusion is feed by 6 characteristics working in harmony. To me morals are obviously part of the human condition, and where and why in the mind humans evolved morals is still under questioning.<br><br><br />
<br />
Elias Luna<br><br />
Bronx, NY<br />
</blockquote><br />
Well, that's a great question Elias. Thanks for sending it in. Yeah, I'm very familiar with these various lines of reasoning and I think that there is a lot to be said for much of what they are promoting. Basically I do think that an understanding, a scientific understanding of how the brain works, how the brain produces our personalities, how it produces our sense of reality, our sense of free will and what it means to in fact be a human person that&ndash;this kind of scientific understanding can go a very long way to informing a great many moral and ethical questions like the ones mentioned. However, I would also say that it cannot make these moral or ethical decisions for us and that is because moral and ethical questions contain a dimension which is either purely subjective or purely value based. When is it moral to end a brain dead person's life? Well, first of all, the question is a bit of a misnomer. Someone who is&ndash;at least by the laws in this country which I'm very familiar with&ndash;someone who is technically brain dead is in fact dead. You can pronounce somebody dead if you can prove by the standards that are established that they are in fact brain dead. So, by definition they're not alive. They can be legally and therefor morally and ethically treated as a corpse. What I assume you mean is someone who has severe neurological impairment to the point where they are not able to maintain consciousness. One such state is called a persistent vegetative state. This was very famously debated in this country about a year ago in the context of the Terri Schiavo debate. Terri Schiavo was a woman in Florida who was in a persistent vegetative state and her husband wanted to end her life and her parents wanted to keep her alive and the government got involved to a very inappropriate degree, in my opinion, and actually in the opinion of most Americans. So, when is it appropriate&ndash;what neurology can inform us about might be going on inside that person's brain, what level of consciousness they may be able to have, et cetera, but really can't tell us what&ndash;whether or not it's moral to keep them alive or to end their life given that they're in a persistent vegetative state because that requires value judgments about the value of life, how quality of life should influence our value of life and how&ndash;what is societies responsibilities to such people as well as what is the individual responsibility to society. Is it responsible, for example, to spend millions of dollars of limited health care funds to keep someone alive in a persistent vegetative state when there is no meaningful probability of neurological recovery. These are all questions outside the realm of science. They can be informed by science but they cannot be answered by science. So that's my basic opinion there. I will say that&ndash;you bring up the issue of free will and there is a growing literature on what is in fact free will and do humans in fact have free will. In fact we've discussed the issue of free will previously on this podcast{{link needed}} and there are those who believe that humans in fact do not have free will. That our brains are completely deterministic. They follow the laws of the physics of this universe and therefor everything that the brain does has a prior cause. What is the implications for this to our moral judgments, to crime and punishment, for example? Well, we still, as a society need to make value judgments in order to come up with the ultimate conclusions but understanding how the brain actually works will I think not only inform those decisions it will keep us from making, perhaps, harmful decisions based upon misconceptions.<br />
<br />
== Name that Logical Fallacy <small>(44:51)</small> ==<br />
Well, that's it for the e-mail segment of this show. I'm glad I had the opportunity and caught up on a lot of those great e-mails. I'm going to do a Name That Logical Fallacy this week. This has been sort of an on again off again segment. Usually it's the one that gets cut because of lack of time, but this week I'm going to in fact read an e-mail that was sent to me that is asking about a logical fallacy. So that will be our name that logical fallacy this week. This one comes from Marty Steitz from Forest Lake, Minnesota and he writes,<br />
<blockquote>Thanks again for a very informative podcast. I would like your help understanding the logical fallacies you might apply to improperly used "what are the odds" arguments. For example, religious fundamentalists often absolutely mangle statistics when they come up with their "what are the odds" arguments about our "special place in the heavens." Specifically, I'm not talking about the false premise of randomness so much as the looking backwards and being amazed at the improbability of an outcome after it as occurred. What logical fallacies might you apply here, other than simple math ignorance, since you could apply the same logic to flipping a coin 100 times, noting the odds of getting the exact sequence, and declaring it therefore a miracle.<br><br><br />
<br />
Thanks!<br><br />
Marty Steitz<br><br />
Forest Lake, MN<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, actually I do think, Marty that you did, in your question, bring up, I think, the primary problem with these arguments and that is that it's based upon the false premise. They're looking at statistics essentially backwards. I usually use the lotto example. The chance of any individual ticket winning a lotto may be say, 100,000,000 to 1, just to use a round figure. Someone who wins the lottery, therefor, their probability&ndash;say if a woman bought a single ticket, they win the lottery, the chance of that person winning was 1,000,000 to 1. <!-- think he forgot he own fake statistics here -->If you start with the false premise that&ndash;which is really asking the wrong question, what is the probability of that person winning the lottery the probability against them winning the lottery is 100,000,000 to 1. It is&ndash;the logical fallacy that's actually being applied here is a non sequitur if you therefor conclude that they did not win by chance alone because the odds against them winning by chance alone is too low, therefor they must have been intended to win. I believe that is a non sequitur but it's based upon asking the wrong question. Really the question is what's the probability of anyone winning? And there the probability is actually pretty high. If you apply this analogy to evolution, they say, "What's the probability of a giraffe evolving?" It's pretty damn remote, but that assumes that a giraffe must have evolved. If in fact we rerun the history of evolution we may come up with a completely different set of animals&ndash;plants and animals alive today. Completely at random the probability of a giraffe evolving is vanishingly small. The probability of something evolving, however, was extremely high. So, it's a non sequitur based upon a false premise which is really asking the wrong question. I suppose the other logical fallacy that you could apply to this situation is the argument from final consequences saying that what happened was intended to happen because it happened and it's ignoring the possibility that something else could have just as easily have occurred. In the lotto example, if John Smith wins&ndash;well John Smith didn't have to win. Just because John Smith won doesn't mean that he had to win. Anyone could have won. The fact that giraffes evolved didn't mean that giraffes had to evolve. It just means that they were the ones who happened to evolve. There was one species that happened to evolve.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(48:38)</small> ==<br />
Now lets move on to Science or Fiction.<br />
<br />
''Voiceover: It's time for Science or Fiction''<br />
<br />
Each week I come up with three science news items or facts. Two are genuine, one is fictitious. Now typically I challenge my panel of skeptics to figure out the fake and they all offer their opinions. They're obviously not here this week to do that so I will just give you, the audience, the three items and then discuss the answers. So here we go.<br />
<br />
Item number 1: University of Minnesota urologists have researched ways to reduce the vexing problem of kidney stone formation in astronauts.<br><br />
Item number 2: NY University at Buffalo researchers, reviewing data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found that, contrary to prior belief, wearing seatbelts did not significantly reduce the risk of fatality in an automobile accident.<br><br />
and Item number 3: A team of researchers at the University of Alberta have patented a device that uses ultrasound to regrow teeth.<br><br />
<br />
So, is kidney stone formation a problem with astronauts which urologists are now researching ways to reduce? Does a review of data show that wearing seat-belts actually does not reduce the risk of dying in a car accident? Or, have researchers found ways to regrow teeth using ultrasound? Well, lets start with #1. Number 1 is science. The problem with kidney stone formation is that in zero gravity our bones and our muscles are not under the weight bearing stress of gravity and&ndash;which is necessary actually to maintain bone health and mass. Calcium, therefor, leaches out of our bones into our bloodstream and that calcium can form calcium stones in our kidneys. Now, we've know about this problem for a long time. Ever since we've been putting astronauts into space and hanging out in zero gravity for a while. The primary approach to preventing this from happening is for astronauts to exercise. For example, space station astronauts will attach springs to a belt and they'll jog in place with the springs holding them down against the treadmill. The problem is that these types of exercises, while they're good cardiovascularly and they do help maintain muscle mass, they don't really provide the weight bearing resistance that is necessary to maintain bone mass and therefor prevent kidney stones. Well, what of University of Minnesota researchers have done is they looked at&ndash;they simulated zero gravity by having people lay in a bed with their head below their feet. Doesn't sound very comfortable but that's what they did. They then put the test subjects in a type of chamber that used pressure to simulate gravitational resistance and&ndash;and then had them exercise in the chamber. Those subjects who exercised in the chamber had less bone loss, less calcium and fewer kidney stones than those who did regular exercise without the chamber. So there seems to be some advantage to using pressure, essentially, to simulate gravity. They also add that they need to combine this with hydration therapy, which just means keeping well hydrated, thereby diluting the urine and reducing the risk of all kinds of kidney stone formation. So, hydration and exercising in a machine&ndash;a chamber that simulates gravity reduces the risk of kidney stones in astronauts. Let's go on to item #3. Item #3 is science. A team of researchers at the University of Alberta have been experimenting with using pulsed ultrasound to stimulate the growth of teeth. They have been able to, in fact, grow teeth from the roots and also to repair damaged roots. The first application, before you think of completely regrowing teeth&ndash;I mean perhaps that might be the extension of this research over time, but what they're doing this primarily&ndash;the first application that they're applying this to are those with braces. Now if you use orthodontic braces to move the teeth around, to put them back into alignment, that tends to cause a resorption of the root. And that limits the amount of orthodontic manipulation that you can do. The roots tend to get resorbed back into the jaw and that weakening the root is a significant problem for teeth. Well, if they combined the braces with a miniaturized ultrasound device that gives pulse ultrasound to the tooth root it decreases the amount of this root resorption and therefor extends the safe utility of orthodontic braces. So, very interesting line of research. Hopefully this will continue to bear fruit and perhaps sometime in the future we may actually be able to regrow fully formed teeth using this technique. Or, at the very least, it will be helpful in such technology. Which means that #2 is fiction. In fact there is a very large body of evidence over many years that shows that wearing seat-belts significantly reduces the risk of death in a car accident. Of death and injury. And this study, published by University of Buffalo researchers, supported that. They did, in fact, review the fatality analysis reporting system of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration but what they did find is that the middle back seat is the safest seat in the car. This is often the least desirable seat, to be squished into the middle seat in the back, but, in fact it is the safest seat to have. Here are some of the statistics they found. Occupants of the back seat in general are 59% to 86% safer than passengers in the front seat and that the person in the middle is 25% safer than other backseat passengers. The reason for this is probably obvious to you, that there's more of what they call a crush zone. As the car rolls or gets crushed in from the sides or the front or the back&ndash;they're pretty much in the middle of the car so they're least likely to be injured by this. They also brought up another point which I hadn't thought of which is that in a roll over the person in the middle seat is subjected to the least amount of torque or centripetal force as people sitting on the sides. In fact, this same study did lend further support to the notion that wearing a seat-belt is safer. They said that nearly half of the passengers in the backseat, 46.9% were not wearing seat-belts and results showed that these unrestrained passengers&ndash;34.6% were fatally injured compared to 14.9% of seat-belt wearers. So that's a significant decrease for wearing the seat-belt. So continue to wear your seat-belt and don't be afraid to be the person stuck in the middle of the back-seat. So, I hope you enjoyed that Science or Fiction.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>(56:25)</small> ==<br />
I'm going to finish up this week with the answer to last week's Skeptical Puzzle. To state it again, last week's puzzle was the following,<br />
<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Two men, both were freemasons:<br />
Man A invented an instrument that Man B used as part of a pseudoscience that he invented.<br />
<br />
Man A also famously debunked the claims of Man B.<br />
<br />
Who were the two men, and what was the instrument?<br />
<br />
Well, I will say, first of all, that of the Skeptical Rogues, Evan was the only one to send me an answer and he got it correct. So congratulations, Evan. I hope many of you out there also enjoyed this puzzle. Well the answer is <br />
<br />
Answer: The two men were Benjamin Franklin and Franz Anton Mesmer; the instrument was the glass armonica.<br />
<br />
Both men were freemasons. Benjamin Franklin was involved in, as many of you will know, electrical magnetic research. Mesmer was&ndash;he was as pseudo-scientist who, in fact, came up with mesmerism or being mesmerized. He would put people who had complaints&ndash;medical complaints into a sort of trance and in that trance he would use some kind of animal magnetic therapy to relieve their symptoms. Most of his clients had psychogenic symptoms to begin with so those, of course, are more amenable to complete resolution just through placebo effect. Benjamin Franklin was in fact&ndash;was hired by the French government who put him in charge of a commission to investigate the claims of Anton Mesmer. Franklin investigated them and found them to be&ndash;his therapy to be of completely no value. The conclusion of the commission was that any effect was purely in the minds of the patients. What was the instrument that was used? The instrument that was invented by Benjamin Franklin that was used by Anton Mesmer was the glass armonica or glass harmonica. At the time it was&ndash;a common instrument of the time was using crystal glass filled to different levels with water to produce different harmonic frequencies. And you could play it like you can play percussion instrument, like a piano or an organ. Benjamin Franklin invented the glass armonica which basically he nestled different crystal glasses of different sizes together. He used different sizes to produce the different harmonics so you didn't have to keep them filled with water to a certain degree and he nestled them together to greatly reduce the size. So he created a much more practical, compact glass armonica. Anton Mesmer used&ndash;played the glass armonica and used that to create the mood when he was putting people into his mesmerized trance. So Mesmer actually used a glass armonica. Now for the new puzzle. This new puzzle is not one that I made up myself, I will disclose, but it is a very interesting mathematical puzzle used often to demonstrate how difficult it is for people to make judgments about statistics. The human brain is good at very many things but statistics is not of them and people often have a very hard intuitive time with these types of problems. You may have heard this before, but for those of you who haven't, this is a very interesting problem. Some of you may remember the old game show, let's make a deal, which was hosted by Monty Hall. Whether or not you remember that show, basically what would happen is that a contestant would be asked to pick one of three doors. Behind one of those doors was a fabulous prize. The other two doors had, essentially, gag prizes. The contestant would choose one door. Then Monty Hall would typically open one of the two other doors that contained the gag prize. That did not contain the valuable prize. For example, if the contestant chose door #1, Monty Hall might open up door #3 showing that behind it was a bale of hay or a donkey or something, leaving the contestant with door #1 which they chose and door #2 which is still unopened. Monty Hall would then ask the contestant, "Do you want to stick with your original choice of door #1 or would you like to change your choice to door #2?" The question is, statistically, should the contestant stick with door #1, should the contestant change their pick to door #2, the unopened door, or does it not make any difference? Is it a 50/50 choice either way? That's the question. I'll give the answer at the end of next weeks episode.<br />
<br />
<br />
New Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In the old game show, Let's Make A Deal, contestants were asked to pick which of three doors they thought contained a valuable prize. Once the contestant picked a door, the host, Monty Hall, would often open one of the two doors not chosen and then ask the contestant if they would like to change their pick to the other door left unopened. The question is, should a contestant stick with their original choice, change to the other door, or there is no difference statistically?<br />
<br />
== Conclusion <small>(1:01:17)</small>==<br />
<br />
Well, that is my special episode for this week. I hope you enjoyed it. I certainly missed the lively discussion of the Skeptical Rogues, as I'm sure you did, as well, but I hope you found it entertaining none the less. We'll be back next week when we will be interviewing Gerald Posner, the author of <u>Case Closed</u> a book about the JFK assassination as well as many other investigative journalistic books. He's lectured for my group in the past and he's an excellent speaker. I think that you will greatly enjoy listening to him. So, until next week, this is you Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro39}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}<br />
<br />
{{Page categories<br />
|Guest Rogues = <br />
|Live Recording = <br />
|Interview = <br />
|Randi Speaks = <br />
|Skeptical Puzzle = y<br />
|Amendments = <br />
|Alternative Medicine = y<br />
|Astronomy & Space Science = <br />
|Cons, Scams & Hoaxes = <br />
|Conspiracy Theories = <br />
|Creationism & ID = y<br />
|Cryptozoology = <br />
|Energy Healing = <br />
|Entertainment = <br />
|ESP = <br />
|General Science = <br />
|Ghosts & Demons = <br />
|History = <br />
|Homeopathy = <br />
|Humor = <br />
|Legal Issues & Regulations = y<br />
|Logic & Philosophy = <br />
|Myths & Misconceptions = <br />
|Nature & Evolution = y<br />
|Neuroscience & Psychology = <br />
|New Age = <br />
|Paranormal = <br />
|Physics & Mechanics = <br />
|Politics = y<br />
|Prophecy = <br />
|Pseudoscience = <br />
|Religion & Faith = y<br />
|Science & Education = <br />
|Science & Medicine = y<br />
|Science & the Media = <br />
|SGU = <br />
|Technology = <br />
|UFOs & Aliens = <br />
|Other = <br />
}}</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_49&diff=5524SGU Episode 492013-01-18T01:12:36Z<p>Geneocide: added categories, removed transcribed by, needs formatting and I didn't know exactly what to do with some of the show note stuff so I just left it</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
|proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present <br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 49<br />
|episodeDate = 28<sup>th</sup> Jun 2006<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Franklin.jpg<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2006-06-28.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=49<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,128.0.html<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. This is your host, Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Today is Wednesday, June 28, 2006. We are having a special episode this week; the skeptical rogues are on vacation. Now, don't worry; they'll be back next week. The&mdash;actually, the only reason they are out this week is because I'm out of town, actually vacationing in the wilds of Cumberland, Maryland, which means I do not have access to broadband. Now, many of you may not realize this, but we record our show each week completely over the Internet, using Voice over IP applications. In fact, each of us, myself and all of the skeptical rogues, the entire panel of skeptics are in different cities at the time that we record. Rebecca Watson is in Boston and the rest of us are in different cities in Connecticut. So, without access to broadband, I've no way of conferencing with the other members of the show. We decided rather than skipping a week that I would do a solo show just so that we have something to hold over our loyal fans until next week. Now, the format of the show this week will be pretty similar to other shows; we have no guest and obviously no group discussion. I will still do a Science or Fiction at the end of the program. Although, of course, the panel of skeptics will not be here to offer their thoughts, but this one will be just for you. I'll also do a Name that Logical Fallacy. In addition, I will also give the answer to last week's skeptical puzzle and give a new skeptical puzzle.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(2:02)</small> ==<br />
But the bulk of this show, I decided to get caught up on all of the great emails that we get. I'll take this opportunity to thank our listeners once again for sending in so many great questions and emails. We certainly do appreciate the feedback, the constructive criticism which helps us improve our show. And the questions are great topics for discussion. In fact, we have so many good emails now that we can only touch on a small percentage of them on the show. So I figured this week I would get caught on some of our better email questions. So let's get right to them.<br />
<br />
=== Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution. <small>(2:40)</small>===<br />
The first email comes from Curt Nelson from Minneapolis, Minnesota. Curt writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Dear Skeptics,<br />
<br/><br />
Im an avid listener. Thanks for your show. In listening to your recent podcast on evolution 101, I heard you (Steve)</blockquote><br />
&mdash;that's me, the host&mdash;<br />
<blockquote><br />
say something I think really confuses people who want to understand evolution. You referred to the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution, and I know what you meant by that, but I'm sure its confusing to a lot of people. Maybe it even sounds wishy-washy to those who tend to be sympathetic to creationism. When anyone discusses Darwins theory of evolution, a couple of things should be defined up-front:<br/><br />
1) Evolution is a fact things do evolve (but without changing into a new species, as far as has been observed).<br/><br />
2) Darwin's theory is that evolution causes speciation, and is the mechanism that produced all the magnificent life we know, starting from bacteria. This is a huge leap from the fact of evolution. (For what its worth, I believe this.) Keep up the good work.<br/><br />
Sincerely yours,<br/><br />
Curt</blockquote><br />
Well, Curt, this is a topic that does come up quite frequently when discussing evolution, especially in the context of creationism. Creationists are wont to say that evolution is quote-unquote "only a theory", although I'm usually fairly careful in referring to the fact versus the theory of evolution, and I do take exception to the way that Curt defines it in his email. Now, this has been pointed out in many venues before, but I will take time to go over this briefly. The word "theory" as used by scientists is different than the way it is used colloquially by the public at large. Typically the word "theory" is used to refer to a guess or a speculation or assumption, but scientists use it to refer to an explanatory system; an idea or a unifying concept that brings together multiple lines of evidence, multiple phenomenon into one ex&mdash; one cohesive explanatory system. It doesn't really say anything about how much evidence there is for or against the theory. A theory can, in fact, range the spectrum from discredited to highly speculative to established beyond all reasonable doubt. I would characterize the theory of evolution as being established sufficiently to be considered a scientific fact, meaning over a very long period of time&mdash;150 years, about&mdash;it has withstood any attempt at falsifying it, and there have been many potential ways in which evolutionary theory could have been falsified. There have been numerous independent lines of evidence all validating the theory of evolution to such a high degree, and we have reviewed many of them on this show before. For example, fossil evidence, transitional fossils, morphological pattern of species occurring in an evolutionary pattern of relatedness, the molecular is, I think, the most profound and is irrefutably shows all life on Earth is not only related to each other but is related to each other in a branching evolutionary pattern. So, evolutionary theory deserves the label of established scientific fact, which means it's the best explanation we have for now. I will also further point that within the over-arching theory of evolution, there are several sub-theories that are worth mentioning, and often we talk theories within evolution, we're talking about one of three kinds of theories. 1, there are theories of mechanism, meaning how does evolution come about? Now, Darwin's theory is&mdash;refers specifically to the mechanism of survival of the fittest, or differential survival based up adaptive characteristics. Or, you can also state it as natural selection acting upon variation within populations. That's Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest, which is, again, just one ''kind'' of theory within evolution. The other kind of theory are theories that refer to the tempo and pace of evolution. For example, how do species, populations, and ecosystems change over geological time? Darwin's theory of tempo is known as Darwinian Gradualism, which is the idea that all species pretty much are changing slowly and imperceptably all the time. This idea, this sort of Darwinian Gradualism still has its adherents, but there are competing newer theories such as the theory of puncuated equilibrium first proposed by Stephen Gould and Niles Eldrige. This competing theory says that species are stable most of the time and that this equilibrium, this stability is punctuated by brief, geologically brief, meaning five to fifty thousand years, episodes of rapid evolution and speciation. So, and in fact, creationists have exploited disagreements about these subsets of theories of evolution to&mdash;and misinterpreted them as doubt about the overall theory of whether or not things in fact evolved or not. The third type of theory is theories of relation; what's related to what; what evolved from what? For example, the notion that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, which fit under this category. And again, that is perhaps the most speculative part of evolution at this point in time. We have a very incomplete puzzle of the history of the tree of life, of evolutionary life or phylogenetic relationships. And again, the ideas about what evolved into what are changing all the time, almost every time we pull a new, previously unknown fossil out of the ground, it's changing our picture of this pattern that, in fact, occurred. That's kind of a long answer, but that essentially, in a nutshell, is&mdash;are the fact of evolution versus the theories of evolution.<br />
<br />
=== Agnosticism <small>(9:03)</small>===<br />
E-mail #2 discusses a very different issue. This one comes from Donald Flood who gives his location only as the USA. Donald writes,<br />
<blockquote>If the empirical evidence for the existence of God is no greater than the empirical evidence for Invisible Pink Unicorns, is it logical to be agnostic with respect to the existence of God yet "atheistic" towards the existence of IPUs?<br />
<br><br><br />
Donald Flood<br><br />
USA</blockquote><br />
Well, Donald, the short answer to your question is yes. It would be illogical to be agnostic towards god and atheistic towards invisible pink unicorns and that is not, in fact, my position nor have I ever heard anyone specifically espouse that position so I think that's a bit of a straw man but it's based upon a very common misunderstanding that I get all the time. I do advocate personally an agnostic position towards claims which are not falsifiable. Claims which lie outside of the realm of science. So, and again, we have covered some of this ground before but again let me encapsulate the position that I take with regards to agnosticism. What that basically mean&ndash;and this is the sense that T. H. Huxley who actually invented, or coined, the term agnosticism to refer to his own beliefs&ndash;Agnosticism means that there are certain questions which cannot by their very nature ever be known or they cannot be explored scientifically. There is no way you could possibly validate or falsify them, therefore they are forever outside the realm of knowledge in the scientific sense and Huxley concluded that they're therefore outside the realm of anything that can meaningfully be considered knowledge. So, one can only say about that, if one were taking a consistent, logical, scientific approach, that it's unknowable. You can't know that it is true but neither can you know that it isn't true. Further, extrapolating from this you could say that there's no point in believing in any proposition which is unknowable because there are an infinite number of unknowable propositions. It's limited really only by your creativity but you could sit around and weave un-falsifiable notions all day long. None of them will ever be known and that's all that really you can say about them. Any belief in un-falsifiable notions is by definition faith and faith is therefor, by definition, outside of the realm of science and personally I choose not to have a arbitrary belief either for or against such notions and to me it's sufficient to say they're unknowable and unknowable notions are of not value to human knowledge. So that is where it reasonably ends. So therefor I would say I am agnostic toward the existence of invisible pink unicorns or any other fantastical notion that you want to come up with such as, to paraphrase a recent book, flying spaghetti monsters.<br />
<br />
=== Gerald Schroeder on God <small>(12:05)</small>===<br />
Let's go on to e-mail #3. This one also is about belief in God. This one comes from Luke from Indiana. Luke writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Skeptics,<br />
<br />
I have just recently found your podcast after listening to quite a few "paranormal/ufo/etc" podcasts for quite a while. I would consider myself, probably much like most people who are interested in these subject matters, an interested skeptic--I love considering the possibilities of these unusual subjects, but am not about to agree to something without<br />
proof.<br />
<br />
On your most recent podcast, one of the major discussions was about evolution versus intelligent design. I have read several books by Gerald L. Schroeder, a MIT graduate with a Ph.D. in Physics and a Talmudic scholar. His books have, in my limited opinion, the most well thought out argument for the possibility of a God. I was wondering if any if any of the podcast members were familiar or had read any of his books on the<br />
subject?<br />
<br />
In my personal experience, most real-life disagreements and arguements are not as simple as: one person or side is right and the other is wrong. His approach to the ID vs. big bang theories is not to show fallacies of one or the other, but instead to look for similarities and convergences of them. Regardless of one's particular disposition to either "side," I<br />
think his material is well-thought out, interesting, and worth considering.<br />
<br />
I would love to hear something about these books on your podcast and your, skeptical, opinions about the subject.<br />
<br />
Thanks and keep up the interesting podcast,<br />
<br><br><br />
Luke<br><br />
Indiana, USA</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, Luke, I confess I have not read the entire book. The most recent one is called <u>The Science of God</u> by Gerald Schroeder, although I have read significant excerpts from it and several reviews of it. The most, I think, complete review was written by Frank Sonnleitner who is Professor in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma and we'll have the link to his review on our notes page. <!-- link not found -->Basically, I think the problem with Schroeder's approach, and other's have taken a similar approach is that it begins with the assumption that there's no conflict between faith and science, specifically faith in God, in the Judeo-Christian God in this particular instance, and science and then proceeds from there. However, it never really justifies or establishes that assumption in the first place and therefor if that becomes a false major premise everything that follows from that is invalid. And I think that's the pitfall that he is falling into. You did state, I think, quite reasonably that in most real life disagreements or arguments it's not as simple as one person or side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong and I agree with that in that. In most situations that is true. I think that the most reasonable position usually lies between two extremes and there's usually both valid and invalid points on both sides in any argument or disagreement. However, that's not always the case. There are some times when side is making a profound systematic error in their approach or is following or proceeding from a invalid premise and therefor everything on that side is wrong and I think that the creationism evolution debate is one such issue. Evolution is a science and unbiased scientists I think are largely correct in their approach to evolution&ndash;in their approach and their evaluation of the evidence and the conclusions that they draw from that. Creationists, whether that's intelligent design or classic creationism are following from a very biased premise that evolution must be wrong because of their faith in creation and everything&ndash;every argument that flows from that point that they make is invalid and I have read extensively of the creationist literature, we've discussed much of it on this podcast over the months and they are a textbook of logical fallacies. They really don't have a single valid argument to make. So, it is one of those rare situations where I feel very strongly that one side, the creationist side, is in fact completely wrong. If there is a valid argument to be made on that side I have yet to hear it despite exposing myself very avidly to the arguments from the creationist side. Regarding some of the specifics of <u>The Science of God</u> by Gerald Schroeder again I'll refer back to the very good review written by Frank Sonnleitner&ndash;and he starts by saying that basically that this is an elaboration of Schroeder's prior book <u>Genesis and the Big Bang</u>. Basically, Schroeder is not being fair with the scientific evidence. He, in fact&ndash;He accepts the standard geological and paleontological history of the earth but rejects evolution. He draws the line at evolutionary connections between the higher categories. For example, different classes or different phyla. Therefor&ndash;So he allows for some evolution to occur at a local level but disagrees with connections between major forms which, of course, means that God had to, or something, some force had to create the basic forms of life and then evolution occurred within those basic forms. This is the old micro macro evolution argument that creationists have put forward. The problem with that is that there's no operational definition of what is micro versus macro evolution or why evolution would be able to create some degree of morphological change but not a greater degree. Why could allow for variations within classes but not the origin of the different classes of types of animals. He also makes a very classic creationist argument of rejecting evolution because he considers that the mechanism, natural selection, to be the result of pure chance. And again he commits the creationist logical fallacy of saying that life on earth is so complex what's the change&ndash;the probability of it occurring by chance alone is too remote and therefor we must invoke some kind of willful force. But this is looking at probability the wrong way. We, in fact, have another question on this so I'm going to come back to this a little bit later in the show. So, basically, I am not very fond of Schroeder's arguments. I think that he commits a lot of the core logical fallacies of creationists. I think he's trying to force a fit between science and Christian faith, Judeo-Christian faith, when in fact to the extent that that faith contradicts the findings of science, I think, that they just directly conflict and there is no way to resolve them. The only way to resolve them is to keep faith in it's proper realm which means dealing with the unknowables, and not to violate anything which is within the realm of science. Anything that could be investigated scientifically.<br />
<br />
=== Magnets for Migraines <small>(19:30)</small>===<br />
Okay we're going to shift gears a little bit here and take a couple of e-mails dealing with&ndash;in the medical realm. E-mail #4 comes from Anthony Petruccione. That could be pronounced Petruchioni, would be the more Italian pronunciation, from Texas. Anthony writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>While looking over today's news articles I spotted this article about a new magnet based device for the treatment of migraines.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure at all of the scientific vorasity of using magnets to treat pain, but I can add that my father did have some success using a magnetic bracelet to treat arthritis.<br />
<br />
Mostly i'm linking to the article to spark a discussion. Since you have people on hand with some real knowledge of medicine it would be interesting to hear what you've read from the medical literature.<br />
<br />
Though the linked article dosen't go into great detail the price seems rather staggering for a large magnet. 1000 pounds could buy quite a stack of rare earth magnets.<br />
<br />
To the truest definition of the term, i'm skeptical. I'd love to hear everyone discuss this and hope some good information is drawn out of the discussion.<br><br><br />
<br />
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=391915&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source=<br><br> <!-- this link now goes to some different article --><br />
Anthony Petruccione<br><br />
Texas<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, Anthony, unfortunately you won't get a full panel discussion of this issue but this is something about which I am personally very familiar so I will tackle it myself. First, I want to back up just a little bit and give some background information on what we mean by scientific research within the medical context. There are different levels of evidence within medicine. In fact, in the last 10 to 20 years there has been a movement known as evidence based medicine which has sought, basically, to standardize the evaluation of the degree of evidence for different clinical decisions and to put in the hands of clinicians, people making medical decisions, a objective assessment of the level of evidence that there is to support any particular claim. It's an excellent movement. There are some weaknesses to it. In fact I think the big weakness is that they rely exclusively on evidence and they specifically do not consider scientific plausibility and I think that that's a mistake, but as far as it goes it is extremely helpful. I'll review very quickly some basic different levels of evidence. Typically, when any new concept comes about, a new claim, whether it's based on anecdote or extrapolating from basic science research et cetera or someone just says, "Hey. Maybe A will or cure B. Let's check it out." Initially, what will be done are preliminary, or so called pilot studies. Pilot studies are very small usually involving less than 100 patients, even maybe as few as 10 subjects. They're often open label, meaning that there's no placebo control group, there's no blinding, and they're basically given to a number of patients just to get a basic feel for how they respond. Are there any major obvious side effects? Do they seem to have a positive response? The point of pilot studies is not to base definitive claims. They are purely to see whether or not this will be a productive avenue for further research. I think using these levels of evidence in order to support a clinical claim is misguided almost to the point of fraud. But, be that as it may, it is useful as a preliminary type of evidence. The second level of evidence is when you start to do some placebo control. You will compare people taking the treatment to people taking a placebo. It may or may not be open label or there may be some blinded and the numbers are usually more than in pilot study. Here we may have dozens of patients, maybe a couple of hundred patients depending on how rare the disease is and follow for a significant period of time. At least weeks if not months, longer depending&ndash;again, depending on what is being studied. Here we get to start to get some real idea about whether or not a treatment has any significant side effects. Whether or not all things considered people on the treatment do better than placebo, but still this data should not be considered definitive or conclusive. Again, the point of this really is just to see if it's worth while to go on to the next stage which is the more definite stage of research and this is when you have a large study, multi-center, prospective, meaning that you separate people into control and treatment groups before they get their treatments. You're not looking back at what people did. You're splitting them up and then either putting them on the placebo or on the treatment. That's important because that allows you to control for a lot of variables that might be interfering with the results. These studies are typically double blinded, meaning that the subjects do not know if their getting the placebo or the treatment and that the people running the study, especially those who are evaluating the subjects to see what their outcome is, also do not know if their getting the placebo or the treatment. These can be, if they're large multi-center trials, they can be fairly definitive, but even with these types of trials usually the medical community would like to see 2 or 3 of them. Some replication before saying, "Yep. This is pretty well established that this is a safe and effective treatment for this indication." That's considered the highest level of evidence. In fact, in this country in the United States, if you apply for&ndash;to the FDA to try to get a new drug on the market you have to apply for what's called an IND, an Investigational New Drug permit and then&ndash;before you can subject people to this drug you need to do preliminary basic science research and animal research to show basically that this is safe and the chance that it's going to kill people is at least relatively small. Then you break the clinical trials, or human trials, into phases. Phase 1 trials are small studies usually in healthy volunteers just looking at how the drug handles the body and how the body handles the drugs and screening for basic side effects. Then there are phase 2 trials where you're getting more safety data, you're starting for the first time look at actual outcomes to see if people are getting better. And then if all of that is positive and no problems are cropping up then you can do the phase 3 definitive trials. There's actually, in fact, phase 4 trials which are post marketing research to see if there are any less common safety issues come up now that hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of people are being exposed to the drug. Things may crop up that were missed in the trials. But even&ndash;not in the context of FDA trials, basically those same phases are followed in doing research. Now doing all of this research takes about a decade, at least. At least a decade. But when you're not within the context of regulations, for example with supplements in this country, or with things like magnets that aren't drugs&ndash;people can sell magnets, then often what we see are preliminary studies which are not definitive, should not be used to base claims, they almost always show some positive result because if it's an open label trial there's no placebo control even a pure placebo effect will seem positive so it's very common for these&ndash;the smaller initial trials to have a significant bias towards positive results. Also there's a huge file drawer effect where we just tend not to hear about the negative studies. We only tend to hear about the positive studies. So taking all that into consideration we're likely to get some preliminary positive results that's not reliable and yet those get conveyed to the public and often marketers will use those preliminary studies to say, "See this supplement or device works for these symptoms." And it will take 10 years to really proceed to the more definitive trials and do the analysis of phase 3 data and it may later be found that those&ndash;that the device or the supplements do not work but by that time companies marketing the devices have had years to develop a customer base and often people don't hear about the definitive phase 3 trials. For example, a lot of people believe the <i>Echinacea</i> is useful for colds and the initial, positive, small pilot studies were very aggressively marketed to the public. But then the large, phase 3, definitive trials were done and <i>Echinacea</i> is absolutely worthless for treating the symptoms of any infectious disease, of the common cold in particular. But most people don't know about that and when I, in fact, inform patients of that, for example, they've never heard of it. They've never heard that the data shows it doesn't work. The same is true of <i>Ginkgo biloba</i> and cognitive function or St. John's wort and depression. All have large, definitive trials that were completely negative and that made very little impact on the public consciousness. Magnets, it's basically the same thing but we're in the earlier stage of research. The phase 1 type of studies with magnets. First of all with magnet therapy there have been a number of speculative mechanisms put forward as to how magnets might work. The most common one that I hear is that the magnetic field improves blood flow and that the improved blood flow to the tissue increases healing and relieves symptoms. That mechanism, as well as every other proposed mechanism by which magnets&ndash;it's been proposed that magnets might work, has been shown to be false. Magnetic fields do not improve blood flow. Some people say, "Well, it's attracting the iron in the blood." Well, the iron in the blood is non-ferromagnetic. It does not respond to a magnetic field. Most of the magnets that are on the market have a very weak magnetic field or they may use alternating magnetic currents in order to get a stronger field but at the same time they get a much shallower magnetic field. Many do not penetrate, significantly, the wrappings around the magnet nor do they get through the skin. To date there is no compelling, carefully conducted evidence that magnets are useful for the treatment of arthritis or of pain. There is no evidence to show that they are useful for the treatment of migraines, nor is there any plausible mechanism that has been proposed by which they might work for the treatment of migraines. I think most magnetic devices come wrapped in bandages and if you put a bandage around you tennis elbow that has a magnet in it, it's probably the bandage that's helping the tennis elbow and the magnets are incidental. In addition to that there is, of course, the placebo effect which has numerous psychological factors including risk justification and then the simple desire to get better that all tend make people believe that such interventions work. So, bottom line, there's no evidence nor plausible mechanism by which to argue that magnets are useful for treating any symptom or disease and certainly not for migraines.<br />
