SGU Episode 74
|
This episode needs: proofreading, formatting, links, 'Today I Learned' list, categories, segment redirects. Please help out by contributing! |
How to Contribute |
| SGU Episode 74 |
|---|
| December 20th 2006 |
 |
| (brief caption for the episode icon) |
| Skeptical Rogues |
| S: Steven Novella |
B: Bob Novella |
R: Rebecca Watson |
J: Jay Novella |
E: Evan Bernstein |
P: Perry DeAngelis |
| Quote of the Week |
-The method of science, as stodgy and grumpy as it may seem, is far more important than the findings of science. |
Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World |
| Links |
| Download Podcast |
| Show Notes |
| Forum Discussion |
Introduction[edit]
Voice-over: You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday December 20th, 2006, and this is your host, Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society. Joining me this evening are Bob Novella...
B: Happy last day of fall, everyone.
S: Perry DeAngelis...
P: In his glorious return, finally back... oh, this is my second show.
S: Evan Bernstein...
E: Well, hello, everybody.
S: Rebecca Watson...
R: Hi, everybody.
S: And Jay Novella.
J: (English accent) Top drawer, folks. Top drawer.
S: So, astute listeners may have realized that we have a full boat tonight. This is the first time we've had all six rogues on the show at the same time.
P: It's like a Christmas special!
S: (laughs) It's a holiday miracle is what it is.
E: It is.
R: I can't wait 'til Farah Fawcett shows up. (laughter)
J: So, the reason why we've never all been on before is that Skype just released a patch that allows us to have more than five people on at once.
P: Right.
S: Upped the limit to nine. Tomorrow, as Bob alluded, is the first day of winter, the winter solstice for those of us in the Northern Hemisphere. And for our listeners in the Southern Hemisphere, it's the first day of summer. It's better to be in the Southern Hemisphere.
P: How 'bout that.
E: Yeah. Wish we were there.
R: It's a—it's an optimistic day because that's when the days start getting longer again.
S: Yes, it's the return of light, which is why there's a lot of holiday celebrations this time of year.
P: How does the sun know?
S: Although, ironically—
P: Is the sun closer or farther away in the winter?
E: We're closer to the sun in the winter.
P: Heyyyyy, very good.
B: About three million miles, I think.
R: You can't fool these guys.
P: The difference in temperature, by the way, has to do with the angle of the sun, not nearness or farness.
B: Very good; very good, Perry.
E: Angle of the earth.
S: You've mastered grade-school science. Great.
R: Awww.
P: Thank you.
J: Somebody get Perry an extra cookie.
P: I never claimed to have gotten beyond grade school. I don't think it's a reason to belittle me.
News Items[edit]
Remembering Carl Sagan (2:06)[edit]
- Today is the 10 year anniversary of Carl Sagan's death.
www.carlsagan.com/
S: Today's also a bittersweet anniversary. This is a day that we can remember somebody who is close to all skeptics, but this is the anniversary of Carl Sagan's passing. Ten years ago today, Carl Sagan died.
B: That was a decade?
S: A decade.
E: I can't believe it.
S: It was right at the beginning of the New England Skeptical Society. One of our first newsletters, in fact...
P: One of our strongest pillars was broken.
S: Yes, it's true.
P: It is. What took him? What was his ailment?
E: Bone marrow cancer, right?
S: Yes, and then he... Pneumonia was the final, I think, of viral pneumonia that did not respond to treatment.
J: Do you guys remember the email that Randy sent out? He sent that email to address the issue with everyone. I remember he said something like, we lost a giant. It was very sad. It was very sad. You could tell he knew and cared about Carl Sagan a lot.
P: There was only one Carl Sagan. Skeptical community. I mean, that was a blow. That was a blow.
S: It was. I remember Carl Sagan, of course, is... He was an astronomer who was really... Did more than probably any other scientist in his generation to popularize not just astronomy, but science in general. His series, Cosmos, is still a landmark series. And I remember that in one episode of Cosmos, Sagan debunks very briefly, the notion of UFOs and that aliens are visiting the Earth and some of what was being put forward at the time as key pieces of evidence. And at the time, that was the first time I had ever heard anybody express any skepticism about UFOs or the fact that we're being visited by aliens. And it was. It was a total revelation. I mean, it was literally my introduction into the whole notion of skepticism.
P: What about in search of, Steve? (laughter)
S: In search of.
J: Yeah, but Spock was on that. It had to be true.
E: Logical.
S: That Leonard Nimoy series was terrible, terrible.
J: I dare say that not one truthful thing was ever discussed on that show. Right? Every single episode was total bullshit.
P: No matter what they were searching for, they found it.
B: Yeah, but his delivery was awesome.
J: But who can deny anyone who does remember watching that show as a kid? We were all drooling. We were so excited about it. That was my favorite TV show.
P: It was. It was huge. It was horrible. I'll never forget. I saw Carl Sagan once on the Dennis Prager show. And he was talking about it was kind of religious, but he was talking about he's, look, here's the galaxy. You know, here's all the galaxies. And here's this one galaxy. And here's this spur. And way down here at the end of this spur, way over here, look at this little piece of dust over here. This is the center of the universe, he says. These people here, they believe there's, he's the whole thing is preposterous.
R: The tiny blue dot.
P: And he really, really pointed out how insignificant the Earth was in the great cosmos.
B: So he was actually, he was instrumental in convincing people to turn Voyager around to get that final shot of the Earth.
J: Of the Earth, yeah.
B: And I think that picture might have even, did that even inspire the title of his book, Pale Blue Dot. And it took some convincing. Apparently, people didn't want to turn Voyager around. But he convinced them and got that famous picture.
J: So, Bob, was it a big deal to actually turn Voyager around?
B: You wouldn't think so, but...
P: I don't know. Retasking spacecraft is pretty, I think it's pretty substantial.
E: It's six billion kilometers away.
P: But still, it's impressive. It's impressive.
J: Is that how far away it was?
E: It was, yep. It was over six billion kilometers, according to the website.
P: The point is that he knew he saw it in his mind. He knew how important that picture was going to be.
S: You know, that part of science and the public support for science is capturing the imagination of people. And that you have to have the romanticism and the awe of science. And he was the best at that, at presenting science in such a way that broadened your perspective on yourself and on reality and really did bring that sense of awe.
E: Well, he captured it in Cosmos, that's for sure.
P: It should be required viewing at school, and Demon Haunted World should be required reading. It's cliché to say it, but they really should be.
R: I agree. Demon Haunted World was my first serious skeptics book.
E: Mine too.
P: Such an important book.
R: Yeah, it was a perfect introduction to it because he presents things with such a such a pleasant tone and he's very easy to follow. And before you know it, he's led you down this path where all of a sudden you look back and you started really far away. But it didn't really seem like a long and hard journey.
J: It's true.
E: I think that is the one book. If anyone has to read one book that sums up science, the skeptical community and so many other things that we champion here in our cause, it's that book.
R: Yeah.
J: I would watch Carl Sagan's show. I felt like he simultaneously was an absolute authority in what he was saying and he also was in absolute awe and in love with what he was expressing and relating to us. That's how I remember him. I always think of him as he really knew what he was talking about and he was very confident about it. But he was also expressing to you how much he loved the material.
P: Well, it's a translation of that passion to the common ear is what makes you a great speaker and a great communicator.
B: Have they updated Cosmos in its most recent release? Did they actually update some of the signs? Because I'm sure it was very out of date.
S: It's actually not. I watched it recently.
B: The entire thing.
S: Yes. And most of it is not out of date. Most of this stuff is basic physics and biology.
P: It could use a nice remaster.