<br />
=== Regulating Supplements <small>(30:20)</small> ===<br />
The next e-mail is a somewhat related question. This one is about regulating supplements. This comes from Sir Mildred Pierce who gives his location as Antarctica. I did, in fact, e-mail back Sir Pierce to ask if he really is in Antarctica. He has not responded, yet, but if he is truly from Antarctica that would mean that we have listeners in all 7 continents and Sir Mildred, of course, would be the first one to e-mail us from Antarctica, so thank you. He writes,<br />
<blockquote>On your most recent podcast you mentioned the US has the worst regulations when it comes to herbs and "suppliments". I would argue, as a skeptic, that perhaps the US has the best regultions, since that nation has the most unregulated rules. I think skeptics should eschew government intervention and regulation. Don't you feel that if the government is always jumping in and saying what is and what isn't safe that people in the long run will become less skeptical about these things on their own and will pretty much trust that everything on the market is safe, since everything on the market is regulated?<br><br><br />
<br />
Sir Mildred Pierce<br><br />
Antarctica<br />
</blockquote><br />
Well, that is an excellent question that deserves a very thoughtful answer. For background, I think it's worth noting, that there is a significant overlap between the libertarian, anti-regulation community and the skeptical and there certainly is a lot to be said for some libertarian ideals from a skeptical point of view. I know we've commented before on this show that Penn & Teller, for example, on their show&ndash;their Showtime show Bullshit! sometimes espouse libertarian political opinions and I think that that gets intermixed with their skeptical opinions. And most of the time, in fact, I agree with them, although, I do think that the extreme libertarian position is not logical and not justified and this is why. First of all, when you say that a market should be unregulated that assumes that market forces will produce a better outcome than government regulation. I would agree that logic and evidence, especially historical evidence, strongly favors that&ndash;the opinion that most markets in fact do better when they are unregulated by the government. When you in fact let market forces allow a natural equilibrium emerge from a bottom up type of self regulation and that most markets are too complex for a government to regulate from the top down. I think, in my personal opinion history would support that and I do think that the evidence, to that extent, favors leaving markets unregulated. But I don't think that you can say, "Therefor that is true in every single market" and that government regulation is always bad. I think that that is an argument ad absurdum in a way. With respect to medicine in particular we have the say, "What would market forces produce?" And what are those market forces and are they superior to some common sensical regulations that could be imposed. In fact, in this country, in the United States, since the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 which deregulated supplements we have now have 12 years of experience to compare drugs, which are very highly regulated by the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, and supplements which are completely unregulated. And we can say, "Let's compare these two markets and see what government regulation has wrought compared to the free market system." What we have in the free market system&ndash;the unregulated supplements in the last 12 years has been an absolute explosion of marketing of these things. Now, normally when you have a vast increase the marketing of any product that leads to competition and better products and better things for the consumer. Greater efficiency, more choices, better quality. But is that really true in medicine? That would imply that consumers are choosing their supplements based upon the quality of the supplements. For example, whether or not they really work. However, I would argue, that the evidence strongly shows that anecdotal evidence, which means the individual experience of people taking supplements, is completely unreliable. That that personal experience&ndash;except for extreme immediate side effects&ndash;that for the most part our personal experience with medical interventions is anecdotal and therefor highly misleading. In fact, I think the evidence strongly shows that anecdotes lead us to conclusions we wish to be true, not conclusions which are true. So that means that the consumer really has no way of driving an increase in quality. They have no way of choosing which supplements are better than others because all they have is their own personal anecdotal experience to go upon. Maybe the anecdotal experience of other people that they know, but that is completely misleading. Only very carefully accumulated statistical evidence really has way of discerning supplements that work from supplements that do not work. Therefor I would argue that market forces would not drive quality within a market such as supplements. Further, what people do tend to gravitate to are claims which meet their hopes and expectations, which means, if anything, market forces are encouraging greater and greater and more sensationalistic and more hopeful claims on the part of supplement marketers and that is in fact what we have seen. More supplements with more fantastical claims without any quality control. Without any, arguably, any actual beneficial effect to the consumer. In fact what we have seen is the marketing of specific supplements completely explode based upon the claims that are made for those supplements, such as ones that I've mentioned at the previous e-mail, <i>Echinacea</i>, <i>Ginkgo biloba</i>, St. John's Wort, to name a few, and yet when studies were done, and these were studies which were done by the government, done by the NIH, the National Institutes of Health, to look at whether or not these supplements actually work, it found out that they don't work. And that didn't really significantly impact the market that much because the market has been pretty much totally cut off from the scientific evidence. So therefor&ndash;the other argument that I've heard, the other sort of libertarian anti-regulation argument made is that, "Well, a Consumer Reports or other agencies, whether it's the government or academics or private investigating agencies will look at these products, will in form the consumers which ones have better quality than the others and that will drive quality within the market." But we've seen that that's not the true. That's not what happens. In fact, marketing of these things which don't work happily continues despite&ndash;in the face of negative evidence. So, my position, based upon the experience with these various markets is that companies should be given the burden of proving that their products are safe and effect prior to marketing. In fact the other factor here is that doing biomedical research is hard work. It takes a lot of money. Companies in a deregulated market have absolutely zero incentive to do the research. In fact research is a lose lose proposition for companies in a deregulated market. They have to spend the money to do the research. The research has the potential to show that the product is either unsafe or doesn't work which can only have the effect of decreasing sales, decreasing the marketing of that product. Again, it may not have a dramatic impact on it, but it certainly is not going to help. And if the research shows that it does work it probably won't help because the company's already marketing it with the claims that it does work. So, if you can basically make claims that a product works without doing the research, doing research is a lose lose proposition. So deregulation has completely removed any incentive from the private sector to do any kind of research in these supplements. It's only being done in government funded or academically initiated studies. Even if you take the basic libertarian anti-regulation view, you have to apply it to specific markets and make an individualized decision based upon the market forces that actually exist in that market and based upon our real life experience with what happens with deregulation versus regulation. Also, we can't assume that all regulation is bad. There is rational regulation, like, what I think exists in Australia, for example, and irrational regulation which is like what I think exists in the United States. It's not&ndash;you shouldn't make the false dichotomy of bad regulation versus no regulation. It's possible that there's a third alternative and that is actually rational and effective regulation. But that must be done very, very carefully.<br />
<br />
=== Neuroethics <small>(39:17)</small> ===<br />
Let's do one more e-mail and then I will go on to Name That Logical Fallacy. The last e-mail comes from Elias Luna from the Bronx, New York. Elias writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys this question is mainly for Steve since Neurology is right up his alley. What do you know about this new field called "Neuroethics" that I continully hear about. A great quote defining what is Neuroethics by Michael Gazzaniga author of "The Ethical Brain" is "the examination of how we want to deal with the social issues of disaease, normality, mortality, lifestyle, and the philosophy of living informed by our understanding of underlying brain mechanisms" In his opinion "It is-or should be-an effort to come up with a brain-based philosophy of life. They also bring up questions such as "When is a fetus considered a person?" and "When is it moral to end a braindead person's life?" They also question "What truely is "Free Will"? He argues that we are not a ghost in the machine per se. But that we are our brains and that me, self, and I are simply illusions. That The illusion is feed by 6 characteristics working in harmony. To me morals are obviously part of the human condition, and where and why in the mind humans evolved morals is still under questioning.<br><br><br />
<br />
Elias Luna<br><br />
Bronx, NY<br />
</blockquote><br />
Well, that's a great question Elias. Thanks for sending it in. Yeah, I'm very familiar with these various lines of reasoning and I think that there is a lot to be said for much of what they are promoting. Basically I do think that an understanding, a scientific understanding of how the brain works, how the brain produces our personalities, how it produces our sense of reality, our sense of free will and what it means to in fact be a human person that&ndash;this kind of scientific understanding can go a very long way to informing a great many moral and ethical questions like the ones mentioned. However, I would also say that it cannot make these moral or ethical decisions for us and that is because moral and ethical questions contain a dimension which is either purely subjective or purely value based. When is it moral to end a brain dead person's life? Well, first of all, the question is a bit of a misnomer. Someone who is&ndash;at least by the laws in this country which I'm very familiar with&ndash;someone who is technically brain dead is in fact dead. You can pronounce somebody dead if you can prove by the standards that are established that they are in fact brain dead. So, by definition they're not alive. They can be legally and therefor morally and ethically treated as a corpse. What I assume you mean is someone who has severe neurological impairment to the point where they are not able to maintain consciousness. One such state is called a persistent vegetative state. This was very famously debated in this country about a year ago in the context of the Terri Schiavo debate. Terri Schiavo was a woman in Florida who was in a persistent vegetative state and her husband wanted to end her life and her parents wanted to keep her alive and the government got involved to a very inappropriate degree, in my opinion, and actually in the opinion of most Americans. So, when is it appropriate&ndash;what neurology can inform us about might be going on inside that person's brain, what level of consciousness they may be able to have, et cetera, but really can't tell us what&ndash;whether or not it's moral to keep them alive or to end their life given that they're in a persistent vegetative state because that requires value judgments about the value of life, how quality of life should influence our value of life and how&ndash;what is societies responsibilities to such people as well as what is the individual responsibility to society. Is it responsible, for example, to spend millions of dollars of limited health care funds to keep someone alive in a persistent vegetative state when there is no meaningful probability of neurological recovery. These are all questions outside the realm of science. They can be informed by science but they cannot be answered by science. So that's my basic opinion there. I will say that&ndash;you bring up the issue of free will and there is a growing literature on what is in fact free will and do humans in fact have free will. In fact we've discussed the issue of free will previously on this podcast{{link needed}} and there are those who believe that humans in fact do not have free will. That our brains are completely deterministic. They follow the laws of the physics of this universe and therefor everything that the brain does has a prior cause. What is the implications for this to our moral judgments, to crime and punishment, for example? Well, we still, as a society need to make value judgments in order to come up with the ultimate conclusions but understanding how the brain actually works will I think not only inform those decisions it will keep us from making, perhaps, harmful decisions based upon misconceptions.<br />
<br />
== Name that Logical Fallacy <small>(44:51)</small> ==<br />
Well, that's it for the e-mail segment of this show. I'm glad I had the opportunity and caught up on a lot of those great e-mails. I'm going to do a Name That Logical Fallacy this week. This has been sort of an on again off again segment. Usually it's the one that gets cut because of lack of time, but this week I'm going to in fact read an e-mail that was sent to me that is asking about a logical fallacy. So that will be our name that logical fallacy this week. This one comes from Marty Steitz from Forest Lake, Minnesota and he writes,<br />
<blockquote>Thanks again for a very informative podcast. I would like your help understanding the logical fallacies you might apply to improperly used "what are the odds" arguments. For example, religious fundamentalists often absolutely mangle statistics when they come up with their "what are the odds" arguments about our "special place in the heavens." Specifically, I'm not talking about the false premise of randomness so much as the looking backwards and being amazed at the improbability of an outcome after it as occurred. What logical fallacies might you apply here, other than simple math ignorance, since you could apply the same logic to flipping a coin 100 times, noting the odds of getting the exact sequence, and declaring it therefore a miracle.<br><br><br />
<br />
Thanks!<br><br />
Marty Steitz<br><br />
Forest Lake, MN<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, actually I do think, Marty that you did, in your question, bring up, I think, the primary problem with these arguments and that is that it's based upon the false premise. They're looking at statistics essentially backwards. I usually use the lotto example. The chance of any individual ticket winning a lotto may be say, 100,000,000 to 1, just to use a round figure. Someone who wins the lottery, therefor, their probability&ndash;say if a woman bought a single ticket, they win the lottery, the chance of that person winning was 1,000,000 to 1. <!-- think he forgot he own fake statistics here -->If you start with the false premise that&ndash;which is really asking the wrong question, what is the probability of that person winning the lottery the probability against them winning the lottery is 100,000,000 to 1. It is&ndash;the logical fallacy that's actually being applied here is a non sequitur if you therefor conclude that they did not win by chance alone because the odds against them winning by chance alone is too low, therefor they must have been intended to win. I believe that is a non sequitur but it's based upon asking the wrong question. Really the question is what's the probability of anyone winning? And there the probability is actually pretty high. If you apply this analogy to evolution, they say, "What's the probability of a giraffe evolving?" It's pretty damn remote, but that assumes that a giraffe must have evolved. If in fact we rerun the history of evolution we may come up with a completely different set of animals&ndash;plants and animals alive today. Completely at random the probability of a giraffe evolving is vanishingly small. The probability of something evolving, however, was extremely high. So, it's a non sequitur based upon a false premise which is really asking the wrong question. I suppose the other logical fallacy that you could apply to this situation is the argument from final consequences saying that what happened was intended to happen because it happened and it's ignoring the possibility that something else could have just as easily have occurred. In the lotto example, if John Smith wins&ndash;well John Smith didn't have to win. Just because John Smith won doesn't mean that he had to win. Anyone could have won. The fact that giraffes evolved didn't mean that giraffes had to evolve. It just means that they were the ones who happened to evolve. There was one species that happened to evolve.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(48:38)</small> ==<br />
Now lets move on to Science or Fiction.<br />
<br />
''Voiceover: It's time for Science or Fiction''<br />
<br />
Each week I come up with three science news items or facts. Two are genuine, one is fictitious. Now typically I challenge my panel of skeptics to figure out the fake and they all offer their opinions. They're obviously not here this week to do that so I will just give you, the audience, the three items and then discuss the answers. So here we go.<br />
<br />
Item number 1: University of Minnesota urologists have researched ways to reduce the vexing problem of kidney stone formation in astronauts.<br><br />
Item number 2: NY University at Buffalo researchers, reviewing data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found that, contrary to prior belief, wearing seatbelts did not significantly reduce the risk of fatality in an automobile accident.<br><br />
and Item number 3: A team of researchers at the University of Alberta have patented a device that uses ultrasound to regrow teeth.<br><br />
<br />
So, is kidney stone formation a problem with astronauts which urologists are now researching ways to reduce? Does a review of data show that wearing seat-belts actually does not reduce the risk of dying in a car accident? Or, have researchers found ways to regrow teeth using ultrasound? Well, lets start with #1. Number 1 is science. The problem with kidney stone formation is that in zero gravity our bones and our muscles are not under the weight bearing stress of gravity and&ndash;which is necessary actually to maintain bone health and mass. Calcium, therefor, leaches out of our bones into our bloodstream and that calcium can form calcium stones in our kidneys. Now, we've know about this problem for a long time. Ever since we've been putting astronauts into space and hanging out in zero gravity for a while. The primary approach to preventing this from happening is for astronauts to exercise. For example, space station astronauts will attach springs to a belt and they'll jog in place with the springs holding them down against the treadmill. The problem is that these types of exercises, while they're good cardiovascularly and they do help maintain muscle mass, they don't really provide the weight bearing resistance that is necessary to maintain bone mass and therefor prevent kidney stones. Well, what of University of Minnesota researchers have done is they looked at&ndash;they simulated zero gravity by having people lay in a bed with their head below their feet. Doesn't sound very comfortable but that's what they did. They then put the test subjects in a type of chamber that used pressure to simulate gravitational resistance and&ndash;and then had them exercise in the chamber. Those subjects who exercised in the chamber had less bone loss, less calcium and fewer kidney stones than those who did regular exercise without the chamber. So there seems to be some advantage to using pressure, essentially, to simulate gravity. They also add that they need to combine this with hydration therapy, which just means keeping well hydrated, thereby diluting the urine and reducing the risk of all kinds of kidney stone formation. So, hydration and exercising in a machine&ndash;a chamber that simulates gravity reduces the risk of kidney stones in astronauts. Let's go on to item #3. Item #3 is science. A team of researchers at the University of Alberta have been experimenting with using pulsed ultrasound to stimulate the growth of teeth. They have been able to, in fact, grow teeth from the roots and also to repair damaged roots. The first application, before you think of completely regrowing teeth&ndash;I mean perhaps that might be the extension of this research over time, but what they're doing this primarily&ndash;the first application that they're applying this to are those with braces. Now if you use orthodontic braces to move the teeth around, to put them back into alignment, that tends to cause a resorption of the root. And that limits the amount of orthodontic manipulation that you can do. The roots tend to get resorbed back into the jaw and that weakening the root is a significant problem for teeth. Well, if they combined the braces with a miniaturized ultrasound device that gives pulse ultrasound to the tooth root it decreases the amount of this root resorption and therefor extends the safe utility of orthodontic braces. So, very interesting line of research. Hopefully this will continue to bear fruit and perhaps sometime in the future we may actually be able to regrow fully formed teeth using this technique. Or, at the very least, it will be helpful in such technology. Which means that #2 is fiction. In fact there is a very large body of evidence over many years that shows that wearing seat-belts significantly reduces the risk of death in a car accident. Of death and injury. And this study, published by University of Buffalo researchers, supported that. They did, in fact, review the fatality analysis reporting system of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration but what they did find is that the middle back seat is the safest seat in the car. This is often the least desirable seat, to be squished into the middle seat in the back, but, in fact it is the safest seat to have. Here are some of the statistics they found. Occupants of the back seat in general are 59% to 86% safer than passengers in the front seat and that the person in the middle is 25% safer than other backseat passengers. The reason for this is probably obvious to you, that there's more of what they call a crush zone. As the car rolls or gets crushed in from the sides or the front or the back&ndash;they're pretty much in the middle of the car so they're least likely to be injured by this. They also brought up another point which I hadn't thought of which is that in a roll over the person in the middle seat is subjected to the least amount of torque or centripetal force as people sitting on the sides. In fact, this same study did lend further support to the notion that wearing a seat-belt is safer. They said that nearly half of the passengers in the backseat, 46.9% were not wearing seat-belts and results showed that these unrestrained passengers&ndash;34.6% were fatally injured compared to 14.9% of seat-belt wearers. So that's a significant decrease for wearing the seat-belt. So continue to wear your seat-belt and don't be afraid to be the person stuck in the middle of the back-seat. So, I hope you enjoyed that Science or Fiction.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>(56:25)</small> ==<br />
I'm going to finish up this week with the answer to last week's Skeptical Puzzle. To state it again, last week's puzzle was the following,<br />
<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Two men, both were freemasons:<br />
Man A invented an instrument that Man B used as part of a pseudoscience that he invented.<br />
<br />
Man A also famously debunked the claims of Man B.<br />
<br />
Who were the two men, and what was the instrument?<br />
<br />
Well, I will say, first of all, that of the Skeptical Rogues, Evan was the only one to send me an answer and he got it correct. So congratulations, Evan. I hope many of you out there also enjoyed this puzzle. Well the answer is <br />
<br />
Answer: The two men were Benjamin Franklin and Franz Anton Mesmer; the instrument was the glass armonica.<br />
<br />
Both men were freemasons. Benjamin Franklin was involved in, as many of you will know, electrical magnetic research. Mesmer was&ndash;he was as pseudo-scientist who, in fact, came up with mesmerism or being mesmerized. He would put people who had complaints&ndash;medical complaints into a sort of trance and in that trance he would use some kind of animal magnetic therapy to relieve their symptoms. Most of his clients had psychogenic symptoms to begin with so those, of course, are more amenable to complete resolution just through placebo effect. Benjamin Franklin was in fact&ndash;was hired by the French government who put him in charge of a commission to investigate the claims of Anton Mesmer. Franklin investigated them and found them to be&ndash;his therapy to be of completely no value. The conclusion of the commission was that any effect was purely in the minds of the patients. What was the instrument that was used? The instrument that was invented by Benjamin Franklin that was used by Anton Mesmer was the glass armonica or glass harmonica. At the time it was&ndash;a common instrument of the time was using crystal glass filled to different levels with water to produce different harmonic frequencies. And you could play it like you can play percussion instrument, like a piano or an organ. Benjamin Franklin invented the glass armonica which basically he nestled different crystal glasses of different sizes together. He used different sizes to produce the different harmonics so you didn't have to keep them filled with water to a certain degree and he nestled them together to greatly reduce the size. So he created a much more practical, compact glass armonica. Anton Mesmer used&ndash;played the glass armonica and used that to create the mood when he was putting people into his mesmerized trance. So Mesmer actually used a glass armonica. Now for the new puzzle. This new puzzle is not one that I made up myself, I will disclose, but it is a very interesting mathematical puzzle used often to demonstrate how difficult it is for people to make judgments about statistics. The human brain is good at very many things but statistics is not of them and people often have a very hard intuitive time with these types of problems. You may have heard this before, but for those of you who haven't, this is a very interesting problem. Some of you may remember the old game show, let's make a deal, which was hosted by Monty Hall. Whether or not you remember that show, basically what would happen is that a contestant would be asked to pick one of three doors. Behind one of those doors was a fabulous prize. The other two doors had, essentially, gag prizes. The contestant would choose one door. Then Monty Hall would typically open one of the two other doors that contained the gag prize. That did not contain the valuable prize. For example, if the contestant chose door #1, Monty Hall might open up door #3 showing that behind it was a bale of hay or a donkey or something, leaving the contestant with door #1 which they chose and door #2 which is still unopened. Monty Hall would then ask the contestant, "Do you want to stick with your original choice of door #1 or would you like to change your choice to door #2?" The question is, statistically, should the contestant stick with door #1, should the contestant change their pick to door #2, the unopened door, or does it not make any difference? Is it a 50/50 choice either way? That's the question. I'll give the answer at the end of next weeks episode.<br />
<br />
<br />
New Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In the old game show, Let's Make A Deal, contestants were asked to pick which of three doors they thought contained a valuable prize. Once the contestant picked a door, the host, Monty Hall, would often open one of the two doors not chosen and then ask the contestant if they would like to change their pick to the other door left unopened. The question is, should a contestant stick with their original choice, change to the other door, or there is no difference statistically?<br />
<br />
== Conclusion <small>(1:01:17)</small>==<br />
<br />
Well, that is my special episode for this week. I hope you enjoyed it. I certainly missed the lively discussion of the Skeptical Rogues, as I'm sure you did, as well, but I hope you found it entertaining none the less. We'll be back next week when we will be interviewing Gerald Posner, the author of <u>Case Closed</u> a book about the JFK assassination as well as many other investigative journalistic books. He's lectured for my group in the past and he's an excellent speaker. I think that you will greatly enjoy listening to him. So, until next week, this is you Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro39}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}<br />
<br />
{{Page categories<br />
|Guest Rogues = <br />
|Live Recording = <br />
|Interview = <br />
|Randi Speaks = <br />
|Skeptical Puzzle = y<br />
|Amendments = <br />
|Alternative Medicine = <br />
|Astronomy & Space Science = <br />
|Cons, Scams & Hoaxes = <br />
|Conspiracy Theories = <br />
|Creationism & ID = y<br />
|Cryptozoology = <br />
|Energy Healing = <br />
|Entertainment = <br />
|ESP = <br />
|General Science = <br />
|Ghosts & Demons = <br />
|History = <br />
|Homeopathy = <br />
|Humor = <br />
|Legal Issues & Regulations = y<br />
|Logic & Philosophy = <br />
|Myths & Misconceptions = <br />
|Nature & Evolution = y<br />
|Neuroscience & Psychology = <br />
|New Age = <br />
|Paranormal = <br />
|Physics & Mechanics = <br />
|Politics = y<br />
|Prophecy = <br />
|Pseudoscience = <br />
|Religion & Faith = <br />
|Science & Education = <br />
|Science & Medicine = y<br />
|Science & the Media = <br />
|SGU = <br />
|Technology = <br />
|UFOs & Aliens = <br />
|Other = <br />
}}</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_49&diff=5523SGU Episode 492013-01-18T01:08:33Z<p>Geneocide: /* Skeptical Puzzle (56:25) */ finished transcription</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all <br />
|transcriber = Geneocide<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 49<br />
|episodeDate = 28<sup>th</sup> Jun 2006<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Franklin.jpg<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2006-06-28.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=49<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,128.0.html<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. This is your host, Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Today is Wednesday, June 28, 2006. We are having a special episode this week; the skeptical rogues are on vacation. Now, don't worry; they'll be back next week. The&mdash;actually, the only reason they are out this week is because I'm out of town, actually vacationing in the wilds of Cumberland, Maryland, which means I do not have access to broadband. Now, many of you may not realize this, but we record our show each week completely over the Internet, using Voice over IP applications. In fact, each of us, myself and all of the skeptical rogues, the entire panel of skeptics are in different cities at the time that we record. Rebecca Watson is in Boston and the rest of us are in different cities in Connecticut. So, without access to broadband, I've no way of conferencing with the other members of the show. We decided rather than skipping a week that I would do a solo show just so that we have something to hold over our loyal fans until next week. Now, the format of the show this week will be pretty similar to other shows; we have no guest and obviously no group discussion. I will still do a Science or Fiction at the end of the program. Although, of course, the panel of skeptics will not be here to offer their thoughts, but this one will be just for you. I'll also do a Name that Logical Fallacy. In addition, I will also give the answer to last week's skeptical puzzle and give a new skeptical puzzle.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(2:02)</small> ==<br />
But the bulk of this show, I decided to get caught up on all of the great emails that we get. I'll take this opportunity to thank our listeners once again for sending in so many great questions and emails. We certainly do appreciate the feedback, the constructive criticism which helps us improve our show. And the questions are great topics for discussion. In fact, we have so many good emails now that we can only touch on a small percentage of them on the show. So I figured this week I would get caught on some of our better email questions. So let's get right to them.<br />
<br />
=== Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution. <small>(2:40)</small>===<br />
The first email comes from Curt Nelson from Minneapolis, Minnesota. Curt writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Dear Skeptics,<br />
<br/><br />
Im an avid listener. Thanks for your show. In listening to your recent podcast on evolution 101, I heard you (Steve)</blockquote><br />
&mdash;that's me, the host&mdash;<br />
<blockquote><br />
say something I think really confuses people who want to understand evolution. You referred to the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution, and I know what you meant by that, but I'm sure its confusing to a lot of people. Maybe it even sounds wishy-washy to those who tend to be sympathetic to creationism. When anyone discusses Darwins theory of evolution, a couple of things should be defined up-front:<br/><br />
1) Evolution is a fact things do evolve (but without changing into a new species, as far as has been observed).<br/><br />
2) Darwin's theory is that evolution causes speciation, and is the mechanism that produced all the magnificent life we know, starting from bacteria. This is a huge leap from the fact of evolution. (For what its worth, I believe this.) Keep up the good work.<br/><br />
Sincerely yours,<br/><br />
Curt</blockquote><br />
Well, Curt, this is a topic that does come up quite frequently when discussing evolution, especially in the context of creationism. Creationists are wont to say that evolution is quote-unquote "only a theory", although I'm usually fairly careful in referring to the fact versus the theory of evolution, and I do take exception to the way that Curt defines it in his email. Now, this has been pointed out in many venues before, but I will take time to go over this briefly. The word "theory" as used by scientists is different than the way it is used colloquially by the public at large. Typically the word "theory" is used to refer to a guess or a speculation or assumption, but scientists use it to refer to an explanatory system; an idea or a unifying concept that brings together multiple lines of evidence, multiple phenomenon into one ex&mdash; one cohesive explanatory system. It doesn't really say anything about how much evidence there is for or against the theory. A theory can, in fact, range the spectrum from discredited to highly speculative to established beyond all reasonable doubt. I would characterize the theory of evolution as being established sufficiently to be considered a scientific fact, meaning over a very long period of time&mdash;150 years, about&mdash;it has withstood any attempt at falsifying it, and there have been many potential ways in which evolutionary theory could have been falsified. There have been numerous independent lines of evidence all validating the theory of evolution to such a high degree, and we have reviewed many of them on this show before. For example, fossil evidence, transitional fossils, morphological pattern of species occurring in an evolutionary pattern of relatedness, the molecular is, I think, the most profound and is irrefutably shows all life on Earth is not only related to each other but is related to each other in a branching evolutionary pattern. So, evolutionary theory deserves the label of established scientific fact, which means it's the best explanation we have for now. I will also further point that within the over-arching theory of evolution, there are several sub-theories that are worth mentioning, and often we talk theories within evolution, we're talking about one of three kinds of theories. 1, there are theories of mechanism, meaning how does evolution come about? Now, Darwin's theory is&mdash;refers specifically to the mechanism of survival of the fittest, or differential survival based up adaptive characteristics. Or, you can also state it as natural selection acting upon variation within populations. That's Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest, which is, again, just one ''kind'' of theory within evolution. The other kind of theory are theories that refer to the tempo and pace of evolution. For example, how do species, populations, and ecosystems change over geological time? Darwin's theory of tempo is known as Darwinian Gradualism, which is the idea that all species pretty much are changing slowly and imperceptably all the time. This idea, this sort of Darwinian Gradualism still has its adherents, but there are competing newer theories such as the theory of puncuated equilibrium first proposed by Stephen Gould and Niles Eldrige. This competing theory says that species are stable most of the time and that this equilibrium, this stability is punctuated by brief, geologically brief, meaning five to fifty thousand years, episodes of rapid evolution and speciation. So, and in fact, creationists have exploited disagreements about these subsets of theories of evolution to&mdash;and misinterpreted them as doubt about the overall theory of whether or not things in fact evolved or not. The third type of theory is theories of relation; what's related to what; what evolved from what? For example, the notion that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, which fit under this category. And again, that is perhaps the most speculative part of evolution at this point in time. We have a very incomplete puzzle of the history of the tree of life, of evolutionary life or phylogenetic relationships. And again, the ideas about what evolved into what are changing all the time, almost every time we pull a new, previously unknown fossil out of the ground, it's changing our picture of this pattern that, in fact, occurred. That's kind of a long answer, but that essentially, in a nutshell, is&mdash;are the fact of evolution versus the theories of evolution.<br />
<br />
=== Agnosticism <small>(9:03)</small>===<br />
E-mail #2 discusses a very different issue. This one comes from Donald Flood who gives his location only as the USA. Donald writes,<br />
<blockquote>If the empirical evidence for the existence of God is no greater than the empirical evidence for Invisible Pink Unicorns, is it logical to be agnostic with respect to the existence of God yet "atheistic" towards the existence of IPUs?<br />
<br><br><br />
Donald Flood<br><br />
USA</blockquote><br />