S: They did do that. They did update the special effects.
P: They did. OK. I recently saw Ken Burns' Civil War remastered. And you wouldn't think I mean, how old is that? Twelve years? Fifteen years? The remaster, it looks beautiful by comparison. It really does.
S: Twelve years ago. I mean, that was the dark ages of CGI.
P: It makes a huge difference. Huge difference.
B: Well, how many special effects were there in that documentary?
P: It doesn't even need it, Bob. Just a picture of Shelby Foote sitting in his chair. They showed them side by side before and after. It's startling.
B: Wow.
R: Yeah, they really did do a great job.
P: Carl Sagan, one last thing, but I'll tell you at the beginning of Demon Haunted World, when he says that his love of science and astronomy and just all of it really came to his mind the first time. He said when he first began to grasp that the stars were mighty suns. Think about that concept when when that first enters your mind, that those little flecks of light up there are actually mighty burning suns. And what a revelation.
B: Some of them much, much bigger than our sun.
P: And what a revelation. You know, and he said that. That was that was what captured his imagination.
S: And he also he characterized science as a personal journey. And he really presented it that way. And it's like we were joining him on this personal journey of discovery of the universe. That's what really sucks you in. So here's remembering Carl Sagan, definitely an icon of of science, of the public understanding of science and of the skeptical movement. There is a movement among science bloggers to ever for everyone to write about Carl Sagan today to commemorate this milestone. And we're doing our part in doing that as well.
P: I miss you, Carl.
S: We do. So let's move on.
Some recent Sylvia Browne gaffes: (10:12)[edit]
- www.break.com/index/sylvia_brown_worlds_worst_psychic.html
www.stopsylviabrowne.com/home/
S: We have a couple of the news items tonight. There is a bit of a Sylvia Brown update. We can't go for too much time without reminding everybody about how terrible and horrific this woman is. Sylvia Brown is a somewhat popular noted psychic-
E: Claimd psychuc.
S: Claimed alleged psychic. But she is just terrible. She is a frequent guest on the Montel Williams show. The one of the nice things about YouTube is that it is easy to share interesting videos. And it's been a couple of videos on Sylvia Brown going around on YouTube.
R: Screw that. Just go to stopsylviabrown.com.
S: That's true. Go right to the source.
R: Yeah. No, really. Because that's where Robert Lancaster is collecting all of those videos so you can see them all in one place. It's very handy.
S: That's true. And the two that have been circulating almost virally now are recent psychic alleged psychic readings that she's doing where things go horribly wrong for Sylvia. So watch them. We'll have the links. But quickly, in one of them, a woman says that she's crying over the fact that she lost her boyfriend and he was never found. And Sylvia says that's because he's in water. So she was just trying to make a high probability hit. Someone's dead. They were never found. Therefore-
P: They're probably in water.
E: 78% of the earth is covered in water. So he's in water.
S: People whose bodies are not found are probably lost in water. So that's what she says. It turns out that her boyfriend was a fireman who was lost on 9/11. So there's really no possible connection to water or drowning. And Sylvia, though, doesn't come up. She's like, well, I see him in water. And he's telling me that he can't breathe because he's drowning in water. And the woman, I think, you could tell she was just horrified. She was stunned. It's like, what is this woman talking about?
R: Yeah, I think Sylvia tries to bring it back to smoke in his lungs or something like that.
J: And Montel is like, well he tries to play along and help her out whenever she stumbles, which is totally ridiculous.
E: Yes, he covers her.
B: I actually had to pause that video halfway through. I couldn't get through it the first try. It was just so pathetic and disgusting. It was horrific.
R: You think that's bad. You should try seeing her in person.
B: No thank you.
R: It's like a million hot pokers in your eyeballs. It's horrific.
P: You saw her in person, Rebecca?
R: Yeah, I blogged about it a while back. No, I, she was she was here in Boston and I snuck in to see her. And yeah, if anybody's interested, you can go to my blog for the full breakdown. I have transcripts of some of the choice your segments and some of the things that she says to these people. It's just heartbreaking. She told one woman, one woman asked her who killed her brother. And Sylvia said that it was two people, male and female, and they were very close to the woman who was asking the question. And that was just so horrific beyond imagination. I mean, if you just put yourself into this woman's place where she's lost her brother, she's probably a bit upset. And now this hag is telling her that she can't trust anyone.
S: Anyone male, female, someone close to you.
R: Yeah, it's anyone close to you. You just can't trust them anymore. She doesn't have a name. She doesn't have any identifying feature. So everybody is a suspect now. I mean, to put that woman's life in turmoil like that and not even flinch is just it's beyond my understanding.
B: It should be a crime. It should be criminalized.
E: Why does Sylvia Brown have the appeal she has?
R: It's scary.
E: It escapes me. Really does.
R: It's the power of self-deception. People want to believe that this exists. They want to believe that there are guardian angels around them. They want to believe that their loved ones go on after they die.
B: It gives them a sense of control.
P: That's right. They feel like they have no power.
E: Can't they get it from someone more talented even than Sylvia Brown?
S: But you don't have to be talented. Clearly, clearly you don't have to because she is a terrible, terrible cold reader.
E: Well, exactly. That's what she's doing. My point is what is this woman's appeal? She has zero appeal on I think on all levels and any level.
P: Her appeal is she sold Montel Williams on it and he puts her on a show.
R: I think that was a big part of it is Montel Williams is a tireless supporter of her.
E: And Larry King's equally culpable, frankly.
P: He is.
E: He's had her on enough.
P: He's another mindless interviewer. So Sylvia, what do you see today? He really is a baboon.
S: The other video that's been going around is just as bad. Again, these parents who lost a child and she very quickly jumps to government says, well, he was shot. And the mother, you can see she's shocked. She's like doesn't know what to think. She's stunned at this statement. She says, well, she just collapsed in her room. And the autopsy didn't reveal anything. We have no idea why she dropped dead. Oh, she was shot. I guess they must have missed the bullet in her heart or something.
J: No, then Sylvia goes, oh, I see something hitting the chest. Yeah. Change your story now. Let her massage that story. And a half hour later, she'll be saying, yes, she just collapsed.
R: And also what's really amazing is that's what made it to television. There's a vast amount of editing. And that's the other reason why I recommend seeing these people in person if you can stomach it.
P: They're much worse.
R: They're so much worse.
P: I think about 20 years ago, I saw a No Name Psychic at a Barnes and Noble. You must have had some crappy book out.
J: I was there with you, Perry.
P: Yeah. You remember, Jay, we were sitting around and I made up a whole story about, I don't know, getting a job or something. I said, gee, do you think I should go for the interview? I don't know. I'm unsure. I think you should go for that job. And I think blah, blah, blah. Anyway, at the end, I said, look, I made all this up. I'm not going for a job. You know, I didn't see any. She just had a big smile plastered on her face. And she was kind of wide eyed. You know, and I totally exposed her and I said everything was all fake. I didn't see any of it. And she was embarrassed. And people got mad at me. And then it ended shortly thereafter. And I heard multiple people apologizing to her for me. For me being in the audience.
S: That was the same crowd, Perry, where the topic of crop circles came up. And one of the women in the audience said, well, how could you possibly make a perfect circle?
B: About a rope and a piece of wood?
S: So that's the crowd that we were talking about.
P: That was a tough room at Barns and Noble that night.
S: It's worth noting about Sylvia Brown that she agreed to be tested by James Randi for the Million Dollar Psychic Challenge. And that was 271 weeks ago. She's been ducking Randi ever since.
B: Well, she said she couldn't find him, you know.
S: Yeah, because he's so hard to track down.
P: He has the clock on his web page. He has the Sylvia Brown countdown clock or whatever it's called. Absolutely.
R: Perry, what you mentioned about the people apologizing to the psychic. I think that happens so often. It's amazing because it's still part of that self-deception thing because they buy into it so much that if the psychic is proven to be a fraud, then they have to admit that they've been lying to themselves all this time, too. And that's a really difficult thing to do. And if you guys don't mind staying on the subject for a second, I can relate another thing.
P: Go ahead.
R: Another thing that happened while I was at Sylvia's talk here, a woman came up and wanted to ask Sylvia a question about her kids. First, she starts out by saying that she lost her husband two years ago. And Sylvia interrupts and says, why is he holding his head? And the woman looks really confused and she says, well, I don't know. And Sylvia says, I don't know either because he's holding his head. And she says, well, maybe he's confused. And she laughs nervously. And she's kind of giving Sylvia the benefit of the doubt here. Sylvia sticks with it. She says, no, he's not confused because he's made it. I think meaning that he's made it to heaven. And the woman says, she just looks really confused. And she says, OK, well, what I'd like him to ask me. And she just moves on. She just glosses over it because it's really embarrassing. And then the amazing thing is that she actually goes on to kind of test Sylvia because what she wanted to ask is she wanted him to answer where he had a sex talk with her children. Her children wanted her to ask that so that they could confirm that he was actually there. So Sylvia looks really kind of nervous and pauses for the first time ever. And finally she spits out, one was in the bedroom, one was outside. And the woman looks really confused again. And she says, one was in the bedroom and one was outside. You mean he had two conversations with them? Which immediately indicates that Sylvia was wrong, that there was probably only one talk with both of them. And the woman says, well, where outside. And Sylvia says, I don't know. He said outside.
P: By the bedroom window.
R: Yeah, nice and vague.
B: Talk about hedging your bets. One was inside and one was outside. Changes are you got one that was right.
J: Bigger or smaller than a bread box?
B: Somewhere in the United States.
R: Right. The woman asks for further clarification. And Sylvia says, he said there was a tree and he was talking to them. Those were her exact words. There was a tree and he was talking to them.
E: Can someone tell me why I'm holding my head right now?
R: Right. And this is where it gets particularly bad.
J: Oh God, the story continues?
R: It actually gets worse here. Because at that point the woman just looks sort of disappointed, says okay, and begins to walk away. But Sylvia stops her and she says, I'm telling you something was wrong with his head because he keeps showing me his head. How did he die? And the woman says he had cancer. He had colon cancer.
P: So he had his head in his ass.
R: Sylvia just sort of nods like, yeah, okay, right. And she says, and he said it went everywhere, right? And the woman says, it did, yeah, it did. And Sylvia says, well, apparently that's what bothered him the most. And the woman says, well, at the very end he was speechless. And Sylvia says, yes, as if that was it. So how could Sylvia get it wronger? I just made that up.
J: Rebecca, from that story it really shows that she knows that she's full of shit, right? It's not like she's self-deluding herself. There's cold readers out there that don't even know they're doing cold reading.
R: Yeah. It was a huge jump. You're going from head to colon cancer.
S: She has her routine. She did not want to be put off of her routine. She had her high probability hit. It's either the head or the chest, right? You're dead. It's either the head or the chest.
E: She could have whipped out phrenology or something.
S: You could always bring it to something, no matter what happened to cause somebody to die. The final event is probably going to in some way involve something in the chest or something in your head. So she didn't want to get taken off of that routine. Even that failed.
R: Yes.
S: But she goes to the fail safe.
R: And you could see that the entire time the woman is on her side. And the woman is going to help her. She's going to walk her through this. It's like, let me help you get from head to colon cancer.
E: That is the heart of cold reading. That is what it's all about.
R: It really is. It's letting the other person do the work for you.
P: The only way to come kicking and screaming into the light is at some point you've got to admit you were wrong. You were duped. And it's such a huge hurdle to get over. Almost impossible.
S: Imagine with that person working as hard as she was. Imagine if Sylvia said anything which was halfway right.
R: It would be huge for her.
S: That would get parlayed into a resounding success.
J: Doesn't that drive you guys nuts? That woman puts her head on her pillow at night and she knows. She's full of it.
P:' She's a businesswoman, Jay. She's into it for the money.
R: I think the important thing to get out of this though is that the people who are most invested in it are the ones who are giving Sylvia their time and their money and their hearts.
P: The most desperate.
R: They're the most desperate. And I think that that's why it's important to reach people when they're young, before they get invested, before they get so fooled, before they buy into it so much that they will never admit they're wrong.
S: You need to inoculate them against it ahead of time. Once they're a true believer, it's hard. They're lost.
B: It's a waste of time to even attempt to change people once you're that far down the road. You shouldn't be focusing your energies on people like that at all because it's a waste of time.
Study shows vegetarians have higher IQ's (24:46)[edit]
- news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6180753.stm
S: One more quick news item before we move on to email. Rebecca, this one's for you. A new study in Southampton University shows that links high IQ with being a vegetarian.
R: Oh, surprise, surprise.
S: Surprise, surprise. This is a study reported in the British Medical Journal, and this was a study of 8,179 people followed. Well, they had their IQ carried out in 1970, and 20 years later they were surveyed to see what their eating habits were, and 366 of them described themselves as vegetarian, although more than 100 of those said that they eat fish or chicken at some point in time.
R: That's funny because I eat fish every now and then.
P: Vegetarians are pretty broad termed.
E: It's too loose a term.
S: Men who described themselves as a vegetarian had an IQ score of 106 on average, compared with 101 for non-vegetarians, and females were 104 for vegetarians and 99 for non-vegetarians. In both groups there's a five point difference between the vegetarians and the non-vegetarians.
J: Is that enough of a difference to be accurate?
S: You mean statistically significant?
J: Yeah.
S: It was statistically significant, yes. Of course, always the big question is, all right, so what's causing what? Is this A causing B, B causing C, or some third thing C causing both? It certainly would be very premature to say that being a vegetarian makes one more intelligent, although some vegetarian advocates are trying to sort of say that the data suggests that. It's actually much more likely, especially since the way the study was carried out, it's that high IQ predicted that later on you would describe yourself as a vegetarian. It's probably more likely that people who are more intelligent are more predisposed to becoming a vegetarian, and then there are a host of cultural and social factors which could influence those decisions.
R: Well, I think, yeah, one way or the other, no matter which causes which, I think the important thing to remember is that I'm smarter than all of you.
S: Yes, that's right, we can't forget that.
P: I'll crawl through life with 101 IQ if it means that I can eat my filet mignon. Please, I mean.
R: Isn't that the one made from baby deer? Isn't that the baby one? No, that's veal, I'm thinking of it.
S: That's veal.
E: It's French food.
J: Is it possible, Steve?
P: Filet mignon is just a nice juicy tender center cut steak.
J: Is it possible that eating red meat could have any impact on how well your brain functions?
R: Didn't, I mean, I was under the impression that when humans began eating red meat during our evolution, that helped us get larger brains.
S: Yeah, I mean, when we started cracking open marrow and eating the fat and having a very high protein diet, that partly enabled our stature and our brains to grow bigger because you need high calorie dense food. Although that doesn't really apply to modern society because most industrialized societies today are not calorie restricted or calorie limited. So then the question becomes are there micronutrients or nutritional factors in certain foods that would promote brain growth that could be associated with IQ? And the evidence actually, there really isn't any evidence that eating red meat has a negative impact or even that eating vegetables has a positive impact. The only one for which there really is consistent evidence is that fish does correlate positively with IQ. And there are fatty acids and other things in fish that are key components to brain tissue. So even in some of these studies were done looking at, say in islands, islanders eat a lot of fish. And there's concern about mercury poisoning because a lot of seafood can have mercury in it. And they were concerned that maybe mercury was having a negative impact on IQ. But even in those studies that were looking to see if there was a negative effect of mercury from fish found that there was a positive effect overall from eating fish. So even if there were a negative effect from mercury, it was more than compensated for by the positive effects of eating fish.