Well, Donald, the short answer to your question is yes. It would be illogical to be agnostic towards god and atheistic towards invisible pink unicorns and that is not, in fact, my position nor have I ever heard anyone specifically espouse that position so I think that's a bit of a straw man but it's based upon a very common misunderstanding that I get all the time. I do advocate personally an agnostic position towards claims which are not falsifiable. Claims which lie outside of the realm of science. So, and again, we have covered some of this ground before but again let me encapsulate the position that I take with regards to agnosticism. What that basically mean&ndash;and this is the sense that T. H. Huxley who actually invented, or coined, the term agnosticism to refer to his own beliefs&ndash;Agnosticism means that there are certain questions which cannot by their very nature ever be known or they cannot be explored scientifically. There is no way you could possibly validate or falsify them, therefore they are forever outside the realm of knowledge in the scientific sense and Huxley concluded that they're therefore outside the realm of anything that can meaningfully be considered knowledge. So, one can only say about that, if one were taking a consistent, logical, scientific approach, that it's unknowable. You can't know that it is true but neither can you know that it isn't true. Further, extrapolating from this you could say that there's no point in believing in any proposition which is unknowable because there are an infinite number of unknowable propositions. It's limited really only by your creativity but you could sit around and weave un-falsifiable notions all day long. None of them will ever be known and that's all that really you can say about them. Any belief in un-falsifiable notions is by definition faith and faith is therefor, by definition, outside of the realm of science and personally I choose not to have a arbitrary belief either for or against such notions and to me it's sufficient to say they're unknowable and unknowable notions are of not value to human knowledge. So that is where it reasonably ends. So therefor I would say I am agnostic toward the existence of invisible pink unicorns or any other fantastical notion that you want to come up with such as, to paraphrase a recent book, flying spaghetti monsters.<br />
<br />
=== Gerald Schroeder on God <small>(12:05)</small>===<br />
Let's go on to e-mail #3. This one also is about belief in God. This one comes from Luke from Indiana. Luke writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Skeptics,<br />
<br />
I have just recently found your podcast after listening to quite a few "paranormal/ufo/etc" podcasts for quite a while. I would consider myself, probably much like most people who are interested in these subject matters, an interested skeptic--I love considering the possibilities of these unusual subjects, but am not about to agree to something without<br />
proof.<br />
<br />
On your most recent podcast, one of the major discussions was about evolution versus intelligent design. I have read several books by Gerald L. Schroeder, a MIT graduate with a Ph.D. in Physics and a Talmudic scholar. His books have, in my limited opinion, the most well thought out argument for the possibility of a God. I was wondering if any if any of the podcast members were familiar or had read any of his books on the<br />
subject?<br />
<br />
In my personal experience, most real-life disagreements and arguements are not as simple as: one person or side is right and the other is wrong. His approach to the ID vs. big bang theories is not to show fallacies of one or the other, but instead to look for similarities and convergences of them. Regardless of one's particular disposition to either "side," I<br />
think his material is well-thought out, interesting, and worth considering.<br />
<br />
I would love to hear something about these books on your podcast and your, skeptical, opinions about the subject.<br />
<br />
Thanks and keep up the interesting podcast,<br />
<br><br><br />
Luke<br><br />
Indiana, USA</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, Luke, I confess I have not read the entire book. The most recent one is called <u>The Science of God</u> by Gerald Schroeder, although I have read significant excerpts from it and several reviews of it. The most, I think, complete review was written by Frank Sonnleitner who is Professor in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma and we'll have the link to his review on our notes page. <!-- link not found -->Basically, I think the problem with Schroeder's approach, and other's have taken a similar approach is that it begins with the assumption that there's no conflict between faith and science, specifically faith in God, in the Judeo-Christian God in this particular instance, and science and then proceeds from there. However, it never really justifies or establishes that assumption in the first place and therefor if that becomes a false major premise everything that follows from that is invalid. And I think that's the pitfall that he is falling into. You did state, I think, quite reasonably that in most real life disagreements or arguments it's not as simple as one person or side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong and I agree with that in that. In most situations that is true. I think that the most reasonable position usually lies between two extremes and there's usually both valid and invalid points on both sides in any argument or disagreement. However, that's not always the case. There are some times when side is making a profound systematic error in their approach or is following or proceeding from a invalid premise and therefor everything on that side is wrong and I think that the creationism evolution debate is one such issue. Evolution is a science and unbiased scientists I think are largely correct in their approach to evolution&ndash;in their approach and their evaluation of the evidence and the conclusions that they draw from that. Creationists, whether that's intelligent design or classic creationism are following from a very biased premise that evolution must be wrong because of their faith in creation and everything&ndash;every argument that flows from that point that they make is invalid and I have read extensively of the creationist literature, we've discussed much of it on this podcast over the months and they are a textbook of logical fallacies. They really don't have a single valid argument to make. So, it is one of those rare situations where I feel very strongly that one side, the creationist side, is in fact completely wrong. If there is a valid argument to be made on that side I have yet to hear it despite exposing myself very avidly to the arguments from the creationist side. Regarding some of the specifics of <u>The Science of God</u> by Gerald Schroeder again I'll refer back to the very good review written by Frank Sonnleitner&ndash;and he starts by saying that basically that this is an elaboration of Schroeder's prior book <u>Genesis and the Big Bang</u>. Basically, Schroeder is not being fair with the scientific evidence. He, in fact&ndash;He accepts the standard geological and paleontological history of the earth but rejects evolution. He draws the line at evolutionary connections between the higher categories. For example, different classes or different phyla. Therefor&ndash;So he allows for some evolution to occur at a local level but disagrees with connections between major forms which, of course, means that God had to, or something, some force had to create the basic forms of life and then evolution occurred within those basic forms. This is the old micro macro evolution argument that creationists have put forward. The problem with that is that there's no operational definition of what is micro versus macro evolution or why evolution would be able to create some degree of morphological change but not a greater degree. Why could allow for variations within classes but not the origin of the different classes of types of animals. He also makes a very classic creationist argument of rejecting evolution because he considers that the mechanism, natural selection, to be the result of pure chance. And again he commits the creationist logical fallacy of saying that life on earth is so complex what's the change&ndash;the probability of it occurring by chance alone is too remote and therefor we must invoke some kind of willful force. But this is looking at probability the wrong way. We, in fact, have another question on this so I'm going to come back to this a little bit later in the show. So, basically, I am not very fond of Schroeder's arguments. I think that he commits a lot of the core logical fallacies of creationists. I think he's trying to force a fit between science and Christian faith, Judeo-Christian faith, when in fact to the extent that that faith contradicts the findings of science, I think, that they just directly conflict and there is no way to resolve them. The only way to resolve them is to keep faith in it's proper realm which means dealing with the unknowables, and not to violate anything which is within the realm of science. Anything that could be investigated scientifically.<br />
<br />
=== Magnets for Migraines <small>(19:30)</small>===<br />
Okay we're going to shift gears a little bit here and take a couple of e-mails dealing with&ndash;in the medical realm. E-mail #4 comes from Anthony Petruccione. That could be pronounced Petruchioni, would be the more Italian pronunciation, from Texas. Anthony writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>While looking over today's news articles I spotted this article about a new magnet based device for the treatment of migraines.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure at all of the scientific vorasity of using magnets to treat pain, but I can add that my father did have some success using a magnetic bracelet to treat arthritis.<br />
<br />
Mostly i'm linking to the article to spark a discussion. Since you have people on hand with some real knowledge of medicine it would be interesting to hear what you've read from the medical literature.<br />
<br />
Though the linked article dosen't go into great detail the price seems rather staggering for a large magnet. 1000 pounds could buy quite a stack of rare earth magnets.<br />
<br />
To the truest definition of the term, i'm skeptical. I'd love to hear everyone discuss this and hope some good information is drawn out of the discussion.<br><br><br />
<br />
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=391915&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source=<br><br> <!-- this link now goes to some different article --><br />
Anthony Petruccione<br><br />
Texas<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, Anthony, unfortunately you won't get a full panel discussion of this issue but this is something about which I am personally very familiar so I will tackle it myself. First, I want to back up just a little bit and give some background information on what we mean by scientific research within the medical context. There are different levels of evidence within medicine. In fact, in the last 10 to 20 years there has been a movement known as evidence based medicine which has sought, basically, to standardize the evaluation of the degree of evidence for different clinical decisions and to put in the hands of clinicians, people making medical decisions, a objective assessment of the level of evidence that there is to support any particular claim. It's an excellent movement. There are some weaknesses to it. In fact I think the big weakness is that they rely exclusively on evidence and they specifically do not consider scientific plausibility and I think that that's a mistake, but as far as it goes it is extremely helpful. I'll review very quickly some basic different levels of evidence. Typically, when any new concept comes about, a new claim, whether it's based on anecdote or extrapolating from basic science research et cetera or someone just says, "Hey. Maybe A will or cure B. Let's check it out." Initially, what will be done are preliminary, or so called pilot studies. Pilot studies are very small usually involving less than 100 patients, even maybe as few as 10 subjects. They're often open label, meaning that there's no placebo control group, there's no blinding, and they're basically given to a number of patients just to get a basic feel for how they respond. Are there any major obvious side effects? Do they seem to have a positive response? The point of pilot studies is not to base definitive claims. They are purely to see whether or not this will be a productive avenue for further research. I think using these levels of evidence in order to support a clinical claim is misguided almost to the point of fraud. But, be that as it may, it is useful as a preliminary type of evidence. The second level of evidence is when you start to do some placebo control. You will compare people taking the treatment to people taking a placebo. It may or may not be open label or there may be some blinded and the numbers are usually more than in pilot study. Here we may have dozens of patients, maybe a couple of hundred patients depending on how rare the disease is and follow for a significant period of time. At least weeks if not months, longer depending&ndash;again, depending on what is being studied. Here we get to start to get some real idea about whether or not a treatment has any significant side effects. Whether or not all things considered people on the treatment do better than placebo, but still this data should not be considered definitive or conclusive. Again, the point of this really is just to see if it's worth while to go on to the next stage which is the more definite stage of research and this is when you have a large study, multi-center, prospective, meaning that you separate people into control and treatment groups before they get their treatments. You're not looking back at what people did. You're splitting them up and then either putting them on the placebo or on the treatment. That's important because that allows you to control for a lot of variables that might be interfering with the results. These studies are typically double blinded, meaning that the subjects do not know if their getting the placebo or the treatment and that the people running the study, especially those who are evaluating the subjects to see what their outcome is, also do not know if their getting the placebo or the treatment. These can be, if they're large multi-center trials, they can be fairly definitive, but even with these types of trials usually the medical community would like to see 2 or 3 of them. Some replication before saying, "Yep. This is pretty well established that this is a safe and effective treatment for this indication." That's considered the highest level of evidence. In fact, in this country in the United States, if you apply for&ndash;to the FDA to try to get a new drug on the market you have to apply for what's called an IND, an Investigational New Drug permit and then&ndash;before you can subject people to this drug you need to do preliminary basic science research and animal research to show basically that this is safe and the chance that it's going to kill people is at least relatively small. Then you break the clinical trials, or human trials, into phases. Phase 1 trials are small studies usually in healthy volunteers just looking at how the drug handles the body and how the body handles the drugs and screening for basic side effects. Then there are phase 2 trials where you're getting more safety data, you're starting for the first time look at actual outcomes to see if people are getting better. And then if all of that is positive and no problems are cropping up then you can do the phase 3 definitive trials. There's actually, in fact, phase 4 trials which are post marketing research to see if there are any less common safety issues come up now that hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of people are being exposed to the drug. Things may crop up that were missed in the trials. But even&ndash;not in the context of FDA trials, basically those same phases are followed in doing research. Now doing all of this research takes about a decade, at least. At least a decade. But when you're not within the context of regulations, for example with supplements in this country, or with things like magnets that aren't drugs&ndash;people can sell magnets, then often what we see are preliminary studies which are not definitive, should not be used to base claims, they almost always show some positive result because if it's an open label trial there's no placebo control even a pure placebo effect will seem positive so it's very common for these&ndash;the smaller initial trials to have a significant bias towards positive results. Also there's a huge file drawer effect where we just tend not to hear about the negative studies. We only tend to hear about the positive studies. So taking all that into consideration we're likely to get some preliminary positive results that's not reliable and yet those get conveyed to the public and often marketers will use those preliminary studies to say, "See this supplement or device works for these symptoms." And it will take 10 years to really proceed to the more definitive trials and do the analysis of phase 3 data and it may later be found that those&ndash;that the device or the supplements do not work but by that time companies marketing the devices have had years to develop a customer base and often people don't hear about the definitive phase 3 trials. For example, a lot of people believe the <i>Echinacea</i> is useful for colds and the initial, positive, small pilot studies were very aggressively marketed to the public. But then the large, phase 3, definitive trials were done and <i>Echinacea</i> is absolutely worthless for treating the symptoms of any infectious disease, of the common cold in particular. But most people don't know about that and when I, in fact, inform patients of that, for example, they've never heard of it. They've never heard that the data shows it doesn't work. The same is true of <i>Ginkgo biloba</i> and cognitive function or St. John's wort and depression. All have large, definitive trials that were completely negative and that made very little impact on the public consciousness. Magnets, it's basically the same thing but we're in the earlier stage of research. The phase 1 type of studies with magnets. First of all with magnet therapy there have been a number of speculative mechanisms put forward as to how magnets might work. The most common one that I hear is that the magnetic field improves blood flow and that the improved blood flow to the tissue increases healing and relieves symptoms. That mechanism, as well as every other proposed mechanism by which magnets&ndash;it's been proposed that magnets might work, has been shown to be false. Magnetic fields do not improve blood flow. Some people say, "Well, it's attracting the iron in the blood." Well, the iron in the blood is non-ferromagnetic. It does not respond to a magnetic field. Most of the magnets that are on the market have a very weak magnetic field or they may use alternating magnetic currents in order to get a stronger field but at the same time they get a much shallower magnetic field. Many do not penetrate, significantly, the wrappings around the magnet nor do they get through the skin. To date there is no compelling, carefully conducted evidence that magnets are useful for the treatment of arthritis or of pain. There is no evidence to show that they are useful for the treatment of migraines, nor is there any plausible mechanism that has been proposed by which they might work for the treatment of migraines. I think most magnetic devices come wrapped in bandages and if you put a bandage around you tennis elbow that has a magnet in it, it's probably the bandage that's helping the tennis elbow and the magnets are incidental. In addition to that there is, of course, the placebo effect which has numerous psychological factors including risk justification and then the simple desire to get better that all tend make people believe that such interventions work. So, bottom line, there's no evidence nor plausible mechanism by which to argue that magnets are useful for treating any symptom or disease and certainly not for migraines.<br />
<br />
=== Regulating Supplements <small>(30:20)</small> ===<br />
The next e-mail is a somewhat related question. This one is about regulating supplements. This comes from Sir Mildred Pierce who gives his location as Antarctica. I did, in fact, e-mail back Sir Pierce to ask if he really is in Antarctica. He has not responded, yet, but if he is truly from Antarctica that would mean that we have listeners in all 7 continents and Sir Mildred, of course, would be the first one to e-mail us from Antarctica, so thank you. He writes,<br />
<blockquote>On your most recent podcast you mentioned the US has the worst regulations when it comes to herbs and "suppliments". I would argue, as a skeptic, that perhaps the US has the best regultions, since that nation has the most unregulated rules. I think skeptics should eschew government intervention and regulation. Don't you feel that if the government is always jumping in and saying what is and what isn't safe that people in the long run will become less skeptical about these things on their own and will pretty much trust that everything on the market is safe, since everything on the market is regulated?<br><br><br />
<br />
Sir Mildred Pierce<br><br />
Antarctica<br />
</blockquote><br />
Well, that is an excellent question that deserves a very thoughtful answer. For background, I think it's worth noting, that there is a significant overlap between the libertarian, anti-regulation community and the skeptical and there certainly is a lot to be said for some libertarian ideals from a skeptical point of view. I know we've commented before on this show that Penn & Teller, for example, on their show&ndash;their Showtime show Bullshit! sometimes espouse libertarian political opinions and I think that that gets intermixed with their skeptical opinions. And most of the time, in fact, I agree with them, although, I do think that the extreme libertarian position is not logical and not justified and this is why. First of all, when you say that a market should be unregulated that assumes that market forces will produce a better outcome than government regulation. I would agree that logic and evidence, especially historical evidence, strongly favors that&ndash;the opinion that most markets in fact do better when they are unregulated by the government. When you in fact let market forces allow a natural equilibrium emerge from a bottom up type of self regulation and that most markets are too complex for a government to regulate from the top down. I think, in my personal opinion history would support that and I do think that the evidence, to that extent, favors leaving markets unregulated. But I don't think that you can say, "Therefor that is true in every single market" and that government regulation is always bad. I think that that is an argument ad absurdum in a way. With respect to medicine in particular we have the say, "What would market forces produce?" And what are those market forces and are they superior to some common sensical regulations that could be imposed. In fact, in this country, in the United States, since the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 which deregulated supplements we have now have 12 years of experience to compare drugs, which are very highly regulated by the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, and supplements which are completely unregulated. And we can say, "Let's compare these two markets and see what government regulation has wrought compared to the free market system." What we have in the free market system&ndash;the unregulated supplements in the last 12 years has been an absolute explosion of marketing of these things. Now, normally when you have a vast increase the marketing of any product that leads to competition and better products and better things for the consumer. Greater efficiency, more choices, better quality. But is that really true in medicine? That would imply that consumers are choosing their supplements based upon the quality of the supplements. For example, whether or not they really work. However, I would argue, that the evidence strongly shows that anecdotal evidence, which means the individual experience of people taking supplements, is completely unreliable. That that personal experience&ndash;except for extreme immediate side effects&ndash;that for the most part our personal experience with medical interventions is anecdotal and therefor highly misleading. In fact, I think the evidence strongly shows that anecdotes lead us to conclusions we wish to be true, not conclusions which are true. So that means that the consumer really has no way of driving an increase in quality. They have no way of choosing which supplements are better than others because all they have is their own personal anecdotal experience to go upon. Maybe the anecdotal experience of other people that they know, but that is completely misleading. Only very carefully accumulated statistical evidence really has way of discerning supplements that work from supplements that do not work. Therefor I would argue that market forces would not drive quality within a market such as supplements. Further, what people do tend to gravitate to are claims which meet their hopes and expectations, which means, if anything, market forces are encouraging greater and greater and more sensationalistic and more hopeful claims on the part of supplement marketers and that is in fact what we have seen. More supplements with more fantastical claims without any quality control. Without any, arguably, any actual beneficial effect to the consumer. In fact what we have seen is the marketing of specific supplements completely explode based upon the claims that are made for those supplements, such as ones that I've mentioned at the previous e-mail, <i>Echinacea</i>, <i>Ginkgo biloba</i>, St. John's Wort, to name a few, and yet when studies were done, and these were studies which were done by the government, done by the NIH, the National Institutes of Health, to look at whether or not these supplements actually work, it found out that they don't work. And that didn't really significantly impact the market that much because the market has been pretty much totally cut off from the scientific evidence. So therefor&ndash;the other argument that I've heard, the other sort of libertarian anti-regulation argument made is that, "Well, a Consumer Reports or other agencies, whether it's the government or academics or private investigating agencies will look at these products, will in form the consumers which ones have better quality than the others and that will drive quality within the market." But we've seen that that's not the true. That's not what happens. In fact, marketing of these things which don't work happily continues despite&ndash;in the face of negative evidence. So, my position, based upon the experience with these various markets is that companies should be given the burden of proving that their products are safe and effect prior to marketing. In fact the other factor here is that doing biomedical research is hard work. It takes a lot of money. Companies in a deregulated market have absolutely zero incentive to do the research. In fact research is a lose lose proposition for companies in a deregulated market. They have to spend the money to do the research. The research has the potential to show that the product is either unsafe or doesn't work which can only have the effect of decreasing sales, decreasing the marketing of that product. Again, it may not have a dramatic impact on it, but it certainly is not going to help. And if the research shows that it does work it probably won't help because the company's already marketing it with the claims that it does work. So, if you can basically make claims that a product works without doing the research, doing research is a lose lose proposition. So deregulation has completely removed any incentive from the private sector to do any kind of research in these supplements. It's only being done in government funded or academically initiated studies. Even if you take the basic libertarian anti-regulation view, you have to apply it to specific markets and make an individualized decision based upon the market forces that actually exist in that market and based upon our real life experience with what happens with deregulation versus regulation. Also, we can't assume that all regulation is bad. There is rational regulation, like, what I think exists in Australia, for example, and irrational regulation which is like what I think exists in the United States. It's not&ndash;you shouldn't make the false dichotomy of bad regulation versus no regulation. It's possible that there's a third alternative and that is actually rational and effective regulation. But that must be done very, very carefully.<br />
<br />
=== Neuroethics <small>(39:17)</small> ===<br />
Let's do one more e-mail and then I will go on to Name That Logical Fallacy. The last e-mail comes from Elias Luna from the Bronx, New York. Elias writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys this question is mainly for Steve since Neurology is right up his alley. What do you know about this new field called "Neuroethics" that I continully hear about. A great quote defining what is Neuroethics by Michael Gazzaniga author of "The Ethical Brain" is "the examination of how we want to deal with the social issues of disaease, normality, mortality, lifestyle, and the philosophy of living informed by our understanding of underlying brain mechanisms" In his opinion "It is-or should be-an effort to come up with a brain-based philosophy of life. They also bring up questions such as "When is a fetus considered a person?" and "When is it moral to end a braindead person's life?" They also question "What truely is "Free Will"? He argues that we are not a ghost in the machine per se. But that we are our brains and that me, self, and I are simply illusions. That The illusion is feed by 6 characteristics working in harmony. To me morals are obviously part of the human condition, and where and why in the mind humans evolved morals is still under questioning.<br><br><br />
<br />
Elias Luna<br><br />
Bronx, NY<br />
</blockquote><br />
Well, that's a great question Elias. Thanks for sending it in. Yeah, I'm very familiar with these various lines of reasoning and I think that there is a lot to be said for much of what they are promoting. Basically I do think that an understanding, a scientific understanding of how the brain works, how the brain produces our personalities, how it produces our sense of reality, our sense of free will and what it means to in fact be a human person that&ndash;this kind of scientific understanding can go a very long way to informing a great many moral and ethical questions like the ones mentioned. However, I would also say that it cannot make these moral or ethical decisions for us and that is because moral and ethical questions contain a dimension which is either purely subjective or purely value based. When is it moral to end a brain dead person's life? Well, first of all, the question is a bit of a misnomer. Someone who is&ndash;at least by the laws in this country which I'm very familiar with&ndash;someone who is technically brain dead is in fact dead. You can pronounce somebody dead if you can prove by the standards that are established that they are in fact brain dead. So, by definition they're not alive. They can be legally and therefor morally and ethically treated as a corpse. What I assume you mean is someone who has severe neurological impairment to the point where they are not able to maintain consciousness. One such state is called a persistent vegetative state. This was very famously debated in this country about a year ago in the context of the Terri Schiavo debate. Terri Schiavo was a woman in Florida who was in a persistent vegetative state and her husband wanted to end her life and her parents wanted to keep her alive and the government got involved to a very inappropriate degree, in my opinion, and actually in the opinion of most Americans. So, when is it appropriate&ndash;what neurology can inform us about might be going on inside that person's brain, what level of consciousness they may be able to have, et cetera, but really can't tell us what&ndash;whether or not it's moral to keep them alive or to end their life given that they're in a persistent vegetative state because that requires value judgments about the value of life, how quality of life should influence our value of life and how&ndash;what is societies responsibilities to such people as well as what is the individual responsibility to society. Is it responsible, for example, to spend millions of dollars of limited health care funds to keep someone alive in a persistent vegetative state when there is no meaningful probability of neurological recovery. These are all questions outside the realm of science. They can be informed by science but they cannot be answered by science. So that's my basic opinion there. I will say that&ndash;you bring up the issue of free will and there is a growing literature on what is in fact free will and do humans in fact have free will. In fact we've discussed the issue of free will previously on this podcast{{link needed}} and there are those who believe that humans in fact do not have free will. That our brains are completely deterministic. They follow the laws of the physics of this universe and therefor everything that the brain does has a prior cause. What is the implications for this to our moral judgments, to crime and punishment, for example? Well, we still, as a society need to make value judgments in order to come up with the ultimate conclusions but understanding how the brain actually works will I think not only inform those decisions it will keep us from making, perhaps, harmful decisions based upon misconceptions.<br />
<br />
== Name that Logical Fallacy <small>(44:51)</small> ==<br />
Well, that's it for the e-mail segment of this show. I'm glad I had the opportunity and caught up on a lot of those great e-mails. I'm going to do a Name That Logical Fallacy this week. This has been sort of an on again off again segment. Usually it's the one that gets cut because of lack of time, but this week I'm going to in fact read an e-mail that was sent to me that is asking about a logical fallacy. So that will be our name that logical fallacy this week. This one comes from Marty Steitz from Forest Lake, Minnesota and he writes,<br />
<blockquote>Thanks again for a very informative podcast. I would like your help understanding the logical fallacies you might apply to improperly used "what are the odds" arguments. For example, religious fundamentalists often absolutely mangle statistics when they come up with their "what are the odds" arguments about our "special place in the heavens." Specifically, I'm not talking about the false premise of randomness so much as the looking backwards and being amazed at the improbability of an outcome after it as occurred. What logical fallacies might you apply here, other than simple math ignorance, since you could apply the same logic to flipping a coin 100 times, noting the odds of getting the exact sequence, and declaring it therefore a miracle.<br><br><br />
<br />
Thanks!<br><br />
Marty Steitz<br><br />
Forest Lake, MN<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, actually I do think, Marty that you did, in your question, bring up, I think, the primary problem with these arguments and that is that it's based upon the false premise. They're looking at statistics essentially backwards. I usually use the lotto example. The chance of any individual ticket winning a lotto may be say, 100,000,000 to 1, just to use a round figure. Someone who wins the lottery, therefor, their probability&ndash;say if a woman bought a single ticket, they win the lottery, the chance of that person winning was 1,000,000 to 1. <!-- think he forgot he own fake statistics here -->If you start with the false premise that&ndash;which is really asking the wrong question, what is the probability of that person winning the lottery the probability against them winning the lottery is 100,000,000 to 1. It is&ndash;the logical fallacy that's actually being applied here is a non sequitur if you therefor conclude that they did not win by chance alone because the odds against them winning by chance alone is too low, therefor they must have been intended to win. I believe that is a non sequitur but it's based upon asking the wrong question. Really the question is what's the probability of anyone winning? And there the probability is actually pretty high. If you apply this analogy to evolution, they say, "What's the probability of a giraffe evolving?" It's pretty damn remote, but that assumes that a giraffe must have evolved. If in fact we rerun the history of evolution we may come up with a completely different set of animals&ndash;plants and animals alive today. Completely at random the probability of a giraffe evolving is vanishingly small. The probability of something evolving, however, was extremely high. So, it's a non sequitur based upon a false premise which is really asking the wrong question. I suppose the other logical fallacy that you could apply to this situation is the argument from final consequences saying that what happened was intended to happen because it happened and it's ignoring the possibility that something else could have just as easily have occurred. In the lotto example, if John Smith wins&ndash;well John Smith didn't have to win. Just because John Smith won doesn't mean that he had to win. Anyone could have won. The fact that giraffes evolved didn't mean that giraffes had to evolve. It just means that they were the ones who happened to evolve. There was one species that happened to evolve.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(48:38)</small> ==<br />
Now lets move on to Science or Fiction.<br />
<br />
''Voiceover: It's time for Science or Fiction''<br />
<br />
Each week I come up with three science news items or facts. Two are genuine, one is fictitious. Now typically I challenge my panel of skeptics to figure out the fake and they all offer their opinions. They're obviously not here this week to do that so I will just give you, the audience, the three items and then discuss the answers. So here we go.<br />
<br />
Item number 1: University of Minnesota urologists have researched ways to reduce the vexing problem of kidney stone formation in astronauts.<br><br />
Item number 2: NY University at Buffalo researchers, reviewing data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found that, contrary to prior belief, wearing seatbelts did not significantly reduce the risk of fatality in an automobile accident.<br><br />
and Item number 3: A team of researchers at the University of Alberta have patented a device that uses ultrasound to regrow teeth.<br><br />
<br />
So, is kidney stone formation a problem with astronauts which urologists are now researching ways to reduce? Does a review of data show that wearing seat-belts actually does not reduce the risk of dying in a car accident? Or, have researchers found ways to regrow teeth using ultrasound? Well, lets start with #1. Number 1 is science. The problem with kidney stone formation is that in zero gravity our bones and our muscles are not under the weight bearing stress of gravity and&ndash;which is necessary actually to maintain bone health and mass. Calcium, therefor, leaches out of our bones into our bloodstream and that calcium can form calcium stones in our kidneys. Now, we've know about this problem for a long time. Ever since we've been putting astronauts into space and hanging out in zero gravity for a while. The primary approach to preventing this from happening is for astronauts to exercise. For example, space station astronauts will attach springs to a belt and they'll jog in place with the springs holding them down against the treadmill. The problem is that these types of exercises, while they're good cardiovascularly and they do help maintain muscle mass, they don't really provide the weight bearing resistance that is necessary to maintain bone mass and therefor prevent kidney stones. Well, what of University of Minnesota researchers have done is they looked at&ndash;they simulated zero gravity by having people lay in a bed with their head below their feet. Doesn't sound very comfortable but that's what they did. They then put the test subjects in a type of chamber that used pressure to simulate gravitational resistance and&ndash;and then had them exercise in the chamber. Those subjects who exercised in the chamber had less bone loss, less calcium and fewer kidney stones than those who did regular exercise without the chamber. So there seems to be some advantage to using pressure, essentially, to simulate gravity. They also add that they need to combine this with hydration therapy, which just means keeping well hydrated, thereby diluting the urine and reducing the risk of all kinds of kidney stone formation. So, hydration and exercising in a machine&ndash;a chamber that simulates gravity reduces the risk of kidney stones in astronauts. Let's go on to item #3. Item #3 is science. A team of researchers at the University of Alberta have been experimenting with using pulsed ultrasound to stimulate the growth of teeth. They have been able to, in fact, grow teeth from the roots and also to repair damaged roots. The first application, before you think of completely regrowing teeth&ndash;I mean perhaps that might be the extension of this research over time, but what they're doing this primarily&ndash;the first application that they're applying this to are those with braces. Now if you use orthodontic braces to move the teeth around, to put them back into alignment, that tends to cause a resorption of the root. And that limits the amount of orthodontic manipulation that you can do. The roots tend to get resorbed back into the jaw and that weakening the root is a significant problem for teeth. Well, if they combined the braces with a miniaturized ultrasound device that gives pulse ultrasound to the tooth root it decreases the amount of this root resorption and therefor extends the safe utility of orthodontic braces. So, very interesting line of research. Hopefully this will continue to bear fruit and perhaps sometime in the future we may actually be able to regrow fully formed teeth using this technique. Or, at the very least, it will be helpful in such technology. Which means that #2 is fiction. In fact there is a very large body of evidence over many years that shows that wearing seat-belts significantly reduces the risk of death in a car accident. Of death and injury. And this study, published by University of Buffalo researchers, supported that. They did, in fact, review the fatality analysis reporting system of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration but what they did find is that the middle back seat is the safest seat in the car. This is often the least desirable seat, to be squished into the middle seat in the back, but, in fact it is the safest seat to have. Here are some of the statistics they found. Occupants of the back seat in general are 59% to 86% safer than passengers in the front seat and that the person in the middle is 25% safer than other backseat passengers. The reason for this is probably obvious to you, that there's more of what they call a crush zone. As the car rolls or gets crushed in from the sides or the front or the back&ndash;they're pretty much in the middle of the car so they're least likely to be injured by this. They also brought up another point which I hadn't thought of which is that in a roll over the person in the middle seat is subjected to the least amount of torque or centripetal force as people sitting on the sides. In fact, this same study did lend further support to the notion that wearing a seat-belt is safer. They said that nearly half of the passengers in the backseat, 46.9% were not wearing seat-belts and results showed that these unrestrained passengers&ndash;34.6% were fatally injured compared to 14.9% of seat-belt wearers. So that's a significant decrease for wearing the seat-belt. So continue to wear your seat-belt and don't be afraid to be the person stuck in the middle of the back-seat. So, I hope you enjoyed that Science or Fiction.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>(56:25)</small> ==<br />
I'm going to finish up this week with the answer to last week's Skeptical Puzzle. To state it again, last week's puzzle was the following,<br />
<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Two men, both were freemasons:<br />
Man A invented an instrument that Man B used as part of a pseudoscience that he invented.<br />
<br />
Man A also famously debunked the claims of Man B.<br />
<br />
Who were the two men, and what was the instrument?<br />
<br />
Well, I will say, first of all, that of the Skeptical Rogues, Evan was the only one to send me an answer and he got it correct. So congratulations, Evan. I hope many of you out there also enjoyed this puzzle. Well the answer is <br />
<br />
Answer: The two men were Benjamin Franklin and Franz Anton Mesmer; the instrument was the glass armonica.<br />
<br />
Both men were freemasons. Benjamin Franklin was involved in, as many of you will know, electrical magnetic research. Mesmer was&ndash;he was as pseudo-scientist who, in fact, came up with mesmerism or being mesmerized. He would put people who had complaints&ndash;medical complaints into a sort of trance and in that trance he would use some kind of animal magnetic therapy to relieve their symptoms. Most of his clients had psychogenic symptoms to begin with so those, of course, are more amenable to complete resolution just through placebo effect. Benjamin Franklin was in fact&ndash;was hired by the French government who put him in charge of a commission to investigate the claims of Anton Mesmer. Franklin investigated them and found them to be&ndash;his therapy to be of completely no value. The conclusion of the commission was that any effect was purely in the minds of the patients. What was the instrument that was used? The instrument that was invented by Benjamin Franklin that was used by Anton Mesmer was the glass armonica or glass harmonica. At the time it was&ndash;a common instrument of the time was using crystal glass filled to different levels with water to produce different harmonic frequencies. And you could play it like you can play percussion instrument, like a piano or an organ. Benjamin Franklin invented the glass armonica which basically he nestled different crystal glasses of different sizes together. He used different sizes to produce the different harmonics so you didn't have to keep them filled with water to a certain degree and he nestled them together to greatly reduce the size. So he created a much more practical, compact glass armonica. Anton Mesmer used&ndash;played the glass armonica and used that to create the mood when he was putting people into his mesmerized trance. So Mesmer actually used a glass armonica. Now for the new puzzle. This new puzzle is not one that I made up myself, I will disclose, but it is a very interesting mathematical puzzle used often to demonstrate how difficult it is for people to make judgments about statistics. The human brain is good at very many things but statistics is not of them and people often have a very hard intuitive time with these types of problems. You may have heard this before, but for those of you who haven't, this is a very interesting problem. Some of you may remember the old game show, let's make a deal, which was hosted by Monty Hall. Whether or not you remember that show, basically what would happen is that a contestant would be asked to pick one of three doors. Behind one of those doors was a fabulous prize. The other two doors had, essentially, gag prizes. The contestant would choose one door. Then Monty Hall would typically open one of the two other doors that contained the gag prize. That did not contain the valuable prize. For example, if the contestant chose door #1, Monty Hall might open up door #3 showing that behind it was a bale of hay or a donkey or something, leaving the contestant with door #1 which they chose and door #2 which is still unopened. Monty Hall would then ask the contestant, "Do you want to stick with your original choice of door #1 or would you like to change your choice to door #2?" The question is, statistically, should the contestant stick with door #1, should the contestant change their pick to door #2, the unopened door, or does it not make any difference? Is it a 50/50 choice either way? That's the question. I'll give the answer at the end of next weeks episode.<br />
<br />
<br />
New Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In the old game show, Let's Make A Deal, contestants were asked to pick which of three doors they thought contained a valuable prize. Once the contestant picked a door, the host, Monty Hall, would often open one of the two doors not chosen and then ask the contestant if they would like to change their pick to the other door left unopened. The question is, should a contestant stick with their original choice, change to the other door, or there is no difference statistically?<br />
<br />
== Conclusion <small>(1:01:17)</small>==<br />
<br />
Well, that is my special episode for this week. I hope you enjoyed it. I certainly missed the lively discussion of the Skeptical Rogues, as I'm sure you did, as well, but I hope you found it entertaining none the less. We'll be back next week when we will be interviewing Gerald Posner, the author of <u>Case Closed</u> a book about the JFK assassination as well as many other investigative journalistic books. He's lectured for my group in the past and he's an excellent speaker. I think that you will greatly enjoy listening to him. So, until next week, this is you Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro39}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_49&diff=5522SGU Episode 492013-01-18T00:49:38Z<p>Geneocide: /* Science or Fiction (48:38) */ transcribed</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all <br />
|transcriber = Geneocide<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 49<br />
|episodeDate = 28<sup>th</sup> Jun 2006<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Franklin.jpg<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2006-06-28.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=49<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,128.0.html<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. This is your host, Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Today is Wednesday, June 28, 2006. We are having a special episode this week; the skeptical rogues are on vacation. Now, don't worry; they'll be back next week. The&mdash;actually, the only reason they are out this week is because I'm out of town, actually vacationing in the wilds of Cumberland, Maryland, which means I do not have access to broadband. Now, many of you may not realize this, but we record our show each week completely over the Internet, using Voice over IP applications. In fact, each of us, myself and all of the skeptical rogues, the entire panel of skeptics are in different cities at the time that we record. Rebecca Watson is in Boston and the rest of us are in different cities in Connecticut. So, without access to broadband, I've no way of conferencing with the other members of the show. We decided rather than skipping a week that I would do a solo show just so that we have something to hold over our loyal fans until next week. Now, the format of the show this week will be pretty similar to other shows; we have no guest and obviously no group discussion. I will still do a Science or Fiction at the end of the program. Although, of course, the panel of skeptics will not be here to offer their thoughts, but this one will be just for you. I'll also do a Name that Logical Fallacy. In addition, I will also give the answer to last week's skeptical puzzle and give a new skeptical puzzle.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(2:02)</small> ==<br />
But the bulk of this show, I decided to get caught up on all of the great emails that we get. I'll take this opportunity to thank our listeners once again for sending in so many great questions and emails. We certainly do appreciate the feedback, the constructive criticism which helps us improve our show. And the questions are great topics for discussion. In fact, we have so many good emails now that we can only touch on a small percentage of them on the show. So I figured this week I would get caught on some of our better email questions. So let's get right to them.<br />
<br />
=== Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution. <small>(2:40)</small>===<br />
The first email comes from Curt Nelson from Minneapolis, Minnesota. Curt writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Dear Skeptics,<br />
<br/><br />
Im an avid listener. Thanks for your show. In listening to your recent podcast on evolution 101, I heard you (Steve)</blockquote><br />
&mdash;that's me, the host&mdash;<br />
<blockquote><br />
say something I think really confuses people who want to understand evolution. You referred to the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution, and I know what you meant by that, but I'm sure its confusing to a lot of people. Maybe it even sounds wishy-washy to those who tend to be sympathetic to creationism. When anyone discusses Darwins theory of evolution, a couple of things should be defined up-front:<br/><br />
1) Evolution is a fact things do evolve (but without changing into a new species, as far as has been observed).<br/><br />
2) Darwin's theory is that evolution causes speciation, and is the mechanism that produced all the magnificent life we know, starting from bacteria. This is a huge leap from the fact of evolution. (For what its worth, I believe this.) Keep up the good work.<br/><br />
Sincerely yours,<br/><br />
Curt</blockquote><br />
Well, Curt, this is a topic that does come up quite frequently when discussing evolution, especially in the context of creationism. Creationists are wont to say that evolution is quote-unquote "only a theory", although I'm usually fairly careful in referring to the fact versus the theory of evolution, and I do take exception to the way that Curt defines it in his email. Now, this has been pointed out in many venues before, but I will take time to go over this briefly. The word "theory" as used by scientists is different than the way it is used colloquially by the public at large. Typically the word "theory" is used to refer to a guess or a speculation or assumption, but scientists use it to refer to an explanatory system; an idea or a unifying concept that brings together multiple lines of evidence, multiple phenomenon into one ex&mdash; one cohesive explanatory system. It doesn't really say anything about how much evidence there is for or against the theory. A theory can, in fact, range the spectrum from discredited to highly speculative to established beyond all reasonable doubt. I would characterize the theory of evolution as being established sufficiently to be considered a scientific fact, meaning over a very long period of time&mdash;150 years, about&mdash;it has withstood any attempt at falsifying it, and there have been many potential ways in which evolutionary theory could have been falsified. There have been numerous independent lines of evidence all validating the theory of evolution to such a high degree, and we have reviewed many of them on this show before. For example, fossil evidence, transitional fossils, morphological pattern of species occurring in an evolutionary pattern of relatedness, the molecular is, I think, the most profound and is irrefutably shows all life on Earth is not only related to each other but is related to each other in a branching evolutionary pattern. So, evolutionary theory deserves the label of established scientific fact, which means it's the best explanation we have for now. I will also further point that within the over-arching theory of evolution, there are several sub-theories that are worth mentioning, and often we talk theories within evolution, we're talking about one of three kinds of theories. 1, there are theories of mechanism, meaning how does evolution come about? Now, Darwin's theory is&mdash;refers specifically to the mechanism of survival of the fittest, or differential survival based up adaptive characteristics. Or, you can also state it as natural selection acting upon variation within populations. That's Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest, which is, again, just one ''kind'' of theory within evolution. The other kind of theory are theories that refer to the tempo and pace of evolution. For example, how do species, populations, and ecosystems change over geological time? Darwin's theory of tempo is known as Darwinian Gradualism, which is the idea that all species pretty much are changing slowly and imperceptably all the time. This idea, this sort of Darwinian Gradualism still has its adherents, but there are competing newer theories such as the theory of puncuated equilibrium first proposed by Stephen Gould and Niles Eldrige. This competing theory says that species are stable most of the time and that this equilibrium, this stability is punctuated by brief, geologically brief, meaning five to fifty thousand years, episodes of rapid evolution and speciation. So, and in fact, creationists have exploited disagreements about these subsets of theories of evolution to&mdash;and misinterpreted them as doubt about the overall theory of whether or not things in fact evolved or not. The third type of theory is theories of relation; what's related to what; what evolved from what? For example, the notion that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, which fit under this category. And again, that is perhaps the most speculative part of evolution at this point in time. We have a very incomplete puzzle of the history of the tree of life, of evolutionary life or phylogenetic relationships. And again, the ideas about what evolved into what are changing all the time, almost every time we pull a new, previously unknown fossil out of the ground, it's changing our picture of this pattern that, in fact, occurred. That's kind of a long answer, but that essentially, in a nutshell, is&mdash;are the fact of evolution versus the theories of evolution.<br />
<br />
=== Agnosticism <small>(9:03)</small>===<br />
E-mail #2 discusses a very different issue. This one comes from Donald Flood who gives his location only as the USA. Donald writes,<br />
<blockquote>If the empirical evidence for the existence of God is no greater than the empirical evidence for Invisible Pink Unicorns, is it logical to be agnostic with respect to the existence of God yet "atheistic" towards the existence of IPUs?<br />
<br><br><br />
Donald Flood<br><br />
USA</blockquote><br />
Well, Donald, the short answer to your question is yes. It would be illogical to be agnostic towards god and atheistic towards invisible pink unicorns and that is not, in fact, my position nor have I ever heard anyone specifically espouse that position so I think that's a bit of a straw man but it's based upon a very common misunderstanding that I get all the time. I do advocate personally an agnostic position towards claims which are not falsifiable. Claims which lie outside of the realm of science. So, and again, we have covered some of this ground before but again let me encapsulate the position that I take with regards to agnosticism. What that basically mean&ndash;and this is the sense that T. H. Huxley who actually invented, or coined, the term agnosticism to refer to his own beliefs&ndash;Agnosticism means that there are certain questions which cannot by their very nature ever be known or they cannot be explored scientifically. There is no way you could possibly validate or falsify them, therefore they are forever outside the realm of knowledge in the scientific sense and Huxley concluded that they're therefore outside the realm of anything that can meaningfully be considered knowledge. So, one can only say about that, if one were taking a consistent, logical, scientific approach, that it's unknowable. You can't know that it is true but neither can you know that it isn't true. Further, extrapolating from this you could say that there's no point in believing in any proposition which is unknowable because there are an infinite number of unknowable propositions. It's limited really only by your creativity but you could sit around and weave un-falsifiable notions all day long. None of them will ever be known and that's all that really you can say about them. Any belief in un-falsifiable notions is by definition faith and faith is therefor, by definition, outside of the realm of science and personally I choose not to have a arbitrary belief either for or against such notions and to me it's sufficient to say they're unknowable and unknowable notions are of not value to human knowledge. So that is where it reasonably ends. So therefor I would say I am agnostic toward the existence of invisible pink unicorns or any other fantastical notion that you want to come up with such as, to paraphrase a recent book, flying spaghetti monsters.<br />
<br />
=== Gerald Schroeder on God <small>(12:05)</small>===<br />
Let's go on to e-mail #3. This one also is about belief in God. This one comes from Luke from Indiana. Luke writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Skeptics,<br />
<br />
I have just recently found your podcast after listening to quite a few "paranormal/ufo/etc" podcasts for quite a while. I would consider myself, probably much like most people who are interested in these subject matters, an interested skeptic--I love considering the possibilities of these unusual subjects, but am not about to agree to something without<br />
proof.<br />
<br />
On your most recent podcast, one of the major discussions was about evolution versus intelligent design. I have read several books by Gerald L. Schroeder, a MIT graduate with a Ph.D. in Physics and a Talmudic scholar. His books have, in my limited opinion, the most well thought out argument for the possibility of a God. I was wondering if any if any of the podcast members were familiar or had read any of his books on the<br />
subject?<br />
<br />
In my personal experience, most real-life disagreements and arguements are not as simple as: one person or side is right and the other is wrong. His approach to the ID vs. big bang theories is not to show fallacies of one or the other, but instead to look for similarities and convergences of them. Regardless of one's particular disposition to either "side," I<br />
think his material is well-thought out, interesting, and worth considering.<br />
<br />
I would love to hear something about these books on your podcast and your, skeptical, opinions about the subject.<br />
<br />
Thanks and keep up the interesting podcast,<br />
<br><br><br />
Luke<br><br />
Indiana, USA</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, Luke, I confess I have not read the entire book. The most recent one is called <u>The Science of God</u> by Gerald Schroeder, although I have read significant excerpts from it and several reviews of it. The most, I think, complete review was written by Frank Sonnleitner who is Professor in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma and we'll have the link to his review on our notes page. <!-- link not found -->Basically, I think the problem with Schroeder's approach, and other's have taken a similar approach is that it begins with the assumption that there's no conflict between faith and science, specifically faith in God, in the Judeo-Christian God in this particular instance, and science and then proceeds from there. However, it never really justifies or establishes that assumption in the first place and therefor if that becomes a false major premise everything that follows from that is invalid. And I think that's the pitfall that he is falling into. You did state, I think, quite reasonably that in most real life disagreements or arguments it's not as simple as one person or side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong and I agree with that in that. In most situations that is true. I think that the most reasonable position usually lies between two extremes and there's usually both valid and invalid points on both sides in any argument or disagreement. However, that's not always the case. There are some times when side is making a profound systematic error in their approach or is following or proceeding from a invalid premise and therefor everything on that side is wrong and I think that the creationism evolution debate is one such issue. Evolution is a science and unbiased scientists I think are largely correct in their approach to evolution&ndash;in their approach and their evaluation of the evidence and the conclusions that they draw from that. Creationists, whether that's intelligent design or classic creationism are following from a very biased premise that evolution must be wrong because of their faith in creation and everything&ndash;every argument that flows from that point that they make is invalid and I have read extensively of the creationist literature, we've discussed much of it on this podcast over the months and they are a textbook of logical fallacies. They really don't have a single valid argument to make. So, it is one of those rare situations where I feel very strongly that one side, the creationist side, is in fact completely wrong. If there is a valid argument to be made on that side I have yet to hear it despite exposing myself very avidly to the arguments from the creationist side. Regarding some of the specifics of <u>The Science of God</u> by Gerald Schroeder again I'll refer back to the very good review written by Frank Sonnleitner&ndash;and he starts by saying that basically that this is an elaboration of Schroeder's prior book <u>Genesis and the Big Bang</u>. Basically, Schroeder is not being fair with the scientific evidence. He, in fact&ndash;He accepts the standard geological and paleontological history of the earth but rejects evolution. He draws the line at evolutionary connections between the higher categories. For example, different classes or different phyla. Therefor&ndash;So he allows for some evolution to occur at a local level but disagrees with connections between major forms which, of course, means that God had to, or something, some force had to create the basic forms of life and then evolution occurred within those basic forms. This is the old micro macro evolution argument that creationists have put forward. The problem with that is that there's no operational definition of what is micro versus macro evolution or why evolution would be able to create some degree of morphological change but not a greater degree. Why could allow for variations within classes but not the origin of the different classes of types of animals. He also makes a very classic creationist argument of rejecting evolution because he considers that the mechanism, natural selection, to be the result of pure chance. And again he commits the creationist logical fallacy of saying that life on earth is so complex what's the change&ndash;the probability of it occurring by chance alone is too remote and therefor we must invoke some kind of willful force. But this is looking at probability the wrong way. We, in fact, have another question on this so I'm going to come back to this a little bit later in the show. So, basically, I am not very fond of Schroeder's arguments. I think that he commits a lot of the core logical fallacies of creationists. I think he's trying to force a fit between science and Christian faith, Judeo-Christian faith, when in fact to the extent that that faith contradicts the findings of science, I think, that they just directly conflict and there is no way to resolve them. The only way to resolve them is to keep faith in it's proper realm which means dealing with the unknowables, and not to violate anything which is within the realm of science. Anything that could be investigated scientifically.<br />
<br />
=== Magnets for Migraines <small>(19:30)</small>===<br />
Okay we're going to shift gears a little bit here and take a couple of e-mails dealing with&ndash;in the medical realm. E-mail #4 comes from Anthony Petruccione. That could be pronounced Petruchioni, would be the more Italian pronunciation, from Texas. Anthony writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>While looking over today's news articles I spotted this article about a new magnet based device for the treatment of migraines.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure at all of the scientific vorasity of using magnets to treat pain, but I can add that my father did have some success using a magnetic bracelet to treat arthritis.<br />
<br />
Mostly i'm linking to the article to spark a discussion. Since you have people on hand with some real knowledge of medicine it would be interesting to hear what you've read from the medical literature.<br />
<br />
Though the linked article dosen't go into great detail the price seems rather staggering for a large magnet. 1000 pounds could buy quite a stack of rare earth magnets.<br />
<br />
To the truest definition of the term, i'm skeptical. I'd love to hear everyone discuss this and hope some good information is drawn out of the discussion.<br><br><br />
<br />
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=391915&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source=<br><br> <!-- this link now goes to some different article --><br />
Anthony Petruccione<br><br />
Texas<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, Anthony, unfortunately you won't get a full panel discussion of this issue but this is something about which I am personally very familiar so I will tackle it myself. First, I want to back up just a little bit and give some background information on what we mean by scientific research within the medical context. There are different levels of evidence within medicine. In fact, in the last 10 to 20 years there has been a movement known as evidence based medicine which has sought, basically, to standardize the evaluation of the degree of evidence for different clinical decisions and to put in the hands of clinicians, people making medical decisions, a objective assessment of the level of evidence that there is to support any particular claim. It's an excellent movement. There are some weaknesses to it. In fact I think the big weakness is that they rely exclusively on evidence and they specifically do not consider scientific plausibility and I think that that's a mistake, but as far as it goes it is extremely helpful. I'll review very quickly some basic different levels of evidence. Typically, when any new concept comes about, a new claim, whether it's based on anecdote or extrapolating from basic science research et cetera or someone just says, "Hey. Maybe A will or cure B. Let's check it out." Initially, what will be done are preliminary, or so called pilot studies. Pilot studies are very small usually involving less than 100 patients, even maybe as few as 10 subjects. They're often open label, meaning that there's no placebo control group, there's no blinding, and they're basically given to a number of patients just to get a basic feel for how they respond. Are there any major obvious side effects? Do they seem to have a positive response? The point of pilot studies is not to base definitive claims. They are purely to see whether or not this will be a productive avenue for further research. I think using these levels of evidence in order to support a clinical claim is misguided almost to the point of fraud. But, be that as it may, it is useful as a preliminary type of evidence. The second level of evidence is when you start to do some placebo control. You will compare people taking the treatment to people taking a placebo. It may or may not be open label or there may be some blinded and the numbers are usually more than in pilot study. Here we may have dozens of patients, maybe a couple of hundred patients depending on how rare the disease is and follow for a significant period of time. At least weeks if not months, longer depending&ndash;again, depending on what is being studied. Here we get to start to get some real idea about whether or not a treatment has any significant side effects. Whether or not all things considered people on the treatment do better than placebo, but still this data should not be considered definitive or conclusive. Again, the point of this really is just to see if it's worth while to go on to the next stage which is the more definite stage of research and this is when you have a large study, multi-center, prospective, meaning that you separate people into control and treatment groups before they get their treatments. You're not looking back at what people did. You're splitting them up and then either putting them on the placebo or on the treatment. That's important because that allows you to control for a lot of variables that might be interfering with the results. These studies are typically double blinded, meaning that the subjects do not know if their getting the placebo or the treatment and that the people running the study, especially those who are evaluating the subjects to see what their outcome is, also do not know if their getting the placebo or the treatment. These can be, if they're large multi-center trials, they can be fairly definitive, but even with these types of trials usually the medical community would like to see 2 or 3 of them. Some replication before saying, "Yep. This is pretty well established that this is a safe and effective treatment for this indication." That's considered the highest level of evidence. In fact, in this country in the United States, if you apply for&ndash;to the FDA to try to get a new drug on the market you have to apply for what's called an IND, an Investigational New Drug permit and then&ndash;before you can subject people to this drug you need to do preliminary basic science research and animal research to show basically that this is safe and the chance that it's going to kill people is at least relatively small. Then you break the clinical trials, or human trials, into phases. Phase 1 trials are small studies usually in healthy volunteers just looking at how the drug handles the body and how the body handles the drugs and screening for basic side effects. Then there are phase 2 trials where you're getting more safety data, you're starting for the first time look at actual outcomes to see if people are getting better. And then if all of that is positive and no problems are cropping up then you can do the phase 3 definitive trials. There's actually, in fact, phase 4 trials which are post marketing research to see if there are any less common safety issues come up now that hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of people are being exposed to the drug. Things may crop up that were missed in the trials. But even&ndash;not in the context of FDA trials, basically those same phases are followed in doing research. Now doing all of this research takes about a decade, at least. At least a decade. But when you're not within the context of regulations, for example with supplements in this country, or with things like magnets that aren't drugs&ndash;people can sell magnets, then often what we see are preliminary studies which are not definitive, should not be used to base claims, they almost always show some positive result because if it's an open label trial there's no placebo control even a pure placebo effect will seem positive so it's very common for these&ndash;the smaller initial trials to have a significant bias towards positive results. Also there's a huge file drawer effect where we just tend not to hear about the negative studies. We only tend to hear about the positive studies. So taking all that into consideration we're likely to get some preliminary positive results that's not reliable and yet those get conveyed to the public and often marketers will use those preliminary studies to say, "See this supplement or device works for these symptoms." And it will take 10 years to really proceed to the more definitive trials and do the analysis of phase 3 data and it may later be found that those&ndash;that the device or the supplements do not work but by that time companies marketing the devices have had years to develop a customer base and often people don't hear about the definitive phase 3 trials. For example, a lot of people believe the <i>Echinacea</i> is useful for colds and the initial, positive, small pilot studies were very aggressively marketed to the public. But then the large, phase 3, definitive trials were done and <i>Echinacea</i> is absolutely worthless for treating the symptoms of any infectious disease, of the common cold in particular. But most people don't know about that and when I, in fact, inform patients of that, for example, they've never heard of it. They've never heard that the data shows it doesn't work. The same is true of <i>Ginkgo biloba</i> and cognitive function or St. John's wort and depression. All have large, definitive trials that were completely negative and that made very little impact on the public consciousness. Magnets, it's basically the same thing but we're in the earlier stage of research. The phase 1 type of studies with magnets. First of all with magnet therapy there have been a number of speculative mechanisms put forward as to how magnets might work. The most common one that I hear is that the magnetic field improves blood flow and that the improved blood flow to the tissue increases healing and relieves symptoms. That mechanism, as well as every other proposed mechanism by which magnets&ndash;it's been proposed that magnets might work, has been shown to be false. Magnetic fields do not improve blood flow. Some people say, "Well, it's attracting the iron in the blood." Well, the iron in the blood is non-ferromagnetic. It does not respond to a magnetic field. Most of the magnets that are on the market have a very weak magnetic field or they may use alternating magnetic currents in order to get a stronger field but at the same time they get a much shallower magnetic field. Many do not penetrate, significantly, the wrappings around the magnet nor do they get through the skin. To date there is no compelling, carefully conducted evidence that magnets are useful for the treatment of arthritis or of pain. There is no evidence to show that they are useful for the treatment of migraines, nor is there any plausible mechanism that has been proposed by which they might work for the treatment of migraines. I think most magnetic devices come wrapped in bandages and if you put a bandage around you tennis elbow that has a magnet in it, it's probably the bandage that's helping the tennis elbow and the magnets are incidental. In addition to that there is, of course, the placebo effect which has numerous psychological factors including risk justification and then the simple desire to get better that all tend make people believe that such interventions work. So, bottom line, there's no evidence nor plausible mechanism by which to argue that magnets are useful for treating any symptom or disease and certainly not for migraines.<br />
<br />
=== Regulating Supplements <small>(30:20)</small> ===<br />
The next e-mail is a somewhat related question. This one is about regulating supplements. This comes from Sir Mildred Pierce who gives his location as Antarctica. I did, in fact, e-mail back Sir Pierce to ask if he really is in Antarctica. He has not responded, yet, but if he is truly from Antarctica that would mean that we have listeners in all 7 continents and Sir Mildred, of course, would be the first one to e-mail us from Antarctica, so thank you. He writes,<br />
<blockquote>On your most recent podcast you mentioned the US has the worst regulations when it comes to herbs and "suppliments". I would argue, as a skeptic, that perhaps the US has the best regultions, since that nation has the most unregulated rules. I think skeptics should eschew government intervention and regulation. Don't you feel that if the government is always jumping in and saying what is and what isn't safe that people in the long run will become less skeptical about these things on their own and will pretty much trust that everything on the market is safe, since everything on the market is regulated?<br><br><br />
<br />
Sir Mildred Pierce<br><br />
Antarctica<br />
</blockquote><br />
Well, that is an excellent question that deserves a very thoughtful answer. For background, I think it's worth noting, that there is a significant overlap between the libertarian, anti-regulation community and the skeptical and there certainly is a lot to be said for some libertarian ideals from a skeptical point of view. I know we've commented before on this show that Penn & Teller, for example, on their show&ndash;their Showtime show Bullshit! sometimes espouse libertarian political opinions and I think that that gets intermixed with their skeptical opinions. And most of the time, in fact, I agree with them, although, I do think that the extreme libertarian position is not logical and not justified and this is why. First of all, when you say that a market should be unregulated that assumes that market forces will produce a better outcome than government regulation. I would agree that logic and evidence, especially historical evidence, strongly favors that&ndash;the opinion that most markets in fact do better when they are unregulated by the government. When you in fact let market forces allow a natural equilibrium emerge from a bottom up type of self regulation and that most markets are too complex for a government to regulate from the top down. I think, in my personal opinion history would support that and I do think that the evidence, to that extent, favors leaving markets unregulated. But I don't think that you can say, "Therefor that is true in every single market" and that government regulation is always bad. I think that that is an argument ad absurdum in a way. With respect to medicine in particular we have the say, "What would market forces produce?" And what are those market forces and are they superior to some common sensical regulations that could be imposed. In fact, in this country, in the United States, since the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 which deregulated supplements we have now have 12 years of experience to compare drugs, which are very highly regulated by the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, and supplements which are completely unregulated. And we can say, "Let's compare these two markets and see what government regulation has wrought compared to the free market system." What we have in the free market system&ndash;the unregulated supplements in the last 12 years has been an absolute explosion of marketing of these things. Now, normally when you have a vast increase the marketing of any product that leads to competition and better products and better things for the consumer. Greater efficiency, more choices, better quality. But is that really true in medicine? That would imply that consumers are choosing their supplements based upon the quality of the supplements. For example, whether or not they really work. However, I would argue, that the evidence strongly shows that anecdotal evidence, which means the individual experience of people taking supplements, is completely unreliable. That that personal experience&ndash;except for extreme immediate side effects&ndash;that for the most part our personal experience with medical interventions is anecdotal and therefor highly misleading. In fact, I think the evidence strongly shows that anecdotes lead us to conclusions we wish to be true, not conclusions which are true. So that means that the consumer really has no way of driving an increase in quality. They have no way of choosing which supplements are better than others because all they have is their own personal anecdotal experience to go upon. Maybe the anecdotal experience of other people that they know, but that is completely misleading. Only very carefully accumulated statistical evidence really has way of discerning supplements that work from supplements that do not work. Therefor I would argue that market forces would not drive quality within a market such as supplements. Further, what people do tend to gravitate to are claims which meet their hopes and expectations, which means, if anything, market forces are encouraging greater and greater and more sensationalistic and more hopeful claims on the part of supplement marketers and that is in fact what we have seen. More supplements with more fantastical claims without any quality control. Without any, arguably, any actual beneficial effect to the consumer. In fact what we have seen is the marketing of specific supplements completely explode based upon the claims that are made for those supplements, such as ones that I've mentioned at the previous e-mail, <i>Echinacea</i>, <i>Ginkgo biloba</i>, St. John's Wort, to name a few, and yet when studies were done, and these were studies which were done by the government, done by the NIH, the National Institutes of Health, to look at whether or not these supplements actually work, it found out that they don't work. And that didn't really significantly impact the market that much because the market has been pretty much totally cut off from the scientific evidence. So therefor&ndash;the other argument that I've heard, the other sort of libertarian anti-regulation argument made is that, "Well, a Consumer Reports or other agencies, whether it's the government or academics or private investigating agencies will look at these products, will in form the consumers which ones have better quality than the others and that will drive quality within the market." But we've seen that that's not the true. That's not what happens. In fact, marketing of these things which don't work happily continues despite&ndash;in the face of negative evidence. So, my position, based upon the experience with these various markets is that companies should be given the burden of proving that their products are safe and effect prior to marketing. In fact the other factor here is that doing biomedical research is hard work. It takes a lot of money. Companies in a deregulated market have absolutely zero incentive to do the research. In fact research is a lose lose proposition for companies in a deregulated market. They have to spend the money to do the research. The research has the potential to show that the product is either unsafe or doesn't work which can only have the effect of decreasing sales, decreasing the marketing of that product. Again, it may not have a dramatic impact on it, but it certainly is not going to help. And if the research shows that it does work it probably won't help because the company's already marketing it with the claims that it does work. So, if you can basically make claims that a product works without doing the research, doing research is a lose lose proposition. So deregulation has completely removed any incentive from the private sector to do any kind of research in these supplements. It's only being done in government funded or academically initiated studies. Even if you take the basic libertarian anti-regulation view, you have to apply it to specific markets and make an individualized decision based upon the market forces that actually exist in that market and based upon our real life experience with what happens with deregulation versus regulation. Also, we can't assume that all regulation is bad. There is rational regulation, like, what I think exists in Australia, for example, and irrational regulation which is like what I think exists in the United States. It's not&ndash;you shouldn't make the false dichotomy of bad regulation versus no regulation. It's possible that there's a third alternative and that is actually rational and effective regulation. But that must be done very, very carefully.<br />
<br />
=== Neuroethics <small>(39:17)</small> ===<br />
Let's do one more e-mail and then I will go on to Name That Logical Fallacy. The last e-mail comes from Elias Luna from the Bronx, New York. Elias writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys this question is mainly for Steve since Neurology is right up his alley. What do you know about this new field called "Neuroethics" that I continully hear about. A great quote defining what is Neuroethics by Michael Gazzaniga author of "The Ethical Brain" is "the examination of how we want to deal with the social issues of disaease, normality, mortality, lifestyle, and the philosophy of living informed by our understanding of underlying brain mechanisms" In his opinion "It is-or should be-an effort to come up with a brain-based philosophy of life. They also bring up questions such as "When is a fetus considered a person?" and "When is it moral to end a braindead person's life?" They also question "What truely is "Free Will"? He argues that we are not a ghost in the machine per se. But that we are our brains and that me, self, and I are simply illusions. That The illusion is feed by 6 characteristics working in harmony. To me morals are obviously part of the human condition, and where and why in the mind humans evolved morals is still under questioning.<br><br><br />
<br />
Elias Luna<br><br />
Bronx, NY<br />
</blockquote><br />
Well, that's a great question Elias. Thanks for sending it in. Yeah, I'm very familiar with these various lines of reasoning and I think that there is a lot to be said for much of what they are promoting. Basically I do think that an understanding, a scientific understanding of how the brain works, how the brain produces our personalities, how it produces our sense of reality, our sense of free will and what it means to in fact be a human person that&ndash;this kind of scientific understanding can go a very long way to informing a great many moral and ethical questions like the ones mentioned. However, I would also say that it cannot make these moral or ethical decisions for us and that is because moral and ethical questions contain a dimension which is either purely subjective or purely value based. When is it moral to end a brain dead person's life? Well, first of all, the question is a bit of a misnomer. Someone who is&ndash;at least by the laws in this country which I'm very familiar with&ndash;someone who is technically brain dead is in fact dead. You can pronounce somebody dead if you can prove by the standards that are established that they are in fact brain dead. So, by definition they're not alive. They can be legally and therefor morally and ethically treated as a corpse. What I assume you mean is someone who has severe neurological impairment to the point where they are not able to maintain consciousness. One such state is called a persistent vegetative state. This was very famously debated in this country about a year ago in the context of the Terri Schiavo debate. Terri Schiavo was a woman in Florida who was in a persistent vegetative state and her husband wanted to end her life and her parents wanted to keep her alive and the government got involved to a very inappropriate degree, in my opinion, and actually in the opinion of most Americans. So, when is it appropriate&ndash;what neurology can inform us about might be going on inside that person's brain, what level of consciousness they may be able to have, et cetera, but really can't tell us what&ndash;whether or not it's moral to keep them alive or to end their life given that they're in a persistent vegetative state because that requires value judgments about the value of life, how quality of life should influence our value of life and how&ndash;what is societies responsibilities to such people as well as what is the individual responsibility to society. Is it responsible, for example, to spend millions of dollars of limited health care funds to keep someone alive in a persistent vegetative state when there is no meaningful probability of neurological recovery. These are all questions outside the realm of science. They can be informed by science but they cannot be answered by science. So that's my basic opinion there. I will say that&ndash;you bring up the issue of free will and there is a growing literature on what is in fact free will and do humans in fact have free will. In fact we've discussed the issue of free will previously on this podcast{{link needed}} and there are those who believe that humans in fact do not have free will. That our brains are completely deterministic. They follow the laws of the physics of this universe and therefor everything that the brain does has a prior cause. What is the implications for this to our moral judgments, to crime and punishment, for example? Well, we still, as a society need to make value judgments in order to come up with the ultimate conclusions but understanding how the brain actually works will I think not only inform those decisions it will keep us from making, perhaps, harmful decisions based upon misconceptions.<br />