J: Hey, so, Steve, real quick before we switch gears, I just wanted to mention that Tom Cruise announced that he's I guess he's going forward with a movie that he has been trying to get bankrolled by the major studios. All of them rejected him and he's going to probably bankroll himself now. And it's a Scientology movie and Posh Spice just signed up. I guess Tom Cruise is very excited about her starring in it.
R: Now, Tom Cruise, he eats meat, right? Yeah.
J: No, he's glib.
E: Victoria Beckham, I think.
S: Because Battlefield Earth did so well in the theaters.
J: So if anybody else out there hears about it, I'd like to know more about this. I can't find any other data on it. I want to know what the movie is actually about. I want to know what the topic is.
P: What is Posh Spice?
R: From the Spice Girls.
J: Posh Spice, one of the Spice Girls.
R: She's married to David Beckham. Keep up.
J: Remember all the English girls, all those hot girls?
P: It's a person.
B: Aren't the Spice Girls the girls that walked into a room that time and one of them pointed at a computer and said, is that an Internet? I want to get an Internet.
J: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
B: That's them, right?
R: That doesn't sound true.
P: I should have known about her. I'm sorry.
B: You think that's apocryphal?
R: That sounds apocryphal to me.
J: No, I remember that.
R: I'd like to see a reference.
S: Give us a source for that part.
B: I was just going to say, I just can't believe Cruise is going to... Doesn't he put two and two together and see that once he started really talking about his beliefs that his career tanked severely and now he's going to make a movie about it, that's going to be the final nail in the coffin of his career.
S: We can hope.
P: He's wed to Scientology. He's wed to it.
J: I hate that bastard. I totally despise him.
R: We know Jay.
P: It's over.
J: Oh, God. I just can't wait for this ridiculous movie to come out and for that guy to fall flat on his stupid freaking face.
P: I think the more people belittle him for it, the deeper he digs in.
J: Oh, God. He's such an ass.
S: All right. Your emails and questions.
Questions and E-mails[edit]
Santa Claus (31:06)[edit]
Hi,
With the upcoming holiday season, I'm running into a problem at home. The more I think about it, the more I do not want my child to 'believe' in Santa Claus. She is only a year and a half old, so it is not a big issue this year, but it will be next year. When I mentioned to my wife that I would like Skyla (my daughter) to know the truth about Santa, she started crying and bringing up all those wonderful memories of her parents lying to her. What is the reasonable thing to do here? Is there a middle ground we can take? Any suggestions.
By the way, 'The skeptics guide to the universe' is by far my favorite podcast of all. Keep up the good work.
Arno van Werven
Dania, Florida, USA
And
Hello! Thank-you for your show! SGU is by far my favorite podcast.I take great satisifaction in overpowering a station labeled as 'RELIGUS' on my car radio's LCD display with my i-pod's FM transmitter while listening to your show.
My question is as follows: Both my wife and I are skeptics and extremely agnostic. However, we do enjoy celebrating the holidays in a very secular sense; i.e. setting up a tree, exchanging gifts, playing holiday music, lighting the menorah etc.
We have 4 wonderful children who we have lead on to believe in Santa Claus. Being skeptical by nature I admittedly have mixed feelings about this. Our rational is that it was fun for us to believe as kids ourselves. For myself I might also argue that learning of the non-existance of SC began my road from religiousity/gulibility to skepticism.
I am not really out to have my mind changed but would LOVE to hear some skeptical opinions on the subject of Santa Claus and kids.
Thanks and keep up the good work!
Michael Bukowski-Thall DVM
Maine USA
S: Question number one. This comes from Arno Van Werven in Dania, Florida. And Arno writes, "Hi, with the upcoming holiday season, I'm running into a problem at home. The more I think about it, the more I do not want my child to believe in Santa Claus. She's only a year and a half old, so it is not a big issue this year, but it will be next year. When I mentioned to my wife that I would like Skyla, my daughter, to know the truth about Santa, she started crying and bringing up all those wonderful memories of her parents lying to her. What is the reasonable thing to do here? Is there a middle ground we can take? Any suggestions? By the way, The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe is by far my favorite podcast of all. Keep up the good work." Well, thank you very much. So there's actually a couple other emails, which I'm not going to read, but I'll put on the notes page, asking basically the same question. This question is also asked on the message board. So, clear, there are a lot of skeptical parents out there that are very concerned about Santa Claus and what to do in terms of your kids.
B: I don't have a problem with it. I've got an eight-year-old, and she'll be Santa training very soon. I mean, I think the fun far outweighs any of the dangers of believing in this fantasy person. I mean, my memories, think about your memories of Santa Claus. And most people, I think, would agree that it was such a fun period of their childhood. And then you think of the transition to not believing. And I mean, I just remember my mother telling me, and I don't remember thinking, oh, you've been lying to me for years. I hate you. That never even occurred to me. As a matter of fact, for a lot of kids, when they're told that Santa Claus doesn't exist, their first thought is, well, does that mean I don't get presents anymore? They're not even thinking. You bastards, you lied to me these past seven, eight, nine years or whatever. It's such a fun time in their childhood. And some people have actually used that transition to kind of segue into a more skeptical outlook on life, which doesn't hurt.
S: So the two schools of thought are, one is, I don't want to deceive my child and encourage them to believe in a magical being. The other school is, as Bob said, it's a good life lesson. They believe in a magical being. And then as they grow older and mature, they realize that it's make believe it's all a fantasy. And in fact, they may even at some point investigate whether or not Santa exists and reason out his non-existence by themselves.
R: I left a list of questions for Santa grilling him one year.
B: You did? Is that last year? Did he answer the questions?
R: He did not answer the questions to my satisfaction.
S: There you go. First of all, it's worth pointing out that nobody knows. There's no data out there. No one's done psychological or social studies that I could find. If anyone knows about one, let me know. Saying that one school of thought or the other is correct. So this is completely dataless, which means everyone can have their own opinion. But some parents just don't like the notion of lying to their kids. And so I'm going to offer another alternative, which is what my wife and I have done. We haven't told our kids about Santa Claus, nor have we dissuaded them from believing in Santa. And you know what? They just pick up Santa Claus from the culture. You can't get away from it.
B: Oh, come on. You don't play along with them?
S: Well, listen, I never say anything which indicates that I believe or disbelieve in Santa Claus. I usually will just reflect back what they're saying at them. So you think this about Santa.
R: Because the kids are probably recording these and they'll check them later. And they'll see, oh, very clever, Dad.
S: For those parents who feel uncomfortable about lying, nope, you don't really have to lie. You could just play the totally neutral, reflecting kind of parent. And they will pick it up from the culture all by themselves.
R: I think people must have had a very different childhood from me when I hear things like this. Because I grew up and my entire family lied to me nonstop because it was funny. Like they loved just filling my head with nonsense and seeing how long it took me to figure it out. My dad had a sports car once and my cousin thought if you pushed one of the buttons on the radio, a parachute came out the back and he thought that until he was 30. OK, that's how my family works. We tell elaborate lies to one another because we think it's hysterical.
S: So you're telling this to us as a cautionary tale?