<br />
== Name that Logical Fallacy <small>(44:51)</small> ==<br />
Well, that's it for the e-mail segment of this show. I'm glad I had the opportunity and caught up on a lot of those great e-mails. I'm going to do a Name That Logical Fallacy this week. This has been sort of an on again off again segment. Usually it's the one that gets cut because of lack of time, but this week I'm going to in fact read an e-mail that was sent to me that is asking about a logical fallacy. So that will be our name that logical fallacy this week. This one comes from Marty Steitz from Forest Lake, Minnesota and he writes,<br />
<blockquote>Thanks again for a very informative podcast. I would like your help understanding the logical fallacies you might apply to improperly used "what are the odds" arguments. For example, religious fundamentalists often absolutely mangle statistics when they come up with their "what are the odds" arguments about our "special place in the heavens." Specifically, I'm not talking about the false premise of randomness so much as the looking backwards and being amazed at the improbability of an outcome after it as occurred. What logical fallacies might you apply here, other than simple math ignorance, since you could apply the same logic to flipping a coin 100 times, noting the odds of getting the exact sequence, and declaring it therefore a miracle.<br><br><br />
<br />
Thanks!<br><br />
Marty Steitz<br><br />
Forest Lake, MN<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, actually I do think, Marty that you did, in your question, bring up, I think, the primary problem with these arguments and that is that it's based upon the false premise. They're looking at statistics essentially backwards. I usually use the lotto example. The chance of any individual ticket winning a lotto may be say, 100,000,000 to 1, just to use a round figure. Someone who wins the lottery, therefor, their probability&ndash;say if a woman bought a single ticket, they win the lottery, the chance of that person winning was 1,000,000 to 1. <!-- think he forgot he own fake statistics here -->If you start with the false premise that&ndash;which is really asking the wrong question, what is the probability of that person winning the lottery the probability against them winning the lottery is 100,000,000 to 1. It is&ndash;the logical fallacy that's actually being applied here is a non sequitur if you therefor conclude that they did not win by chance alone because the odds against them winning by chance alone is too low, therefor they must have been intended to win. I believe that is a non sequitur but it's based upon asking the wrong question. Really the question is what's the probability of anyone winning? And there the probability is actually pretty high. If you apply this analogy to evolution, they say, "What's the probability of a giraffe evolving?" It's pretty damn remote, but that assumes that a giraffe must have evolved. If in fact we rerun the history of evolution we may come up with a completely different set of animals&ndash;plants and animals alive today. Completely at random the probability of a giraffe evolving is vanishingly small. The probability of something evolving, however, was extremely high. So, it's a non sequitur based upon a false premise which is really asking the wrong question. I suppose the other logical fallacy that you could apply to this situation is the argument from final consequences saying that what happened was intended to happen because it happened and it's ignoring the possibility that something else could have just as easily have occurred. In the lotto example, if John Smith wins&ndash;well John Smith didn't have to win. Just because John Smith won doesn't mean that he had to win. Anyone could have won. The fact that giraffes evolved didn't mean that giraffes had to evolve. It just means that they were the ones who happened to evolve. There was one species that happened to evolve.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(48:38)</small> ==<br />
Now lets move on to Science or Fiction.<br />
<br />
''Voiceover: It's time for Science or Fiction''<br />
<br />
Each week I come up with three science news items or facts. Two are genuine, one is fictitious. Now typically I challenge my panel of skeptics to figure out the fake and they all offer their opinions. They're obviously not here this week to do that so I will just give you, the audience, the three items and then discuss the answers. So here we go.<br />
<br />
Item number 1: University of Minnesota urologists have researched ways to reduce the vexing problem of kidney stone formation in astronauts.<br><br />
Item number 2: NY University at Buffalo researchers, reviewing data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found that, contrary to prior belief, wearing seatbelts did not significantly reduce the risk of fatality in an automobile accident.<br><br />
and Item number 3: A team of researchers at the University of Alberta have patented a device that uses ultrasound to regrow teeth.<br><br />
<br />
So, is kidney stone formation a problem with astronauts which urologists are now researching ways to reduce? Does a review of data show that wearing seat-belts actually does not reduce the risk of dying in a car accident? Or, have researchers found ways to regrow teeth using ultrasound? Well, lets start with #1. Number 1 is science. The problem with kidney stone formation is that in zero gravity our bones and our muscles are not under the weight bearing stress of gravity and&ndash;which is necessary actually to maintain bone health and mass. Calcium, therefor, leaches out of our bones into our bloodstream and that calcium can form calcium stones in our kidneys. Now, we've know about this problem for a long time. Ever since we've been putting astronauts into space and hanging out in zero gravity for a while. The primary approach to preventing this from happening is for astronauts to exercise. For example, space station astronauts will attach springs to a belt and they'll jog in place with the springs holding them down against the treadmill. The problem is that these types of exercises, while they're good cardiovascularly and they do help maintain muscle mass, they don't really provide the weight bearing resistance that is necessary to maintain bone mass and therefor prevent kidney stones. Well, what of University of Minnesota researchers have done is they looked at&ndash;they simulated zero gravity by having people lay in a bed with their head below their feet. Doesn't sound very comfortable but that's what they did. They then put the test subjects in a type of chamber that used pressure to simulate gravitational resistance and&ndash;and then had them exercise in the chamber. Those subjects who exercised in the chamber had less bone loss, less calcium and fewer kidney stones than those who did regular exercise without the chamber. So there seems to be some advantage to using pressure, essentially, to simulate gravity. They also add that they need to combine this with hydration therapy, which just means keeping well hydrated, thereby diluting the urine and reducing the risk of all kinds of kidney stone formation. So, hydration and exercising in a machine&ndash;a chamber that simulates gravity reduces the risk of kidney stones in astronauts. Let's go on to item #3. Item #3 is science. A team of researchers at the University of Alberta have been experimenting with using pulsed ultrasound to stimulate the growth of teeth. They have been able to, in fact, grow teeth from the roots and also to repair damaged roots. The first application, before you think of completely regrowing teeth&ndash;I mean perhaps that might be the extension of this research over time, but what they're doing this primarily&ndash;the first application that they're applying this to are those with braces. Now if you use orthodontic braces to move the teeth around, to put them back into alignment, that tends to cause a resorption of the root. And that limits the amount of orthodontic manipulation that you can do. The roots tend to get resorbed back into the jaw and that weakening the root is a significant problem for teeth. Well, if they combined the braces with a miniaturized ultrasound device that gives pulse ultrasound to the tooth root it decreases the amount of this root resorption and therefor extends the safe utility of orthodontic braces. So, very interesting line of research. Hopefully this will continue to bear fruit and perhaps sometime in the future we may actually be able to regrow fully formed teeth using this technique. Or, at the very least, it will be helpful in such technology. Which means that #2 is fiction. In fact there is a very large body of evidence over many years that shows that wearing seat-belts significantly reduces the risk of death in a car accident. Of death and injury. And this study, published by University of Buffalo researchers, supported that. They did, in fact, review the fatality analysis reporting system of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration but what they did find is that the middle back seat is the safest seat in the car. This is often the least desirable seat, to be squished into the middle seat in the back, but, in fact it is the safest seat to have. Here are some of the statistics they found. Occupants of the back seat in general are 59% to 86% safer than passengers in the front seat and that the person in the middle is 25% safer than other backseat passengers. The reason for this is probably obvious to you, that there's more of what they call a crush zone. As the car rolls or gets crushed in from the sides or the front or the back&ndash;they're pretty much in the middle of the car so they're least likely to be injured by this. They also brought up another point which I hadn't thought of which is that in a roll over the person in the middle seat is subjected to the least amount of torque or centripetal force as people sitting on the sides. In fact, this same study did lend further support to the notion that wearing a seat-belt is safer. They said that nearly half of the passengers in the backseat, 46.9% were not wearing seat-belts and results showed that these unrestrained passengers&ndash;34.6% were fatally injured compared to 14.9% of seat-belt wearers. So that's a significant decrease for wearing the seat-belt. So continue to wear your seat-belt and don't be afraid to be the person stuck in the middle of the back-seat. So, I hope you enjoyed that Science or Fiction.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>(56:25)</small> ==<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Two men, both were freemasons:<br />
Man A invented an instrument that Man B used as part of a pseudoscience that he invented.<br />
<br />
Man A also famously debunked the claims of Man B.<br />
<br />
Who were the two men, and what was the instrument?<br />
<br />
Answer: The two men were Benjamin Franklin and Franz Anton Mesmer; the instrument was the glass armonica.<br />
<br />
<br />
New Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In the old game show, Let's Make A Deal, contestants were asked to pick which of three doors they thought contained a valuable prize. Once the contestant picked a door, the host, Monty Hall, would often open one of the two doors not chosen and then ask the contestant if they would like to change their pick to the other door left unopened. The question is, should a contestant stick with their original choice, change to the other door, or there is no difference statistically?<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro39}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_49&diff=5515SGU Episode 492013-01-17T00:24:53Z<p>Geneocide: /* Name that Logical Fallacy (44:51) */ transcribed</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all <br />
|transcriber = Geneocide<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 49<br />
|episodeDate = 28<sup>th</sup> Jun 2006<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Franklin.jpg<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2006-06-28.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=49<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,128.0.html<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. This is your host, Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Today is Wednesday, June 28, 2006. We are having a special episode this week; the skeptical rogues are on vacation. Now, don't worry; they'll be back next week. The&mdash;actually, the only reason they are out this week is because I'm out of town, actually vacationing in the wilds of Cumberland, Maryland, which means I do not have access to broadband. Now, many of you may not realize this, but we record our show each week completely over the Internet, using Voice over IP applications. In fact, each of us, myself and all of the skeptical rogues, the entire panel of skeptics are in different cities at the time that we record. Rebecca Watson is in Boston and the rest of us are in different cities in Connecticut. So, without access to broadband, I've no way of conferencing with the other members of the show. We decided rather than skipping a week that I would do a solo show just so that we have something to hold over our loyal fans until next week. Now, the format of the show this week will be pretty similar to other shows; we have no guest and obviously no group discussion. I will still do a Science or Fiction at the end of the program. Although, of course, the panel of skeptics will not be here to offer their thoughts, but this one will be just for you. I'll also do a Name that Logical Fallacy. In addition, I will also give the answer to last week's skeptical puzzle and give a new skeptical puzzle.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(2:02)</small> ==<br />
But the bulk of this show, I decided to get caught up on all of the great emails that we get. I'll take this opportunity to thank our listeners once again for sending in so many great questions and emails. We certainly do appreciate the feedback, the constructive criticism which helps us improve our show. And the questions are great topics for discussion. In fact, we have so many good emails now that we can only touch on a small percentage of them on the show. So I figured this week I would get caught on some of our better email questions. So let's get right to them.<br />
<br />
=== Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution. <small>(2:40)</small>===<br />
The first email comes from Curt Nelson from Minneapolis, Minnesota. Curt writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Dear Skeptics,<br />
<br/><br />
Im an avid listener. Thanks for your show. In listening to your recent podcast on evolution 101, I heard you (Steve)</blockquote><br />
&mdash;that's me, the host&mdash;<br />
<blockquote><br />
say something I think really confuses people who want to understand evolution. You referred to the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution, and I know what you meant by that, but I'm sure its confusing to a lot of people. Maybe it even sounds wishy-washy to those who tend to be sympathetic to creationism. When anyone discusses Darwins theory of evolution, a couple of things should be defined up-front:<br/><br />
1) Evolution is a fact things do evolve (but without changing into a new species, as far as has been observed).<br/><br />
2) Darwin's theory is that evolution causes speciation, and is the mechanism that produced all the magnificent life we know, starting from bacteria. This is a huge leap from the fact of evolution. (For what its worth, I believe this.) Keep up the good work.<br/><br />
Sincerely yours,<br/><br />
Curt</blockquote><br />
Well, Curt, this is a topic that does come up quite frequently when discussing evolution, especially in the context of creationism. Creationists are wont to say that evolution is quote-unquote "only a theory", although I'm usually fairly careful in referring to the fact versus the theory of evolution, and I do take exception to the way that Curt defines it in his email. Now, this has been pointed out in many venues before, but I will take time to go over this briefly. The word "theory" as used by scientists is different than the way it is used colloquially by the public at large. Typically the word "theory" is used to refer to a guess or a speculation or assumption, but scientists use it to refer to an explanatory system; an idea or a unifying concept that brings together multiple lines of evidence, multiple phenomenon into one ex&mdash; one cohesive explanatory system. It doesn't really say anything about how much evidence there is for or against the theory. A theory can, in fact, range the spectrum from discredited to highly speculative to established beyond all reasonable doubt. I would characterize the theory of evolution as being established sufficiently to be considered a scientific fact, meaning over a very long period of time&mdash;150 years, about&mdash;it has withstood any attempt at falsifying it, and there have been many potential ways in which evolutionary theory could have been falsified. There have been numerous independent lines of evidence all validating the theory of evolution to such a high degree, and we have reviewed many of them on this show before. For example, fossil evidence, transitional fossils, morphological pattern of species occurring in an evolutionary pattern of relatedness, the molecular is, I think, the most profound and is irrefutably shows all life on Earth is not only related to each other but is related to each other in a branching evolutionary pattern. So, evolutionary theory deserves the label of established scientific fact, which means it's the best explanation we have for now. I will also further point that within the over-arching theory of evolution, there are several sub-theories that are worth mentioning, and often we talk theories within evolution, we're talking about one of three kinds of theories. 1, there are theories of mechanism, meaning how does evolution come about? Now, Darwin's theory is&mdash;refers specifically to the mechanism of survival of the fittest, or differential survival based up adaptive characteristics. Or, you can also state it as natural selection acting upon variation within populations. That's Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest, which is, again, just one ''kind'' of theory within evolution. The other kind of theory are theories that refer to the tempo and pace of evolution. For example, how do species, populations, and ecosystems change over geological time? Darwin's theory of tempo is known as Darwinian Gradualism, which is the idea that all species pretty much are changing slowly and imperceptably all the time. This idea, this sort of Darwinian Gradualism still has its adherents, but there are competing newer theories such as the theory of puncuated equilibrium first proposed by Stephen Gould and Niles Eldrige. This competing theory says that species are stable most of the time and that this equilibrium, this stability is punctuated by brief, geologically brief, meaning five to fifty thousand years, episodes of rapid evolution and speciation. So, and in fact, creationists have exploited disagreements about these subsets of theories of evolution to&mdash;and misinterpreted them as doubt about the overall theory of whether or not things in fact evolved or not. The third type of theory is theories of relation; what's related to what; what evolved from what? For example, the notion that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, which fit under this category. And again, that is perhaps the most speculative part of evolution at this point in time. We have a very incomplete puzzle of the history of the tree of life, of evolutionary life or phylogenetic relationships. And again, the ideas about what evolved into what are changing all the time, almost every time we pull a new, previously unknown fossil out of the ground, it's changing our picture of this pattern that, in fact, occurred. That's kind of a long answer, but that essentially, in a nutshell, is&mdash;are the fact of evolution versus the theories of evolution.<br />
<br />
=== Agnosticism <small>(9:03)</small>===<br />
E-mail #2 discusses a very different issue. This one comes from Donald Flood who gives his location only as the USA. Donald writes,<br />
<blockquote>If the empirical evidence for the existence of God is no greater than the empirical evidence for Invisible Pink Unicorns, is it logical to be agnostic with respect to the existence of God yet "atheistic" towards the existence of IPUs?<br />
<br><br><br />
Donald Flood<br><br />
USA</blockquote><br />
Well, Donald, the short answer to your question is yes. It would be illogical to be agnostic towards god and atheistic towards invisible pink unicorns and that is not, in fact, my position nor have I ever heard anyone specifically espouse that position so I think that's a bit of a straw man but it's based upon a very common misunderstanding that I get all the time. I do advocate personally an agnostic position towards claims which are not falsifiable. Claims which lie outside of the realm of science. So, and again, we have covered some of this ground before but again let me encapsulate the position that I take with regards to agnosticism. What that basically mean&ndash;and this is the sense that T. H. Huxley who actually invented, or coined, the term agnosticism to refer to his own beliefs&ndash;Agnosticism means that there are certain questions which cannot by their very nature ever be known or they cannot be explored scientifically. There is no way you could possibly validate or falsify them, therefore they are forever outside the realm of knowledge in the scientific sense and Huxley concluded that they're therefore outside the realm of anything that can meaningfully be considered knowledge. So, one can only say about that, if one were taking a consistent, logical, scientific approach, that it's unknowable. You can't know that it is true but neither can you know that it isn't true. Further, extrapolating from this you could say that there's no point in believing in any proposition which is unknowable because there are an infinite number of unknowable propositions. It's limited really only by your creativity but you could sit around and weave un-falsifiable notions all day long. None of them will ever be known and that's all that really you can say about them. Any belief in un-falsifiable notions is by definition faith and faith is therefor, by definition, outside of the realm of science and personally I choose not to have a arbitrary belief either for or against such notions and to me it's sufficient to say they're unknowable and unknowable notions are of not value to human knowledge. So that is where it reasonably ends. So therefor I would say I am agnostic toward the existence of invisible pink unicorns or any other fantastical notion that you want to come up with such as, to paraphrase a recent book, flying spaghetti monsters.<br />
<br />
=== Gerald Schroeder on God <small>(12:05)</small>===<br />
Let's go on to e-mail #3. This one also is about belief in God. This one comes from Luke from Indiana. Luke writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Skeptics,<br />
<br />
I have just recently found your podcast after listening to quite a few "paranormal/ufo/etc" podcasts for quite a while. I would consider myself, probably much like most people who are interested in these subject matters, an interested skeptic--I love considering the possibilities of these unusual subjects, but am not about to agree to something without<br />
proof.<br />
<br />
On your most recent podcast, one of the major discussions was about evolution versus intelligent design. I have read several books by Gerald L. Schroeder, a MIT graduate with a Ph.D. in Physics and a Talmudic scholar. His books have, in my limited opinion, the most well thought out argument for the possibility of a God. I was wondering if any if any of the podcast members were familiar or had read any of his books on the<br />
subject?<br />
<br />
In my personal experience, most real-life disagreements and arguements are not as simple as: one person or side is right and the other is wrong. His approach to the ID vs. big bang theories is not to show fallacies of one or the other, but instead to look for similarities and convergences of them. Regardless of one's particular disposition to either "side," I<br />
think his material is well-thought out, interesting, and worth considering.<br />
<br />
I would love to hear something about these books on your podcast and your, skeptical, opinions about the subject.<br />
<br />
Thanks and keep up the interesting podcast,<br />
<br><br><br />
Luke<br><br />
Indiana, USA</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, Luke, I confess I have not read the entire book. The most recent one is called <u>The Science of God</u> by Gerald Schroeder, although I have read significant excerpts from it and several reviews of it. The most, I think, complete review was written by Frank Sonnleitner who is Professor in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma and we'll have the link to his review on our notes page. <!-- link not found -->Basically, I think the problem with Schroeder's approach, and other's have taken a similar approach is that it begins with the assumption that there's no conflict between faith and science, specifically faith in God, in the Judeo-Christian God in this particular instance, and science and then proceeds from there. However, it never really justifies or establishes that assumption in the first place and therefor if that becomes a false major premise everything that follows from that is invalid. And I think that's the pitfall that he is falling into. You did state, I think, quite reasonably that in most real life disagreements or arguments it's not as simple as one person or side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong and I agree with that in that. In most situations that is true. I think that the most reasonable position usually lies between two extremes and there's usually both valid and invalid points on both sides in any argument or disagreement. However, that's not always the case. There are some times when side is making a profound systematic error in their approach or is following or proceeding from a invalid premise and therefor everything on that side is wrong and I think that the creationism evolution debate is one such issue. Evolution is a science and unbiased scientists I think are largely correct in their approach to evolution&ndash;in their approach and their evaluation of the evidence and the conclusions that they draw from that. Creationists, whether that's intelligent design or classic creationism are following from a very biased premise that evolution must be wrong because of their faith in creation and everything&ndash;every argument that flows from that point that they make is invalid and I have read extensively of the creationist literature, we've discussed much of it on this podcast over the months and they are a textbook of logical fallacies. They really don't have a single valid argument to make. So, it is one of those rare situations where I feel very strongly that one side, the creationist side, is in fact completely wrong. If there is a valid argument to be made on that side I have yet to hear it despite exposing myself very avidly to the arguments from the creationist side. Regarding some of the specifics of <u>The Science of God</u> by Gerald Schroeder again I'll refer back to the very good review written by Frank Sonnleitner&ndash;and he starts by saying that basically that this is an elaboration of Schroeder's prior book <u>Genesis and the Big Bang</u>. Basically, Schroeder is not being fair with the scientific evidence. He, in fact&ndash;He accepts the standard geological and paleontological history of the earth but rejects evolution. He draws the line at evolutionary connections between the higher categories. For example, different classes or different phyla. Therefor&ndash;So he allows for some evolution to occur at a local level but disagrees with connections between major forms which, of course, means that God had to, or something, some force had to create the basic forms of life and then evolution occurred within those basic forms. This is the old micro macro evolution argument that creationists have put forward. The problem with that is that there's no operational definition of what is micro versus macro evolution or why evolution would be able to create some degree of morphological change but not a greater degree. Why could allow for variations within classes but not the origin of the different classes of types of animals. He also makes a very classic creationist argument of rejecting evolution because he considers that the mechanism, natural selection, to be the result of pure chance. And again he commits the creationist logical fallacy of saying that life on earth is so complex what's the change&ndash;the probability of it occurring by chance alone is too remote and therefor we must invoke some kind of willful force. But this is looking at probability the wrong way. We, in fact, have another question on this so I'm going to come back to this a little bit later in the show. So, basically, I am not very fond of Schroeder's arguments. I think that he commits a lot of the core logical fallacies of creationists. I think he's trying to force a fit between science and Christian faith, Judeo-Christian faith, when in fact to the extent that that faith contradicts the findings of science, I think, that they just directly conflict and there is no way to resolve them. The only way to resolve them is to keep faith in it's proper realm which means dealing with the unknowables, and not to violate anything which is within the realm of science. Anything that could be investigated scientifically.<br />
<br />
=== Magnets for Migraines <small>(19:30)</small>===<br />
Okay we're going to shift gears a little bit here and take a couple of e-mails dealing with&ndash;in the medical realm. E-mail #4 comes from Anthony Petruccione. That could be pronounced Petruchioni, would be the more Italian pronunciation, from Texas. Anthony writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>While looking over today's news articles I spotted this article about a new magnet based device for the treatment of migraines.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure at all of the scientific vorasity of using magnets to treat pain, but I can add that my father did have some success using a magnetic bracelet to treat arthritis.<br />
<br />
Mostly i'm linking to the article to spark a discussion. Since you have people on hand with some real knowledge of medicine it would be interesting to hear what you've read from the medical literature.<br />
<br />
Though the linked article dosen't go into great detail the price seems rather staggering for a large magnet. 1000 pounds could buy quite a stack of rare earth magnets.<br />
<br />
To the truest definition of the term, i'm skeptical. I'd love to hear everyone discuss this and hope some good information is drawn out of the discussion.<br><br><br />
<br />
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=391915&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source=<br><br> <!-- this link now goes to some different article --><br />
Anthony Petruccione<br><br />
Texas<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, Anthony, unfortunately you won't get a full panel discussion of this issue but this is something about which I am personally very familiar so I will tackle it myself. First, I want to back up just a little bit and give some background information on what we mean by scientific research within the medical context. There are different levels of evidence within medicine. In fact, in the last 10 to 20 years there has been a movement known as evidence based medicine which has sought, basically, to standardize the evaluation of the degree of evidence for different clinical decisions and to put in the hands of clinicians, people making medical decisions, a objective assessment of the level of evidence that there is to support any particular claim. It's an excellent movement. There are some weaknesses to it. In fact I think the big weakness is that they rely exclusively on evidence and they specifically do not consider scientific plausibility and I think that that's a mistake, but as far as it goes it is extremely helpful. I'll review very quickly some basic different levels of evidence. Typically, when any new concept comes about, a new claim, whether it's based on anecdote or extrapolating from basic science research et cetera or someone just says, "Hey. Maybe A will or cure B. Let's check it out." Initially, what will be done are preliminary, or so called pilot studies. Pilot studies are very small usually involving less than 100 patients, even maybe as few as 10 subjects. They're often open label, meaning that there's no placebo control group, there's no blinding, and they're basically given to a number of patients just to get a basic feel for how they respond. Are there any major obvious side effects? Do they seem to have a positive response? The point of pilot studies is not to base definitive claims. They are purely to see whether or not this will be a productive avenue for further research. I think using these levels of evidence in order to support a clinical claim is misguided almost to the point of fraud. But, be that as it may, it is useful as a preliminary type of evidence. The second level of evidence is when you start to do some placebo control. You will compare people taking the treatment to people taking a placebo. It may or may not be open label or there may be some blinded and the numbers are usually more than in pilot study. Here we may have dozens of patients, maybe a couple of hundred patients depending on how rare the disease is and follow for a significant period of time. At least weeks if not months, longer depending&ndash;again, depending on what is being studied. Here we get to start to get some real idea about whether or not a treatment has any significant side effects. Whether or not all things considered people on the treatment do better than placebo, but still this data should not be considered definitive or conclusive. Again, the point of this really is just to see if it's worth while to go on to the next stage which is the more definite stage of research and this is when you have a large study, multi-center, prospective, meaning that you separate people into control and treatment groups before they get their treatments. You're not looking back at what people did. You're splitting them up and then either putting them on the placebo or on the treatment. That's important because that allows you to control for a lot of variables that might be interfering with the results. These studies are typically double blinded, meaning that the subjects do not know if their getting the placebo or the treatment and that the people running the study, especially those who are evaluating the subjects to see what their outcome is, also do not know if their getting the placebo or the treatment. These can be, if they're large multi-center trials, they can be fairly definitive, but even with these types of trials usually the medical community would like to see 2 or 3 of them. Some replication before saying, "Yep. This is pretty well established that this is a safe and effective treatment for this indication." That's considered the highest level of evidence. In fact, in this country in the United States, if you apply for&ndash;to the FDA to try to get a new drug on the market you have to apply for what's called an IND, an Investigational New Drug permit and then&ndash;before you can subject people to this drug you need to do preliminary basic science research and animal research to show basically that this is safe and the chance that it's going to kill people is at least relatively small. Then you break the clinical trials, or human trials, into phases. Phase 1 trials are small studies usually in healthy volunteers just looking at how the drug handles the body and how the body handles the drugs and screening for basic side effects. Then there are phase 2 trials where you're getting more safety data, you're starting for the first time look at actual outcomes to see if people are getting better. And then if all of that is positive and no problems are cropping up then you can do the phase 3 definitive trials. There's actually, in fact, phase 4 trials which are post marketing research to see if there are any less common safety issues come up now that hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of people are being exposed to the drug. Things may crop up that were missed in the trials. But even&ndash;not in the context of FDA trials, basically those same phases are followed in doing research. Now doing all of this research takes about a decade, at least. At least a decade. But when you're not within the context of regulations, for example with supplements in this country, or with things like magnets that aren't drugs&ndash;people can sell magnets, then often what we see are preliminary studies which are not definitive, should not be used to base claims, they almost always show some positive result because if it's an open label trial there's no placebo control even a pure placebo effect will seem positive so it's very common for these&ndash;the smaller initial trials to have a significant bias towards positive results. Also there's a huge file drawer effect where we just tend not to hear about the negative studies. We only tend to hear about the positive studies. So taking all that into consideration we're likely to get some preliminary positive results that's not reliable and yet those get conveyed to the public and often marketers will use those preliminary studies to say, "See this supplement or device works for these symptoms." And it will take 10 years to really proceed to the more definitive trials and do the analysis of phase 3 data and it may later be found that those&ndash;that the device or the supplements do not work but by that time companies marketing the devices have had years to develop a customer base and often people don't hear about the definitive phase 3 trials. For example, a lot of people believe the <i>Echinacea</i> is useful for colds and the initial, positive, small pilot studies were very aggressively marketed to the public. But then the large, phase 3, definitive trials were done and <i>Echinacea</i> is absolutely worthless for treating the symptoms of any infectious disease, of the common cold in particular. But most people don't know about that and when I, in fact, inform patients of that, for example, they've never heard of it. They've never heard that the data shows it doesn't work. The same is true of <i>Ginkgo biloba</i> and cognitive function or St. John's wort and depression. All have large, definitive trials that were completely negative and that made very little impact on the public consciousness. Magnets, it's basically the same thing but we're in the earlier stage of research. The phase 1 type of studies with magnets. First of all with magnet therapy there have been a number of speculative mechanisms put forward as to how magnets might work. The most common one that I hear is that the magnetic field improves blood flow and that the improved blood flow to the tissue increases healing and relieves symptoms. That mechanism, as well as every other proposed mechanism by which magnets&ndash;it's been proposed that magnets might work, has been shown to be false. Magnetic fields do not improve blood flow. Some people say, "Well, it's attracting the iron in the blood." Well, the iron in the blood is non-ferromagnetic. It does not respond to a magnetic field. Most of the magnets that are on the market have a very weak magnetic field or they may use alternating magnetic currents in order to get a stronger field but at the same time they get a much shallower magnetic field. Many do not penetrate, significantly, the wrappings around the magnet nor do they get through the skin. To date there is no compelling, carefully conducted evidence that magnets are useful for the treatment of arthritis or of pain. There is no evidence to show that they are useful for the treatment of migraines, nor is there any plausible mechanism that has been proposed by which they might work for the treatment of migraines. I think most magnetic devices come wrapped in bandages and if you put a bandage around you tennis elbow that has a magnet in it, it's probably the bandage that's helping the tennis elbow and the magnets are incidental. In addition to that there is, of course, the placebo effect which has numerous psychological factors including risk justification and then the simple desire to get better that all tend make people believe that such interventions work. So, bottom line, there's no evidence nor plausible mechanism by which to argue that magnets are useful for treating any symptom or disease and certainly not for migraines.<br />
<br />
=== Regulating Supplements <small>(30:20)</small> ===<br />
The next e-mail is a somewhat related question. This one is about regulating supplements. This comes from Sir Mildred Pierce who gives his location as Antarctica. I did, in fact, e-mail back Sir Pierce to ask if he really is in Antarctica. He has not responded, yet, but if he is truly from Antarctica that would mean that we have listeners in all 7 continents and Sir Mildred, of course, would be the first one to e-mail us from Antarctica, so thank you. He writes,<br />
<blockquote>On your most recent podcast you mentioned the US has the worst regulations when it comes to herbs and "suppliments". I would argue, as a skeptic, that perhaps the US has the best regultions, since that nation has the most unregulated rules. I think skeptics should eschew government intervention and regulation. Don't you feel that if the government is always jumping in and saying what is and what isn't safe that people in the long run will become less skeptical about these things on their own and will pretty much trust that everything on the market is safe, since everything on the market is regulated?<br><br><br />
<br />
Sir Mildred Pierce<br><br />
Antarctica<br />
</blockquote><br />