R: No, I think it's lovely. I think children, I grew up in a fantasy world. I lived in a fantasy world. And I think it's lovely for a child to really believe in dragons and fairies. And it's fun to imagine what else is out there.
B: It's part of being a kid.
R: It really is.
B: Kids have fertile imaginations. That's part of being a kid. And Santa Claus is part of that.
S: First of all, kids do live in a fantasy world. That's just the way their brain develops. No matter what you try to do, what you think is going on in their head, they're living in a total fantasy world.
R: Like Jay now.
S: Some people never grow out of that phase.
R: I think it's integral. I think it sets you up for a lifetime of wondering, well, what if this were true? And what if this were true? And then as they grow older, they're going to be testing those things out. And Santa Claus is not the same as god. And I think a lot of skeptics have a chip on their shoulder concerning this. Because they see the parallels. But there's a very key difference between Santa Claus and god or whatever other belief you want to throw in there. And that is that eventually you do figure out that Santa Claus is not really there. And so when your parents are telling you that there's a Santa Claus, it's with a wink. And they don't expect you at age 30 to still believe that the parachute comes out the back of the car.
P: So your skepticism, Rebecca, was a survival mechanism for getting by your family.
S: Your psychopathic family.
R: I'm not sure psychopathic would be the word, but since they don't listen to this podcast, sure.
S: So there you have it. Yes, Virginia, lie to your kids about Santa Claus.
E: Or raise them Jewish and avoid it altogether. That's what I did.
R: Wait, let me add this one thing, and maybe this will redeem my family. When my oldest brother started to figure out the Santa Claus thing, he went to my dad and said, Dad, all the kids are saying that there's no such thing. Is there a Santa Claus? And my dad looked him in the eye and he said that there's a Santa Claus, but it's an idea and it's not a person. Santa Claus is doing good things for people just because. And so long as you keep doing that throughout the rest of your life, there'll always be a Santa Claus.
P: Isn't that nice.
R: See?
E: And they live happily.
P: Very sweet.
R: As psychopaths, yeah.
S: Well, we've gone from Carl Sagan then to Sylvia Brown and now back to Santa Claus. That was an emotional roller coaster this episode.
Facilitated Communication (38:45)[edit]
Dear Dr. Novella,
First of all I have to thank-you for the amazingly prompt reply to my last e-mail, suffice it to say - you made my day! The podcasts are still fantastic, keep up the good work. I do have a question considering autism or more specifically 'facilitated communication' as I recently saw a CNN special about said topic and I was surprised to see no skeptical rebuttal at all which confused me as I remember reading a debunking on the SWIFT commentary. What's the deal here? Or more specifically my question is - is facilitated communication real or not? I think this would make a good topic for your show. Warmest Regards,
Mike Kozlowskyj
Ontario, Canada
American Psychological Association position paper on FC: www.apa.org/about/division/cpmscientific.html#4
Martin Gardener article on FC: www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_1_25/ai_68966515
S: The next email comes from Mike Kozlowski, who writes, "Dear Dr. Novella, first of all, I have to thank you for the amazingly prompt reply to my last email. Suffice it to say, you made my day. The podcasts are still fantastic. Keep up the good work. I do have a question considering autism, or more specifically, facilitated communication, as I recently saw a CNN special about said topic, and I was surprised to see no skeptical rebuttal at all, which confused me as I remember reading a debunking on the Swift commentary. What's the deal here? Or more specifically, my question is, is facilitated communication real or not? I think this would make a good topic for your show. Warmest regards, Mike." He's from Ontario, Canada, by the way. So the short answer is that facilitated communication is complete bunk. Let me give you the background on this. So this came out in the 80s primarily. This is the notion that kids who have severe autism or other forms of cognitive dysfunction who are not communicative, they can't talk, that in fact they have hidden literacy. They actually, there's a lot more going on inside their brain than is apparent simply because they lack the ability to speak. But if you could find some way to bridge that gap of communication, then you could tap into this hidden intellectual life that these kids are living. Of course, it's an extremely appealing notion to parents and to caregivers and to people who work with these kids that they're actually intellectually much more advanced than we think they are. The mechanism of facilitated communication is that a facilitator would hold the arm of the autistic or the cognitively challenged child, and then they would help them to point out letters on a letter board or to type keys on a typewriter. And the thinking was that they just lacked the motor skill to do it themselves. They just needed a little help from the facilitator, but that they were directing the key punches. And when this method was applied to these children who appeared to be completely nonverbal, they started writing poetry and expressing to their parents how much they've always loved them and revealing these deep, remarkable intellectual lives that were previously hidden. It was like a revelation. There were some caregivers who had been working with these kids who were just emotionally overwhelmed by this whole phenomenon. Unfortunately, the early adopters and promoters of facilitated communication never stopped to question these methods, to ask the skeptical questions. Is this method really working? Is there any other explanation for this phenomenon? Is there any way we could do some tests to verify that what we think is happening is actually happening? And before you know it, there were organizations and institutions and seminars and just hundreds or thousands of practitioners. And then things started to get a little bit dark when estranged parents would, being the facilitator, would facilitate their autistic child spelling out that daddy raped me or caregivers started to reveal that these kids were being abused by their parents or by someone else in their life.
P: So it was right on the heels of recovered memories, wasn't it, Steve?
S: It was about the same time that the recovered memory thing was happening as well. So that was a very, very dark side to this whole phenomenon. And actually, I think it also hastened the end because now you had people who were motivated to be skeptical of this methodology. So it turns out when the studies were done, when information was presented to the child that was hidden from the facilitator or different information was given to the facilitator, the communication that was occurring was all consistent with what the facilitator was being shown and what they knew and was not revealing any of the information that the child was being exposed to. So the entire facilitated communication phenomenon came crashing down. But like all pseudosciences, they rarely go away completely. So there are still dedicated practitioners, dedicated organizations out there who will not give it up, who basically they did crappy studies to show that it works, even though all of the well-designed and performed studies show that there's absolutely no effect here. What you're actually dealing with is what we call the ideomotor effect. This is the same kind of phenomenon that produces dowsing, that produces the Ouija board effect, that it's basically subtle muscle movements that you're not conscious of. So it's not as if the facilitators were doing this on purpose. They didn't realize that they were moving the child's hand because of the ideomotor effect. So it was just naive.
J: Steve, you said before that some kids wrote poetry. I find it very hard to believe that someone involved in this scenario isn't aware that they're doing it if literally poetry is coming out of them.
S: No. Maybe, Jay, if you can imagine certain words come out and then the facilitator might think that they're anticipating where the person's going with their poetry. In fact, they're actually the ones who's composing it. You know what I mean? So yeah, don't underestimate the capacity for self-deception. It's also some other things. And there was a good Nova special on this as well.
P: Steve, excuse me. When you're manufacturing rape stories, you still think it's the ideomotor effect?
S: Yeah, sure. Absolutely. Your fear that they are being raped by your ex-husband who you hate.
P: Or your hatred of them.
S: Yeah. Your fear of that combined with your hatred of your ex-husband says, aha! Just as I suspected. She was being abused by that guy.
P: You don't think it was ever manufactured? I mean, come on.