Well, that is an excellent question that deserves a very thoughtful answer. For background, I think it's worth noting, that there is a significant overlap between the libertarian, anti-regulation community and the skeptical and there certainly is a lot to be said for some libertarian ideals from a skeptical point of view. I know we've commented before on this show that Penn & Teller, for example, on their show&ndash;their Showtime show Bullshit! sometimes espouse libertarian political opinions and I think that that gets intermixed with their skeptical opinions. And most of the time, in fact, I agree with them, although, I do think that the extreme libertarian position is not logical and not justified and this is why. First of all, when you say that a market should be unregulated that assumes that market forces will produce a better outcome than government regulation. I would agree that logic and evidence, especially historical evidence, strongly favors that&ndash;the opinion that most markets in fact do better when they are unregulated by the government. When you in fact let market forces allow a natural equilibrium emerge from a bottom up type of self regulation and that most markets are too complex for a government to regulate from the top down. I think, in my personal opinion history would support that and I do think that the evidence, to that extent, favors leaving markets unregulated. But I don't think that you can say, "Therefor that is true in every single market" and that government regulation is always bad. I think that that is an argument ad absurdum in a way. With respect to medicine in particular we have the say, "What would market forces produce?" And what are those market forces and are they superior to some common sensical regulations that could be imposed. In fact, in this country, in the United States, since the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 which deregulated supplements we have now have 12 years of experience to compare drugs, which are very highly regulated by the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, and supplements which are completely unregulated. And we can say, "Let's compare these two markets and see what government regulation has wrought compared to the free market system." What we have in the free market system&ndash;the unregulated supplements in the last 12 years has been an absolute explosion of marketing of these things. Now, normally when you have a vast increase the marketing of any product that leads to competition and better products and better things for the consumer. Greater efficiency, more choices, better quality. But is that really true in medicine? That would imply that consumers are choosing their supplements based upon the quality of the supplements. For example, whether or not they really work. However, I would argue, that the evidence strongly shows that anecdotal evidence, which means the individual experience of people taking supplements, is completely unreliable. That that personal experience&ndash;except for extreme immediate side effects&ndash;that for the most part our personal experience with medical interventions is anecdotal and therefor highly misleading. In fact, I think the evidence strongly shows that anecdotes lead us to conclusions we wish to be true, not conclusions which are true. So that means that the consumer really has no way of driving an increase in quality. They have no way of choosing which supplements are better than others because all they have is their own personal anecdotal experience to go upon. Maybe the anecdotal experience of other people that they know, but that is completely misleading. Only very carefully accumulated statistical evidence really has way of discerning supplements that work from supplements that do not work. Therefor I would argue that market forces would not drive quality within a market such as supplements. Further, what people do tend to gravitate to are claims which meet their hopes and expectations, which means, if anything, market forces are encouraging greater and greater and more sensationalistic and more hopeful claims on the part of supplement marketers and that is in fact what we have seen. More supplements with more fantastical claims without any quality control. Without any, arguably, any actual beneficial effect to the consumer. In fact what we have seen is the marketing of specific supplements completely explode based upon the claims that are made for those supplements, such as ones that I've mentioned at the previous e-mail, <i>Echinacea</i>, <i>Ginkgo biloba</i>, St. John's Wort, to name a few, and yet when studies were done, and these were studies which were done by the government, done by the NIH, the National Institutes of Health, to look at whether or not these supplements actually work, it found out that they don't work. And that didn't really significantly impact the market that much because the market has been pretty much totally cut off from the scientific evidence. So therefor&ndash;the other argument that I've heard, the other sort of libertarian anti-regulation argument made is that, "Well, a Consumer Reports or other agencies, whether it's the government or academics or private investigating agencies will look at these products, will in form the consumers which ones have better quality than the others and that will drive quality within the market." But we've seen that that's not the true. That's not what happens. In fact, marketing of these things which don't work happily continues despite&ndash;in the face of negative evidence. So, my position, based upon the experience with these various markets is that companies should be given the burden of proving that their products are safe and effect prior to marketing. In fact the other factor here is that doing biomedical research is hard work. It takes a lot of money. Companies in a deregulated market have absolutely zero incentive to do the research. In fact research is a lose lose proposition for companies in a deregulated market. They have to spend the money to do the research. The research has the potential to show that the product is either unsafe or doesn't work which can only have the effect of decreasing sales, decreasing the marketing of that product. Again, it may not have a dramatic impact on it, but it certainly is not going to help. And if the research shows that it does work it probably won't help because the company's already marketing it with the claims that it does work. So, if you can basically make claims that a product works without doing the research, doing research is a lose lose proposition. So deregulation has completely removed any incentive from the private sector to do any kind of research in these supplements. It's only being done in government funded or academically initiated studies. Even if you take the basic libertarian anti-regulation view, you have to apply it to specific markets and make an individualized decision based upon the market forces that actually exist in that market and based upon our real life experience with what happens with deregulation versus regulation. Also, we can't assume that all regulation is bad. There is rational regulation, like, what I think exists in Australia, for example, and irrational regulation which is like what I think exists in the United States. It's not&ndash;you shouldn't make the false dichotomy of bad regulation versus no regulation. It's possible that there's a third alternative and that is actually rational and effective regulation. But that must be done very, very carefully.<br />
<br />
=== Neuroethics <small>(39:17)</small> ===<br />
Let's do one more e-mail and then I will go on to Name That Logical Fallacy. The last e-mail comes from Elias Luna from the Bronx, New York. Elias writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys this question is mainly for Steve since Neurology is right up his alley. What do you know about this new field called "Neuroethics" that I continully hear about. A great quote defining what is Neuroethics by Michael Gazzaniga author of "The Ethical Brain" is "the examination of how we want to deal with the social issues of disaease, normality, mortality, lifestyle, and the philosophy of living informed by our understanding of underlying brain mechanisms" In his opinion "It is-or should be-an effort to come up with a brain-based philosophy of life. They also bring up questions such as "When is a fetus considered a person?" and "When is it moral to end a braindead person's life?" They also question "What truely is "Free Will"? He argues that we are not a ghost in the machine per se. But that we are our brains and that me, self, and I are simply illusions. That The illusion is feed by 6 characteristics working in harmony. To me morals are obviously part of the human condition, and where and why in the mind humans evolved morals is still under questioning.<br><br><br />
<br />
Elias Luna<br><br />
Bronx, NY<br />
</blockquote><br />
Well, that's a great question Elias. Thanks for sending it in. Yeah, I'm very familiar with these various lines of reasoning and I think that there is a lot to be said for much of what they are promoting. Basically I do think that an understanding, a scientific understanding of how the brain works, how the brain produces our personalities, how it produces our sense of reality, our sense of free will and what it means to in fact be a human person that&ndash;this kind of scientific understanding can go a very long way to informing a great many moral and ethical questions like the ones mentioned. However, I would also say that it cannot make these moral or ethical decisions for us and that is because moral and ethical questions contain a dimension which is either purely subjective or purely value based. When is it moral to end a brain dead person's life? Well, first of all, the question is a bit of a misnomer. Someone who is&ndash;at least by the laws in this country which I'm very familiar with&ndash;someone who is technically brain dead is in fact dead. You can pronounce somebody dead if you can prove by the standards that are established that they are in fact brain dead. So, by definition they're not alive. They can be legally and therefor morally and ethically treated as a corpse. What I assume you mean is someone who has severe neurological impairment to the point where they are not able to maintain consciousness. One such state is called a persistent vegetative state. This was very famously debated in this country about a year ago in the context of the Terri Schiavo debate. Terri Schiavo was a woman in Florida who was in a persistent vegetative state and her husband wanted to end her life and her parents wanted to keep her alive and the government got involved to a very inappropriate degree, in my opinion, and actually in the opinion of most Americans. So, when is it appropriate&ndash;what neurology can inform us about might be going on inside that person's brain, what level of consciousness they may be able to have, et cetera, but really can't tell us what&ndash;whether or not it's moral to keep them alive or to end their life given that they're in a persistent vegetative state because that requires value judgments about the value of life, how quality of life should influence our value of life and how&ndash;what is societies responsibilities to such people as well as what is the individual responsibility to society. Is it responsible, for example, to spend millions of dollars of limited health care funds to keep someone alive in a persistent vegetative state when there is no meaningful probability of neurological recovery. These are all questions outside the realm of science. They can be informed by science but they cannot be answered by science. So that's my basic opinion there. I will say that&ndash;you bring up the issue of free will and there is a growing literature on what is in fact free will and do humans in fact have free will. In fact we've discussed the issue of free will previously on this podcast{{link needed}} and there are those who believe that humans in fact do not have free will. That our brains are completely deterministic. They follow the laws of the physics of this universe and therefor everything that the brain does has a prior cause. What is the implications for this to our moral judgments, to crime and punishment, for example? Well, we still, as a society need to make value judgments in order to come up with the ultimate conclusions but understanding how the brain actually works will I think not only inform those decisions it will keep us from making, perhaps, harmful decisions based upon misconceptions.<br />
<br />
== Name that Logical Fallacy <small>(44:51)</small> ==<br />
Well, that's it for the e-mail segment of this show. I'm glad I had the opportunity and caught up on a lot of those great e-mails. I'm going to do a Name That Logical Fallacy this week. This has been sort of an on again off again segment. Usually it's the one that gets cut because of lack of time, but this week I'm going to in fact read an e-mail that was sent to me that is asking about a logical fallacy. So that will be our name that logical fallacy this week. This one comes from Marty Steitz from Forest Lake, Minnesota and he writes,<br />
<blockquote>Thanks again for a very informative podcast. I would like your help understanding the logical fallacies you might apply to improperly used "what are the odds" arguments. For example, religious fundamentalists often absolutely mangle statistics when they come up with their "what are the odds" arguments about our "special place in the heavens." Specifically, I'm not talking about the false premise of randomness so much as the looking backwards and being amazed at the improbability of an outcome after it as occurred. What logical fallacies might you apply here, other than simple math ignorance, since you could apply the same logic to flipping a coin 100 times, noting the odds of getting the exact sequence, and declaring it therefore a miracle.<br><br><br />
<br />
Thanks!<br><br />
Marty Steitz<br><br />
Forest Lake, MN<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, actually I do think, Marty that you did, in your question, bring up, I think, the primary problem with these arguments and that is that it's based upon the false premise. They're looking at statistics essentially backwards. I usually use the lotto example. The chance of any individual ticket winning a lotto may be say, 100,000,000 to 1, just to use a round figure. Someone who wins the lottery, therefor, their probability&ndash;say if a woman bought a single ticket, they win the lottery, the chance of that person winning was 1,000,000 to 1. <!-- think he forgot he own fake statistics here -->If you start with the false premise that&ndash;which is really asking the wrong question, what is the probability of that person winning the lottery the probability against them winning the lottery is 100,000,000 to 1. It is&ndash;the logical fallacy that's actually being applied here is a non sequitur if you therefor conclude that they did not win by chance alone because the odds against them winning by chance alone is too low, therefor they must have been intended to win. I believe that is a non sequitur but it's based upon asking the wrong question. Really the question is what's the probability of anyone winning? And there the probability is actually pretty high. If you apply this analogy to evolution, they say, "What's the probability of a giraffe evolving?" It's pretty damn remote, but that assumes that a giraffe must have evolved. If in fact we rerun the history of evolution we may come up with a completely different set of animals&ndash;plants and animals alive today. Completely at random the probability of a giraffe evolving is vanishingly small. The probability of something evolving, however, was extremely high. So, it's a non sequitur based upon a false premise which is really asking the wrong question. I suppose the other logical fallacy that you could apply to this situation is the argument from final consequences saying that what happened was intended to happen because it happened and it's ignoring the possibility that something else could have just as easily have occurred. In the lotto example, if John Smith wins&ndash;well John Smith didn't have to win. Just because John Smith won doesn't mean that he had to win. Anyone could have won. The fact that giraffes evolved didn't mean that giraffes had to evolve. It just means that they were the ones who happened to evolve. There was one species that happened to evolve.<br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(48:38)</small> ==<br />
Item number 1: University of Minnesota urologists have researched ways to reduce the vexing problem of kidney stone formation in astronauts.<br />
Item number 2: NY University at Buffalo researchers, reviewing data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found that, contrary to prior belief, wearing seatbelts did not significantly reduce the risk of fatality in an automobile accident.<br />
Item number 3: A team of researchers at the University of Alberta have patented a device that uses ultrasound to regrow teeth.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>(56:25)</small> ==<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Two men, both were freemasons:<br />
Man A invented an instrument that Man B used as part of a pseudoscience that he invented.<br />
<br />
Man A also famously debunked the claims of Man B.<br />
<br />
Who were the two men, and what was the instrument?<br />
<br />
Answer: The two men were Benjamin Franklin and Franz Anton Mesmer; the instrument was the glass armonica.<br />
<br />
<br />
New Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In the old game show, Let's Make A Deal, contestants were asked to pick which of three doors they thought contained a valuable prize. Once the contestant picked a door, the host, Monty Hall, would often open one of the two doors not chosen and then ask the contestant if they would like to change their pick to the other door left unopened. The question is, should a contestant stick with their original choice, change to the other door, or there is no difference statistically?<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro39}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_49&diff=5513SGU Episode 492013-01-17T00:10:48Z<p>Geneocide: /* Neuroethics (39:17) */ transcribed</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all <br />
|transcriber = Geneocide<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 49<br />
|episodeDate = 28<sup>th</sup> Jun 2006<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Franklin.jpg<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2006-06-28.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=49<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,128.0.html<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. This is your host, Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Today is Wednesday, June 28, 2006. We are having a special episode this week; the skeptical rogues are on vacation. Now, don't worry; they'll be back next week. The&mdash;actually, the only reason they are out this week is because I'm out of town, actually vacationing in the wilds of Cumberland, Maryland, which means I do not have access to broadband. Now, many of you may not realize this, but we record our show each week completely over the Internet, using Voice over IP applications. In fact, each of us, myself and all of the skeptical rogues, the entire panel of skeptics are in different cities at the time that we record. Rebecca Watson is in Boston and the rest of us are in different cities in Connecticut. So, without access to broadband, I've no way of conferencing with the other members of the show. We decided rather than skipping a week that I would do a solo show just so that we have something to hold over our loyal fans until next week. Now, the format of the show this week will be pretty similar to other shows; we have no guest and obviously no group discussion. I will still do a Science or Fiction at the end of the program. Although, of course, the panel of skeptics will not be here to offer their thoughts, but this one will be just for you. I'll also do a Name that Logical Fallacy. In addition, I will also give the answer to last week's skeptical puzzle and give a new skeptical puzzle.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(2:02)</small> ==<br />
But the bulk of this show, I decided to get caught up on all of the great emails that we get. I'll take this opportunity to thank our listeners once again for sending in so many great questions and emails. We certainly do appreciate the feedback, the constructive criticism which helps us improve our show. And the questions are great topics for discussion. In fact, we have so many good emails now that we can only touch on a small percentage of them on the show. So I figured this week I would get caught on some of our better email questions. So let's get right to them.<br />
<br />
=== Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution. <small>(2:40)</small>===<br />
The first email comes from Curt Nelson from Minneapolis, Minnesota. Curt writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Dear Skeptics,<br />
<br/><br />
Im an avid listener. Thanks for your show. In listening to your recent podcast on evolution 101, I heard you (Steve)</blockquote><br />
&mdash;that's me, the host&mdash;<br />
<blockquote><br />
say something I think really confuses people who want to understand evolution. You referred to the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution, and I know what you meant by that, but I'm sure its confusing to a lot of people. Maybe it even sounds wishy-washy to those who tend to be sympathetic to creationism. When anyone discusses Darwins theory of evolution, a couple of things should be defined up-front:<br/><br />
1) Evolution is a fact things do evolve (but without changing into a new species, as far as has been observed).<br/><br />
2) Darwin's theory is that evolution causes speciation, and is the mechanism that produced all the magnificent life we know, starting from bacteria. This is a huge leap from the fact of evolution. (For what its worth, I believe this.) Keep up the good work.<br/><br />
Sincerely yours,<br/><br />
Curt</blockquote><br />
Well, Curt, this is a topic that does come up quite frequently when discussing evolution, especially in the context of creationism. Creationists are wont to say that evolution is quote-unquote "only a theory", although I'm usually fairly careful in referring to the fact versus the theory of evolution, and I do take exception to the way that Curt defines it in his email. Now, this has been pointed out in many venues before, but I will take time to go over this briefly. The word "theory" as used by scientists is different than the way it is used colloquially by the public at large. Typically the word "theory" is used to refer to a guess or a speculation or assumption, but scientists use it to refer to an explanatory system; an idea or a unifying concept that brings together multiple lines of evidence, multiple phenomenon into one ex&mdash; one cohesive explanatory system. It doesn't really say anything about how much evidence there is for or against the theory. A theory can, in fact, range the spectrum from discredited to highly speculative to established beyond all reasonable doubt. I would characterize the theory of evolution as being established sufficiently to be considered a scientific fact, meaning over a very long period of time&mdash;150 years, about&mdash;it has withstood any attempt at falsifying it, and there have been many potential ways in which evolutionary theory could have been falsified. There have been numerous independent lines of evidence all validating the theory of evolution to such a high degree, and we have reviewed many of them on this show before. For example, fossil evidence, transitional fossils, morphological pattern of species occurring in an evolutionary pattern of relatedness, the molecular is, I think, the most profound and is irrefutably shows all life on Earth is not only related to each other but is related to each other in a branching evolutionary pattern. So, evolutionary theory deserves the label of established scientific fact, which means it's the best explanation we have for now. I will also further point that within the over-arching theory of evolution, there are several sub-theories that are worth mentioning, and often we talk theories within evolution, we're talking about one of three kinds of theories. 1, there are theories of mechanism, meaning how does evolution come about? Now, Darwin's theory is&mdash;refers specifically to the mechanism of survival of the fittest, or differential survival based up adaptive characteristics. Or, you can also state it as natural selection acting upon variation within populations. That's Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest, which is, again, just one ''kind'' of theory within evolution. The other kind of theory are theories that refer to the tempo and pace of evolution. For example, how do species, populations, and ecosystems change over geological time? Darwin's theory of tempo is known as Darwinian Gradualism, which is the idea that all species pretty much are changing slowly and imperceptably all the time. This idea, this sort of Darwinian Gradualism still has its adherents, but there are competing newer theories such as the theory of puncuated equilibrium first proposed by Stephen Gould and Niles Eldrige. This competing theory says that species are stable most of the time and that this equilibrium, this stability is punctuated by brief, geologically brief, meaning five to fifty thousand years, episodes of rapid evolution and speciation. So, and in fact, creationists have exploited disagreements about these subsets of theories of evolution to&mdash;and misinterpreted them as doubt about the overall theory of whether or not things in fact evolved or not. The third type of theory is theories of relation; what's related to what; what evolved from what? For example, the notion that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, which fit under this category. And again, that is perhaps the most speculative part of evolution at this point in time. We have a very incomplete puzzle of the history of the tree of life, of evolutionary life or phylogenetic relationships. And again, the ideas about what evolved into what are changing all the time, almost every time we pull a new, previously unknown fossil out of the ground, it's changing our picture of this pattern that, in fact, occurred. That's kind of a long answer, but that essentially, in a nutshell, is&mdash;are the fact of evolution versus the theories of evolution.<br />
<br />
=== Agnosticism <small>(9:03)</small>===<br />
E-mail #2 discusses a very different issue. This one comes from Donald Flood who gives his location only as the USA. Donald writes,<br />
<blockquote>If the empirical evidence for the existence of God is no greater than the empirical evidence for Invisible Pink Unicorns, is it logical to be agnostic with respect to the existence of God yet "atheistic" towards the existence of IPUs?<br />
<br><br><br />
Donald Flood<br><br />
USA</blockquote><br />
Well, Donald, the short answer to your question is yes. It would be illogical to be agnostic towards god and atheistic towards invisible pink unicorns and that is not, in fact, my position nor have I ever heard anyone specifically espouse that position so I think that's a bit of a straw man but it's based upon a very common misunderstanding that I get all the time. I do advocate personally an agnostic position towards claims which are not falsifiable. Claims which lie outside of the realm of science. So, and again, we have covered some of this ground before but again let me encapsulate the position that I take with regards to agnosticism. What that basically mean&ndash;and this is the sense that T. H. Huxley who actually invented, or coined, the term agnosticism to refer to his own beliefs&ndash;Agnosticism means that there are certain questions which cannot by their very nature ever be known or they cannot be explored scientifically. There is no way you could possibly validate or falsify them, therefore they are forever outside the realm of knowledge in the scientific sense and Huxley concluded that they're therefore outside the realm of anything that can meaningfully be considered knowledge. So, one can only say about that, if one were taking a consistent, logical, scientific approach, that it's unknowable. You can't know that it is true but neither can you know that it isn't true. Further, extrapolating from this you could say that there's no point in believing in any proposition which is unknowable because there are an infinite number of unknowable propositions. It's limited really only by your creativity but you could sit around and weave un-falsifiable notions all day long. None of them will ever be known and that's all that really you can say about them. Any belief in un-falsifiable notions is by definition faith and faith is therefor, by definition, outside of the realm of science and personally I choose not to have a arbitrary belief either for or against such notions and to me it's sufficient to say they're unknowable and unknowable notions are of not value to human knowledge. So that is where it reasonably ends. So therefor I would say I am agnostic toward the existence of invisible pink unicorns or any other fantastical notion that you want to come up with such as, to paraphrase a recent book, flying spaghetti monsters.<br />
<br />
=== Gerald Schroeder on God <small>(12:05)</small>===<br />
Let's go on to e-mail #3. This one also is about belief in God. This one comes from Luke from Indiana. Luke writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Skeptics,<br />
<br />
I have just recently found your podcast after listening to quite a few "paranormal/ufo/etc" podcasts for quite a while. I would consider myself, probably much like most people who are interested in these subject matters, an interested skeptic--I love considering the possibilities of these unusual subjects, but am not about to agree to something without<br />
proof.<br />
<br />
On your most recent podcast, one of the major discussions was about evolution versus intelligent design. I have read several books by Gerald L. Schroeder, a MIT graduate with a Ph.D. in Physics and a Talmudic scholar. His books have, in my limited opinion, the most well thought out argument for the possibility of a God. I was wondering if any if any of the podcast members were familiar or had read any of his books on the<br />
subject?<br />
<br />
In my personal experience, most real-life disagreements and arguements are not as simple as: one person or side is right and the other is wrong. His approach to the ID vs. big bang theories is not to show fallacies of one or the other, but instead to look for similarities and convergences of them. Regardless of one's particular disposition to either "side," I<br />
think his material is well-thought out, interesting, and worth considering.<br />
<br />
I would love to hear something about these books on your podcast and your, skeptical, opinions about the subject.<br />
<br />
Thanks and keep up the interesting podcast,<br />
<br><br><br />
Luke<br><br />
Indiana, USA</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, Luke, I confess I have not read the entire book. The most recent one is called <u>The Science of God</u> by Gerald Schroeder, although I have read significant excerpts from it and several reviews of it. The most, I think, complete review was written by Frank Sonnleitner who is Professor in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma and we'll have the link to his review on our notes page. <!-- link not found -->Basically, I think the problem with Schroeder's approach, and other's have taken a similar approach is that it begins with the assumption that there's no conflict between faith and science, specifically faith in God, in the Judeo-Christian God in this particular instance, and science and then proceeds from there. However, it never really justifies or establishes that assumption in the first place and therefor if that becomes a false major premise everything that follows from that is invalid. And I think that's the pitfall that he is falling into. You did state, I think, quite reasonably that in most real life disagreements or arguments it's not as simple as one person or side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong and I agree with that in that. In most situations that is true. I think that the most reasonable position usually lies between two extremes and there's usually both valid and invalid points on both sides in any argument or disagreement. However, that's not always the case. There are some times when side is making a profound systematic error in their approach or is following or proceeding from a invalid premise and therefor everything on that side is wrong and I think that the creationism evolution debate is one such issue. Evolution is a science and unbiased scientists I think are largely correct in their approach to evolution&ndash;in their approach and their evaluation of the evidence and the conclusions that they draw from that. Creationists, whether that's intelligent design or classic creationism are following from a very biased premise that evolution must be wrong because of their faith in creation and everything&ndash;every argument that flows from that point that they make is invalid and I have read extensively of the creationist literature, we've discussed much of it on this podcast over the months and they are a textbook of logical fallacies. They really don't have a single valid argument to make. So, it is one of those rare situations where I feel very strongly that one side, the creationist side, is in fact completely wrong. If there is a valid argument to be made on that side I have yet to hear it despite exposing myself very avidly to the arguments from the creationist side. Regarding some of the specifics of <u>The Science of God</u> by Gerald Schroeder again I'll refer back to the very good review written by Frank Sonnleitner&ndash;and he starts by saying that basically that this is an elaboration of Schroeder's prior book <u>Genesis and the Big Bang</u>. Basically, Schroeder is not being fair with the scientific evidence. He, in fact&ndash;He accepts the standard geological and paleontological history of the earth but rejects evolution. He draws the line at evolutionary connections between the higher categories. For example, different classes or different phyla. Therefor&ndash;So he allows for some evolution to occur at a local level but disagrees with connections between major forms which, of course, means that God had to, or something, some force had to create the basic forms of life and then evolution occurred within those basic forms. This is the old micro macro evolution argument that creationists have put forward. The problem with that is that there's no operational definition of what is micro versus macro evolution or why evolution would be able to create some degree of morphological change but not a greater degree. Why could allow for variations within classes but not the origin of the different classes of types of animals. He also makes a very classic creationist argument of rejecting evolution because he considers that the mechanism, natural selection, to be the result of pure chance. And again he commits the creationist logical fallacy of saying that life on earth is so complex what's the change&ndash;the probability of it occurring by chance alone is too remote and therefor we must invoke some kind of willful force. But this is looking at probability the wrong way. We, in fact, have another question on this so I'm going to come back to this a little bit later in the show. So, basically, I am not very fond of Schroeder's arguments. I think that he commits a lot of the core logical fallacies of creationists. I think he's trying to force a fit between science and Christian faith, Judeo-Christian faith, when in fact to the extent that that faith contradicts the findings of science, I think, that they just directly conflict and there is no way to resolve them. The only way to resolve them is to keep faith in it's proper realm which means dealing with the unknowables, and not to violate anything which is within the realm of science. Anything that could be investigated scientifically.<br />
<br />
=== Magnets for Migraines <small>(19:30)</small>===<br />
Okay we're going to shift gears a little bit here and take a couple of e-mails dealing with&ndash;in the medical realm. E-mail #4 comes from Anthony Petruccione. That could be pronounced Petruchioni, would be the more Italian pronunciation, from Texas. Anthony writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>While looking over today's news articles I spotted this article about a new magnet based device for the treatment of migraines.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure at all of the scientific vorasity of using magnets to treat pain, but I can add that my father did have some success using a magnetic bracelet to treat arthritis.<br />
<br />
Mostly i'm linking to the article to spark a discussion. Since you have people on hand with some real knowledge of medicine it would be interesting to hear what you've read from the medical literature.<br />
<br />
Though the linked article dosen't go into great detail the price seems rather staggering for a large magnet. 1000 pounds could buy quite a stack of rare earth magnets.<br />
<br />
To the truest definition of the term, i'm skeptical. I'd love to hear everyone discuss this and hope some good information is drawn out of the discussion.<br><br><br />
<br />
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=391915&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source=<br><br> <!-- this link now goes to some different article --><br />
Anthony Petruccione<br><br />
Texas<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, Anthony, unfortunately you won't get a full panel discussion of this issue but this is something about which I am personally very familiar so I will tackle it myself. First, I want to back up just a little bit and give some background information on what we mean by scientific research within the medical context. There are different levels of evidence within medicine. In fact, in the last 10 to 20 years there has been a movement known as evidence based medicine which has sought, basically, to standardize the evaluation of the degree of evidence for different clinical decisions and to put in the hands of clinicians, people making medical decisions, a objective assessment of the level of evidence that there is to support any particular claim. It's an excellent movement. There are some weaknesses to it. In fact I think the big weakness is that they rely exclusively on evidence and they specifically do not consider scientific plausibility and I think that that's a mistake, but as far as it goes it is extremely helpful. I'll review very quickly some basic different levels of evidence. Typically, when any new concept comes about, a new claim, whether it's based on anecdote or extrapolating from basic science research et cetera or someone just says, "Hey. Maybe A will or cure B. Let's check it out." Initially, what will be done are preliminary, or so called pilot studies. Pilot studies are very small usually involving less than 100 patients, even maybe as few as 10 subjects. They're often open label, meaning that there's no placebo control group, there's no blinding, and they're basically given to a number of patients just to get a basic feel for how they respond. Are there any major obvious side effects? Do they seem to have a positive response? The point of pilot studies is not to base definitive claims. They are purely to see whether or not this will be a productive avenue for further research. I think using these levels of evidence in order to support a clinical claim is misguided almost to the point of fraud. But, be that as it may, it is useful as a preliminary type of evidence. The second level of evidence is when you start to do some placebo control. You will compare people taking the treatment to people taking a placebo. It may or may not be open label or there may be some blinded and the numbers are usually more than in pilot study. Here we may have dozens of patients, maybe a couple of hundred patients depending on how rare the disease is and follow for a significant period of time. At least weeks if not months, longer depending&ndash;again, depending on what is being studied. Here we get to start to get some real idea about whether or not a treatment has any significant side effects. Whether or not all things considered people on the treatment do better than placebo, but still this data should not be considered definitive or conclusive. Again, the point of this really is just to see if it's worth while to go on to the next stage which is the more definite stage of research and this is when you have a large study, multi-center, prospective, meaning that you separate people into control and treatment groups before they get their treatments. You're not looking back at what people did. You're splitting them up and then either putting them on the placebo or on the treatment. That's important because that allows you to control for a lot of variables that might be interfering with the results. These studies are typically double blinded, meaning that the subjects do not know if their getting the placebo or the treatment and that the people running the study, especially those who are evaluating the subjects to see what their outcome is, also do not know if their getting the placebo or the treatment. These can be, if they're large multi-center trials, they can be fairly definitive, but even with these types of trials usually the medical community would like to see 2 or 3 of them. Some replication before saying, "Yep. This is pretty well established that this is a safe and effective treatment for this indication." That's considered the highest level of evidence. In fact, in this country in the United States, if you apply for&ndash;to the FDA to try to get a new drug on the market you have to apply for what's called an IND, an Investigational New Drug permit and then&ndash;before you can subject people to this drug you need to do preliminary basic science research and animal research to show basically that this is safe and the chance that it's going to kill people is at least relatively small. Then you break the clinical trials, or human trials, into phases. Phase 1 trials are small studies usually in healthy volunteers just looking at how the drug handles the body and how the body handles the drugs and screening for basic side effects. Then there are phase 2 trials where you're getting more safety data, you're starting for the first time look at actual outcomes to see if people are getting better. And then if all of that is positive and no problems are cropping up then you can do the phase 3 definitive trials. There's actually, in fact, phase 4 trials which are post marketing research to see if there are any less common safety issues come up now that hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of people are being exposed to the drug. Things may crop up that were missed in the trials. But even&ndash;not in the context of FDA trials, basically those same phases are followed in doing research. Now doing all of this research takes about a decade, at least. At least a decade. But when you're not within the context of regulations, for example with supplements in this country, or with things like magnets that aren't drugs&ndash;people can sell magnets, then often what we see are preliminary studies which are not definitive, should not be used to base claims, they almost always show some positive result because if it's an open label trial there's no placebo control even a pure placebo effect will seem positive so it's very common for these&ndash;the smaller initial trials to have a significant bias towards positive results. Also there's a huge file drawer effect where we just tend not to hear about the negative studies. We only tend to hear about the positive studies. So taking all that into consideration we're likely to get some preliminary positive results that's not reliable and yet those get conveyed to the public and often marketers will use those preliminary studies to say, "See this supplement or device works for these symptoms." And it will take 10 years to really proceed to the more definitive trials and do the analysis of phase 3 data and it may later be found that those&ndash;that the device or the supplements do not work but by that time companies marketing the devices have had years to develop a customer base and often people don't hear about the definitive phase 3 trials. For example, a lot of people believe the <i>Echinacea</i> is useful for colds and the initial, positive, small pilot studies were very aggressively marketed to the public. But then the large, phase 3, definitive trials were done and <i>Echinacea</i> is absolutely worthless for treating the symptoms of any infectious disease, of the common cold in particular. But most people don't know about that and when I, in fact, inform patients of that, for example, they've never heard of it. They've never heard that the data shows it doesn't work. The same is true of <i>Ginkgo biloba</i> and cognitive function or St. John's wort and depression. All have large, definitive trials that were completely negative and that made very little impact on the public consciousness. Magnets, it's basically the same thing but we're in the earlier stage of research. The phase 1 type of studies with magnets. First of all with magnet therapy there have been a number of speculative mechanisms put forward as to how magnets might work. The most common one that I hear is that the magnetic field improves blood flow and that the improved blood flow to the tissue increases healing and relieves symptoms. That mechanism, as well as every other proposed mechanism by which magnets&ndash;it's been proposed that magnets might work, has been shown to be false. Magnetic fields do not improve blood flow. Some people say, "Well, it's attracting the iron in the blood." Well, the iron in the blood is non-ferromagnetic. It does not respond to a magnetic field. Most of the magnets that are on the market have a very weak magnetic field or they may use alternating magnetic currents in order to get a stronger field but at the same time they get a much shallower magnetic field. Many do not penetrate, significantly, the wrappings around the magnet nor do they get through the skin. To date there is no compelling, carefully conducted evidence that magnets are useful for the treatment of arthritis or of pain. There is no evidence to show that they are useful for the treatment of migraines, nor is there any plausible mechanism that has been proposed by which they might work for the treatment of migraines. I think most magnetic devices come wrapped in bandages and if you put a bandage around you tennis elbow that has a magnet in it, it's probably the bandage that's helping the tennis elbow and the magnets are incidental. In addition to that there is, of course, the placebo effect which has numerous psychological factors including risk justification and then the simple desire to get better that all tend make people believe that such interventions work. So, bottom line, there's no evidence nor plausible mechanism by which to argue that magnets are useful for treating any symptom or disease and certainly not for migraines.<br />
<br />
=== Regulating Supplements <small>(30:20)</small> ===<br />
The next e-mail is a somewhat related question. This one is about regulating supplements. This comes from Sir Mildred Pierce who gives his location as Antarctica. I did, in fact, e-mail back Sir Pierce to ask if he really is in Antarctica. He has not responded, yet, but if he is truly from Antarctica that would mean that we have listeners in all 7 continents and Sir Mildred, of course, would be the first one to e-mail us from Antarctica, so thank you. He writes,<br />
<blockquote>On your most recent podcast you mentioned the US has the worst regulations when it comes to herbs and "suppliments". I would argue, as a skeptic, that perhaps the US has the best regultions, since that nation has the most unregulated rules. I think skeptics should eschew government intervention and regulation. Don't you feel that if the government is always jumping in and saying what is and what isn't safe that people in the long run will become less skeptical about these things on their own and will pretty much trust that everything on the market is safe, since everything on the market is regulated?<br><br><br />
<br />
Sir Mildred Pierce<br><br />
Antarctica<br />
</blockquote><br />