S: I can't say that. I can't say that it was never manufactured. But I do think it's certainly possible for people to have done it purely through self-deception. Absolutely. Some of the video of facilitators, though, there are so many red flags and you really have to shake your head. It's sad and pathetic at the same time. In one of the videos, which was again a Nova special sort of expose of facilitated communication, the child who was allegedly communicating with facilitated communication is literally staring off into space. They're not looking at the keyboard at all. And it's impossible to one-finger type, one-finger freehand type without looking at the keyboard. Try it. You have to have your fingers on the board so you could feel where you are on the keyboard, or you have to look at the keys. So this is one of those things where if you are dedicated to believing in it, you have to believe that these kids not only have hidden literacy, they're prodigies. They could do things that normal people can't do, like single-finger type, without looking at the keyboard. Even though there was never any attempt made to actually teach them how to read, they somehow absorbed their literacy from their environment. And in fact, many of them were reading well beyond their grade level. So now we have to believe that children who have a fairly severe form of mental retardation or autism or whatever, not only have hidden literacy, they have these hidden skills, and they're actually intelligent beyond their years. And I have been personally involved with parents who believe that.
J: And it makes them feel better. Yeah, it's a self-deception then, I guess.
S: I was personally involved with a parent who believed that their 4-year-old child was, through facilitated communication, was reading on a 10th grade level in both English and in Hebrew.
P: Did you dissuade them?
S: They could not utter a word. I can't really go into more details than that, but I'll just say that was the case I was involved with.
J: Steve, you can tell us. We won't tell anybody.
S: That's how bad it gets. That's how bad it gets. But it is sad.
J: Well, I'm glad that I am very glad that it was revealed because like what was happening with people getting false accusations, I mean, where was that coming from? Why would that happen?
S: Spectral evidence, yeah.
J: Like the person sitting there, the facilitator is sitting there, and it's a totally unconscious thing that they're going to blame person X for sexual abuse. What? That's insanity.
S: And that it was entered into evidence in the courtroom is incredible. And eventually it ran its cycle just like the repressed memories did, you know. But still, for a while, this was evidence. It's crazy.
P: You know, you wonder if afterwards judges, lawyers, and so forth who were involved in these things, recovered memories, facilitated communication, if afterwards if they feel any sense of regret and stupidity that they were caught up in these things.
S: You'd hope so.
P: You certainly would hope so.
S: They could say to themselves that they were just going with the evidence that was available at the time. They can't be held responsible for later scientific discoveries. But that's no excuse.
Randi Speaks (48:26)[edit]
- The Uncompromising Observations of a Veteran Skeptic
Each week James Randi gives a skeptical commentary in his own unique style.
This week's topic: Special Expertise
JR: Hello, this is James Randi. With the assistance of Chris, a volunteer who drops by at least twice a week to help us organize our library, we are going through the almost 2,000 volumes that we have in there now. Inevitably, as you might expect, we found that we had more than one copy of some books that were in two different categories. We trimmed that down, rather considerably. And of course, all the extras are going off to Michael Shermer in California for his library. But this process seems to bring your concentrated attention—or at least my concentrated attention—on some individual volumes that either I hadn't noticed before or I hadn't noticed in quite some time. For example, I have five out of the six volumes of That's Incredible!, based on the television series created by Alan Landsburg, of some years ago; I'm sure you'll remember that. And it's really quite revealing to read back through some of these entries. I'll add in here the fact that we're missing number four out of the six, so if anyone happens to have a paperback copy of That's Incredible! volume four, we'd very much like to acquire that.
Leafing through these books tended to bring back some old memories of episodes we'd seen on That's Incredible!, which I always used to refer to and still occasionally do as "That's Inedible!". One episode that got my attention—host John Davidson introduced an archer, a middle-aged gentleman with a regular bow, a target bow, and a target was set up, as at an archery range. Now I'm an archer from way back, so I'm rather familiar with this process, and I saw that A) the bow wasn't terribly strong, perhaps 25 or 30 pounds or so. That's the way we archers talk about them; that's the number of pounds it takes to pull it fully all the way back to your ear, when preparing to launch an arrow, of course. Now the real star of this particular episode was somebody who stood about halfway between the archer and the target. The idea was that the archer would launch an arrow at the target, and this gentleman would reach out and catch the arrow before it got there. This would appear to be a pretty daring stunt, because after all, a guy could get pierced. Not only that, how did he have such quick reflexes to be able to grab that arrow in mid-flight? It wasn't much of a mystery to this practiced eye. I saw that the arrows were not quite, uh, traditional, let's say. They were specialized arrows, called "flu-flu"—that's F-L-U-hyphen-F-L-U. And these are specifically designed to hunt birds. You see, birds have a habit of flying, and when the archer is out in the field and wants to bring down a bird for one reason or another, the risk is that the arrow gets away, misses the bird of course, and ends up half a mile away. That's why flu-flu arrows were designed. Instead of the usual three feathers at the far end of the arrow, which would be found on a target arrow or on a hunting arrow, the flu-flu arrow can have as many as six feathers, and they're very much larger than the traditional three. This means, in effect, that the arrow will travel at the regular velocity as it leaves the bow and then rapidly slow down, if it has missed the bird, of course, or in this case, to make it easier to catch. Yes, that was exactly the gimmick. The arrow was easy to catch because it literally slowed down just about the point when it passed the interceptor. He was able to snatch out quickly and grab it with very little trouble. Now I happen to have experience as an archer, therefore I knew this. But I think that very few viewers of That's Incredible!—that particular episode—would have that particular expertise. Therefore, Landsburg and his boys got away with it.
Exactly the same thing applies when we're speaking about fortune tellers, psychics, metal benders; whatever. What's often needed is a special expertise. In that case, the expertise of a conjurer. A professional magician. In case you haven't noticed, I happen to qualify in that direction. So when you hear people saying, "Oh, what does that fella know? He's only a magician.", I ask you to consider: isn't that exactly the profession that's needed to catch somebody who might be performing tricks? Could that be? This is James Randi.
Science or Fiction (53:36)[edit]
Item #1: Study finds that women who eat dairy are 5 times as likely to miscarry as women on a vegan diet.[1]
Item #2: Scientists successfully test a vaccine against obesity in rats.[2]
Item #3: Scientists study the effects of antimatter as a cancer fighting tool.[3]
| Answer | Item |
|---|---|
| Fiction | Dairy and miscarriages |
| Science | Vaccine against obesity |
| Science | Antimatter |
| Host | Result |
|---|---|
| Steve | win |
| Rogue | Guess |
|---|---|
Rebecca | Dairy and miscarriages |
Bob | Antimatter |
Evan | Dairy and miscarriages |
Perry | Antimatter |
Jay | Antimatter |
Voice-over: It's time for Science or Fiction.
S: Each week I come up with three science news items or facts. Two are genuine and one is fake. And I challenge my panel of skeptics to tell me which one is the fake. And of course, you at home could play along. We have a theme for this week. Can you guys guess what the theme is?
E: Christmas solstice.
R: Santa Claus?
P: Sandy Claus.
S: No, these are the best science news stories of 2006 that we missed. All things from 2006 that we did not either talk about on the podcast or were not prior science or fiction.
B: So that means all the stories I looked at from the past two days are worthless.
S: That's right.
B: Great.
S: All right. Number one, a study finds that women who eat dairy are five times as likely to miscarry as women on a vegan diet. Item number two, scientists successfully test a vaccine against obesity in rats. And item number three, scientists study the effects of antimatter as a cancer-fighting tool. So one is dairy makes women miscarry. Two is vaccine against obesity. And three is antimatter as a cancer-fighting tool. Rebecca, why don't you go first?
R: Oh, man.
E: Everyone says that.
S: We're going to go in reverse order based upon your record so far.
R: Wait, I'm not in first, am I?
S: Yep.
B: Did she pull ahead? How do you know?
J: Rebecca, you don't know you're first. You know you're first.
B: It was close the last time I checked. Did she pull ahead? I guess the past month, I guess she probably pulled ahead.
S: I got the stats.
Rebecca's Response[edit]
R: Okay. Okay. Okay. So women who eat dairy are five times as likely.