Well, that is an excellent question that deserves a very thoughtful answer. For background, I think it's worth noting, that there is a significant overlap between the libertarian, anti-regulation community and the skeptical and there certainly is a lot to be said for some libertarian ideals from a skeptical point of view. I know we've commented before on this show that Penn & Teller, for example, on their show&ndash;their Showtime show Bullshit! sometimes espouse libertarian political opinions and I think that that gets intermixed with their skeptical opinions. And most of the time, in fact, I agree with them, although, I do think that the extreme libertarian position is not logical and not justified and this is why. First of all, when you say that a market should be unregulated that assumes that market forces will produce a better outcome than government regulation. I would agree that logic and evidence, especially historical evidence, strongly favors that&ndash;the opinion that most markets in fact do better when they are unregulated by the government. When you in fact let market forces allow a natural equilibrium emerge from a bottom up type of self regulation and that most markets are too complex for a government to regulate from the top down. I think, in my personal opinion history would support that and I do think that the evidence, to that extent, favors leaving markets unregulated. But I don't think that you can say, "Therefor that is true in every single market" and that government regulation is always bad. I think that that is an argument ad absurdum in a way. With respect to medicine in particular we have the say, "What would market forces produce?" And what are those market forces and are they superior to some common sensical regulations that could be imposed. In fact, in this country, in the United States, since the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 which deregulated supplements we have now have 12 years of experience to compare drugs, which are very highly regulated by the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, and supplements which are completely unregulated. And we can say, "Let's compare these two markets and see what government regulation has wrought compared to the free market system." What we have in the free market system&ndash;the unregulated supplements in the last 12 years has been an absolute explosion of marketing of these things. Now, normally when you have a vast increase the marketing of any product that leads to competition and better products and better things for the consumer. Greater efficiency, more choices, better quality. But is that really true in medicine? That would imply that consumers are choosing their supplements based upon the quality of the supplements. For example, whether or not they really work. However, I would argue, that the evidence strongly shows that anecdotal evidence, which means the individual experience of people taking supplements, is completely unreliable. That that personal experience&ndash;except for extreme immediate side effects&ndash;that for the most part our personal experience with medical interventions is anecdotal and therefor highly misleading. In fact, I think the evidence strongly shows that anecdotes lead us to conclusions we wish to be true, not conclusions which are true. So that means that the consumer really has no way of driving an increase in quality. They have no way of choosing which supplements are better than others because all they have is their own personal anecdotal experience to go upon. Maybe the anecdotal experience of other people that they know, but that is completely misleading. Only very carefully accumulated statistical evidence really has way of discerning supplements that work from supplements that do not work. Therefor I would argue that market forces would not drive quality within a market such as supplements. Further, what people do tend to gravitate to are claims which meet their hopes and expectations, which means, if anything, market forces are encouraging greater and greater and more sensationalistic and more hopeful claims on the part of supplement marketers and that is in fact what we have seen. More supplements with more fantastical claims without any quality control. Without any, arguably, any actual beneficial effect to the consumer. In fact what we have seen is the marketing of specific supplements completely explode based upon the claims that are made for those supplements, such as ones that I've mentioned at the previous e-mail, <i>Echinacea</i>, <i>Ginkgo biloba</i>, St. John's Wort, to name a few, and yet when studies were done, and these were studies which were done by the government, done by the NIH, the National Institutes of Health, to look at whether or not these supplements actually work, it found out that they don't work. And that didn't really significantly impact the market that much because the market has been pretty much totally cut off from the scientific evidence. So therefor&ndash;the other argument that I've heard, the other sort of libertarian anti-regulation argument made is that, "Well, a Consumer Reports or other agencies, whether it's the government or academics or private investigating agencies will look at these products, will in form the consumers which ones have better quality than the others and that will drive quality within the market." But we've seen that that's not the true. That's not what happens. In fact, marketing of these things which don't work happily continues despite&ndash;in the face of negative evidence. So, my position, based upon the experience with these various markets is that companies should be given the burden of proving that their products are safe and effect prior to marketing. In fact the other factor here is that doing biomedical research is hard work. It takes a lot of money. Companies in a deregulated market have absolutely zero incentive to do the research. In fact research is a lose lose proposition for companies in a deregulated market. They have to spend the money to do the research. The research has the potential to show that the product is either unsafe or doesn't work which can only have the effect of decreasing sales, decreasing the marketing of that product. Again, it may not have a dramatic impact on it, but it certainly is not going to help. And if the research shows that it does work it probably won't help because the company's already marketing it with the claims that it does work. So, if you can basically make claims that a product works without doing the research, doing research is a lose lose proposition. So deregulation has completely removed any incentive from the private sector to do any kind of research in these supplements. It's only being done in government funded or academically initiated studies. Even if you take the basic libertarian anti-regulation view, you have to apply it to specific markets and make an individualized decision based upon the market forces that actually exist in that market and based upon our real life experience with what happens with deregulation versus regulation. Also, we can't assume that all regulation is bad. There is rational regulation, like, what I think exists in Australia, for example, and irrational regulation which is like what I think exists in the United States. It's not&ndash;you shouldn't make the false dichotomy of bad regulation versus no regulation. It's possible that there's a third alternative and that is actually rational and effective regulation. But that must be done very, very carefully.<br />
<br />
=== Neuroethics <small>(39:17)</small> ===<br />
Let's do one more e-mail and then I will go on to Name That Logical Fallacy. The last e-mail comes from Elias Luna from the Bronx, New York. Elias writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys this question is mainly for Steve since Neurology is right up his alley. What do you know about this new field called "Neuroethics" that I continully hear about. A great quote defining what is Neuroethics by Michael Gazzaniga author of "The Ethical Brain" is "the examination of how we want to deal with the social issues of disaease, normality, mortality, lifestyle, and the philosophy of living informed by our understanding of underlying brain mechanisms" In his opinion "It is-or should be-an effort to come up with a brain-based philosophy of life. They also bring up questions such as "When is a fetus considered a person?" and "When is it moral to end a braindead person's life?" They also question "What truely is "Free Will"? He argues that we are not a ghost in the machine per se. But that we are our brains and that me, self, and I are simply illusions. That The illusion is feed by 6 characteristics working in harmony. To me morals are obviously part of the human condition, and where and why in the mind humans evolved morals is still under questioning.<br><br><br />
<br />
Elias Luna<br><br />
Bronx, NY<br />
</blockquote><br />
Well, that's a great question Elias. Thanks for sending it in. Yeah, I'm very familiar with these various lines of reasoning and I think that there is a lot to be said for much of what they are promoting. Basically I do think that an understanding, a scientific understanding of how the brain works, how the brain produces our personalities, how it produces our sense of reality, our sense of free will and what it means to in fact be a human person that&ndash;this kind of scientific understanding can go a very long way to informing a great many moral and ethical questions like the ones mentioned. However, I would also say that it cannot make these moral or ethical decisions for us and that is because moral and ethical questions contain a dimension which is either purely subjective or purely value based. When is it moral to end a brain dead person's life? Well, first of all, the question is a bit of a misnomer. Someone who is&ndash;at least by the laws in this country which I'm very familiar with&ndash;someone who is technically brain dead is in fact dead. You can pronounce somebody dead if you can prove by the standards that are established that they are in fact brain dead. So, by definition they're not alive. They can be legally and therefor morally and ethically treated as a corpse. What I assume you mean is someone who has severe neurological impairment to the point where they are not able to maintain consciousness. One such state is called a persistent vegetative state. This was very famously debated in this country about a year ago in the context of the Terri Schiavo debate. Terri Schiavo was a woman in Florida who was in a persistent vegetative state and her husband wanted to end her life and her parents wanted to keep her alive and the government got involved to a very inappropriate degree, in my opinion, and actually in the opinion of most Americans. So, when is it appropriate&ndash;what neurology can inform us about might be going on inside that person's brain, what level of consciousness they may be able to have, et cetera, but really can't tell us what&ndash;whether or not it's moral to keep them alive or to end their life given that they're in a persistent vegetative state because that requires value judgments about the value of life, how quality of life should influence our value of life and how&ndash;what is societies responsibilities to such people as well as what is the individual responsibility to society. Is it responsible, for example, to spend millions of dollars of limited health care funds to keep someone alive in a persistent vegetative state when there is no meaningful probability of neurological recovery. These are all questions outside the realm of science. They can be informed by science but they cannot be answered by science. So that's my basic opinion there. I will say that&ndash;you bring up the issue of free will and there is a growing literature on what is in fact free will and do humans in fact have free will. In fact we've discussed the issue of free will previously on this podcast{{link needed}} and there are those who believe that humans in fact do not have free will. That our brains are completely deterministic. They follow the laws of the physics of this universe and therefor everything that the brain does has a prior cause. What is the implications for this to our moral judgments, to crime and punishment, for example? Well, we still, as a society need to make value judgments in order to come up with the ultimate conclusions but understanding how the brain actually works will I think not only inform those decisions it will keep us from making, perhaps, harmful decisions based upon misconceptions.<br />
<br />
== Name that Logical Fallacy <small>(44:51)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Thanks again for a very informative podcast. I would like your help understanding the logical fallacies you might apply to improperly used "what are the odds" arguments. For example, religious fundamentalists often absolutely mangle statistics when they come up with their "what are the odds" arguments about our "special place in the heavens." Specifically, I'm not talking about the false premise of randomness so much as the looking backwards and being amazed at the improbability of an outcome after it as occurred. What logical fallacies might you apply here, other than simple math ignorance, since you could apply the same logic to flipping a coin 100 times, noting the odds of getting the exact sequence, and declaring it therefore a miracle.<br />
<br />
Thanks!<br />
Marty Steitz<br />
Forest Lake, MN<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(48:38)</small> ==<br />
Item number 1: University of Minnesota urologists have researched ways to reduce the vexing problem of kidney stone formation in astronauts.<br />
Item number 2: NY University at Buffalo researchers, reviewing data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found that, contrary to prior belief, wearing seatbelts did not significantly reduce the risk of fatality in an automobile accident.<br />
Item number 3: A team of researchers at the University of Alberta have patented a device that uses ultrasound to regrow teeth.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>(56:25)</small> ==<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Two men, both were freemasons:<br />
Man A invented an instrument that Man B used as part of a pseudoscience that he invented.<br />
<br />
Man A also famously debunked the claims of Man B.<br />
<br />
Who were the two men, and what was the instrument?<br />
<br />
Answer: The two men were Benjamin Franklin and Franz Anton Mesmer; the instrument was the glass armonica.<br />
<br />
<br />
New Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In the old game show, Let's Make A Deal, contestants were asked to pick which of three doors they thought contained a valuable prize. Once the contestant picked a door, the host, Monty Hall, would often open one of the two doors not chosen and then ask the contestant if they would like to change their pick to the other door left unopened. The question is, should a contestant stick with their original choice, change to the other door, or there is no difference statistically?<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro39}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_49&diff=5512SGU Episode 492013-01-16T21:54:18Z<p>Geneocide: /* Regulating Supplements (30:20) */ transcribed</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all <br />
|transcriber = Geneocide<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 49<br />
|episodeDate = 28<sup>th</sup> Jun 2006<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Franklin.jpg<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2006-06-28.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=49<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,128.0.html<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. This is your host, Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Today is Wednesday, June 28, 2006. We are having a special episode this week; the skeptical rogues are on vacation. Now, don't worry; they'll be back next week. The&mdash;actually, the only reason they are out this week is because I'm out of town, actually vacationing in the wilds of Cumberland, Maryland, which means I do not have access to broadband. Now, many of you may not realize this, but we record our show each week completely over the Internet, using Voice over IP applications. In fact, each of us, myself and all of the skeptical rogues, the entire panel of skeptics are in different cities at the time that we record. Rebecca Watson is in Boston and the rest of us are in different cities in Connecticut. So, without access to broadband, I've no way of conferencing with the other members of the show. We decided rather than skipping a week that I would do a solo show just so that we have something to hold over our loyal fans until next week. Now, the format of the show this week will be pretty similar to other shows; we have no guest and obviously no group discussion. I will still do a Science or Fiction at the end of the program. Although, of course, the panel of skeptics will not be here to offer their thoughts, but this one will be just for you. I'll also do a Name that Logical Fallacy. In addition, I will also give the answer to last week's skeptical puzzle and give a new skeptical puzzle.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(2:02)</small> ==<br />
But the bulk of this show, I decided to get caught up on all of the great emails that we get. I'll take this opportunity to thank our listeners once again for sending in so many great questions and emails. We certainly do appreciate the feedback, the constructive criticism which helps us improve our show. And the questions are great topics for discussion. In fact, we have so many good emails now that we can only touch on a small percentage of them on the show. So I figured this week I would get caught on some of our better email questions. So let's get right to them.<br />
<br />
=== Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution. <small>(2:40)</small>===<br />
The first email comes from Curt Nelson from Minneapolis, Minnesota. Curt writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Dear Skeptics,<br />
<br/><br />
Im an avid listener. Thanks for your show. In listening to your recent podcast on evolution 101, I heard you (Steve)</blockquote><br />
&mdash;that's me, the host&mdash;<br />
<blockquote><br />
say something I think really confuses people who want to understand evolution. You referred to the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution, and I know what you meant by that, but I'm sure its confusing to a lot of people. Maybe it even sounds wishy-washy to those who tend to be sympathetic to creationism. When anyone discusses Darwins theory of evolution, a couple of things should be defined up-front:<br/><br />
1) Evolution is a fact things do evolve (but without changing into a new species, as far as has been observed).<br/><br />
2) Darwin's theory is that evolution causes speciation, and is the mechanism that produced all the magnificent life we know, starting from bacteria. This is a huge leap from the fact of evolution. (For what its worth, I believe this.) Keep up the good work.<br/><br />
Sincerely yours,<br/><br />
Curt</blockquote><br />
Well, Curt, this is a topic that does come up quite frequently when discussing evolution, especially in the context of creationism. Creationists are wont to say that evolution is quote-unquote "only a theory", although I'm usually fairly careful in referring to the fact versus the theory of evolution, and I do take exception to the way that Curt defines it in his email. Now, this has been pointed out in many venues before, but I will take time to go over this briefly. The word "theory" as used by scientists is different than the way it is used colloquially by the public at large. Typically the word "theory" is used to refer to a guess or a speculation or assumption, but scientists use it to refer to an explanatory system; an idea or a unifying concept that brings together multiple lines of evidence, multiple phenomenon into one ex&mdash; one cohesive explanatory system. It doesn't really say anything about how much evidence there is for or against the theory. A theory can, in fact, range the spectrum from discredited to highly speculative to established beyond all reasonable doubt. I would characterize the theory of evolution as being established sufficiently to be considered a scientific fact, meaning over a very long period of time&mdash;150 years, about&mdash;it has withstood any attempt at falsifying it, and there have been many potential ways in which evolutionary theory could have been falsified. There have been numerous independent lines of evidence all validating the theory of evolution to such a high degree, and we have reviewed many of them on this show before. For example, fossil evidence, transitional fossils, morphological pattern of species occurring in an evolutionary pattern of relatedness, the molecular is, I think, the most profound and is irrefutably shows all life on Earth is not only related to each other but is related to each other in a branching evolutionary pattern. So, evolutionary theory deserves the label of established scientific fact, which means it's the best explanation we have for now. I will also further point that within the over-arching theory of evolution, there are several sub-theories that are worth mentioning, and often we talk theories within evolution, we're talking about one of three kinds of theories. 1, there are theories of mechanism, meaning how does evolution come about? Now, Darwin's theory is&mdash;refers specifically to the mechanism of survival of the fittest, or differential survival based up adaptive characteristics. Or, you can also state it as natural selection acting upon variation within populations. That's Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest, which is, again, just one ''kind'' of theory within evolution. The other kind of theory are theories that refer to the tempo and pace of evolution. For example, how do species, populations, and ecosystems change over geological time? Darwin's theory of tempo is known as Darwinian Gradualism, which is the idea that all species pretty much are changing slowly and imperceptably all the time. This idea, this sort of Darwinian Gradualism still has its adherents, but there are competing newer theories such as the theory of puncuated equilibrium first proposed by Stephen Gould and Niles Eldrige. This competing theory says that species are stable most of the time and that this equilibrium, this stability is punctuated by brief, geologically brief, meaning five to fifty thousand years, episodes of rapid evolution and speciation. So, and in fact, creationists have exploited disagreements about these subsets of theories of evolution to&mdash;and misinterpreted them as doubt about the overall theory of whether or not things in fact evolved or not. The third type of theory is theories of relation; what's related to what; what evolved from what? For example, the notion that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, which fit under this category. And again, that is perhaps the most speculative part of evolution at this point in time. We have a very incomplete puzzle of the history of the tree of life, of evolutionary life or phylogenetic relationships. And again, the ideas about what evolved into what are changing all the time, almost every time we pull a new, previously unknown fossil out of the ground, it's changing our picture of this pattern that, in fact, occurred. That's kind of a long answer, but that essentially, in a nutshell, is&mdash;are the fact of evolution versus the theories of evolution.<br />
<br />
=== Agnosticism <small>(9:03)</small>===<br />
E-mail #2 discusses a very different issue. This one comes from Donald Flood who gives his location only as the USA. Donald writes,<br />
<blockquote>If the empirical evidence for the existence of God is no greater than the empirical evidence for Invisible Pink Unicorns, is it logical to be agnostic with respect to the existence of God yet "atheistic" towards the existence of IPUs?<br />
<br><br><br />
Donald Flood<br><br />
USA</blockquote><br />
Well, Donald, the short answer to your question is yes. It would be illogical to be agnostic towards god and atheistic towards invisible pink unicorns and that is not, in fact, my position nor have I ever heard anyone specifically espouse that position so I think that's a bit of a straw man but it's based upon a very common misunderstanding that I get all the time. I do advocate personally an agnostic position towards claims which are not falsifiable. Claims which lie outside of the realm of science. So, and again, we have covered some of this ground before but again let me encapsulate the position that I take with regards to agnosticism. What that basically mean&ndash;and this is the sense that T. H. Huxley who actually invented, or coined, the term agnosticism to refer to his own beliefs&ndash;Agnosticism means that there are certain questions which cannot by their very nature ever be known or they cannot be explored scientifically. There is no way you could possibly validate or falsify them, therefore they are forever outside the realm of knowledge in the scientific sense and Huxley concluded that they're therefore outside the realm of anything that can meaningfully be considered knowledge. So, one can only say about that, if one were taking a consistent, logical, scientific approach, that it's unknowable. You can't know that it is true but neither can you know that it isn't true. Further, extrapolating from this you could say that there's no point in believing in any proposition which is unknowable because there are an infinite number of unknowable propositions. It's limited really only by your creativity but you could sit around and weave un-falsifiable notions all day long. None of them will ever be known and that's all that really you can say about them. Any belief in un-falsifiable notions is by definition faith and faith is therefor, by definition, outside of the realm of science and personally I choose not to have a arbitrary belief either for or against such notions and to me it's sufficient to say they're unknowable and unknowable notions are of not value to human knowledge. So that is where it reasonably ends. So therefor I would say I am agnostic toward the existence of invisible pink unicorns or any other fantastical notion that you want to come up with such as, to paraphrase a recent book, flying spaghetti monsters.<br />
<br />
=== Gerald Schroeder on God <small>(12:05)</small>===<br />
Let's go on to e-mail #3. This one also is about belief in God. This one comes from Luke from Indiana. Luke writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Skeptics,<br />
<br />
I have just recently found your podcast after listening to quite a few "paranormal/ufo/etc" podcasts for quite a while. I would consider myself, probably much like most people who are interested in these subject matters, an interested skeptic--I love considering the possibilities of these unusual subjects, but am not about to agree to something without<br />
proof.<br />
<br />
On your most recent podcast, one of the major discussions was about evolution versus intelligent design. I have read several books by Gerald L. Schroeder, a MIT graduate with a Ph.D. in Physics and a Talmudic scholar. His books have, in my limited opinion, the most well thought out argument for the possibility of a God. I was wondering if any if any of the podcast members were familiar or had read any of his books on the<br />
subject?<br />
<br />
In my personal experience, most real-life disagreements and arguements are not as simple as: one person or side is right and the other is wrong. His approach to the ID vs. big bang theories is not to show fallacies of one or the other, but instead to look for similarities and convergences of them. Regardless of one's particular disposition to either "side," I<br />
think his material is well-thought out, interesting, and worth considering.<br />
<br />
I would love to hear something about these books on your podcast and your, skeptical, opinions about the subject.<br />
<br />
Thanks and keep up the interesting podcast,<br />
<br><br><br />
Luke<br><br />
Indiana, USA</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, Luke, I confess I have not read the entire book. The most recent one is called <u>The Science of God</u> by Gerald Schroeder, although I have read significant excerpts from it and several reviews of it. The most, I think, complete review was written by Frank Sonnleitner who is Professor in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma and we'll have the link to his review on our notes page. <!-- link not found -->Basically, I think the problem with Schroeder's approach, and other's have taken a similar approach is that it begins with the assumption that there's no conflict between faith and science, specifically faith in God, in the Judeo-Christian God in this particular instance, and science and then proceeds from there. However, it never really justifies or establishes that assumption in the first place and therefor if that becomes a false major premise everything that follows from that is invalid. And I think that's the pitfall that he is falling into. You did state, I think, quite reasonably that in most real life disagreements or arguments it's not as simple as one person or side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong and I agree with that in that. In most situations that is true. I think that the most reasonable position usually lies between two extremes and there's usually both valid and invalid points on both sides in any argument or disagreement. However, that's not always the case. There are some times when side is making a profound systematic error in their approach or is following or proceeding from a invalid premise and therefor everything on that side is wrong and I think that the creationism evolution debate is one such issue. Evolution is a science and unbiased scientists I think are largely correct in their approach to evolution&ndash;in their approach and their evaluation of the evidence and the conclusions that they draw from that. Creationists, whether that's intelligent design or classic creationism are following from a very biased premise that evolution must be wrong because of their faith in creation and everything&ndash;every argument that flows from that point that they make is invalid and I have read extensively of the creationist literature, we've discussed much of it on this podcast over the months and they are a textbook of logical fallacies. They really don't have a single valid argument to make. So, it is one of those rare situations where I feel very strongly that one side, the creationist side, is in fact completely wrong. If there is a valid argument to be made on that side I have yet to hear it despite exposing myself very avidly to the arguments from the creationist side. Regarding some of the specifics of <u>The Science of God</u> by Gerald Schroeder again I'll refer back to the very good review written by Frank Sonnleitner&ndash;and he starts by saying that basically that this is an elaboration of Schroeder's prior book <u>Genesis and the Big Bang</u>. Basically, Schroeder is not being fair with the scientific evidence. He, in fact&ndash;He accepts the standard geological and paleontological history of the earth but rejects evolution. He draws the line at evolutionary connections between the higher categories. For example, different classes or different phyla. Therefor&ndash;So he allows for some evolution to occur at a local level but disagrees with connections between major forms which, of course, means that God had to, or something, some force had to create the basic forms of life and then evolution occurred within those basic forms. This is the old micro macro evolution argument that creationists have put forward. The problem with that is that there's no operational definition of what is micro versus macro evolution or why evolution would be able to create some degree of morphological change but not a greater degree. Why could allow for variations within classes but not the origin of the different classes of types of animals. He also makes a very classic creationist argument of rejecting evolution because he considers that the mechanism, natural selection, to be the result of pure chance. And again he commits the creationist logical fallacy of saying that life on earth is so complex what's the change&ndash;the probability of it occurring by chance alone is too remote and therefor we must invoke some kind of willful force. But this is looking at probability the wrong way. We, in fact, have another question on this so I'm going to come back to this a little bit later in the show. So, basically, I am not very fond of Schroeder's arguments. I think that he commits a lot of the core logical fallacies of creationists. I think he's trying to force a fit between science and Christian faith, Judeo-Christian faith, when in fact to the extent that that faith contradicts the findings of science, I think, that they just directly conflict and there is no way to resolve them. The only way to resolve them is to keep faith in it's proper realm which means dealing with the unknowables, and not to violate anything which is within the realm of science. Anything that could be investigated scientifically.<br />
<br />
=== Magnets for Migraines <small>(19:30)</small>===<br />
Okay we're going to shift gears a little bit here and take a couple of e-mails dealing with&ndash;in the medical realm. E-mail #4 comes from Anthony Petruccione. That could be pronounced Petruchioni, would be the more Italian pronunciation, from Texas. Anthony writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>While looking over today's news articles I spotted this article about a new magnet based device for the treatment of migraines.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure at all of the scientific vorasity of using magnets to treat pain, but I can add that my father did have some success using a magnetic bracelet to treat arthritis.<br />
<br />
Mostly i'm linking to the article to spark a discussion. Since you have people on hand with some real knowledge of medicine it would be interesting to hear what you've read from the medical literature.<br />
<br />
Though the linked article dosen't go into great detail the price seems rather staggering for a large magnet. 1000 pounds could buy quite a stack of rare earth magnets.<br />
<br />
To the truest definition of the term, i'm skeptical. I'd love to hear everyone discuss this and hope some good information is drawn out of the discussion.<br><br><br />
<br />
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=391915&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source=<br><br> <!-- this link now goes to some different article --><br />
Anthony Petruccione<br><br />
Texas<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, Anthony, unfortunately you won't get a full panel discussion of this issue but this is something about which I am personally very familiar so I will tackle it myself. First, I want to back up just a little bit and give some background information on what we mean by scientific research within the medical context. There are different levels of evidence within medicine. In fact, in the last 10 to 20 years there has been a movement known as evidence based medicine which has sought, basically, to standardize the evaluation of the degree of evidence for different clinical decisions and to put in the hands of clinicians, people making medical decisions, a objective assessment of the level of evidence that there is to support any particular claim. It's an excellent movement. There are some weaknesses to it. In fact I think the big weakness is that they rely exclusively on evidence and they specifically do not consider scientific plausibility and I think that that's a mistake, but as far as it goes it is extremely helpful. I'll review very quickly some basic different levels of evidence. Typically, when any new concept comes about, a new claim, whether it's based on anecdote or extrapolating from basic science research et cetera or someone just says, "Hey. Maybe A will or cure B. Let's check it out." Initially, what will be done are preliminary, or so called pilot studies. Pilot studies are very small usually involving less than 100 patients, even maybe as few as 10 subjects. They're often open label, meaning that there's no placebo control group, there's no blinding, and they're basically given to a number of patients just to get a basic feel for how they respond. Are there any major obvious side effects? Do they seem to have a positive response? The point of pilot studies is not to base definitive claims. They are purely to see whether or not this will be a productive avenue for further research. I think using these levels of evidence in order to support a clinical claim is misguided almost to the point of fraud. But, be that as it may, it is useful as a preliminary type of evidence. The second level of evidence is when you start to do some placebo control. You will compare people taking the treatment to people taking a placebo. It may or may not be open label or there may be some blinded and the numbers are usually more than in pilot study. Here we may have dozens of patients, maybe a couple of hundred patients depending on how rare the disease is and follow for a significant period of time. At least weeks if not months, longer depending&ndash;again, depending on what is being studied. Here we get to start to get some real idea about whether or not a treatment has any significant side effects. Whether or not all things considered people on the treatment do better than placebo, but still this data should not be considered definitive or conclusive. Again, the point of this really is just to see if it's worth while to go on to the next stage which is the more definite stage of research and this is when you have a large study, multi-center, prospective, meaning that you separate people into control and treatment groups before they get their treatments. You're not looking back at what people did. You're splitting them up and then either putting them on the placebo or on the treatment. That's important because that allows you to control for a lot of variables that might be interfering with the results. These studies are typically double blinded, meaning that the subjects do not know if their getting the placebo or the treatment and that the people running the study, especially those who are evaluating the subjects to see what their outcome is, also do not know if their getting the placebo or the treatment. These can be, if they're large multi-center trials, they can be fairly definitive, but even with these types of trials usually the medical community would like to see 2 or 3 of them. Some replication before saying, "Yep. This is pretty well established that this is a safe and effective treatment for this indication." That's considered the highest level of evidence. In fact, in this country in the United States, if you apply for&ndash;to the FDA to try to get a new drug on the market you have to apply for what's called an IND, an Investigational New Drug permit and then&ndash;before you can subject people to this drug you need to do preliminary basic science research and animal research to show basically that this is safe and the chance that it's going to kill people is at least relatively small. Then you break the clinical trials, or human trials, into phases. Phase 1 trials are small studies usually in healthy volunteers just looking at how the drug handles the body and how the body handles the drugs and screening for basic side effects. Then there are phase 2 trials where you're getting more safety data, you're starting for the first time look at actual outcomes to see if people are getting better. And then if all of that is positive and no problems are cropping up then you can do the phase 3 definitive trials. There's actually, in fact, phase 4 trials which are post marketing research to see if there are any less common safety issues come up now that hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of people are being exposed to the drug. Things may crop up that were missed in the trials. But even&ndash;not in the context of FDA trials, basically those same phases are followed in doing research. Now doing all of this research takes about a decade, at least. At least a decade. But when you're not within the context of regulations, for example with supplements in this country, or with things like magnets that aren't drugs&ndash;people can sell magnets, then often what we see are preliminary studies which are not definitive, should not be used to base claims, they almost always show some positive result because if it's an open label trial there's no placebo control even a pure placebo effect will seem positive so it's very common for these&ndash;the smaller initial trials to have a significant bias towards positive results. Also there's a huge file drawer effect where we just tend not to hear about the negative studies. We only tend to hear about the positive studies. So taking all that into consideration we're likely to get some preliminary positive results that's not reliable and yet those get conveyed to the public and often marketers will use those preliminary studies to say, "See this supplement or device works for these symptoms." And it will take 10 years to really proceed to the more definitive trials and do the analysis of phase 3 data and it may later be found that those&ndash;that the device or the supplements do not work but by that time companies marketing the devices have had years to develop a customer base and often people don't hear about the definitive phase 3 trials. For example, a lot of people believe the <i>Echinacea</i> is useful for colds and the initial, positive, small pilot studies were very aggressively marketed to the public. But then the large, phase 3, definitive trials were done and <i>Echinacea</i> is absolutely worthless for treating the symptoms of any infectious disease, of the common cold in particular. But most people don't know about that and when I, in fact, inform patients of that, for example, they've never heard of it. They've never heard that the data shows it doesn't work. The same is true of <i>Ginkgo biloba</i> and cognitive function or St. John's wort and depression. All have large, definitive trials that were completely negative and that made very little impact on the public consciousness. Magnets, it's basically the same thing but we're in the earlier stage of research. The phase 1 type of studies with magnets. First of all with magnet therapy there have been a number of speculative mechanisms put forward as to how magnets might work. The most common one that I hear is that the magnetic field improves blood flow and that the improved blood flow to the tissue increases healing and relieves symptoms. That mechanism, as well as every other proposed mechanism by which magnets&ndash;it's been proposed that magnets might work, has been shown to be false. Magnetic fields do not improve blood flow. Some people say, "Well, it's attracting the iron in the blood." Well, the iron in the blood is non-ferromagnetic. It does not respond to a magnetic field. Most of the magnets that are on the market have a very weak magnetic field or they may use alternating magnetic currents in order to get a stronger field but at the same time they get a much shallower magnetic field. Many do not penetrate, significantly, the wrappings around the magnet nor do they get through the skin. To date there is no compelling, carefully conducted evidence that magnets are useful for the treatment of arthritis or of pain. There is no evidence to show that they are useful for the treatment of migraines, nor is there any plausible mechanism that has been proposed by which they might work for the treatment of migraines. I think most magnetic devices come wrapped in bandages and if you put a bandage around you tennis elbow that has a magnet in it, it's probably the bandage that's helping the tennis elbow and the magnets are incidental. In addition to that there is, of course, the placebo effect which has numerous psychological factors including risk justification and then the simple desire to get better that all tend make people believe that such interventions work. So, bottom line, there's no evidence nor plausible mechanism by which to argue that magnets are useful for treating any symptom or disease and certainly not for migraines.<br />
<br />
=== Regulating Supplements <small>(30:20)</small> ===<br />
The next e-mail is a somewhat related question. This one is about regulating supplements. This comes from Sir Mildred Pierce who gives his location as Antarctica. I did, in fact, e-mail back Sir Pierce to ask if he really is in Antarctica. He has not responded, yet, but if he is truly from Antarctica that would mean that we have listeners in all 7 continents and Sir Mildred, of course, would be the first one to e-mail us from Antarctica, so thank you. He writes,<br />
<blockquote>On your most recent podcast you mentioned the US has the worst regulations when it comes to herbs and "suppliments". I would argue, as a skeptic, that perhaps the US has the best regultions, since that nation has the most unregulated rules. I think skeptics should eschew government intervention and regulation. Don't you feel that if the government is always jumping in and saying what is and what isn't safe that people in the long run will become less skeptical about these things on their own and will pretty much trust that everything on the market is safe, since everything on the market is regulated?<br><br><br />
<br />
Sir Mildred Pierce<br><br />
Antarctica<br />
</blockquote><br />