S: Yes.
R: And then?
J: Scientists successfully.
R: Right. Obesity in rats, that sounds normal. And testing antimatter as a cancer-fighting tool, that sounds ridiculous, but you wouldn't make that up. I'm going to go with...
J: Don't do that. Rebecca, don't do that. That's why I come in last every week, because I'm like, oh, what's Steve thinking? And I think too much. And partly I'm stupid. Everybody knows that, too.
P: Can we not coach each other?
B: Yeah, you are not.
P: And just let the woman sink or swim?
R: I'm going to go with the dairy being more likely to miscarry. I don't think that's right.
S: Okay. Bob?
Bob's Response[edit]
S: Okay. Bob?
R: Sounds like some sort of PETA press release.
B: Let's see. Scientists successfully test a vaccine against obesity in rats. They seem to be doing that every other week. I think that sounds plausible. Scientists study the effects of antimatter as a cancer-fighting tool. That sounds utterly ridiculous. Antimatter is the most expensive thing to produce on the planet. It's like millions and millions of dollars per ounce or something crazy, trillions of dollars per ounce.
J: More than plethora, Bob?
B: I can't imagine how antimatter can be used.
R: Bob, how much money would you put on the life of a little boy with cancer? Just asking.
B: I assume you're not talking about quantum dots, Steve, because that's not antimatter. So that can't be three by any stretch of the imagination. So I'm going to go with one that sounds the least plausible. I would think that women that eat dairy would be less likely to miscarry than someone on a vegan diet, because you have to be so careful if you're on a vegan diet to get all the nutrients, so it's going to be one.
S: Okay. So you're agreeing with Rebecca that the dairy causing miscarriages is fake?
B: Yes.
S: Okay. Evan?
Evan's Response[edit]
E: Yeah, I'm going to agree that this one's the winner, because the words dairy and miscarry rhyme, and if you go back and check all the science fiction, every time that there's been two words rhyming in the answer, it's been false 84% of the time.
S: You've cracked my code, Bernstein.
B: Thanks for revealing it. Now he's going to switch his codes.
J: So basically the reason why I'm losing all the time is because I can't rhyme.
B: There you go.
S: He just rhymed. Jay, it's actually Perry's turn. Perry, you go.
P: I'm better than Jay?
S: Yes. Barely.
Perry's Response[edit]
P: I'm above Jay. That's my claim to fame.
J: Yeah, right, Perry?
P: Oh, baby, it's sad. Okay, the first one, dairy. That's fine. Obesity, anything that blames obesity on anything other than my diet is true, and the last one is so asinine. It's a call back to the ether, as you'll recall. So of course, we're not using antimatter. It's ridiculous. That one's false.
S: Okay, Jay?
Jay's Response[edit]
J: I will take number three with Perry.
S: Okay.
B: Wait a second. I blew it.
S: Bob, you want to change your answer?
B: What the hell was I thinking?
P: Wait, there's no two overs. He took his hand off the piece.
S: No, no, I thought that was odd.
J: It hasn't been revealed.
P: He took his tongue off the piece.
B: I misspoke.
J: All right, Bob obviously meant number three because of what you preamble with.
B: Right.
S: All right, so Bob, you're going to jump on to the antimatter one.
B: Absolutely.
Steve Explains Item #2[edit]
S: All right, so everyone agrees that scientists have successfully tested a vaccine against obesity in rats. That one is science.
J: I have a rat in my basement that was tested for obesity.
S: Yes, this is the Scripps Research Science has successfully tested new anti-obesity vaccine.
E: Can I change my answer now, Steve?
S: No. This one came out.
R: No, let him because it's just going to be me.
E: I have a greater percentage of getting it correct if I change now.
S: Evan, you want to? All right, you can change it.
P: No, he can't change.
E: No, no, no, no.
R: I'll stand solid as the only person.
E: I'll play by the rules.
S: This one came out in July. This is the middle of the year. It shows that vaccine slows weight gain and decreases stored fat in rats. This is a senior author of the paper, Kim Janda.
J: All right, nobody's surprised. Move on.
S: Yeah, no one's surprised by that one.
P: Next.
S: So that was pretty easy. So let's go to number one next.
Steve Explains Item #1[edit]
S: A study found that women who eat dairy-
B: Wait till he says the words.
S: -are likely to miscarry as a woman on a vegan diet. And this one is fiction.
E: Yeah, baby.
P: What are you talking about?
R: In your faces, all of you.
E: Rebecca, high five.
J: Yeah, totally amazed.
S: This one came out. This is a study. The real study is a study finds that a woman's chances of having twins are increased five fold if they eat dairy, not miscarry.
P: What?
S: So this came out in May of 2006 in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine.
P: That magazine is rad.
B: All right, go to three, Steve. I can't wait to hear this one.
Steve Explains Item #3[edit]
S: Which means that number three, anti-meta rays studied as medical treatment.
P: That's so stupid.
B: That's bullshit, Steven.
P: Where is it? Where?
B: It's utter bullshit.
E: In a recent episode of Star Trek.
B: All right, I'll buy that one.
S: No, no.
B: Come on.
S: This is from the CERN, which is the European Organization for Nuclear Research.
P: Oh, Europe. Well, that explains it.
B: No, I thought it wasn't the National Enquirer.
J: I can't win this game. I just can't win this game.
P: I thought it was real science.
S: They are using antiprotons.
P: The weekly world news. Antimatter.
B: See, that's baloney. Dude.
S: They are testing the cell-killing power of antiprotons, and they find that antiprotons have four times greater cell-killing power than regular protons.
P: Get out of here.
S: It tests the researchers' filled tubes with hamster cells in a gelatin to stimulate human tissue. It says to achieve the same level of damage to cells at the target area, one needs four times fewer antiprotons than protons.
P: We got this antimatter by reaching through the aether to a wormhole.
B: Steve, that's ridiculous. It's so expensive. What? They are making antimatter to test this?
E: Yeah, they are selling it at Walmart now, Bob, so you can actually get it.
B: Send me that link, because I am totally skeptical about that.
P: It's totally false. We will be vindicated.
B: You misread it.
P: In coming weeks.
S: Can you think of another medical application where antimatter is used?
J: Can I?
E: Yeah.
B: Medical?
S: Yep.
B: Is it some sort of imaging device?
S: Yep. A diagnostic imaging device that you routinely use.
B: It's not MRI, is it?
S: Nope. MRI stands for magnetic resonance imaging.
R: Cat scans?
S: Nope. That's computer-assisted tomography.
R: See, I'm [inaudible].
E: Oh, when they pump the radiation through your blood.
S: Come on, give me another one. Nope.
P: That one where they took pictures of my lungs or I had to swallow the paste.
S: No.
E: Reflexology. Reflexology.
R: Speculums.
S: Have you ever heard of a PET scan?
E: Yeah.
B: Positron emission tomography.
R: It's like a CAT scan only more general.
J: Why would they only use it for your pets? Why can't people use that scan?
E: I've heard of a PAP smear.
S: Positron emission tomography. Positrons.
J: Okay.
E: Positrons.
S: They're antiparticles of electrons. So, there you go. So, good job, Rebecca and Evan.
R: Thank you.
E: Thank you, doctor. Doctor. Doctor.
S: Bob snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory in the last minute.
J: Somehow I feel like this is my fault. I'm sorry, dude.
B: No, it's not. I still don't believe it.
S: That was a tough one.
P: Donuts will be vindicated.
B: Don't update your stats until I look into this one.
P: That's right.
J: I wait on the boards I wrote that I am actually statistically anti-psychic because I miss more than the average. I'm actually below.
S: It's psy-missing.
J: Yes. I'm psy-missing.
P: Bob is our champion. He will prove this nonsense. Nonsense. Thank you.
E: Jay, I think you're humble to a fault. You actually have the capability of getting them all correct and you just choose to get some of them wrong.
J: I'm jinxed. I don't know. I get very nervous with this.
Skeptical Puzzle (1:03:51)[edit]
Last Week's puzzle
If I have 3 items that are multicolored, 5 that are black and white, and 2 that are red, black and white, what do I have?
Answer: An original deck of Rorschach cards
This Week's puzzle
He was born in a creek
And he died in a different creek
As a boy, he'd appear to make furniture tip over and instruments rise
off the ground
As a young man, he took his abilities about and abroad
His slate of feats stunned the US crowds, and European heads of states
He often spoke with his wife, especially when she wasn't around
He drew the applause and accolades of scientists such as Alfred Russell
Wallace
And he drew jeers and accusations form the likes of Charles Darwin
He stood trial, he was found guilty of fraud, yet he escaped prison
time
He was once a millionaire, but he died broken and penniless
His death bed confession spoke volumes beyond his paupers grave
He was in fact, a fake.
Who was he?
S: Evan, let's read last week's puzzle.
E: Well, we had a very simple puzzle last week.
S: And what was it?
E: It's making sure you're all still there.
R: Insert puzzle here.
E: Here it is. Last week's puzzle was, if I have three items that are multicolored, five that are black and white, and two that are red, black, and white, what do I have? Now, there were no correct answers.
R: A serious medical problem.
J: Evan, can I make a guess?
E: Yeah, you want to take a guess? Sure.
J: A Rubik's Cube.
E: No.
J: Okay, shit.
R: Balls?
E: No.
P: Jay, were you nervous when you gave that answer?
J: I was pretty nervous.
E: Anyone ever heard of the Rorschach test? The ten original ink blot patterns that the doctors whipped out.
P: Where's all the red?
R: Where are you going with this?
E: Well, that's the answer to the puzzle.
J: Yeah, that's the answer.
E: The Rorschach test ink blot cards. Those were the original ten. Those were their colors.
P: Some of those are supposed to be red?
E: Yep. Red, black, and white. Some were multicolored and others were just black and white.
P: They gave me that test when I was a kid. They were all black and white.
J: No, you're just colorblind, Perry.
E: We're talking about the original. I looked it up specifically. The original ones were in that configuration. Now there have been variations on that test that have been done ever since and apparently continue to get used in lots of different ways with different patterns and different colors and so forth. So I'm not surprised that you maybe came across all black and white.
J: Evan, do you know what that test actually reveals?
R: Absolutely nothing.
E: Really?
J: From what I understand, it is only done to patients that have a relationship with the doctor so the doctor knows them and they use it to infer basically what you're thinking, what your feelings are and things like that. It's not like it really comes to any conclusion that you have this type of problem or that type of problem. It just gives the doctor an idea of where your mindset is.
R: Even that's kind of dodgy though.
P: It wasn't the case when I was in kindergarten. He stuck me in a room, had some quack show me the cards. I told him what I saw and I left.
J: What kind of diagnosis do they come from that?
P: None that I'm aware of. I think I was just a guinea pig.
S: The bottom line is there really isn't anything special about the Rorschach test. Any kind of claims made that it's doing something specific haven't really been validated. But some practitioners say it's just a way of loosening up the client and getting them to talk about things. It's just a prop, a device.
J: See, I would have used this on dates. I could have loosened up these girls with the Rorschach test.
R: Yeah. Unless the Rorschach were printed on $100 bills, I don't think that's going to work for you, Jay.
J: That would be really cool though.
R: You should try that actually.
E: I will. Cosmic Vagabond mentioned in the post that he believed it was some sort of cards, a set of cards. He wasn't sure if it was playing cards or something like that.
S: That was the closest.
E: That was the closest that anyone even...
P: Wrong answer.
J: Okay, close enough works here. Nobody got it.
P: Move on.
E: I have a new puzzle for this week for everyone.
S: Okay.
P: All good.
E: All right. Here you go. He was born in a creek, and he died in a different creek. As a boy, he had appeared to make furniture tip over and instruments rise off the ground. As a young man, he took his abilities about and abroad. His slate of feats stunned the US crowds, the United States crowds, and European heads of states. He often spoke with his wife, especially when she wasn't around. He drew the applause and accolades of scientists such as Alfred Russel Wallace, and he drew jeers and accusations from the likes of Charles Darwin. He stood trial, he was found guilty of fraud, yet he escaped prison time. He was once a millionaire, but he died broken and penniless. His deathbed confession spoke volumes beyond his pauper's grave. He was, in fact, a fake. Who was he? Good luck, everyone.
J: I think I know who it is.
E: Well-
S: Keep it to yourselves.
E: Yeah, keep it to yourselves.
R: Submit it. Maybe you'll win a prize.
Quote of the Week (1:08:30)[edit]
'The method of science, as stodgy and grumpy as it may seem, is far more important than the findings of science.'- Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World'In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.'- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address
S: So we have two quotes this week to commemorate Carl Sagan. Bob picked one, and I picked one. Let me read mine first. Mine's a little bit shorter. This comes from the Demon Haunted World. Carl wrote, "The method of science, as stodgy and grumpy as it may seem, is far more important than the findings of science." I think that sums up a very important concept of science very much. What we care about and what we're promoting here are methods, not specific conclusions. And, Bob, why don't you read your quote? Yours is a bit longer.
B: Yeah, I've got one from Carl Sagan, of course, from the 1987 psychop keynote address. He said, "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."
S: Absolutely. That is true. That's one of the best things about working with scientists is that you're working in a culture of respect for truth and validity.
J: One of my favorite Sagan quotes is the one we have on the theskepticsguide.org homepage.
S: Read it.
J: "For me, it's far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
P: And Carl never said billions and billions.
S: He never said billions and billions.
P: He never said that.
S: Well, thanks everyone for joining me again. This was our last full episode of 2006. Next week we are going to have a year-end wrap-up episode. It's going to be a lot of fun. We're going to reminisce about the last year for the Skeptics Guide and in skepticism and science in general. And everyone will be there as well. We're going to have all six of us present.
R: Sounds like a blast.
S: It'll be fun to look forward to that.
J: Steve, before we close, I'd like to mention that we addressed it on the boards, but we have advertising, Google advertising on our site now.
S: This is just a painless way to support the NESS and the Skeptics Guide. Jay also added a media page on the website, and some of our listeners have taken advantage of this. There is a banner that you can use either on your website or as a link from a website or whatever to the Skeptics Guide, and we will be adding material to that over time, but at the moment there is a web banner that you can use. And I've already had a couple emails from listeners who have used it on their websites.
J: And I would like to say Luna came up with this suggestion, so I thank him for that.
S: Yeah, so kudos to Luna. Well, thanks again, everyone.
J: Thanks, Steve.
R: Thank you, Steve.
S: The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is produced by the New England Skeptical Society in association with the James Randi Educational Foundation. For more information on this and other episodes, please visit our website at www.theskepticsguide.org. Please send us your questions, suggestions, and other feedback; you can use the "Contact Us" page on our website, or you can send us an email to info@theskepticsguide.org'. 'Theorem' is produced by Kineto and is used with permission.
Today I Learned...[edit]
- This is the first episode in which all six rogues (Steve, Bob, Jay, Rebecca, Evan, and Perry) take part. In previous episodes, only five could participate at once because of a limitation in Skype's group calling.
References[edit]
|
|
|