Well, that is an excellent question that deserves a very thoughtful answer. For background, I think it's worth noting, that there is a significant overlap between the libertarian, anti-regulation community and the skeptical and there certainly is a lot to be said for some libertarian ideals from a skeptical point of view. I know we've commented before on this show that Penn & Teller, for example, on their show&ndash;their Showtime show Bullshit! sometimes espouse libertarian political opinions and I think that that gets intermixed with their skeptical opinions. And most of the time, in fact, I agree with them, although, I do think that the extreme libertarian position is not logical and not justified and this is why. First of all, when you say that a market should be unregulated that assumes that market forces will produce a better outcome than government regulation. I would agree that logic and evidence, especially historical evidence, strongly favors that&ndash;the opinion that most markets in fact do better when they are unregulated by the government. When you in fact let market forces allow a natural equilibrium emerge from a bottom up type of self regulation and that most markets are too complex for a government to regulate from the top down. I think, in my personal opinion history would support that and I do think that the evidence, to that extent, favors leaving markets unregulated. But I don't think that you can say, "Therefor that is true in every single market" and that government regulation is always bad. I think that that is an argument ad absurdum in a way. With respect to medicine in particular we have the say, "What would market forces produce?" And what are those market forces and are they superior to some common sensical regulations that could be imposed. In fact, in this country, in the United States, since the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 which deregulated supplements we have now have 12 years of experience to compare drugs, which are very highly regulated by the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, and supplements which are completely unregulated. And we can say, "Let's compare these two markets and see what government regulation has wrought compared to the free market system." What we have in the free market system&ndash;the unregulated supplements in the last 12 years has been an absolute explosion of marketing of these things. Now, normally when you have a vast increase the marketing of any product that leads to competition and better products and better things for the consumer. Greater efficiency, more choices, better quality. But is that really true in medicine? That would imply that consumers are choosing their supplements based upon the quality of the supplements. For example, whether or not they really work. However, I would argue, that the evidence strongly shows that anecdotal evidence, which means the individual experience of people taking supplements, is completely unreliable. That that personal experience&ndash;except for extreme immediate side effects&ndash;that for the most part our personal experience with medical interventions is anecdotal and therefor highly misleading. In fact, I think the evidence strongly shows that anecdotes lead us to conclusions we wish to be true, not conclusions which are true. So that means that the consumer really has no way of driving an increase in quality. They have no way of choosing which supplements are better than others because all they have is their own personal anecdotal experience to go upon. Maybe the anecdotal experience of other people that they know, but that is completely misleading. Only very carefully accumulated statistical evidence really has way of discerning supplements that work from supplements that do not work. Therefor I would argue that market forces would not drive quality within a market such as supplements. Further, what people do tend to gravitate to are claims which meet their hopes and expectations, which means, if anything, market forces are encouraging greater and greater and more sensationalistic and more hopeful claims on the part of supplement marketers and that is in fact what we have seen. More supplements with more fantastical claims without any quality control. Without any, arguably, any actual beneficial effect to the consumer. In fact what we have seen is the marketing of specific supplements completely explode based upon the claims that are made for those supplements, such as ones that I've mentioned at the previous e-mail, <i>Echinacea</i>, <i>Ginkgo biloba</i>, St. John's Wort, to name a few, and yet when studies were done, and these were studies which were done by the government, done by the NIH, the National Institutes of Health, to look at whether or not these supplements actually work, it found out that they don't work. And that didn't really significantly impact the market that much because the market has been pretty much totally cut off from the scientific evidence. So therefor&ndash;the other argument that I've heard, the other sort of libertarian anti-regulation argument made is that, "Well, a Consumer Reports or other agencies, whether it's the government or academics or private investigating agencies will look at these products, will in form the consumers which ones have better quality than the others and that will drive quality within the market." But we've seen that that's not the true. That's not what happens. In fact, marketing of these things which don't work happily continues despite&ndash;in the face of negative evidence. So, my position, based upon the experience with these various markets is that companies should be given the burden of proving that their products are safe and effect prior to marketing. In fact the other factor here is that doing biomedical research is hard work. It takes a lot of money. Companies in a deregulated market have absolutely zero incentive to do the research. In fact research is a lose lose proposition for companies in a deregulated market. They have to spend the money to do the research. The research has the potential to show that the product is either unsafe or doesn't work which can only have the effect of decreasing sales, decreasing the marketing of that product. Again, it may not have a dramatic impact on it, but it certainly is not going to help. And if the research shows that it does work it probably won't help because the company's already marketing it with the claims that it does work. So, if you can basically make claims that a product works without doing the research, doing research is a lose lose proposition. So deregulation has completely removed any incentive from the private sector to do any kind of research in these supplements. It's only being done in government funded or academically initiated studies. Even if you take the basic libertarian anti-regulation view, you have to apply it to specific markets and make an individualized decision based upon the market forces that actually exist in that market and based upon our real life experience with what happens with deregulation versus regulation. Also, we can't assume that all regulation is bad. There is rational regulation, like, what I think exists in Australia, for example, and irrational regulation which is like what I think exists in the United States. It's not&ndash;you shouldn't make the false dichotomy of bad regulation versus no regulation. It's possible that there's a third alternative and that is actually rational and effective regulation. But that must be done very, very carefully.<br />
<br />
=== Neuroethics <small>(39:17)</small> ===<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys this question is mainly for Steve since Neurology is right up his alley. What do you know about this new field called "Neuroethics" that I continully hear about. A great quote defining what is Neuroethics by Michael Gazzaniga author of "The Ethical Brain" is "the examination of how we want to deal with the social issues of disaease, normality, mortality, lifestyle, and the philosophy of living informed by our understanding of underlying brain mechanisms" In his opinion "It is-or should be-an effort to come up with a brain-based philosophy of life. They also bring up questions such as "When is a fetus considered a person?" and "When is it moral to end a braindead person's life?" They also question "What truely is "Free Will"? He argues that we are not a ghost in the machine per se. But that we are our brains and that me, self, and I are simply illusions. That The illusion is feed by 6 characteristics working in harmony. To me morals are obviously part of the human condition, and where and why in the mind humans evolved morals is still under questioning.<br />
<br />
Elias Luna<br />
Bronx, NY<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Name that Logical Fallacy <small>(44:51)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Thanks again for a very informative podcast. I would like your help understanding the logical fallacies you might apply to improperly used "what are the odds" arguments. For example, religious fundamentalists often absolutely mangle statistics when they come up with their "what are the odds" arguments about our "special place in the heavens." Specifically, I'm not talking about the false premise of randomness so much as the looking backwards and being amazed at the improbability of an outcome after it as occurred. What logical fallacies might you apply here, other than simple math ignorance, since you could apply the same logic to flipping a coin 100 times, noting the odds of getting the exact sequence, and declaring it therefore a miracle.<br />
<br />
Thanks!<br />
Marty Steitz<br />
Forest Lake, MN<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(48:38)</small> ==<br />
Item number 1: University of Minnesota urologists have researched ways to reduce the vexing problem of kidney stone formation in astronauts.<br />
Item number 2: NY University at Buffalo researchers, reviewing data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found that, contrary to prior belief, wearing seatbelts did not significantly reduce the risk of fatality in an automobile accident.<br />
Item number 3: A team of researchers at the University of Alberta have patented a device that uses ultrasound to regrow teeth.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>(56:25)</small> ==<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Two men, both were freemasons:<br />
Man A invented an instrument that Man B used as part of a pseudoscience that he invented.<br />
<br />
Man A also famously debunked the claims of Man B.<br />
<br />
Who were the two men, and what was the instrument?<br />
<br />
Answer: The two men were Benjamin Franklin and Franz Anton Mesmer; the instrument was the glass armonica.<br />
<br />
<br />
New Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In the old game show, Let's Make A Deal, contestants were asked to pick which of three doors they thought contained a valuable prize. Once the contestant picked a door, the host, Monty Hall, would often open one of the two doors not chosen and then ask the contestant if they would like to change their pick to the other door left unopened. The question is, should a contestant stick with their original choice, change to the other door, or there is no difference statistically?<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro39}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Geneocidehttps://www.sgutranscripts.org/w/index.php?title=SGU_Episode_49&diff=5507SGU Episode 492013-01-15T20:31:27Z<p>Geneocide: /* Magnets for Migraines (19:30) */ transcribed, link in e-mail goes somewhere different now</p>
<hr />
<div>{{transcribing all <br />
|transcriber = Geneocide<br />
}}<br />
{{Editing required<br />
|transcription = <br />
<!-- |proof-reading = y please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present --><br />
|formatting = y<br />
|links = y<br />
|Today I Learned list = y<br />
|categories = y<br />
|segment redirects = y <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles --><br />
|}}<br />
{{InfoBox <br />
|episodeTitle = SGU Episode 49<br />
|episodeDate = 28<sup>th</sup> Jun 2006<br />
|episodeIcon = File:Franklin.jpg<br />
|downloadLink = http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2006-06-28.mp3<br />
|notesLink = http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=49<br />
|forumLink = http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,128.0.html<br />
|}}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
''You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.''<br />
<br />
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. This is your host, Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Today is Wednesday, June 28, 2006. We are having a special episode this week; the skeptical rogues are on vacation. Now, don't worry; they'll be back next week. The&mdash;actually, the only reason they are out this week is because I'm out of town, actually vacationing in the wilds of Cumberland, Maryland, which means I do not have access to broadband. Now, many of you may not realize this, but we record our show each week completely over the Internet, using Voice over IP applications. In fact, each of us, myself and all of the skeptical rogues, the entire panel of skeptics are in different cities at the time that we record. Rebecca Watson is in Boston and the rest of us are in different cities in Connecticut. So, without access to broadband, I've no way of conferencing with the other members of the show. We decided rather than skipping a week that I would do a solo show just so that we have something to hold over our loyal fans until next week. Now, the format of the show this week will be pretty similar to other shows; we have no guest and obviously no group discussion. I will still do a Science or Fiction at the end of the program. Although, of course, the panel of skeptics will not be here to offer their thoughts, but this one will be just for you. I'll also do a Name that Logical Fallacy. In addition, I will also give the answer to last week's skeptical puzzle and give a new skeptical puzzle.<br />
<br />
== Questions and Emails <small>(2:02)</small> ==<br />
But the bulk of this show, I decided to get caught up on all of the great emails that we get. I'll take this opportunity to thank our listeners once again for sending in so many great questions and emails. We certainly do appreciate the feedback, the constructive criticism which helps us improve our show. And the questions are great topics for discussion. In fact, we have so many good emails now that we can only touch on a small percentage of them on the show. So I figured this week I would get caught on some of our better email questions. So let's get right to them.<br />
<br />
=== Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution. <small>(2:40)</small>===<br />
The first email comes from Curt Nelson from Minneapolis, Minnesota. Curt writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Dear Skeptics,<br />
<br/><br />
Im an avid listener. Thanks for your show. In listening to your recent podcast on evolution 101, I heard you (Steve)</blockquote><br />
&mdash;that's me, the host&mdash;<br />
<blockquote><br />
say something I think really confuses people who want to understand evolution. You referred to the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution, and I know what you meant by that, but I'm sure its confusing to a lot of people. Maybe it even sounds wishy-washy to those who tend to be sympathetic to creationism. When anyone discusses Darwins theory of evolution, a couple of things should be defined up-front:<br/><br />
1) Evolution is a fact things do evolve (but without changing into a new species, as far as has been observed).<br/><br />
2) Darwin's theory is that evolution causes speciation, and is the mechanism that produced all the magnificent life we know, starting from bacteria. This is a huge leap from the fact of evolution. (For what its worth, I believe this.) Keep up the good work.<br/><br />
Sincerely yours,<br/><br />
Curt</blockquote><br />
Well, Curt, this is a topic that does come up quite frequently when discussing evolution, especially in the context of creationism. Creationists are wont to say that evolution is quote-unquote "only a theory", although I'm usually fairly careful in referring to the fact versus the theory of evolution, and I do take exception to the way that Curt defines it in his email. Now, this has been pointed out in many venues before, but I will take time to go over this briefly. The word "theory" as used by scientists is different than the way it is used colloquially by the public at large. Typically the word "theory" is used to refer to a guess or a speculation or assumption, but scientists use it to refer to an explanatory system; an idea or a unifying concept that brings together multiple lines of evidence, multiple phenomenon into one ex&mdash; one cohesive explanatory system. It doesn't really say anything about how much evidence there is for or against the theory. A theory can, in fact, range the spectrum from discredited to highly speculative to established beyond all reasonable doubt. I would characterize the theory of evolution as being established sufficiently to be considered a scientific fact, meaning over a very long period of time&mdash;150 years, about&mdash;it has withstood any attempt at falsifying it, and there have been many potential ways in which evolutionary theory could have been falsified. There have been numerous independent lines of evidence all validating the theory of evolution to such a high degree, and we have reviewed many of them on this show before. For example, fossil evidence, transitional fossils, morphological pattern of species occurring in an evolutionary pattern of relatedness, the molecular is, I think, the most profound and is irrefutably shows all life on Earth is not only related to each other but is related to each other in a branching evolutionary pattern. So, evolutionary theory deserves the label of established scientific fact, which means it's the best explanation we have for now. I will also further point that within the over-arching theory of evolution, there are several sub-theories that are worth mentioning, and often we talk theories within evolution, we're talking about one of three kinds of theories. 1, there are theories of mechanism, meaning how does evolution come about? Now, Darwin's theory is&mdash;refers specifically to the mechanism of survival of the fittest, or differential survival based up adaptive characteristics. Or, you can also state it as natural selection acting upon variation within populations. That's Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest, which is, again, just one ''kind'' of theory within evolution. The other kind of theory are theories that refer to the tempo and pace of evolution. For example, how do species, populations, and ecosystems change over geological time? Darwin's theory of tempo is known as Darwinian Gradualism, which is the idea that all species pretty much are changing slowly and imperceptably all the time. This idea, this sort of Darwinian Gradualism still has its adherents, but there are competing newer theories such as the theory of puncuated equilibrium first proposed by Stephen Gould and Niles Eldrige. This competing theory says that species are stable most of the time and that this equilibrium, this stability is punctuated by brief, geologically brief, meaning five to fifty thousand years, episodes of rapid evolution and speciation. So, and in fact, creationists have exploited disagreements about these subsets of theories of evolution to&mdash;and misinterpreted them as doubt about the overall theory of whether or not things in fact evolved or not. The third type of theory is theories of relation; what's related to what; what evolved from what? For example, the notion that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, which fit under this category. And again, that is perhaps the most speculative part of evolution at this point in time. We have a very incomplete puzzle of the history of the tree of life, of evolutionary life or phylogenetic relationships. And again, the ideas about what evolved into what are changing all the time, almost every time we pull a new, previously unknown fossil out of the ground, it's changing our picture of this pattern that, in fact, occurred. That's kind of a long answer, but that essentially, in a nutshell, is&mdash;are the fact of evolution versus the theories of evolution.<br />
<br />
=== Agnosticism <small>(9:03)</small>===<br />
E-mail #2 discusses a very different issue. This one comes from Donald Flood who gives his location only as the USA. Donald writes,<br />
<blockquote>If the empirical evidence for the existence of God is no greater than the empirical evidence for Invisible Pink Unicorns, is it logical to be agnostic with respect to the existence of God yet "atheistic" towards the existence of IPUs?<br />
<br><br><br />
Donald Flood<br><br />
USA</blockquote><br />
Well, Donald, the short answer to your question is yes. It would be illogical to be agnostic towards god and atheistic towards invisible pink unicorns and that is not, in fact, my position nor have I ever heard anyone specifically espouse that position so I think that's a bit of a straw man but it's based upon a very common misunderstanding that I get all the time. I do advocate personally an agnostic position towards claims which are not falsifiable. Claims which lie outside of the realm of science. So, and again, we have covered some of this ground before but again let me encapsulate the position that I take with regards to agnosticism. What that basically mean&ndash;and this is the sense that T. H. Huxley who actually invented, or coined, the term agnosticism to refer to his own beliefs&ndash;Agnosticism means that there are certain questions which cannot by their very nature ever be known or they cannot be explored scientifically. There is no way you could possibly validate or falsify them, therefore they are forever outside the realm of knowledge in the scientific sense and Huxley concluded that they're therefore outside the realm of anything that can meaningfully be considered knowledge. So, one can only say about that, if one were taking a consistent, logical, scientific approach, that it's unknowable. You can't know that it is true but neither can you know that it isn't true. Further, extrapolating from this you could say that there's no point in believing in any proposition which is unknowable because there are an infinite number of unknowable propositions. It's limited really only by your creativity but you could sit around and weave un-falsifiable notions all day long. None of them will ever be known and that's all that really you can say about them. Any belief in un-falsifiable notions is by definition faith and faith is therefor, by definition, outside of the realm of science and personally I choose not to have a arbitrary belief either for or against such notions and to me it's sufficient to say they're unknowable and unknowable notions are of not value to human knowledge. So that is where it reasonably ends. So therefor I would say I am agnostic toward the existence of invisible pink unicorns or any other fantastical notion that you want to come up with such as, to paraphrase a recent book, flying spaghetti monsters.<br />
<br />
=== Gerald Schroeder on God <small>(12:05)</small>===<br />
Let's go on to e-mail #3. This one also is about belief in God. This one comes from Luke from Indiana. Luke writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Skeptics,<br />
<br />
I have just recently found your podcast after listening to quite a few "paranormal/ufo/etc" podcasts for quite a while. I would consider myself, probably much like most people who are interested in these subject matters, an interested skeptic--I love considering the possibilities of these unusual subjects, but am not about to agree to something without<br />
proof.<br />
<br />
On your most recent podcast, one of the major discussions was about evolution versus intelligent design. I have read several books by Gerald L. Schroeder, a MIT graduate with a Ph.D. in Physics and a Talmudic scholar. His books have, in my limited opinion, the most well thought out argument for the possibility of a God. I was wondering if any if any of the podcast members were familiar or had read any of his books on the<br />
subject?<br />
<br />
In my personal experience, most real-life disagreements and arguements are not as simple as: one person or side is right and the other is wrong. His approach to the ID vs. big bang theories is not to show fallacies of one or the other, but instead to look for similarities and convergences of them. Regardless of one's particular disposition to either "side," I<br />
think his material is well-thought out, interesting, and worth considering.<br />
<br />
I would love to hear something about these books on your podcast and your, skeptical, opinions about the subject.<br />
<br />
Thanks and keep up the interesting podcast,<br />
<br><br><br />
Luke<br><br />
Indiana, USA</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, Luke, I confess I have not read the entire book. The most recent one is called <u>The Science of God</u> by Gerald Schroeder, although I have read significant excerpts from it and several reviews of it. The most, I think, complete review was written by Frank Sonnleitner who is Professor in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma and we'll have the link to his review on our notes page. <!-- link not found -->Basically, I think the problem with Schroeder's approach, and other's have taken a similar approach is that it begins with the assumption that there's no conflict between faith and science, specifically faith in God, in the Judeo-Christian God in this particular instance, and science and then proceeds from there. However, it never really justifies or establishes that assumption in the first place and therefor if that becomes a false major premise everything that follows from that is invalid. And I think that's the pitfall that he is falling into. You did state, I think, quite reasonably that in most real life disagreements or arguments it's not as simple as one person or side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong and I agree with that in that. In most situations that is true. I think that the most reasonable position usually lies between two extremes and there's usually both valid and invalid points on both sides in any argument or disagreement. However, that's not always the case. There are some times when side is making a profound systematic error in their approach or is following or proceeding from a invalid premise and therefor everything on that side is wrong and I think that the creationism evolution debate is one such issue. Evolution is a science and unbiased scientists I think are largely correct in their approach to evolution&ndash;in their approach and their evaluation of the evidence and the conclusions that they draw from that. Creationists, whether that's intelligent design or classic creationism are following from a very biased premise that evolution must be wrong because of their faith in creation and everything&ndash;every argument that flows from that point that they make is invalid and I have read extensively of the creationist literature, we've discussed much of it on this podcast over the months and they are a textbook of logical fallacies. They really don't have a single valid argument to make. So, it is one of those rare situations where I feel very strongly that one side, the creationist side, is in fact completely wrong. If there is a valid argument to be made on that side I have yet to hear it despite exposing myself very avidly to the arguments from the creationist side. Regarding some of the specifics of <u>The Science of God</u> by Gerald Schroeder again I'll refer back to the very good review written by Frank Sonnleitner&ndash;and he starts by saying that basically that this is an elaboration of Schroeder's prior book <u>Genesis and the Big Bang</u>. Basically, Schroeder is not being fair with the scientific evidence. He, in fact&ndash;He accepts the standard geological and paleontological history of the earth but rejects evolution. He draws the line at evolutionary connections between the higher categories. For example, different classes or different phyla. Therefor&ndash;So he allows for some evolution to occur at a local level but disagrees with connections between major forms which, of course, means that God had to, or something, some force had to create the basic forms of life and then evolution occurred within those basic forms. This is the old micro macro evolution argument that creationists have put forward. The problem with that is that there's no operational definition of what is micro versus macro evolution or why evolution would be able to create some degree of morphological change but not a greater degree. Why could allow for variations within classes but not the origin of the different classes of types of animals. He also makes a very classic creationist argument of rejecting evolution because he considers that the mechanism, natural selection, to be the result of pure chance. And again he commits the creationist logical fallacy of saying that life on earth is so complex what's the change&ndash;the probability of it occurring by chance alone is too remote and therefor we must invoke some kind of willful force. But this is looking at probability the wrong way. We, in fact, have another question on this so I'm going to come back to this a little bit later in the show. So, basically, I am not very fond of Schroeder's arguments. I think that he commits a lot of the core logical fallacies of creationists. I think he's trying to force a fit between science and Christian faith, Judeo-Christian faith, when in fact to the extent that that faith contradicts the findings of science, I think, that they just directly conflict and there is no way to resolve them. The only way to resolve them is to keep faith in it's proper realm which means dealing with the unknowables, and not to violate anything which is within the realm of science. Anything that could be investigated scientifically.<br />
<br />
=== Magnets for Migraines <small>(19:30)</small>===<br />
Okay we're going to shift gears a little bit here and take a couple of e-mails dealing with&ndash;in the medical realm. E-mail #4 comes from Anthony Petruccione. That could be pronounced Petruchioni, would be the more Italian pronunciation, from Texas. Anthony writes,<br />
<br />
<blockquote>While looking over today's news articles I spotted this article about a new magnet based device for the treatment of migraines.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure at all of the scientific vorasity of using magnets to treat pain, but I can add that my father did have some success using a magnetic bracelet to treat arthritis.<br />
<br />
Mostly i'm linking to the article to spark a discussion. Since you have people on hand with some real knowledge of medicine it would be interesting to hear what you've read from the medical literature.<br />
<br />
Though the linked article dosen't go into great detail the price seems rather staggering for a large magnet. 1000 pounds could buy quite a stack of rare earth magnets.<br />
<br />
To the truest definition of the term, i'm skeptical. I'd love to hear everyone discuss this and hope some good information is drawn out of the discussion.<br><br><br />
<br />
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=391915&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source=<br><br> <!-- this link now goes to some different article --><br />
Anthony Petruccione<br><br />
Texas<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Well, Anthony, unfortunately you won't get a full panel discussion of this issue but this is something about which I am personally very familiar so I will tackle it myself. First, I want to back up just a little bit and give some background information on what we mean by scientific research within the medical context. There are different levels of evidence within medicine. In fact, in the last 10 to 20 years there has been a movement known as evidence based medicine which has sought, basically, to standardize the evaluation of the degree of evidence for different clinical decisions and to put in the hands of clinicians, people making medical decisions, a objective assessment of the level of evidence that there is to support any particular claim. It's an excellent movement. There are some weaknesses to it. In fact I think the big weakness is that they rely exclusively on evidence and they specifically do not consider scientific plausibility and I think that that's a mistake, but as far as it goes it is extremely helpful. I'll review very quickly some basic different levels of evidence. Typically, when any new concept comes about, a new claim, whether it's based on anecdote or extrapolating from basic science research et cetera or someone just says, "Hey. Maybe A will or cure B. Let's check it out." Initially, what will be done are preliminary, or so called pilot studies. Pilot studies are very small usually involving less than 100 patients, even maybe as few as 10 subjects. They're often open label, meaning that there's no placebo control group, there's no blinding, and they're basically given to a number of patients just to get a basic feel for how they respond. Are there any major obvious side effects? Do they seem to have a positive response? The point of pilot studies is not to base definitive claims. They are purely to see whether or not this will be a productive avenue for further research. I think using these levels of evidence in order to support a clinical claim is misguided almost to the point of fraud. But, be that as it may, it is useful as a preliminary type of evidence. The second level of evidence is when you start to do some placebo control. You will compare people taking the treatment to people taking a placebo. It may or may not be open label or there may be some blinded and the numbers are usually more than in pilot study. Here we may have dozens of patients, maybe a couple of hundred patients depending on how rare the disease is and follow for a significant period of time. At least weeks if not months, longer depending&ndash;again, depending on what is being studied. Here we get to start to get some real idea about whether or not a treatment has any significant side effects. Whether or not all things considered people on the treatment do better than placebo, but still this data should not be considered definitive or conclusive. Again, the point of this really is just to see if it's worth while to go on to the next stage which is the more definite stage of research and this is when you have a large study, multi-center, prospective, meaning that you separate people into control and treatment groups before they get their treatments. You're not looking back at what people did. You're splitting them up and then either putting them on the placebo or on the treatment. That's important because that allows you to control for a lot of variables that might be interfering with the results. These studies are typically double blinded, meaning that the subjects do not know if their getting the placebo or the treatment and that the people running the study, especially those who are evaluating the subjects to see what their outcome is, also do not know if their getting the placebo or the treatment. These can be, if they're large multi-center trials, they can be fairly definitive, but even with these types of trials usually the medical community would like to see 2 or 3 of them. Some replication before saying, "Yep. This is pretty well established that this is a safe and effective treatment for this indication." That's considered the highest level of evidence. In fact, in this country in the United States, if you apply for&ndash;to the FDA to try to get a new drug on the market you have to apply for what's called an IND, an Investigational New Drug permit and then&ndash;before you can subject people to this drug you need to do preliminary basic science research and animal research to show basically that this is safe and the chance that it's going to kill people is at least relatively small. Then you break the clinical trials, or human trials, into phases. Phase 1 trials are small studies usually in healthy volunteers just looking at how the drug handles the body and how the body handles the drugs and screening for basic side effects. Then there are phase 2 trials where you're getting more safety data, you're starting for the first time look at actual outcomes to see if people are getting better. And then if all of that is positive and no problems are cropping up then you can do the phase 3 definitive trials. There's actually, in fact, phase 4 trials which are post marketing research to see if there are any less common safety issues come up now that hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of people are being exposed to the drug. Things may crop up that were missed in the trials. But even&ndash;not in the context of FDA trials, basically those same phases are followed in doing research. Now doing all of this research takes about a decade, at least. At least a decade. But when you're not within the context of regulations, for example with supplements in this country, or with things like magnets that aren't drugs&ndash;people can sell magnets, then often what we see are preliminary studies which are not definitive, should not be used to base claims, they almost always show some positive result because if it's an open label trial there's no placebo control even a pure placebo effect will seem positive so it's very common for these&ndash;the smaller initial trials to have a significant bias towards positive results. Also there's a huge file drawer effect where we just tend not to hear about the negative studies. We only tend to hear about the positive studies. So taking all that into consideration we're likely to get some preliminary positive results that's not reliable and yet those get conveyed to the public and often marketers will use those preliminary studies to say, "See this supplement or device works for these symptoms." And it will take 10 years to really proceed to the more definitive trials and do the analysis of phase 3 data and it may later be found that those&ndash;that the device or the supplements do not work but by that time companies marketing the devices have had years to develop a customer base and often people don't hear about the definitive phase 3 trials. For example, a lot of people believe the <i>Echinacea</i> is useful for colds and the initial, positive, small pilot studies were very aggressively marketed to the public. But then the large, phase 3, definitive trials were done and <i>Echinacea</i> is absolutely worthless for treating the symptoms of any infectious disease, of the common cold in particular. But most people don't know about that and when I, in fact, inform patients of that, for example, they've never heard of it. They've never heard that the data shows it doesn't work. The same is true of <i>Ginkgo biloba</i> and cognitive function or St. John's wort and depression. All have large, definitive trials that were completely negative and that made very little impact on the public consciousness. Magnets, it's basically the same thing but we're in the earlier stage of research. The phase 1 type of studies with magnets. First of all with magnet therapy there have been a number of speculative mechanisms put forward as to how magnets might work. The most common one that I hear is that the magnetic field improves blood flow and that the improved blood flow to the tissue increases healing and relieves symptoms. That mechanism, as well as every other proposed mechanism by which magnets&ndash;it's been proposed that magnets might work, has been shown to be false. Magnetic fields do not improve blood flow. Some people say, "Well, it's attracting the iron in the blood." Well, the iron in the blood is non-ferromagnetic. It does not respond to a magnetic field. Most of the magnets that are on the market have a very weak magnetic field or they may use alternating magnetic currents in order to get a stronger field but at the same time they get a much shallower magnetic field. Many do not penetrate, significantly, the wrappings around the magnet nor do they get through the skin. To date there is no compelling, carefully conducted evidence that magnets are useful for the treatment of arthritis or of pain. There is no evidence to show that they are useful for the treatment of migraines, nor is there any plausible mechanism that has been proposed by which they might work for the treatment of migraines. I think most magnetic devices come wrapped in bandages and if you put a bandage around you tennis elbow that has a magnet in it, it's probably the bandage that's helping the tennis elbow and the magnets are incidental. In addition to that there is, of course, the placebo effect which has numerous psychological factors including risk justification and then the simple desire to get better that all tend make people believe that such interventions work. So, bottom line, there's no evidence nor plausible mechanism by which to argue that magnets are useful for treating any symptom or disease and certainly not for migraines.<br />
<br />
=== Regulating Supplements <small>(30:20)</small> ===<br />
<blockquote>On your most recent podcast you mentioned the US has the worst regulations when it comes to herbs and "suppliments". I would argue, as a skeptic, that perhaps the US has the best regultions, since that nation has the most unregulated rules. I think skeptics should eschew government intervention and regulation. Don't you feel that if the government is always jumping in and saying what is and what isn't safe that people in the long run will become less skeptical about these things on their own and will pretty much trust that everything on the market is safe, since everything on the market is regulated?<br />
<br />
Sir Mildred Pierce<br />
Antarctica<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Neuroethics <small>(39:17)</small> ===<br />
<blockquote>Hey guys this question is mainly for Steve since Neurology is right up his alley. What do you know about this new field called "Neuroethics" that I continully hear about. A great quote defining what is Neuroethics by Michael Gazzaniga author of "The Ethical Brain" is "the examination of how we want to deal with the social issues of disaease, normality, mortality, lifestyle, and the philosophy of living informed by our understanding of underlying brain mechanisms" In his opinion "It is-or should be-an effort to come up with a brain-based philosophy of life. They also bring up questions such as "When is a fetus considered a person?" and "When is it moral to end a braindead person's life?" They also question "What truely is "Free Will"? He argues that we are not a ghost in the machine per se. But that we are our brains and that me, self, and I are simply illusions. That The illusion is feed by 6 characteristics working in harmony. To me morals are obviously part of the human condition, and where and why in the mind humans evolved morals is still under questioning.<br />
<br />
Elias Luna<br />
Bronx, NY<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Name that Logical Fallacy <small>(44:51)</small> ==<br />
<blockquote>Thanks again for a very informative podcast. I would like your help understanding the logical fallacies you might apply to improperly used "what are the odds" arguments. For example, religious fundamentalists often absolutely mangle statistics when they come up with their "what are the odds" arguments about our "special place in the heavens." Specifically, I'm not talking about the false premise of randomness so much as the looking backwards and being amazed at the improbability of an outcome after it as occurred. What logical fallacies might you apply here, other than simple math ignorance, since you could apply the same logic to flipping a coin 100 times, noting the odds of getting the exact sequence, and declaring it therefore a miracle.<br />
<br />
Thanks!<br />
Marty Steitz<br />
Forest Lake, MN<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Science or Fiction <small>(48:38)</small> ==<br />
Item number 1: University of Minnesota urologists have researched ways to reduce the vexing problem of kidney stone formation in astronauts.<br />
Item number 2: NY University at Buffalo researchers, reviewing data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found that, contrary to prior belief, wearing seatbelts did not significantly reduce the risk of fatality in an automobile accident.<br />
Item number 3: A team of researchers at the University of Alberta have patented a device that uses ultrasound to regrow teeth.<br />
<br />
== Skeptical Puzzle <small>(56:25)</small> ==<br />
Last Week's puzzle:<br />
<br />
Two men, both were freemasons:<br />
Man A invented an instrument that Man B used as part of a pseudoscience that he invented.<br />
<br />
Man A also famously debunked the claims of Man B.<br />
<br />
Who were the two men, and what was the instrument?<br />
<br />
Answer: The two men were Benjamin Franklin and Franz Anton Mesmer; the instrument was the glass armonica.<br />
<br />
<br />
New Puzzle:<br />
<br />
In the old game show, Let's Make A Deal, contestants were asked to pick which of three doors they thought contained a valuable prize. Once the contestant picked a door, the host, Monty Hall, would often open one of the two doors not chosen and then ask the contestant if they would like to change their pick to the other door left unopened. The question is, should a contestant stick with their original choice, change to the other door, or there is no difference statistically?<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Outro39}}<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{Navigation}}</div>Geneocide